This would be the easiest way to try to make sure that the modes that we use now, in the way that we use them, stays relevant for many generations. This would hopefully help to keep the signs effective.

The question of this article is how to warn future generations. What modes will be the best to do this and are we sure that using these modes will have the desired effect?

It might be better to just wait on creating a message, even with multiple modes. We have enough time to see how communication with all modes change from how they are now to what they might be, which may help to get as close as we can get to an accurate prediction.

Languages have evolved from one language to many different ones because of changes in how humans interact with each other. We have to use multiple modes to just communicate with each other when different languages are used. Often people travelling to areas new to them have to use the gestural and visual modes to communicate with those who do not speak the same language.

We do not know what is going to happen in the future, so how can we plan. How do we know that even with the multimodality used today would even make sense in 10,000 years, assuming that the nuclear waste is even a problem at that point.

The best way to include a huge amount of information is to use multiple modes. Sometimes the linguistic mode makes sense, but often using pictures (visual mode) and placing them in a way that makes sense (spatial mode) can communicate better among groups that do not have a common language.

It makes sense to use multiple modes (media) when you do not know how communication will change over time. What might work in one mode nowadays might not work in the future.

A use of just linguistic mode will probably not work in the future as it does not seem to always be the best idea in present day. In present day we are adding visual pictures into messages at points that the spacial modality shows is effective to convey meaning without just the linguistic mode.

The article is using the visual mode to show more about using the visual mode in signs. It is a clear example of using a sign that shows something of danger which would be one of the things to use in a sign for future generations.

The linguistic mode described in "What are Multimodal Projects" is the use of language. If language changes quickly, then it does not make sense to use only the linguistic mode on a sign. It might not even make sense to have any of the linguistic mode, as it could be confusing if language does evolve a lot between the creation and the use of the sign in the distant future.

Part of the discussion in "Talking to the Future" is what modes should be used in creating warning signs for nuclear waste. There is a fear that language would change too much to make the linguistic mode useful but there is also debate of what symbols should be used for the visual mode.

Part of the CRTs material culture is how it changed the culture of how desk jobs work. It continues to shape the world in different ways than it was meant to. CRT screens keep the material culture that they gained in their heyday while also creating new material culture as we try to get rid of it in a way that is good for the environment, as taking care of the environment has become a larger focus of American culture.

It became such a functional thing in human life, that it started to become an integral part of human life in the U.S. When something becomes that tied to human life, it often picks up meaning from the importance that human's give it.

Hearths used to be a main feature of roman houses. It was a very important part of family rituals to the roman gods so to compare a CRT tv to a hearth probably means that watching the tv is becoming a ritual like honoring a family god.

CRT technology was for a long time the only way to see things like what would be on an old computer screen, but it is fascinating that one of the major components for making it work is something that cannot be seen. It is a kind of polarity which the Haltman text says is very important when looking at an object.

Not quite sure how this makes sense. It seems like a kind of roundabout way of creating an argument. How does something work just because it works. That is like saying technology runs on magic.

Useful in writing about panels where people got very attached to when making them. It is only right to give justice to these creators by making the panels sound as living as possible. CRT TVs would show narratives so they should have a narrative for themselves.

The CRT screens used to be very useful and functional for humans (worked as well as most electronics work for people). At this point, screens seem to be a fundamental part of human experience due to everything that can be seen, like computers and TV, to educational programming that can be used around the world (as long as there is wifi).

The panels and the CRT screens have both accomplished parts of what they are intended to be but both still have more to accomplish. The panels are to help keep the memory of individual people alive into the future while the CRT screens are still getting attention due to the challenge that it is to get rid of such an interesting piece of technology that changed the way that the majority of Americans live.

An important part of research in this project is to not go to narrow in topic as it causes trouble when trying to find sources. I could see the same thing happening if I were to write about CRTs, as I would want to look more into how they work and their history than looking at what they signify about American culture.

This is an especially good question when it comes to looking for sources for research. It can be very hard to figure out the right question to be asking when it comes to looking at panels of the quilt. I know that I finding sources is hard when the question is not right given experience. I was looking to closely at the details on the quilt instead of what inspired the creators of the Howard Ashman panels as there are so many different ones.

Another reason to do Primary Source Descriptions. Our brains are wired to see patterns and connections, so it is harder to just stop and soak in information. If we do not stop, then we might just look at a panel through our biases without looking at the panels as a symbol for another group or individual.

This is a key concept of why we do Primary Source Descriptions of our panels. Without detailed descriptions, we might not have all we need to really analyze what we saw in the panels.

This is apparent in CRT screens as they show what is happening in the computer or TV using a vacuum system which cannot be seen. CRT screens have a polarity of seen and not seen.

The text that I examined is"A Terminal Condition: The Cathode Ray Tube's Strange Afterlife." I choose this text because of its significance in my house throughout my childhood and I still sometimes use a CRT. The text describes how the CRT came to be and how it was popularized. It then goes on to explain how CRT was replaced by newer technology and the challenges faced when trying to get rid of CRT screens or trying to replace them. All throughout the article, it is explained how CRT screens became important items in the lives of Americans.

Archaeologists are trying to use this physical item to learn more about the culture of the hunter-gatherers of the area as there is no simple thing that explains all the detailed aspects of culture like writings that specifically explains the culture. What parts of the culture of that area can be seen by looking at an object that from what has been analyzed so far seems to be a writing implement. Maybe it shows a community that learned how to communicate among each other and maybe even different communities with either pictures or the objects themselves. The community has already been seen to have many items to show a culture and it can help to show more communication in a community.

It is a very bad death with fits and starts. It does not get a proper burial nor does its death provide new life. The circle of life does not seem to be working well for CRTs. This break in the circle of life seems to be causing a whole lot of problems for other parts that are connected to them.

New advancements always seem to come with some problems. Sometimes it is easier to try to adapt to an items problems instead of trying to fix the item.

People were buying into technological things that do not work yet a long time ago. It seems that humanity is always looking at and anticipating about what is coming next in the world even when there is nothing to be seen yet.

CRT screens were the first way to see beyond what was within a reachable distance and connect with others both far away and close. It allowed people to disconnect with interacting with the Earth, like playing outside, will the effects of what was needed to create the screens could be seen when away from Earth.

Of course there was a controversy. It is hard to make people believe that there is something when they cannot see it. It seems to be that in those times there was always skeptics about new technology as it hadn't been seen before. This helps to bring even more history to something that would be considered ancient by anyone born in the last decade.

I am not sure that it is completely dead. There is still some use for it, especially among older generations that grew up with it. I know that I still make use of cathode ray tube tvs.

This kind of backbone for working can work for many other types of writing but definitely seems useful to be able to truly analyze objects with cultural significance.

It can be easy to describe what is easily seen but it takes creativity and thought to create connections between an object and the culture it belongs to as well as the culture of the one studying it. One must be willing to be imaginative to truly see the object for what it means instead of just the physical nature of it.

Only with careful deduction can you take into account both detailed parts of an object as well as the overall picture and connect them well.

By looking at an object multiple times, in different perspectives, one can discern much more subtle aspects of the object and the culture it represents.

This seems to be one of the main messages of this introduction. We can only really describe materials by using language. Though we interact with objects in the physical world, the significance and culture of an object is seen through the language used to describe it.

There are polarities in how to describe an object just as polarities that are often used to describe objects as well as polarities that the objects symbolize.

Prown approves objects that students select if he feels that the object has a cultural potency which leads to a good study about a part of a culture or human experience.

It is hard to choose what topic to study, even harder to choose just one panel in a quilt with thousands.

The article I chose was "A Terminal Condition: The Cathode Ray Tube's Strange Afterlife." Part of its cultural significance is the actual object itself but it also showed many different parts of changing cultures over many years.

The study of the development of human consciousness and self-awareness.

You have to first look to see the object itself before you can see beyond it to why it is significant.

Going to cultural museums, I have often seen objects be used to explain the cultures of different parts of the world. Specifically, Reflections of Culture at Fernbank that is mostly looking at the significance to different objects and colors for cultures around the world.

This is important to think about when starting a research project but it is not the easiest thing to do.