not

aaaargu zacali v zime chodit cease&desist listy od roznych
vydavatelov (Verso, Uni of Columbia Press, Macmillan, IMO, atd),
je zaujimave sledovat ako sa situacia vyvija.
tu su dva rozhovory (asi jedine ktore doteraz vznikli) so Seanom
Duckrayom, ktory aaaarg.org rozbehol:
http://blog.sfmoma.org/2009/08/four-dialogues-2-on-aaaarg/
http://mastersofmedia.hum.uva.nl/2010/01/05/small-is-beautiful-a-discussion-with-aaaarg-architect-sean-dockray/

pre zaujimavost – archiv diskusie uzivatelov aaaargu
po cease&desist liste od Macmillan… spolocne prisli s novym
riesenim:
http://mitochondrialvertigo.wordpress.com/2010/04/25/the-aaaar-org-discussion-of-the-macmillan-threat/

co je priznacne, Sean viedol niekolko rokov v Los Angeles galeriu,
ktora sa postupne pretransformovala na otvorene vzdelavacie centrum
The Public School, ktorej odnoze vznikli uz v dalsich styroch
mestach. niektore workshopy ktore robia vzniknu prostrednictvom
‘issues’ ktore vytvaraju uzivatelia aaaargu, takze obe iniciativy
su uzko prepojene. ale vsetko spomina v rozhovoroch.

tu je celkom pekna komparacia niekolkych projektov zdielania
ebooks…

Scanners, collectors and aggregators. On the ‘underground movement’ of (pirated) theory text sharing

dalej, dnes som sa dozvedel o Silent Library, komunite v Madarsku,
ktora skenuje a zdiela knihy. po tlaku od vydavatelov (okolo 2005)
presunuli web do Ruska. kamarat ktory je clenom mi dnes pisal:
12:57 < pht__> vstupom je odporucanie existujuceho clena, predstavenie/dovod, a korektura 1 ocrkovaneho scanu!
12:58 < pht__> velmi uzavreta komunita s vysokou vstupnou barierou, ale je tam hrozne vela “povodneho” obsahu
12:58 < pht__> a hlavne out-of-print madarske knihy
13:00 < pht__> hlavnym problemom vydavatelstiev bolo, ze sa tam shareovali cerstve bestsellery v textovej forme :)))
13:01 < pht__> http://index.hu/tech/net/slp0826/
13:02 < pht__> Only 75 copies in 1000 of a a printed title survive fifty years. Concerning their endurance the electronic books are more vulnerable, but their unrestricted copyable and convertible qualities ensure the eternity for them in the common cultural treasury of mankind – so long as culture exists at all; the Silent Library Project and related enterprises make some contribution to its existence.
13:06 < pht__> tiez to len dal dole admin pod navalom C&D lettrov
13:06 < pht__> tiez pise ze ked mu niekto konkretny napisal, tak knihu odstranil
13:08 < pht__> a vylucili veci z wild-inetu
13:08 < pht__> len vlastne scany/ocrka
13:08 < pht__> a normalne stovky ludi citaju tie veci a opravuju ocr chyby :)
13:13 < pht__> najpopularnejsia kniha je asimovova before foundation po madarsky, s 14000 dloadmi
13:14 < pht__> v top5 je aj madarsky autor s 10k
13:16 < pht__> v slp je okolo 7000 textov
13:21 < pht__> na tomto slp je uzasne, ze tie texty su vsetky opravene+prekontrolovane
13:21 < pht__> ze to nie je len klik klik upload klik
13:22 < pht__> tu je clanok ale neda sa to moc citat
http://translate.google.com/translate?u=http%3A//index.hu/tech/net/slp0826/&hl=en&langpair=auto|en&tbb=1&ie=UTF-8
13:23 < pht__> vzniklo to ze si chalan naskenoval par knih a dal ich online
13:23 < pht__> a par kamosov zacalo posielat scany tiez
13:23 < pht__> sa pise v tom clanku

skoda ze mi nevyslo sa v Prahe stretnut s Kennethom z ubu.com,
ale ten ma k teme tiez vela co povedat..
napr:
Goldsmith’s syllabus includes Uncreative Writing, Interventionist Writing and Writing Through Art and Culture in partnership with the Institute of Contemporary Art, Philadelphia. Class tools are appropriation, theft, stealing, plundering and sampling. Cheating, fraud and identity theft are all encouraged. For Goldsmith the classroom, is a free space into which ethical queries can be conducted in a safe environment.

ad statna hymna a vlastenectvo by id adam
(moja verzia – prababka)
http://kyberia.sk/id/5210889
korene sú jasné. Slovenská intelektuálna elita sa voči vlastenectvu vymedzila už na začiatku, keď SR ako štát vznikla. Väčšina elít bola proti rozpadu ČSFR. Keďže mafiánska klika potrebovala samostatné Slovensko kvôli svojim zlodejským zámerom (s národom to malo pramálo spoločné), stavili na národnú kartu, pretože je to najjednoduchšie. Od vtedy sa téma vlastenectva spája s najväčším bahnom, ktoré na Slovensku máme – od Mečiara, cez Slotu, Rafaja, Malíkovú až po Markuša. S týmto sa intelektuálna elita nemôže identifikovať a teda má prirodzenú potrebu vymedziť sa proti tomu. Žiaľ, za 20 rokov sa nenašiel nikto z “demokratického” politického spektra, kto by bol schopný redefinovať vlastenectvo a prevziať národnú agendu. Prvý, kto to mimo hejslováckych mafiánskych štruktúr spravil je paradoxne komunista Fico a vychádza mu to (čo je úplne jasné, vlastnectvo je dobrá agenda) – o dôvod viac pre intelektuálov káľať na všetko, čo sa s tým spája. Mne je z tejto našej elity na blitie, včerajší Hríbov komentár, dnes Fila a x ďalších. Sami si tú tému nechali ukradnúť a teraz drístajú tak, že to snaď nie je ani možné. A ľudia, ktorí nemajú radi Rafaja sú prirodzene s nimi, bez toho, aby sa zamysleli nad obsahom.
+
http://kyberia.sk/id/5209176
Najlacnejším druhom hrdosti je však hrdosť národná; prezrádza totiž o tom, kto je ňou ovládaný, že trpí nedostatkom individuálnych vlastností, na ktoré by mohol byť hrdý – inak by nesiahal po niečom, čo má spoločné s toľkými miliónmi. Kto má významné osobné prednosti, bude skôr spoznávať chyby svojho vlastného národa, lebo ich má ustavične na očiach. No každý žalostný hlupák, ktorý nemá na svete nič, na čo by mohol byť hrdý, siaha po poslednom prostriedku, aby hrdý mohol byť, po národe, ku ktorému práve patrí; ním pookrieva a je vďačne pripravený hájiť všetky chyby a hlúposti svojho národa rukami aj nohami.
Národnému charakteru, keďže sa týka množstva, nikdy nebude možné úprimne priznať veľa dobrého. Ako národný charakter sa skôr nazýva odlišná forma, v akej sa v každej krajine javí ľudská ohraničenosť, zvrátenosť a špatnosť.
(Schopenhauer)

??
you are not an individual. Rather, you are a host of ‘dividuals’
(Deleuze 1 994: 258), effected by the social conjunction as an event.

In 1977, Michel Foucault suggested that political philosophy must
detach itself from the problem of sovereignty and the problems of law
and prohibition. ‘We need to cut off the King’s head’, as he famously put
it (Foucault 1980: 121).
Late in his life, Deleuze sensed the emergence of
a stratification that seemed to proceed from a radicalisation of this suggestion,
and which would eventually reconfigure the disciplinary societies
that Foucault analysed. Deleuze termed this new stratification ‘the
societies of control’ (Deleuze 1995 ) . In this formation, your identity is
not dependent on your narrative as a subject, whether of sovereignty or
of discipline, whether as citizen, consumer or family man. Rather, your
self is to be abstracted from databanks, registers, tests and focus group
interviews, and the data is to be personalised in the ‘security’ of passwords
that you memorise. You will be asked to carry out this abstraction
yourself. The ultimate test of ‘being human’ is not the question of
whether you are currently in or have ever been in prison, gone to school,
or been in the army. The ultimate test is: do you currently have a paid
job and which paid jobs have you had? The decisive technologies of our
age are the technologies of the labour market where a decoded flow of
labour joins up with a decoded flow of capital (Deleuze and Guattari
1984: 3 3 ) . Some of these technologies are no more complicated than a
folded piece of paper, a pamphlet.
(to sa mi nezda – preco prave ze ci mas job??)

(‘neutralny’ opis spolocnosti je falosny)
Zizek sees that the description
of the society that purported to be “neutral” would not
be objective, but would formally be “false” because it would
involve accepting the existing order. In a manner that is
reminiscent of Max Horkheimer’s 1937 essay “Traditional
and Critical Theory,” Zizek reads Lukács as maintaining
that a critical theory must recognize its own situatedness
and its own commitments to political action and social
transformation. Zizek wants to follow Lukács by showing
that historicism is not sufficiently historicist because it does
not give an account of itself as a social phenomenon and is
thus incomplete. Zizek maintains that social theory cannot
be objective in the sense of being politically “neutral,” and it
is incomplete unless it takes its own social embeddedness
into account. An important aspect of what the critical social
theory would have to explain is a question that traditional
theory ignores: Why does it meet with resistance? In this
respect for Zizek critical social theory is similar to psychoanalytic
theory, which also has to explain why its explanations
are often resisted at first by patients.
+
Saying that a
theory is partial is not the same as saying that it is false insofar
as partial representation is not the same as misrepresentation
or distortion.
(==> lukacs kritizoval ze ciastocna teoria je falosna, ze vtedy ide ‘len’ o jednu z perspektiv,
ktora zahrna len ciastocny obraz socialnej reality, ktora teda nie je objektivna, treba celostnu,
resp vedomie “imputed” to the class—-[to som nepochopil dobre];
kym zizek tvrdi ze angazovana ciastocna je ok kym som si vedomy ze je ciastocna lebo je pravdiva,
kedze ciastocna reprezentacia nie je to iste ako misrepresentation or distortion.
cize je ok teoretizovat localised case studies, napriklad na zaklade honest autobiografie).
+
critique of ideology:
Marx @ Capital: “They do not know it, but they are doing it.”
Zizek via Sloterdijk about it: Marx is interpreted wrongly and should go
“They know very well what they are doing, but still, they are doing it.”
~ instead of “we misrecognize what is really going on”, it suggests
“we misrecognize that nothing is really going on”.
This thought that things seem to be one
way but really are another way implies that there is a level
of reality that could be grasped correctly. Zizek manages to
disrupt this traditional epistemological understanding of
the distinction between appearance and reality.
& false: “reality is just an illusion”.
“ideology has nothing to do with ‘illusion'”.
“social reality” is an “ethical construction”.
+
the totality is encountered in its purest form when it fails, and when one
tries to distance oneself from it in order to maintain one’s
own purity.
+
“purity is the most perfidious form of ‘cheating.’ ”
+
(pochopit to v celku – to nejde – ale nechcem si to priznat –
nechcem vidiet ze si to neviem priznat)
Reality is usually thought of in terms of everything
that is the case, and it is also assumed that everything
coheres with everything else to form a totality, whether one
can grasp this totality or not. Generally it is granted that the
human mind cannot grasp the totality. If that is so, it can reasonably
be asked whether this notion of the totality is not
simply a product of the imagination. Zizek’s statement that
the totality, which is impossible, tries to cover up its own
impossibility, is admittedly paradoxical. How could something
that did not exist cover up its own nonexistence? The
answer depends on a psychoanalytic premise that
the fantasy desires to hide from itself its own inability to face up
to the nonexistence and the impossibility of its fantasized object.
+
(?) instead of thinking of reality as a given that is
antecedent to experience, one must try to think of reality as a
failed effect
+
If consciousness is nothing but the consciousness of
something other than it, and if that which is other-than-it is
nothing in itself, then it is not surprising that consciousness
is inscrutable.
“Consciousness, in effect, equals anxiety.”
+
the anxious awareness of mortality is not simply one
among many aspects of conscious awareness, but its “very
zero-level.” ~ [anthropocentric humanism]
+
“very model of self-awareness”: “ ‘I
know very well that I am mortal, but nevertheless. . . . (I do
not accept it; I unconsciously believe in my immortality,
since I cannot envisage my own death).’ ”
+
For Zizek poststructuralism is a misunderstanding
of French philosophy by North Americans:
“In short, an entity like ‘poststructuralist deconstructionism’
(the term itself is not used in France) comes into existence
only for a gaze that is unaware of the details of the
philosophical scene in France: this gaze brings together
authors (Derrida, Deleuze, Foucault, Lyotard, . . . ) who are
simply not perceived as part of the same épistème in
France.”68 On his view, to consider poststructuralism as a
form of critical theory is “a classification which is unthinkable
in France.”

[prolog]
00:43 < barak> tiez stale nechapem preco ma tak bavi suicide
00:44 < barak> asi ze som doteraz nic pocitovo podobne nepocul
00:55 < pht__> :) namotal si sa?
00:56 < barak> waga waga

SHAVIRO – POSTCINEMATIC AFFECT
(hudba a film hovoria o komplex social procesoch, ale nereprezuntuju ich az tak ako na nich aktivne participuju)
These works are symptomatic, in
that they provide indices of complex social processes, which they transduce,
condense and rearticulate in the form of what can be called, after Deleuze
and Guattari, ‘blocs of affect.’1 But they are also productive, in the sense
that they do not represent social processes, so much as they participate
actively in these processes, and help to constitute them.
(filmy a hudba generuju AFEKT ~ are machines for generating affect +
and for capitalising upon, or extracting value from, this affect.)
As such, they are not
ideological superstructures, as an older sort of Marxist criticism would have
it. Rather, they lie at the very heart of social production, circulation and
distribution.
(cize nie su marxisticky kritizovatelne? su proste nevyhnutne, neexistuje alternativa?)
They generate subjectivity and they play a crucial role in the
valorisation of capital.
+
1 Strictly speaking, Deleuze and Guattari say that the work of art ‘is a bloc of
sensations, that is to say, a compound of percepts and affects’ (1994, 164).

(afekt vs emotion via Massumi)
I follow Brian Massumi (2002, 23-45) in differentiating between affect and
emotion.
For Massumi, affect is primary, non-conscious, asubjective or
presubjective, asignifying, unqualified and intensive; while emotion is
derivative, conscious, qualified and meaningful, a ‘content’ that can be
attributed to an already-constituted subject.
[naozaj si hudbu pustam ako stimul pre vytvaranie pocitov,
vnimam ju v ramci multitaskingu, paralelne,
zaroven nad nom aj rozmyslam, cize okrem pasivneho prijimania afektov
syntetizujem pocity viazuce sa k nej ale aj k ostatnym veciam ktore robim]
[TYMITO POCITMI PRAVE HOVORIT O HUDBE –
je ale kazdy album vzdy dobry na uzky okruh pocitov?
alebo si dokazete pri rovnakej hudbe v roznom case syntetizovat rozne pocity?]
Emotion is affect captured by a
subject, or tamed and reduced to the extent that it becomes commensurate
with that subject. Subjects are overwhelmed and traversed by affect, but
they have or possess their own emotions.

re: Beller (stavia na nom, ale beller podcenuje rozdiel medzi cinematic a postcinematic,
co teda rozvija Shaviro)
However, I
think that he underestimates the differences between cinematic and post-cinematic
media: it is these differences that drive my own discussion here.

(subjekt = ekon.jednotka, ktora je sama pre seba kapitalom, producentom aj zdrojom prijmov=
“mal by som viac pracovat a zarobit lebo mam malo prachov”=zdroj prijmov
“potrebujem si spravit toto a tamto, v ramci vlastnej vyroby na vlastnu ‘zakazku'”=producent
“moj kapital su moje schopnosti, osobnost, profil”)
[uz par tyzdnov mam pocit ze sam seba exploitujem, ked chcem nieco dokoncit a podobne]
@neolib capitalism we see ourselves as subjects precisely to the extent that we are
autonomous economic units. As Foucault puts it, neoliberalism defines a new
mutation of ‘Homo oeconomicus as entrepreneur of himself, being for
himself his own capital, being for himself his own producer, being for himself
the source of [his] earnings’ (2008, 226).
(tomuto ale nerozumiem: )
For such a subject, emotions are
resources to invest, in the hope of gaining as large a return as possible. What
we know today as ‘affective labour’ is not really affective at all, as it
involves rather the sale of labour-power in the form of pre-defined and prepackaged
emotions.3
3 (nesuhlasi s Hardt+Negrim v tom ze):
For Hardt and Negri, ‘unlike emotions, which are mental phenomena, affects refer
equally to body and to mind. In fact, affects, such as joy and sadness, reveal the
present state of life in the entire organism’ (2004, 108)
(lebo):
(wrong) because there is no such thing as ‘mental phenomena’ that do not refer
equally to the body. The division between affect and emotion must rather be
sought elsewhere.
(preferuje massumiho definiciu pocitu)
emotion as the capture, and reduction-to-commensurability, of affect.
It is this reduction that,
among other things, allows for the sale and purchase of emotions as commodities.
(inak to je asi fakt pravda, tiez sa priklanam k massumovi)
(toto prirovnanie je divne):
In a certain sense, emotion is to affect as, in Marxist theory, labour-power is to
labour. For labour itself is an unqualifiable capacity, while labour-power is a
quantifiable commodity that is possessed, and that can be sold, by the worker.
(affective labour – @hardt+negri: sluzby produkujuce emocie, @shaviro: su tie sluzby
uz objektifikovane emocie):
Hardt and Negri’s own definition of affective labour in fact itself makes sense
precisely in the register of what I am calling labour-power and objectified emotions:
‘Affective labor, then, is labor that produces or manipulates affects such as a feeling
of ease, well-being, satisfaction, excitement, or passion. One can recognize affective
labor, for example, in the work of legal assistants, flight attendants, and fast food
workers (service with a smile)’ (108).

[tanecna hudba je velmi o emociach, idem do klubu a chcem sa zextatnit]

However, emotion as such is never closed or complete. It also still
testifies to the affect out of which it is formed, and that it has captured,
reduced and repressed. Behind every emotion, there is always a certain
surplus of affect that ‘escapes confinement’ and ‘remains unactualised,
inseparable from but unassimilable to any particular, functionally anchored
perspective’ (Massumi 2002, 35).
(teda ze pocit sa vzdy nadalej viaze k povodnemu afektu z ktoreho som ho
syntetizoval; pretoze tam stale ostava otvorene co z neho mozem dalsie
syntetizovat)
Privatised emotion can never entirely
separate itself from the affect from which it is derived. Emotion is
representable and representative; but it also points beyond itself to an affect
that works transpersonally and transversally, that is at once singular and
common (Hardt and Negri 2004, 128-129),
(tym ze je pocit zosobneny, tak sa vzdy viaze k afektu — ten je
transpersonalny a transversalny ——– ???? asi ze osobny a zaroven
spolocny–napriklad afekt produkujuci videom lady gaga)
and that is irreducible to any sort of representation.
Our existence is always bound up with affective and
aesthetic flows that elude cognitive definition or capture.
(ano, z afektov mozeme stale syntetizovat nove pocity,
ktore su este nesyntetizovane)4
4 (monoskop!!):
Fascism and Nazism in particular are
noteworthy for their mobilisation of cinematic affect; though arguably Soviet
communism and liberal capitalism also mobilized such affect in their own ways.

(@postmod nezmizol afekt ako tvrdi jameson, ale subjektivne pocity sa vytratili)
On the basis of his distinction between affect and emotion, Massumi
rejects Fredric Jameson’s famous claim about the ‘waning of affect’ in
postmodern culture (Jameson 1991, 10-12). For Massumi, it is precisely
subjective emotion that has waned, but not affect.

5 (anti-oedipus sa snazil spojit nekritizovatelnost afektu[massumi zastanca–ked kritizuje
jamesona napr..: ‘affect is not ownable or recognisable and is thus resistant to critique’]
a marxistickou teoriou, ktore su inak vacsinou stavane ostro proti sebe oboma tabormi):
Affect theory, or ‘non-representational theory’ (Thrift 2008), is usually placed in
sharp opposition to Marxist theory, by advocates of both approaches. I am
arguing, instead, that we need to draw them together. This is precisely what
Deleuze and Guattari attempted to do in Anti-Oedipus (1983). The attempt was
not entirely successful, but it seems prescient in the light of subsequent ‘neoliberal’
developments in both affective and political economies.
(via latour: sietove socialne procesy sa nedaju vysvetlit kategoriami ‘capital’ alebo
‘social’ lebo prave tie potrebujeme vysvetlit, co ale zaroven neznamena ze su
nepouzitelne, iba ze ich potrebujeme skonstruovat resp samokonstruovat znovu,
k comu upada latour v nepozornych momentoch)
I am largely sympathetic to Bruno Latour’s
insistence that networked social processes cannot be explained in terms of global
categories like ‘capital,’ or ‘the social’ – because these categories themselves are what
most urgently need to be explained.

Affect and
labour are two attributes of the same Spinozian substance; they are both
powers or potentials of the human body, expressions of its ‘vitality,’ ‘sense of
aliveness,’ and ‘changeability’ (Massumi 2002, 36).

(mapa:)
aesthetic of affective mapping.6 For Jameson and Deleuze and
Guattari alike, maps are not static representations, but tools for negotiating,
and intervening in, social space. A map does not just replicate the shape of a
territory; rather, it actively inflects and works over that territory.

[page 7]

…..(poznamky v printoute)
[7-24]

[25]

zaujimave, rozvit nejakym projektom:
Cyberspace is what Deleuze
and Guattari call a “haptic” space, as opposed to an optical
one: a space of “pure connection,” accessible only to “closerange
vision,” and having to be navigated “step by step. . . .
One never sees from a distance in a space of this kind, nor
does one see it from a distance”.
No panoramic
view is possible, for the space is always folding, dividing,
expanding, and contracting. [nema zmysel robit vizualne komplexne webstranky – len tolko co clovek
vie cele prijat, v pozadi socialna navigacia, takze ‘listujem’ dalej
Time is flexible on the Net as
well; things happen at different speeds. Sometimes I must
read and type extremely fast to keep up with rapid-fire chat
room conversations. Other times I have to hold myself back
as I wait for pages or files to download.
What’s more, these
multiple speeds, times, and spaces overlap. Enveloped in
the network, I am continually being distracted.
I can no
longer concentrate on just one thing at a time. My body is
pulled in several directions at once, dancing to many distinct
rhythms. My attention fragments and multiplies as I
shift among the many windows on my screen. Being online
always means multitasking.

[8:08:50 PM] Barbora: ahoj Dusan, mozem sa ta na nieco spytat? si na nieco na Slovensku hrdy? na co?
[8:09:10 PM] dusanson: na murgasa
[8:09:31 PM] dusanson: na ondaka
[8:09:37 PM] dusanson: na vineu
[8:09:59 PM] dusanson: na a4ku
[8:10:11 PM] Barbora: :)
[8:10:15 PM] dusanson: hm
[8:10:16 PM] dusanson: rozmyslam
[8:10:20 PM] dusanson: co este
[8:10:28 PM] Barbora: rozmyslaj
[8:10:33 PM] dusanson: na multiplace
[8:10:39 PM] dusanson: na letne dielne
[8:10:51 PM] dusanson: na hviezdoslava
[8:11:08 PM] dusanson: hm, zoznam sa uz asi blizi ku koncu )
[8:11:20 PM] dusanson: snad stefanika
[8:11:35 PM] dusanson: snad benovskeho
[8:12:34 PM] Barbora: preco si hrdy na hviezdoslava?
[8:12:43 PM] dusanson: vyborny spisovatel
[8:12:46 PM] Barbora: ale nahodou, napisal si aspon nieco
[8:12:52 PM] Barbora: ja by som ani tolko nedala
[8:13:02 PM] dusanson: to je vsetko co ma teraz napada
[8:13:07 PM] Barbora: robim si prieskum, mame urobit reklamny spot
[8:13:10 PM] dusanson: aha este na next festival
[8:13:13 PM] Barbora: na narodnu hrdost
[8:13:15 PM] Barbora: :)
[8:13:19 PM] dusanson: to su veci o ktorych sa nehanbim rozpravat ludom zvonka
[8:13:32 PM] dusanson: hrdy na narodnu hrdost znamena co?
[8:14:06 PM] Barbora: hrdy na narodnu hrdost?
[8:14:15 PM] Barbora: nie, robime spot, ktory ma byt o narodnej hrdosti
[8:14:19 PM] Barbora: narodna hrdost je produkt
[8:14:24 PM] dusanson: aha
[8:14:27 PM] Barbora: tak sa pytam
[8:14:34 PM] dusanson: akoze pre turistov?
[8:14:44 PM] Barbora: no skor pre domacich
[8:14:49 PM] Barbora: ale len ako projekt v skole
[8:14:51 PM] dusanson: reklama na slovensko pre slovakov? :)
[8:14:54 PM] Barbora: hej
[8:14:58 PM] dusanson: hha
[8:15:36 PM] dusanson: tak potom posli
[8:17:38 PM] Barbora: no jasne:)
[8:17:42 PM] Barbora: ale celkom si mi pomohol asi
[8:17:51 PM] dusanson: ziadna zena :(
[8:18:18 PM] Barbora: lebo napriklad to iste som napisala kamaratovi a ten odpisal ze nie je hrdy na nic, ale vela veci tu ma rad
[8:18:31 PM] Barbora: no … ziadna zena
[8:19:07 PM] dusanson: na ursinyho
[8:19:16 PM] Barbora: jasnee:)
[8:20:12 PM] dusanson: na fischera
[8:20:20 PM] dusanson: na zdena
[8:20:27 PM] dusanson: na tomasa straussa
[8:25:57 PM] dusanson: snad na jakubiska
[8:26:05 PM] Barbora: ou
[8:26:12 PM] Barbora: ja na perinbabu:)
[8:26:18 PM] Barbora: tu som v portugalsku ukazovala aj
[8:26:21 PM] dusanson: jj ta je pekna
[8:26:28 PM] Barbora: lebo to je zvlastna rozpravka
[8:26:29 PM] dusanson: kristove roky
[8:26:35 PM] Barbora: taka nerozpravkova
[8:26:43 PM] Barbora: hej, tie su!
[8:26:51 PM] dusanson: slnko v sieti mozno, ale si to uz moc nepamatam, mozno by sa mi to nepacilo uz…a uher neviem co dalsie robil
[8:26:56 PM] dusanson: obchod na korze ma nebavil
[8:27:36 PM] dusanson: aa na utekajme uz ide som hrdyy
[8:27:54 PM] dusanson: nadhlad a lahkost, pritom bez pretvarky

gabika pise ze problem venterovho genetickeho softveru nie su ani tak potvorky ako
mutacie umelej DNA v novom organizme..
—
http://respekt.ihned.cz/zkumavka/c1-43726410-craig-venter-nestvoril-umely-zivot

http://www.rozhlas.cz/zpravy/vedatechnika/_zprava/736218

tak ak to spravne chapem, tak to az take hrozive nebude…uvidime, ako to bude pokracovat dalej, pretoze je fakt, ze vacsina zlozitejsich organizmov ma systemy, ktore odmietaju cudzie molekuly….a nicia ich.
—
ono to tak z laickeho pohladu vyzera k podobnym ‘vynalezom’
sa postupne nevyhnutne dostaneme…ak s tym nepride venter,
tak niekto iny, ze? otazka je teda asi najma ako sa to da
vseliak zneuzit a ako bude flexibilna legislativa ohladom
prevencie rizik… hmm…. alebo?

> no, musim povedat, ze mna to celkom vydesilo, ked som sa to
> dozvedela….ani nie tak kvoli nejakym potvorkam, ale skor kvoli tomu, ze
> nikdy nevies, ako sa ten organizmus zacne branit zasahu do vlastneho
> DNA….
> moc informacii o tom nepreniklo, tak vlastne ani neviem, do ktorej fazy
> DNA zasiahli, alebo co modifikovali, ale urcite to moc pozitivne nie
> je….
>
> oni sa brania tym, ze sa budu dat liecit rozne druhy ochoreni, rakovin a
> podobne…ale neviem, neviem, do akej miery to su schopny strazit, aby
> nedochadzalo spatne k mutaciam tej DNA….
>
> uvidime, ake info este pustia….este skusim zistit viac…
>
> ale bat sa zatial nemusis, len hrat sa na ” Panov Bohov” je niekedy
> zradne…
>
> ale uvidime…..zatial mozes spavat kludne….
>>
>> pocuj vcera preletela mediami ta sprava, ze venterovmu timu
>> sa podarilo replikovat umelo syntetizovanu dna…
>> napriklad
>> http://veda.sme.sk/c/5385405/vedci-asi-stvorili-umely-zivot.html
>> http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science_and_environment/10132762.stm
>>
>> akurat mi stale neni moc jasne co z toho vyplyva…
>> bude zle? alebo sa to tyka len nejakych pre smrtelnika
>> nepovsimutelnych veci, napr ze ide o malu vedecku epizodku?
>> alebo ze postupne ked to vymakaju tak budu vediet ‘programovat’
>> nejake male organizmy, ktore sa v hejnach budu prehanat
>> labakmi pripadne aj mimo nich?
>>