not

[5:00:47 PM] lucas kendo: :)
[5:32:23 PM] lucas kendo: preco lanierovi vadi anonymita
[5:32:25 PM] lucas kendo: ?
[5:32:44 PM] lucas kendo: “Don‟t post anonymously unless you really might be in danger.”
[5:32:57 PM] lucas kendo: prvy bod v suggestions ako zmenit status quo
[5:33:25 PM] dusanson: mozno dostava dirty maily od anonymov )
[5:33:35 PM] dusanson: neviem, cital som zatial len preface a reviews
[5:33:59 PM] dusanson: ale ten jeho plan je dost fail
[5:34:11 PM] dusanson: chce aby z kazdeho suboru bol len jeden kus
[5:34:17 PM] dusanson: teda aby sa veci nemuseli kopirovat
[5:34:52 PM] lucas kendo: hm no divne to znie cele.. najviacej mi vadi ze ini autori by si dali zalezat na tom zadefinovat pojmy ktore pouzivaju
[5:35:02 PM] lucas kendo: A similar campaign should be taking place now, influencing engineers, designers,
businesspeople, and everyone else to support humanistic alternatives whenever possible.
[5:35:06 PM] dusanson: jj, za to ho zdrbali vsetci
[5:35:08 PM] dusanson: ze pise esejisticky moc
[5:35:14 PM] lucas kendo: co je to humanistic v tejto vete ?????
[5:35:21 PM] lucas kendo: chapes,, ale on to tam vsade ma
[5:35:39 PM] dusanson: akoze sa vydal do boja proti web2 pliage
[5:35:47 PM] dusanson: ktora z nas robi zombikov alebo co
[5:36:21 PM] dusanson: ked ho zavolali na sxsw zrobit prednasku tak vsetkym povedal ze nech prestanu tweetovat a bavia sa f2f
[5:36:22 PM] dusanson: lol
[5:36:45 PM] lucas kendo: :))
[5:36:58 PM] dusanson: ako keby to neslo naraz
[5:36:59 PM] lucas kendo: preface bol super, ale dalsi text ma coraz viacej odradza
[5:37:14 PM] dusanson: jj, ten preface je asi jediny fajn na tej knihe
[5:37:15 PM] dusanson: :)
[5:38:55 PM] dusanson: kniha je najskor urcena pre starsich dobre situovanych panov, ktorym chybaju konzervativne argumenty proti web2 pliage co opantala mladez
[5:39:08 PM] lucas kendo: no ..
[5:39:37 PM] lucas kendo: no nic pise ze tie veci rozoberie v celej knizke tak snad najdem nejake argumenty ktorymi sa da naozaj nesuhlasit :)
[5:39:44 PM] dusanson: Lanier’s critique of online life has a strong whiff of the “false consciousness” dicta that gained currency in the aftermath of the New Left.
[5:39:55 PM] dusanson: par imo najdes
[5:40:06 PM] dusanson: pod bol z nej celkom uneseny
[5:40:55 PM] dusanson: si tam chcem pozriet co pise proti open sourcu
[5:41:35 PM] lucas kendo: tej vete nerozumiem
[5:41:38 PM] lucas kendo: co je to whiff ?
[5:41:42 PM] dusanson: He dismisses most modern culture as “retro” and “a petty mashup of preweb culture..It’s as if culture froze just before it became digitally open, and all we can do now is mine the past like salvagers picking over a garbage dump.
[5:41:45 PM] lucas kendo: co je to false consciousness ?
[5:42:12 PM] lucas kendo: a f.c. je reakcia na new left, alebo je to vlastnost pripisovana new left ?
[5:42:18 PM] lucas kendo: ah som blby :)
[5:42:56 PM] dusanson: no ze ked novej lavici dosiel dych tak sa vratila spat k boju dobra so zlom, kde za zle sa povazuju rozne ezotericke veci ako trh alebo kapitalizmus s nejakym privlastkom, a ze lanier sa uchyluje k podobnemu polarizovaniu
[5:43:39 PM] dusanson: ze osocuje tych ‘zlych’ a stoji na strane dobrych
[5:43:57 PM] dusanson: resp ze clovek ma skazene vedomie a potrebuje sa od niecoho ocistit
[5:44:59 PM] dusanson: k “false consciousness” sa uchylila ‘porazena’ new left
[5:45:52 PM] dusanson: Online culture “is a culture of reaction without action”
[5:46:05 PM] lucas kendo: jj to tam je
[5:46:23 PM] lucas kendo: v niecom kusok pravda ked sa zameras len nato ako je teraz popularne robit s klise
[5:46:30 PM] lucas kendo: ako zo zakladnymi blokmi nejakeho diela
[5:46:33 PM] lucas kendo: a metanaracia a tak
[5:46:43 PM] dusanson: klise tu bolo vzdy )
[5:47:30 PM] lucas kendo: inac ten gegen die wand je super
[5:47:48 PM] lucas kendo: sa mi pacilo jake tam silne veci setcia prezivali bez toho aby ten film sam o sebe bol pateticky
[5:47:57 PM] lucas kendo: teraz mame rozkukane to co natocil v 2007
[5:48:02 PM] dusanson: lanierov refren je volanie po ‘novom digitalnom humanistickom cloveku’, ktoreho nestrhne hlas masy …
new collectivist ethos — embodied by everything from Wikipedia to “American Idol” to Google searches — diminishes the importance and uniqueness of the individual voice, and that the “hive mind” can easily lead to mob rule
[5:48:05 PM] lucas kendo: soul kitchen su len ruske abo spanish ripy
[5:48:18 PM] dusanson: gegendiewand som videl snad v svetozore, sa mi pacil tiez
[5:48:26 PM] dusanson: som nasiel taliansky dvdrip
[5:48:39 PM] lucas kendo: no pokial to je bez titles tak nic moc
[5:48:45 PM] lucas kendo: akoze ja nemcinu davam
[5:48:47 PM] dusanson: uvidme
[5:48:57 PM] lucas kendo: a italian asi znamena dabovane nie ?
[5:49:04 PM] dusanson: dufam ze nieee
[5:50:46 PM] dusanson: Lanier argues for a third way, inspired by the Internet’s first visionary, Ted Nelson. Nelson created a proto-Web in 1960 called Xanadu that simplified the user’s experience. One password and fee to enter the world, and one logical copy of each file, instead of the endless file sharing that clogs our bandwidth and cheapens the discourse.
[5:51:04 PM] dusanson: to ale neni ani utopia, skor retroutopia
[5:51:16 PM] lucas kendo: no tak retroutopia je aj militant modernism
[5:51:20 PM] lucas kendo: a to je fasa
[5:51:54 PM] dusanson: hm, akurat keby prisiel s nejakou novou, nelsona poznam :(
[5:52:42 PM] lucas kendo: inac on tam mrte operuje singularitou ale pritom mne je cely ten new age hogwah dost vzdialeny ale aj tak som zastanca “openness” a citam boingboing
[5:53:21 PM] dusanson: neviem preco si mysli ze edge.org maju nejaky vpyv
[5:53:22 PM] dusanson: l
[5:54:19 PM] dusanson: aj ked osobnych hodnotovych rebrickoch zapalenych technoevangelistov v silicon valley asi maju..
[5:59:36 PM] lucas kendo: aaa
[5:59:38 PM] lucas kendo: uz som tam
[5:59:49 PM] lucas kendo: I say that information doesn‟t deserve to be free.
[6:03:13 PM] lucas kendo: aha
[6:03:21 PM] lucas kendo: tak on berie informaciu ako ulozenu experience
[6:03:27 PM] lucas kendo: nieco ako petencialna energia tehly
[6:03:32 PM] lucas kendo: ktoru nikto zdvihne a polozi na skrinu
[6:03:39 PM] lucas kendo: az ked ju posunies aby spadla tak sa ta energia uvolni
[6:03:50 PM] lucas kendo: takisto infoska musi byt prezita aby bola pouzitelna
[6:03:51 PM] lucas kendo: Information of the kind that purportedly wants to be free is nothing but a shadow of our
own minds, and wants nothing on its own. It will not suffer if it doesn‟t get what it wants
[6:04:10 PM] lucas kendo: a zevraj sucasny technokrati chcu aby informacia zila
[6:04:14 PM] lucas kendo: a presiel na turinga
[6:04:18 PM] lucas kendo: huh ?
[6:05:27 PM] lucas kendo: no nie
[6:05:49 PM] lucas kendo: a to ze infosky mozu byt zive je vraj sposobene tym ze ako turing trpel pred smrtou lebo musel brat zenske hormony aby sa vyliecil z homosexuality
[6:06:07 PM] lucas kendo: a vymyslel turingov test kde je pocitac posudzovany nezavisle na jeho fyzicne
[6:06:13 PM] lucas kendo: alebo teda druha strana – len na reakciach
[6:06:35 PM] lucas kendo: a ze toto bolo skrz jeho tuzbu aby aj on ako weirdo gaysky nebol posudzovany ako gay ale ako nejaka bytost
[6:06:46 PM] lucas kendo: no a turingov test potom ovplyvnil dalsie generacie a dal vzniknut tejto myslienke
[6:06:49 PM] lucas kendo: omg
[6:07:41 PM] lucas kendo: What the test really tells us, however, even if it‟s not necessarily what Turing hoped it
would say, is that machine intelligence can only be known in a relative sense, in the eyes of a
human beholder
[6:08:22 PM] lucas kendo: to je akoze pravda, ale tam skor ide o funkciu… ze je jedno aky je substrat, ak ho nevies odlisit od toho co pokladas za inteligentne
[6:08:58 PM | Edited 6:09:04 PM] lucas kendo: som zvedavy kedy vytiahne a misquotne searla
[6:12:19 PM] dusanson: protiargument je ze vyvoj prvych pocitacov znacne katalyzoval hon po fungujucej anti-aircraft masinke na zostrelovanie lietadiel, z coho vznikla teoria negativneho feedbacku, z ktorej vzisla kybernetika… tam slo o realny fyzicky svet, ziadne myslienkove virtualitky odtrhnute od hmoty..
[6:13:21 PM] lucas kendo: protiargument ku protiargumentu je ze
[6:13:25 PM] lucas kendo: (budem citovat)
[6:13:26 PM] dusanson: na tom pracovali nezavisle na sebe matematici v usa, ceskoslovensku, madarsku a rusku, o ktorych zatial viem
[6:13:42 PM] dusanson: z ktorych sa neskor stali kyberneticki pioneri
[6:13:47 PM] lucas kendo: Computers and chess share a common ancestry. Both originated as tools of war. Chess
began as a battle simulation, a mental martial art. The design of chess reverberates even further
into the past than that—all the way back to our sad animal ancestry of pecking orders and
competing clans.
Likewise, modern computers were developed to guide missiles and break secret military
codes. Chess and computers are both direct descendants of the violence that drives evolution in
the natural world, however sanitized and abstracted they may be in the context of civilization.
The drive to compete is palpable in both computer science and chess, and when they are brought
together, adrenaline flows.
[6:14:45 PM] dusanson: ku guide missiles a break codes pridavam este odstranovanie noisu z telefonov
[6:14:53 PM] dusanson: to su tri hlavne spustace ktore sa uvadzaju casto
[6:15:04 PM] dusanson: telefonneho signalu teda
[6:16:15 PM] dusanson: ano, je to strasne, pocitace nam dala vojna
[6:16:37 PM] dusanson: ako s tym suvisi ta turingova homosexualita?
[6:17:02 PM] dusanson: btw vojna nam dala aj UN resolution o ludskych pravach
[6:18:00 PM] lucas kendo: ^^ toto posledne je fajn
[6:18:13 PM] lucas kendo: no jeho homosexualita suvisi s tym tak ako som napisal
[6:18:34 PM] lucas kendo: ze on tuzil podla laniera aby sa ku inteligencii pristupovalo odfyzicnene ako ku nejakej cistej informacii
[6:18:40 PM] lucas kendo: bez konotacii ze je povedzme homosexualna
[6:18:49 PM] dusanson: inak vyvoj toho z coho mohli byt pocitace zastavila vojna napr v priprade Zuseho, Lebedeva a Atanasova
[6:18:50 PM] lucas kendo: a ze to bolo tym ze tak trpel a potom sa zabil kvoli tomu
[6:19:23 PM] dusanson: pracovali na protopocitacoch este v 30tych rokoch
[6:19:41 PM] lucas kendo: no a babbage dali dole okolnosti
[6:19:46 PM] lucas kendo: ten mohol by najskorsi
[6:19:58 PM] lucas kendo: s analytical engine
[6:20:03 PM] dusanson: tam je vtipna story
[6:20:11 PM] dusanson: s tym ze za nim prisla ada
[6:20:38 PM] dusanson: ktora chodila casto stavkovat na dostihy, ze vyratajme si sance a podajme to tak aby sme vyhrali
[6:20:53 PM] dusanson: mu pisala aj prednasky
[6:21:02 PM] dusanson: babbage ju zatienil, lebo bol o 1-2 generacie starsi
[6:21:18 PM] dusanson: pritom vela veci ma na svedomi ona :)
[6:22:18 PM] lucas kendo: hmm
[6:22:48 PM] lucas kendo: podla mna z tohto a leibnizovej storky pochadza cela ta fascinacia viktorianskou proto-tech dobou v steam-punkovej estetike
[6:23:01 PM] lucas kendo: ze co keby to akoze vyslo vtedy
[6:23:20 PM] lucas kendo: leibniz si tiez postaval masinu na ratanie integralov myslim
[6:24:18 PM] lucas kendo: aha nie .. len – + * /
[6:26:06 PM] lucas kendo: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stepped_Reckoner
[6:26:17 PM] dusanson: developed a ‘no-fail’ winning system for horse racing. Unfortunately, horses not being big on math, the system did fail, and Ada finished her life as a bankrupt laudanum addict, dying of cancer at the age of 36.
[6:26:47 PM] dusanson: Augusta Ada Byron was a complex, eccentric character, and it’s probable that none of her contemporaries ever really understood the woman who managed to combine an amazing intelligence with a supposed alcohol dependency and a drug-induced fixation on fairies.
[6:26:48 PM] dusanson: :)
[6:27:45 PM] lucas kendo: whoa no musela byt dost excentricka
[6:27:49 PM] lucas kendo: asi ako vdm
[6:27:50 PM] lucas kendo: a viac
[6:27:54 PM] dusanson: jj
[6:28:13 PM] dusanson: hura nasiel som ten clanok http://www.cabinetmagazine.org/issues/19/hunt.php
[6:28:15 PM] dusanson: si ho daj niekedy
[6:30:26 PM] dusanson: ajo tak tie dostihy nebola obsesia ale len sposob ako sa dostat k prachom

+

17:24 < gnd> ten druhy tribe co menuje lanier okrem weizenbauma co som cital
vobec nepoznam
17:24 < gnd>
the late Joseph
17:24 < gnd> Weizenbaum, Ted Nelson, Terry Winograd, Alan Kay, Bill Buxton,
Doug Englebart, Brian
17:24 < gnd> Cantwell Smith, Henry Fuchs, Ken Perlin, Ben Schneiderman (who
invented the idea of clicking
17:24 < gnd> on a link), and Andy Van Dam
17:26 < wao> http://www.mylocaltribune.net/
17:27 < gnd> nah ale namiesto 100 stran preco tito ludia (cybernetic totalists)
tvoria jednu skupinu a na com operuju odbije troma odstavcami …
17:27 < gnd> snad sa k tomu este dostane dalej v knizke
+
17:55 < gnd> he antihuman approach to computation is one of the most
baseless ideas in human
17:55 < gnd> history. A computer isn”t even there unless a person experiences
it. There will be a warm mass of
17:55 < gnd> patterned silicon with electricity coursing through it, but the
bits don”t mean anything without a
17:55 < gnd> cultured person to interpret them.
17:55 < gnd> This is not solipsism. You can believe that your mind
makes up the world, but a bullet
17:55 < gnd> will still kill you. A virtual bullet, however, doesn”t even exist
unless there is a person to
17:55 < gnd> recognize it as a representation of a bullet. Guns are real in a
way that computers are not.
17:55 < gnd> wtf ?

+

pod,

with reviews i prefer linking the small sites,
since the big ones usually cannot afford being honest
(the one in NYT mentions some catchy ideas, which is ok).
xlt review would get a link for sure! )
errr i should be linking reviews to more books,
but it’s just take too much time, wish there would
be some kind of a book review aggregator (which i’m sure
it is), any ideas? :)

btw
http://www.eurozine.com/articles/2010-03-18-lovink-en.html
lovink in this article mentions lanier, carr and schirrmacher,
although many times he tends to come up with too generalising
statements, which makes him feel prophetic, but they don’t even
have the poetic utopic potential, are just theoretical show-offs
which doesnt challenge anything, like eg. “It is no longer
necessary to approach the PC with a question and then dive
into the archive” etc.. same goes with lanier btw.
anyway, you can still find good insights (as with lanier too)

yea, if you think about what is lanier saying in the nutshell,
it doesn’t really makes sense.. ..or maybe i should better take him
seriously and stop using the cellphone since the network
is being ran by capitalist oligarchs, and sending short messages
and disembodily talking to people fucks up my true personality :)

btw i really like the preface of the book!

re monoskop linking
thx for asking, we like to be linked from the friendly sites!

ciao, d.

> i will for sure utilize for grabbing quotes…
>
> still not finished, and encountered lots of things i’m not sure i agree w/ …
> but very profound stuff all along the way…
>
> tech liberation is a compelling review w/ useful links so glad u posted,
> NYT is also quite good

IT sector takes over the media industry, the cult of “free” and “open” is nothing but ironic revenge on the e-commerce madness.
During the post-9/11 reconstruction period, Silicon Valley found renewed inspiration in two projects: the vital energy of the search start-up Google (which successfully managed to postpone its IPO for years), and the rapidly emerging blog scene
Whereas blogging embodied the non-profit, empowering aspect of personal responses grouped around a link, Google developed techniques that enabled it to parasite on other people’s content, a.k.a. “organizing the world’s information”
Profit is no longer made at the level of production, but through the control of distribution channels. Apple, Amazon, eBay and Google are the biggest winners in this game
Whereas Keen could still be read as a grumpy and jealous response of the old media class, this is no longer the case with Nicholas Carr’s The Big Switch (2008),[2] in which he analyses the rise of cloud computing
The last chapter, entitled “iGod”, indicates a “neurological turn” in net criticism. Starting from the observation that Google’s intention has always been to turn its operation into an Artificial Intelligence, “an artificial brain that is smarter than your brain” (Sergey Brin), Carr turns his attention to future of human cognition: “The medium is not only the message. The medium is the mind. It shapes what we see and how we see it.” With the Internet stressing speed, we become the Web’s neurons: “The more links we click, pages we view, and transactions we make, the more intelligence the Web makes, the more economic value it gains, and the more profit it throws off.”
In his famous 2008 Atlantic Monthly essay “Does Google make us stupid? What does the Internet do to our brains?” Carr takes this argument a few steps further and argues that constant switching between windows and sites and frantic use of search engines will ultimately dumb us down.
Internet-savvy users, she states, seem to lose the ability to read and enjoy thick novels and comprehensive monographs.
Carr and others cleverly exploit the Anglo-American obsession with anything related to the mind, brain and consciousness – mainstream science reporting cannot get enough of it. A thorough economic (let alone Marxist) analysis of Google and the free and open complex is seriously uncool.
The Internet and society debate should be about the politics and aesthetics of its network architecture and not be “medicalized”. So instead of repeating what the brain faction proclaims, I would like to turn to trends that need equal attention
There is a fundamental shift away from the static archive towards the “flow” and the “river”.
History is something to get rid of. Silicon Valley is gearing up for the colonization of real-time, away from the static web “page” that still refers to the newspaper. Users no longer feel the need to store information and the “cloud” facilitates this liberating movement.
Some have even said goodbye to the very idea of “search” because it is too time-consuming an activity often with unsatisfactory outcomes.
Despite all the justified calls for “slow communication”, the market is moving in the opposite direction. Soon, people may not have time to pour some file from a dusty database.
Much like in finance, the media industry is exploring possibilities to maximize surplus value from the exploitation of milliseconds.
There is no evidence that the world is becoming more virtual. We are no longer encouraged to act out some role, but forced to be “ourselves” (which is no less theatrical or artificial).
Trust is the oil of global capitalism and the security state, required by both sides in any transaction or exchange
The old idea that the virtual is there to liberate you from your old self has collapsed. It is all about self-management and techno-sculpturing: how do you shape the self in real-time flow?
The self that is presented here is post-cosmetic. The ideal is to become neither the Other nor the better human. The polished perfect personality lacks empathy and is straight-out suspect.
Our profiles remain cold and unfinished if we do not expose at least some aspects of our private lives. Otherwise we are considered robots, anonymous members of a vanishing twentieth century mass culture.
In Cold Intimacies, Eva Illouz puts it this way: “It is virtually impossible to distinguish the rationalization and commodification of selfhood from the capacity of the self to shape and help itself and to engage in deliberation and communication with others.”
At first glance, the idea of the netizen is a mid-1990s response to the first wave of users that took over the Net. The netizen moderates, cools down heated debates, and above all responds in a friendly, non-repressive manner. The netizen does not represent the Law, is no authority, and acts like a personal advisor, a guide in a new universe. The netizen is thought to act in the spirit of good conduct and corporate citizenship. Users were to take social responsibility themselves – it was not a call for government regulation and was explicitly designed to keep legislators out of the Net.
Bots play a increasing role in the automated policing of large websites.
“personal information autonomy”, as David d’Heilly once put it
The rise of the national web
42.6 per cent of Internet users are located in Asia
Only around 25 per cent of content is in English these days.
China is now exporting its national firewall technology to Sri Lanka, which intends to use it to block the “offensive websites” of exile Tamil Tiger groups
“Democratization” means that firms and politicians have a goal and then invite others to contribute to it.
young people are reluctant to use Twitter – it just isn’t their thing.
social networking sites did not originate in a social movement setting. They were developed as post-dotcom responses to the e-commerce wave of the late 1990s, which had no concept of what users were looking for online
Instead of being regarded merely as consumers of goods and services, Web 2.0 users are pressed to produce as much data as possible. Profiles are abstracted from so-called “user generated content” that are then sold to advertisers as direct marketing data.
In China, dissidents with their own proxy servers that help to circumvent the Wall remain marginal as long as they cannot transport their “memes” into other social contexts.
11:11 < barak> Carr and others cleverly exploit the Anglo-American obsession
with anything related to the mind, brain and consciousness .
mainstream science reporting cannot get enough of it. A thorough
economic (let alone Marxist) analysis of Google and the free and
open complex is seriously uncool.
11:12 < barak> Nicholas Carr’s The Big Switch (2008), in which he analyses the
rise of cloud computing
11:12 < barak> The last chapter, entitled “iGod”, indicates a “neurological
turn” in net criticism
11:13 < barak> coskoro na logu
11:18 < barak> carr napisal pred dvoma rokmi ten google makes us stupid clanok
11:19 < barak> ze freneticke prepinanie medzi oknami v prehliadaci etc nas
oblbuje
11:20 < barak> Whereas Carr’s take on the collapse of the white male’s
multi-tasking capacities had the couleur locale of a US
IT-business expert a.k.a. East Coast intellectual, Schirrmacher
moves the debate into the continental European context of an
aging middle class driven by defensive anxiety over Islamic
fundamentalism and Asian hypermodernity.
11:21 < barak> Like Carr, Schirrmacher seeks evidence of a deteriorating human
brain that can no longer keep up with iPhones, Twitter and
Facebook on top of the already existing information flows from
television, radio and the printed press.
11:21 < barak> potom schirrmachra sprdli ze je konzervativec a navyse novinar v
sebeobrane voci internetu
11:22 < ach> typicka sokratovska kritika noveho media.
11:22 < barak> jj
11:22 < barak> lanier detto
11:23 < barak> Lanier asks why the past two decades have not resulted in new
music styles and subcultures, and blames the strong emphasis on
retro in contemporary, remix-dominated music culture.
11:23 < barak> ?!?!
11:23 < ach> ]]: aha, uz to stihli dat dole :)
11:23 < barak> akoby hudba nebola vzdy retro
11:24 < barak> The democratization of digital tools has not led to the
emergence of “super-Gershwins”. Instead, Lanier sees “pattern
exhaustion”, a phenomena in which a culture runs out of
variations on traditional designs and becomes less creative:
11:26 < ach> “When asked why in the past 20 years, on paper, new types of music
and culture is characterized by the reasons for Yee, but the
defendant quickly and again, mixed culture.”
11:29 < ach> pre triforce gang
http://i461.photobucket.com/albums/qq340/pigcore/061.jpg
11:33 < ach> “The night smelled like Roisin Murphy, and a child has been born.
And it wasn’t a regular child, it was a girl with very small head.”
11:33 < ach> …25 translations later we get:
11:33 < ach> “Murphy Dermde overnight. So this is no ordinary boy with his head
woman.”
11:35 < barak> Some have even said goodbye to the very idea of “search” because
it is too time-consuming an activity often with unsatisfactory
outcomes.
11:36 < barak> There is a fundamental shift away from the static archive
towards the “flow” and the “river”
11:36 < barak> History is something to get rid of. Silicon Valley is gearing up
for the colonization of real-time, away from the static
11:36 < barak> web “page” that still refers to the newspaper. Users no longer
feel the need to store information and the “cloud”
11:36 < barak> facilitates this liberating movement.
11:36 < barak> oda na cloud computing
11:37 < barak> This could, potentially, be the point at which the Google empire
starts to crumble
11:37 < barak> ^ tak
11:38 < barak> Despite all the justified calls for “slow communication”, the
market is moving in the opposite direction. Soon, people may not
have time to pour some file from a dusty database
11:40 < barak> It is no longer necessary to approach the PC with a question and
then dive into the archive. The Internet as a whole is going
real time in an attempt to come closer to the messiness, the
complexities of the real-existing social world.
11:40 < ach> utopicke/zovseobecnujuce.
11:40 < barak> jj, lovink at his best :)
11:40 < barak> look at Twitter, which resembles ascii email and SMS messages on
your 2001 cell phone
11:41 < ach> moj twitter urcite nepripomina ani jedno
11:41 < barak> to sa tykalo dizajnu
11:43 < ach> ved ma uplne ine farby ako moj telefon.
11:49 < barak> The self that is presented here is post-cosmetic. The ideal is
to become neither the Other nor the better human. The
11:49 < barak> polished perfect personality lacks empathy and is straight-out
suspect.
11:49 < barak> Our profiles remain cold and unfinished if we do not expose at
least some aspects of our private lives. Otherwise we are
11:49 < barak> considered robots, anonymous members of a vanishing twentieth
century mass culture.

Dmytri Kleiner kritizuje Creative Commons aj Benklerovu ideu ‘commons-based peer-production’..

o CC hovori, ze namiesto toho aby podporovala slobodu uzivatela (napriklad GPL definuje slobodu ako 4 slobody uzivatela–to use/share/study/modify), dava autorovi ‘slobodu’ urcit uroven kontroly nad uzivatelom (teda rozne obmedzenia ako noncommercial-only/view-only atd).. cim CC neberie kontrolu z ruk producentov (co je ideou Free Culture), ani vobec nerusi rozdiel medzi producentom a konzumentom, ako tvrdi Lessig.

no a Benklerova teza z Wealth of Networks o ‘commons-based peer-production’ hovori o komunite autorov (peers), ktori spolocne tvoria v prostredi bez vlastnictva (commons). tu zas Kleiner tvrdi, ze tym ze Benklerovo commons ma imaterialnu/digitalnu povahu, tak ti co skutocne profituju v takejto situacii su ti, ktori vlastnia (materialne) prostriedky na vyrobu (nematerialnych) statkov, pretoze tvorcom neposkytuju slobodny pristup, ale na nom zarabaju. no a na to, aby autori prispievajuci do takejto commons neboli vykoristovani vlastnikmi fyzickeho materialu, treba do commons okrem virtualnych prostriedkov (softver, videa, texty, obrazky, atd) produkcie zahrnut aj materialne prostriedky..

Rather than seeing the commons as something that exists outside of drives to dominate and control, there is no commons without the antisocial tendencies that animate it.

As a file is shared between two computers, a disc burned and handed to two individuals, there is always a third, the owner of the network, or the hardware, that profits from it. This leads Pasquinelli to declare, along with, Vercellone, that “rent is the new profit.” (Pasquinelli also develops this idea through a discussion of this essay by David Harvey). This new form of rent operates in terms of speed and time rather than space.

If it is true that ‘the multitude is to the metropolis, as the working class is to the factory,” then the multitude must in some sense produce the skyrocketing rents of gentrification.

Jason Read’s review of Animal Spirits

To make the case for “no technical solutions”, Hardin notes the limits placed on the availability of energy (and material resources) on Earth, and also the consequences of these limits for “quality of life”. To maximize population, one needs to minimize resources spent on anything other than simple survival, and vice versa.

hypothetical example of a pasture shared by local herders. individual herder will continue to add additional animals to his or her herd. However, since all herders reach the same rational conclusion, overgrazing and degradation of pasture is its long-term fate.

examples of latter day “commons”, such as the atmosphere, oceans, rivers, fish stocks, national parks, advertising, and even parking meters.

potential management solutions: commons problems including privatization, polluter pays, and regulation.

The metaphor illustrates the argument that free access and unrestricted demand for a finite resource ultimately dooms the resource through over-exploitation.

[70]

Gilbert Simondon criticized Norbert Wiener’s theory of cybernetics, arguing that, “Right from the start, Cybernetics has accepted what all theory of technology must refuse: a classification of technological objects conducted by means of established criteria and following genera and species.” Simondon aimed to overcome the shortcomings of cybernetics by developing a “general phenomenology” of machines.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gilbert_Simondon#Individuation_and_technology

user is not only consumer, but always-already also creates a value; financial crisis (2008) ~ collapse of system of consumerism; Stiegler’s “associated media” (web2) ~ new form of capitalism (not end of it); old school consumerism = dissassociated media (financial crisis is also effect of the end of this kind of world); CC – new form of intellectual property; “process of transindividuation”; co-individuation – we exchange music files and thus transform our musical taste / we produce metadata / produce links / produce attractor, which becomes meta-stabilisation (eg musical fashion); it’s both bottom-up (peer-to-peer) and top-down (owned by companies) = this is the CONFLICT ~ role of philosopher is to produce critique of top-down logic (not denialisation, because we need this logic); we need power developed through “critical apparatuses”; interests of bottom-up VS top-down are not the same (like workers VS capital), but they need each other (workers need get work from capital)

Open Organisations – Toni Prug, Richard Malter and Benjamin Geer – until recently united in belief in radically liberatory potentials of openness | ‘supernodes’ not only route more than their ‘fair share’ of traffic, but actively determine the ‘content’ that traverses them. They do not (necessarily) constitute themselves out of malicious will-to-power: rather through personal qualities like energy, commitment and charisma, and ability to synthesise politically important social moments into identifiable ideas and forms | Crypto-hierarchies suppress individual contributions, and produce layers of authority contingent on individuals’ intellectual or social dominance. The inability to question theoretical questions independently leads the individual to take refuge behind authority of another member who becomes, objectively, leader, or behind group entity, which becomes gang.’ | really open org can’t be realised without a prior radicalisation of social-political field in which it operates
http://www.metamute.org/en/The-Packet-Gang

His work could be posited as the flip side to Bourriaud’s ‘micro-utopias’ the dark side of relational aesthetics, or micro-dystopias perhaps. He destabilizes the very idea of collaboration as something that offers real social utility in contradistinction to the autonomous art object. Artist thus delivers what could be described as a critique of collaborative, or what Kester terms ‘dialogic’, practices, by simultaneously ‘maximising the creative potential of a given constituency’ and subjecting that constituency to sustained critical scrutiny. This critical scrutiny doesn’t simply undermine authority of that constituency or parody its function, but rather defines the limits of or possibilities for meaningful collaboration per se. Deconstructing the very notion of collaborative activity can reveal as much about the limits of current art education in the UK as it can about the processes of co-optation of art and culture by state controlled public sector bodies and global corporations.
http://www.artandresearch.org.uk/v2n1/kidner.html

From the ancient world of Theory we know why people invent foundational myths: to protect those in power (in this case US-American IT firms and their academic-military science structures that are losing global hegemony). The Zittrain myth says that, compared to centralized, content-controlled systems such as AOL, CompuServe and Prodigy, the ‘generative’ Internet of the late 1980s was an open network. But this was simply not the case, it was closed to the general public. [..] The first decades the Internet was a closed world, only accessible to (Western) academics and the U.S. military. In order to access the Internet one had to be an academic computer scientist or a physicist. Until the early nineties it was not possible for ordinary citizens, artists, business or activists, in the USA or elsewhere, to obtain an email address and make use of the rudimentary UNIX-based applications. Remember, this was the period between, roughly speaking, 1987 and 1993
http://networkcultures.org/wpmu/geert/2008/10/12/zittrains-foundational-myth-of-the-open-internet/

Communication tools don’t get socially interesting until they get technologically boring. Jonathan Zittrain points out that the ‘ever-increasing usability [of Web 2.0]has been accompanied by the deliberalising of user rights’. To believe that competitive pressures will lead providers to offer more freedoms is like expecting the commercialisation of news to improve the quality of reporting. ‘Mass amateurisation’ ~ racing car driving is difficult, so we have professionals for whom driving is not a means but an end; driving a normal car is so easy that amateurs can do it while trying to achieve other things. Activist academics who like to think of themselves as progressives yet covet their positions as consultants to conservative business and government ~ Self-censorship at work. The total absence of controversial issues creates the narrow scope typical of books written by consultants.
http://www.metamute.org/en/content/analysis_without_analysis

surveillance and data mining; censoring leftist group (moveon); terminated accounts stay @server; advertisers’ ads @BNP site; private data even to third parties
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_Facebook

Merijn Oudenampsen spísal článok o amsterdamskej kultúrnej politike Creative City (starosta pred troma rokmi riekol, že ňou podporí kreativitu všetkých obyvateľov mesta), o (nevydarených) paralelách k myšlienkam situacionistu Constanta Nieuwenhuysa o spoločnosti, ktorú automatizácia oslobodila od ťarchy industriálnej práce a nahradila ju nomádskym žitím kreatívnou hrou mimo domén ekonomiky a funkcionality, a o tom ako tiahnutie kultúrnej politiky ku kultúrnemu priemyslu tlačí umelcov do role kultúrnych podnikateľov.
http://www.variant.randomstate.org/31texts/issue31.html#L6

[76]
via clanky na transversale

[80]

[151]

[187]

[74]
pp 23-25

[117-118]

[92]
velmi dobre keywordy – kriticke voci standardnej kunsthistorii
@ Visual Culture Reader (ed. Mirzoeff)

[121-3]