On 11/12/12 Eduardo Valle <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>F(r)ee ?
>
>Lets us look on four levels:
>
>1) philosofical level -- what is to be free ?
>
>2) consumer level - Living under Intel Monopoly on Microprocessors,
>Apple Monopoly in terms of video and cinema, HP Monopoly in terms of
>printers, Linux monopoly and growing because of they are cheaper for
>govermental institutions and commerce, etc and etc.
>
>3) administration level - ICANN dictatorship and their respective
>agents on each country, IPV6 and their domain controls under the hands
>of a few , etc and etc 4) on the industrial technological level - who
>are controlling satellites transmissions on a technological level,
>telecoms lobbies ,internet providers, etc and etc
>
>. How can someone talk about freedom in that situation ?
>
>
>Open (?)
>
>1) it is open for who ? for the ones that are programmers only ?
It is open to non-programmers to perform the chore of documentation ;-)
But say that the definition of openness can not be fulfilled due to
programmers being the only people capable of exploiting that openness,
then what is supposed to be done to make it more inclusive? Are
programmers meant to write software which is.... um... more
readily programmable? Probably not. Complex things can't be made
simple without sacrificing the reasons for which they are complex. Is
that why we now we have computers which are mere portals to commercial
consumption.
>
>2) the majority of the ones that says that they are "open" dont even
>think and practice open data.
>
>
>
>Digital Culture (s)
>
>1) How can someome talk about that, if ,what happens is a
>digitalization of various cultures ?
>
>2) Talking about Digital Culture in a singular way is totalitarian, is
>a medium not a culture.
>
--
http://jwm-art.net/
image/audio/text/code/
_______________________________________________
NetBehaviour mailing list
[email protected]
http://www.netbehaviour.org/mailman/listinfo/netbehaviour
