nettime LOLZ. LSDZ, NSAZ, BRICZ, ARTZ digest (2)
From: Eduardo Valle dudava...@hotmail.com Subject: RE: OFFLIST Re: nettime Geopolitics and Internet Date: Wed, 20 Feb 2013 02:58:42 + You know i know t?o, headquarters , decision makers are not in the South hemisphere, i know because i have a very close experience t?o. Off course there is dialogue , their goals is profit. And now the employers are the owners of the enterprises, it is funny to see them saying in my enterprise ... The BRICS have to find their mission but Still they are dependent because most of the System is dependent of the G7, Still ARt is Still very important and the problem is that collectors from developed nations know and recognize that while in others parts of the World that is Still unrecognized, just to ilustrate or TO PROVE that, there is only 2 South americans collectors on a list of top 150 collectors on the very OLD contemporary Art ... Industrial Economy is related to Economy and not culture and the wealthy persons from the developed countries knows that culture Is more important and h?s more value that the Economy ... From: newme...@aol.com Date: Tue, 19 Feb 2013 18:18:05 -0500 Subject: Re: OFFLIST Re: nettime Geopolitics and Internet To: dudava...@hotmail.com Duda: As you know, the primary economic development of the past 200 years has been INDUSTRIALIZATION, which has moved across the globe -- country-by-country. The developed world *finished* this process and, as a result, reached a plateau and become post-industrial (i.e. shifting to finance and other services) in the late 20th century, which left it to many other countries to GROW much faster as they now being industrialized. The headquarters and CEOs involved in this wider global growth process are *NOT* in London or New York but instead in Mumbai, Sao Paolo, Moscow and Beijing. I know, I've been there! There is PLENTY of spectrum for everyone to *talk* and that's what they have been doing -- with much of it *refusing* to work under the direction of the fading Imperium. China will *not* allow themselves to be told what to do by anyone and I suspect that Brazil is doing something similar. The power of the old industrial centers gets WEAKER (not stronger) every day! Art (in terms of fairs, rich collectors etc) is a by-product of this process and maps into it with a significant lag -- given that this is luxury and not a productive activity. So, it's backwards not forward looking. If you want to chart actual shifts in power you would be much better dealing with rates of change of energy and materials consumption (i.e. the industrial economy) and not art. Mark In a message dated 2/19/2013 4:49:00 P.M. Eastern Standard Time, dudava...@hotmail.com writes: In Liverpool i was presenting a Geopolitical analysis of Contemporary Art and Electronic Art inside of what i called the Web of Art and their 14 instances. I was analysing only 3 instances: the artists, the fairs and the collectors and they were still on the same geopolitical pattern. China was rising and so the BRICS because of lack of infra structure, need of expansion of capitalism and cheap labor force , but we all know where the headquarters and CEOs are located... You were saying that communication is changing everything and if the spectrum is few, how can they even talk ... So here you have some facts that reality is not really changing in terms of geopolitical power i will send some conceptual maps from my presentation in Liverpool. From: newme...@aol.com Date: Tue, 19 Feb 2013 14:46:48 -0500 Subject: Re: OFFLIST Re: nettime Geopolitics and Internet To: dudava...@hotmail.com Duda: Sorry -- how do you explain the rise of CHINA in geopolitical terms (i.e. a development which was completely missed by the geopoliticists)? Why would changes in communications make problems go away? And, communication isn't about spectrum (which is a machine-to-machine parameter) but instead about how *people* actually TALK to each other! I wasn't there, so what did you PROVE in Liverpool . . . ?? g Mark In a message dated 2/19/2013 1:08:42 P.M. Eastern Standard Time, dudava...@hotmail.com writes: In geopolitical terms, NO. And this was proved in my presentation in Liverpool in relation to Art. Communication is faster and is cover a broader spectrum but still reproducing the same problems. And this broader spectrum is still low, for example if you look at Brasil in terms of digital acess ... or Africa. From: newme...@aol.com Date: Tue, 19 Feb 2013 10:38:09 -0500 Subject: OFFLIST Re: nettime Geopolitics and Internet To: dudava...@hotmail.com Duda: It is not because communication is changing that reality is changing Really -- how do you know that . . . ?? Mark== From:
Re: nettime Olivier Auber: Network symetry and net neutrality
Dear Florian,
Concerning, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8c0sX6j5D_c , I think you
missed the key message of this prostatic guru. The question is not
whether the multicast protocol is working or not, and why (I'll talk
however of this issue below) but to clarify the notion of symmetry
(of protocols), and to show that an asymmetrical network leads
AUTOMATICALLY to current state of the Internet, that is to say, a
centralized network, near to implode. Not to question the economic and
money paradigm, GAFA seem to be going straight for what the guru
called a triangular trade of personal data between them and States
on the backs of enslaved users. Thus we see how might look like
transhumans that Google makes us sparkle, to say nothing of
immortality ...
Regarding multicast, you mention a paper written by a DARPA-funded
scientist who can not imagine one second that the peers of P2P
networks may well become also kind of multicast routers, which would
transform the said P2P networks to P2P^10 networks!
Second, the concept of multicast is older than the Web (Steve Deering
1989) and began to be implemented on the Mbone also before the web:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mbone
Finally, yes, the prostatic guru tells the truth: the multicast
protocol is artificially used in an asymmetric fashion for IPTV.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IPTV
Why multicast has not survived to the web? This is a complicated issue
that probably has common points with the VHS war of the 70s
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Videotape_format_war
You might be too young to have experienced the Multicast/web war of
the 90s. To my knowledge, nobody has written about that war, probably
because it is too recent and it is far from being over. However it is
real, with real victims, including scientists who worked on multicast
networks all over the world, who have seen their budgets cut to zero
(with the exception of those who have agreed to work on its adaptation
to crappy TV apps), and then all of us today, who are the playthings
of a network that claims there is no alternative and that leads us
into the wall.
Van Jacobson, one of the main promoters of Multicast has written in
1995: How to kill the internet? Easy! Just invent the web !
ftp://ftp.ee.lbl.gov/talks/vj-webflame.pdf
Berners Lee in some of his recent statements, is not far from agreeing with him.
Van Jacobson is still active. Here he admits that the multicast is not
scalable in the current economic rules. However, he seems to refrain
from thinking of new rules in the sense that the prostatic guru
indicates (symmetrical monetary creation such as http://openudc.org).
http://video.google.com/googleplayer.swf?docid=-6972678839686672840
There, he worked with others to develop some patches inspired by
multicast, that would differ the collapse of net. But, AMHA, it's just
DIY ... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Content-centric_networking
--
Olivier
On Sat, Feb 23, 2013 at 4:06 AM, Patrice Riemens patrice {AT}
xs4all.nl wrote:
Networks symmetry and Net Neutrality
by OlivierAuber
[...]
However, there are also symmetrical protocols on the Internet.
One may think about peer-to-peer protocols such as the ones used
over mesh networks, but more fundamentally, the general model
of it is called Multicast, defined as a part of IPv6, which
allows all-to-all relationships without the intervention of any
particular center, if it is the Internet in its entirety.
To my knowledge, the opposite is correct. Multicast
one-to-many transmission of network packets, effectively the
same as broadcasting. It's the opposite of peer-to-peer.
(Here is a technical paper on that difference:
http://www.cs.rutgers.edu/~rmartin/teaching/fall08/cs552/position-pape
rs/004-01.pdf )
...
# distributed via nettime: no commercial use without permission
# nettime is a moderated mailing list for net criticism,
# collaborative text filtering and cultural politics of the nets
# more info: http://mx.kein.org/mailman/listinfo/nettime-l
# archive: http://www.nettime.org contact: nett...@kein.org
