I will admit, I find this almost painful to read. The author is extraordinarily dramatic about points that seems far less relevant to me. Begging with his short history of new media, I find that the relationship between the development of computers and new media is far more mundane than he makes out. It seems to me that it is simply one instance of the development of computing, which is a fundamentally universal function, enveloping another discipline. New media was certainly revolutionized, and at the time it was a significant breakthrough for computing, but no task a computer performs should be surprising in type, the only surprise is when the developers figure out the software to achieve some particular degree- this is the nature of a universal process.
I also find that the distinction between new and old media he makes in the very first principle is misleading. Specifically, what is new about new media is not that it can be described mathematically, but that the media was created with this knowledge in mind. Photography and sculpture are far from continuous, but this knowledge is not relevant from the majority of people who use it. However, I have experience with a realm of photography where light levels are so low that the image is considered in terms of individual photon counts: astronomy.
What I am basically getting at is that I strongly disagree with the implication made that new media is fundamentally new- it is our understanding of media that is new, the tools and processes differ only superficially. (I could go on, this response has only responded to the first couple pages, but I think I have made my point)