Friedburg's article points out society's fascination with multiples... multiple screens, multitasking, etc. By providing examples from history, such as the history of cinema, it is clear that there has always been this drive for more; to see what else technology can provide us. And as we read more articles each week, one theme seems to pop up: time. Namely, technology's relationship with time. It is easy to become drawn in to new media and technology and to want to study the effects it has on our lives. But why are we fascinated? We are fascinated at how quickly a task can be performed, at how multiple tasks can be performed at the same time, at how technology can save us more time. Others have discussed the notions of a sense of control or a loss of freedom at the hands of technology. Perhaps the reason we feel this tension of confinement is the fact that while we use these gadgets to save time, they are at the same time, consuming so much of our time.
At the end of the chapter, Friedburg writes about a newfound determinism: "digital technology inherently implies a convergence of all media forms" (238). I can see the rationalization because it is the way technology developed: Text can be projected on a screen, which can then be projected and condensed in ever smaller sizes through say a laptop. However, I don't understand this inevitability. Just because it did progress this way, does that necessarily mean it had to? Or rather, are we so sure that digital technology is the final link, is "our engagement with a virtual window somehow assured" (239)?