| Karin Kuschel on Wed, 13 Feb 2002 09:46:02 +0100 (CET) |
[Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]
| [Nettime-bold] REMOVE |
> ---------- > Von: [email protected] > Antwort an: [email protected] > Gesendet: Mittwoch, 13. Februar 2002 0:15 Uhr > An: [email protected] > Betreff: nettime-l-digest V1 #625 > > > nettime-l-digest Tuesday, February 12 2002 Volume 01 : Number > 625 > > > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > Date: Tue, 12 Feb 2002 01:49:14 -0000 (EST) > From: "nettime's_mathemagical_thematist" <[email protected]> > Subject: <nettime> Hello again [spam specimen] > > AS SEEN ON NATIONAL TV: This is the one! > > Parents of 15-year-old find $71,000 cash hidden in his > closet. > > Does this headline look familiar? Of course it does. > You most likely have just seen this story recently > featured on a major nightly news program (USA). > > > His mother was cleaning and putting laundry away when > she came across a large brown paper bag that was > suspiciously buried beneath some clothes and a > skateboard in the back of her 15-year-old sons > closet.Nothing could have prepared her for the shock > she got when she opened the bag and found it was full > of cash.Five-dollar bills, twenties, fifties and > hundreds - all neatly rubber-banded in labeled piles. > > > "My first thought was that he had robbed a bank", says > the 41-year-old woman, "There was over $71,000 dollars > in that bag -- that's more than my husband earns in a > year". > > The woman immediately called her husband at the > car-dealership where he worked to tell him what she > had discovered.He came home right away and they drove > together to the boys school and picked him up.Little > did they suspect that where the money came from was > more shocking than actually finding it in the closet. > > As it turns out, the boy had been sending out, via > E-mail, a type of "Report" to E-mail addresses that he > obtained off of the Internet. Everyday after school > for the past 2 months, he had been doing this right on > his computer in his bedroom. > > "I just got the E-mail one day and I figured what the > heck, I put my name on it like the instructions said > and I started sending it out", says the clever > 15-year-old. > > The E-mail letter listed 5 addresses and contained > instructions to send one $5 dollar bill to each person > on the list, then delete the address at the top and > move the others addresses Down , and finally to add > your name to the top of the list. > > The letter goes on to state that you would receive > several thousand dollars in five-dollar bills within 2 > weeks if you sent out the letter with your name at the > top of the 5-address list. "I get junk E-mail all the > time, and really did not think it was going to work", > the boy continues. > > Within the first few days of sending out the E-mail, > the Post Office Box that his parents had gotten him > for his video-game magazine subscriptions began to > fill up with not magazines, but envelopes containing > $5 bills. > > "About a week later I rode [my bike] down to the post > office and my box had 1 magazine and about 300 > envelops stuffed in it. There was also a yellow slip > that said I had to go up to the [post office] counter. > I thought I was in trouble or something (laughs)". He > goes on, "I went up to the counter and they had a > whole box of more mail for me.I had to ride back home > and empty out my backpack because I could not carry it > all". > > Over the next few weeks, the boy continued sending out > the E-mail."The money just kept coming in and I just > kept sorting it and stashing it in the closet,barely > had time for my homework".He had also been riding his > bike to several of the banks in his area and > exchanging the $5 bills for twenties, fifties and > hundreds. > > "I didn't want the banks to get suspicious so I kept > riding to different banks with like five thousand at a > time in my backpack. I would usually tell the lady at > the bank counter that my dad had sent me in [to > exchange the money] and he was outside waiting for > me.One time the lady gave me a really strange look and > told me that she would not be able to do it for me and > my dad would have to come in and do it, but I just > rode to the next bank down the street (laughs)." > > Surprisingly, the boy did not have any reason to be > afraid.The reporting news team examined and > investigated the so-called "chain-letter" the boy was > sending out and found that it was not a chain-letter at > all.In fact, it was completely legal according to US > Postal and Lottery Laws, Title 18, Section 1302 and > 1341, or Title 18, Section 3005 in the US code, also in > the code of federal regulations, Volume 16, Sections > 255 and 436, which state a product or service must be > exchanged for money received. > > Every five-dollar bill that he received contained a > little note that read, "Please send me report number > XYX".This simple note made the letter legal because he > was exchanging a service (A Report on how-to) for a > five-dollar fee. > > Here is the letter that the 15-year-old was sending > out by E-mail, you can do the exact same thing he was > doing, simply by following the instructions in this > letter. > > > Dear Friends & Future Millionaires: > > AS SEEN ON NATIONAL TV: > > > Making over half million dollars every 4 to 5 months > from your home for an investment of only $25 U.S. > Dollars expense one time > THANKS TO THE COMPUTER AGE AND THE INTERNET ! > > ======================================================================= > > BE A MILLIONAIRE LIKE OTHERS WITHIN A YEAR!!! > > Before you say ''Bull'', please read the following. > > This is the letter you have been hearing about on the > news lately. Due to the popularity of this letter on > the Internet, a national weekly news program recently > devoted an entire show to the investigation of this > program described below, to see if it really can make > people money. The show also investigated whether or not > the program was legal. > > Their findings proved once and for all that there are > ''absolutely NO Laws prohibiting the participation in > the program and if people can follow the simple > instructions, they are bound to make some mega bucks > with only $25 out of pocket cost. DUE TO THE RECENT > INCREASE OF POPULARITY & RESPECT THIS PROGRAM HAS > ATTAINED, IT IS CURRENTLY WORKING BETTER THAN EVER. > > ======================================================================= > PRINT THIS NOW FOR > YOUR FUTURE REFERENCE > ======================================================== > > If you would like to make at least $500,000 every 4 to > 5 months easily and comfortably, please read the > following...THEN READ IT AGAIN and AGAIN!!! FOLLOW THE > SIMPLE INSTRUCTION BELOW AND YOUR FINANCIAL DREAMS WILL > COME TRUE, GUARANTEED! > INSTRUCTIONS: > > Order all 5 reports shown on the list below For each > report, send $5 CASH, THE NAME & NUMBER OF THE REPORT > YOU ARE ORDERING and YOUR E-MAIL ADDRESS to the person > whose name appears ON THAT LIST next to the report. > > MAKE SURE YOUR RETURN ADDRESS IS ON YOUR ENVELOPE TOP > LEFT CORNER in case of any mail problems. > > When you place your order, make sure you order each of > the 5 reports. You will need all 5 reports so that you > can save them on your computer and resell them. YOUR > TOTAL COST $5 X 5=$25.00. Within a few days you will > receive, via e-mail, each of the 5 reports from these 5 > different individuals. Save them on your computer so > they will be accessible for you to send to the 1,000's > of people who will order them from you. Also make a > floppy of these reports and keep it on your desk in > case something happen to your computer. IMPORTANT - DO > NOT alter the names of the people who are listed next > to each report, or their sequence on the list, in any > way other than what is instructed below in step '' 1 > through 6 '' or you will loose out on the majority of > your profits. Once you understand the way this works, > you will also see how it does not work if you change > it. Remember, this method has been tested, and if you > alter, it will NOT work !!! People have tried to put > their friends/relatives names on all five thinking they > could get all the money. > > But it does not work this way. Believe us, we all have > tried to be greedy and then nothing happened. So Do Not > try to change anything other than what is instructed. > Because if you do, it will not work for you. > > Remember, honesty reaps the reward!!! > > 1.... After you have ordered all 5 reports, take this > advertisement and > REMOVE the name & address of the person in REPORT # 5. > > This person has made it through the cycle and is no > doubt counting their > fortune. > > 2.... Move the name & address in REPORT # 4 down TO > REPORT # 5. > 3.... Move the name & address in REPORT # 3 down TO > REPORT # 4. > 4.... Move the name & address in REPORT # 2 down TO > REPORT # 3. > 5.... Move the name & address in REPORT # 1 down TO > REPORT # 2 > 6.... Insert YOUR name & address in the REPORT # 1 > Position. > > PLEASE MAKE SURE you copy every name & address > ACCURATELY! > ======================================================================== > > Take this entire letter, with the modified list of > names, and save it on your computer. DO NOT MAKE ANY > OTHER CHANGES. Save this on a disk as well just in > case you loose any data. To assist you with marketing > your business on the internet, the 5 reports you > purchase will provide you with invaluable marketing > information which includes how to send bulk e-mails > legally, where to find thousands of free classified ads > and much more. > > There are 2 Primary methods to get this venture going: > METHOD #1: BY SENDING BULK E-MAIL LEGALLY > > ======================================================================== > > Let's say that you decide to start small, just to see > how it goes, and we will assume You and those involved > send out only 5,000 e-mails each. Let's also assume > that the mailing receive only a 0.2% response (the > response could be much better but lets just say it is > only 0.2%. Also many people will send out hundreds of > thousands e-mails instead of only 5,000 each). > > Continuing with this example, you send out only 5,000 > e-mails. With a 0.2% response, that is only 10 orders > for report # 1. Those 10 people responded by sending > out 5,000 e-mail each for a total of 50,000. Out of > those 50,000 e-mails only 0.2% responded with orders. > That's=100 people responded and ordered Report # 2. > Those 100 people mail out 5,000 e-mails each for a > total of 500,000 e-mails. The 0.2% response to that is > 1000 orders for Report # 3. > > Those 1000 people send out 5,000 e-mails each for a > total of 5 million e-mails sent out. The 0.2% response > to that is 10,000 orders for Report # 4. Those 10,000 > people send out 5,000 e-mails each for a total of > 50,000 (50 million) e-mails. The 0.2% response to that > is 100,000 orders for Report # 5 THAT'S 100,000 ORDERS > TIMES $5 EACH=$500,000.00 (half million). > > Your total income in this example is: > 1..... $50 + > 2..... $500 + > 3..... $5,000 + > 4..... $50,000 + > 5..... $500,000 > Grand Total=$555,550.00 > NUMBERS DO NOT LIE. GET A PENCIL & PAPER AND FIGURE OUT > THE WORST POSSIBLE RESPONSES AND NO MATTER HOW YOU > CALCULATE IT, YOU WILL STILL MAKE A LOT OF MONEY ! > ======================================================================== > REMEMBER FRIEND, THIS IS ASSUMING ONLY 10 PEOPLE > ORDERING OUT OF 5,000 YOU MAILED TO. > Dare to think for a moment what would happen if > everyone or half or even one 4th of those people mailed > 100,000 e-mails each or more? There are over 150 > million people on the Internet worldwide and counting. > Believe me, many people will do just that, and more! > METHOD # 2 : BY PLACING FREE ADS ON THE INTERNET > ======================================================================== > > Advertising on the net is very inexpensive and there > are hundreds of FREE places to advertise. Placing a lot > of free ads on the Internet will easily get a larger > response. We strongly suggest you start with Method # 1 > and METHOD # 2 as you go along. For every $5 you > receive, all you must do is e-mail them the Report they > ordered. That's it. Always provide same day service on > all orders. > > This will guarantee that the e-mail they send out, with > your name and address on it, will be prompt because > they can not advertise until they receive the report. > > AVAILABLE REPORTS > ============================================== > ORDER EACH REPORT BY ITS NUMBER & NAME ONLY. Notes: > Always send $5 cash (U.S. CURRENCY) for each Report. > Checks NOT accepted. Make sure the cash is concealed by > wrapping it in at least 2 sheets of paper. On one of > those sheets of paper, Write the NUMBER & the NAME of > the Report you are ordering, YOUR E-MAIL ADDRESS and > your name and postal address. > > If you are interested in taking part in this program, > please send an Email to [email protected] with > 'letter' in the subject line and I will send you more > details. > > I have written several advertising courses to help > people promote this, If you take part in this, please > send me an Email and I will send you out the > advertising courses to get you started. > > > > > You are in our database through our network of FFA pages, advertising > sites > and ezines or are a registered member of one of our optin lists. If this > is > due to an error, please accept our sincere apologies. Please, do remove > your address from our database to avoid any more postings! > > To be removed from future mailings just reply with REMOVE in the subject > line. Thank you for your kind consideration. > > # 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: [email protected] and "info nettime-l" in the msg body > # archive: http://www.nettime.org contact: [email protected] > > ------------------------------ > > Date: Tue, 12 Feb 2002 10:20:33 -0500 > From: Barbara Lattanzi <[email protected]> > Subject: <nettime> Fwd: All Hail Creative Commons > > Greetings. > > I am late in considering issues of copyright, including copyleft and open > source strategies. So, waking up like the church mouse, I am forwarding > an > article which has obvious relevance. > > Barbara Lattanzi > > > From: Tom Damrauer <[email protected]> > To: [email protected] > Date: Mon, 11 Feb 2002 15:07:30 -0500 > Subject: All Hail Creative Commons > X-Sender: [email protected] (Unverified) > > > All Hail Creative Commons: Stanford professor and author Lawrence Lessig > plans a legal insurrection Hal Plotkin, > Special to SF Gate (SF Chronicle) Monday, February 11, 2002 > > > URL: http://www.sfgate.com/technology/beat/ > > > Stanford law professor and author Lawrence Lessig and a small band of > collaborators at MIT, Duke, Harvard and Villanova are about to embark on a > > new endeavor that could help reignite the global high-tech economy. > > > A prolific thinker, writer and doer, and a national authority on > intellectual-property law and a former columnist at The Industry Standard, > > Lessig is perhaps best known as the author of two of the most important > books yet produced about computers, the Internet and how our legal system > deals with them: "Code and Other Laws of Cyberspace," and his more recent > work, "The Future of Ideas." > > > In an interview last week, Lessig confirmed the basic details about his > latest venture, Creative Commons, which is slated to be formally unveiled > in a few months. > > > In a boon to the arts and the software industry, Creative Commons will > make > available flexible, customizable intellectual-property licenses that > artists, writers, programmers and others can obtain free of charge to > legally define what constitutes acceptable uses of their work. The new > forms of licenses will provide an alternative to traditional copyrights by > > establishing a useful middle ground between full copyright control and the > > unprotected public domain. > > > The first set of licensing options Creative Commons plans to make > available > are designed mostly for people looking for some protections as they move > their wares into the public domain. Those protections might include > requirements that the work not be altered, employed for commercial > purposes > or used without proper attribution. > > > Lessig adds that it's possible Creative Commons' licenses may eventually > evolve to include options that permit or enable certain commercial > transactions. An artist might, for example, agree to give away a work as > long as no one is making money on it but include a provision requiring > payments on a sliding scale if it's sold. As participation in the Commons > project increases, a variety of specific intellectual-property license > options will evolve in response to user needs, which in turn would create > templates for others with similar requirements. > > > Within a few months, artists, writers and others will soon be able to go > online, select the options that suit them best and receive a custom-made > license they can append to their works without having to pay a dime to a > lawyer, let alone the thousands of dollars it typically costs to purchase > similar legal services. > > > "We also want to facilitate machine-readable languages," adds Lessig, who > will be taking a partial leave from Stanford to help jump-start the > Creative Commons effort. > > > In Lessig's model, an MP3 song or a document or any other intellectual > property would contain a special machine-readable tag that specifies the > exact licensing terms approved by its creator. That means film > studentsmaking a movie, for example, could do a search, say, for jazz > songs > released under public domain-friendly licenses that they can use for their > > soundtrack without charge. > > > At the same time, Creative Commons also plans to build a "conservancy" to > facilitate the preservation and sharing of intellectual property. > > > A Win-Win Proposition > > > In one masterstroke, Lessig and colleagues will empower creators of > intellectual property by giving them more control over their work while > also increasing the communal technical resources that contribute to > innovation and growth. The result will be a new spark of life for the > Internet, and for the tech sector in general. > > > Rather than abandon an outdated software program, for example, a computer > company would have the option of donating its source code to the Creative > Commons conservancy, where people could build on it to create other new > and > useful products. > > > Some of that activity, of course, is already taking place within the > often-chaotic open-source software community. But many mainstream business > > executives have been reluctant to hop aboard the open-source bandwagon. > Some of them have expressed fears that the origins and ownership of > certain > open-source code projects could eventually come into question. Many of > them > would prefer to play it safe, deal with proprietary vendors and not take > any chances. > > > The Creative Commons conservancy will address some of those fears, in > part, > by providing access to more reliable legal protections that will make > participation in open-source projects more likely. The implicit guarantees > > that usually accompany most open-source projects will be turned into the > more explicit, ironclad licensing language that helps build confidence > among information-technology professionals. Once an owner has formally > conserved a piece of work, for example, any risks of inadvertent copyright > > infringement related to that work will be greatly reduced, if not > eliminated entirely. > > > The project's backers hope that over time, companies and individuals may > even receive tax breaks for donating works to the conservancy. That > outcome > could encourage the release of additional technical resources that > everyone > can use. > > > The Problem With Copyright Law > > > For years now, Lessig and other critics have maintained that inflexible > copyright rules as they exist often just protect entrenched -- and usually > > uncreative -- interests at the expense of virtually everyone else, > including many of those the copyright rules were originally supposed to > protect. > > > He points out, for example, that when Congress first enacted copyright law > > in 1790, the protection extended for a term of 14 years, which could be > renewed for another 14 years if the author was still alive. Congress has > since increased that term to the life of the author plus 70 years. Given > current life expectancies, that means a corporation can now bank on > preventing a piece of intellectual property produced by a 30-year-old > today > from falling into the public domain for more than a century. > > > Lessig says such practices run contrary to one of the main reasons > copyright law was conceived in the first place. Originally, he says, > copyright and patent laws sought to balance two competing interests: > protecting and rewarding innovators for their work, but also making sure > innovations were available for reuse or repurposing by others after a > reasonable length of time. > > > The rationale for that policy goes something like this: > > > The first person who figures out a new invention -- say, the wheel -- > deserves to get rich. But that person should not have a right to prevent > others from using his or her invention for so long that future progress is > > hampered. What's often missed by the most ardent private-property > stalwarts > (usually big-company lawyers, incidentally) is that the intended goal of > the copyright system was to provide incentives for creativity not only for > > the originators of new ideas but also for others who want to use and build > > on those ideas in other ways. > > > Unfortunately, over the years concentrated financial interests have > convinced Congress to steadily shift that balance. Privatized rights have > won favor over the public interests that were once a far more essential > aspect of copyright protections. That trend has only accelerated recently, > > as Congress has caved in to one demand after another from big media firms, > > Microsoft and others to "strengthen" copyright protections for a variety > of > high-tech digital goods. > > > On one level, the Creative Commons idea is all about commerce. But its > deeper significance does not involve commerce in its usual form. Lessig > isn't just trying to make his own cash register ring. Instead, his goal is > > to get millions of others ringing by making it easier to create new goods, > > products and services. In a larger sense, the goal is to make the world > safer for innovators by nurturing the conditions that lead to economic > growth and technological progress. > > > Not a Moment too Soon > > > In his most recent book, Lessig makes a convincing case that the health of > > the Internet and the tech sector in general is being choked off by > increasingly successful efforts to erect proprietary bottlenecks that > prevent competition. The most obvious example is Microsoft's Windows > operating system, which remains the subject of federal antitrust > litigation. But there are many other similar, although less > well-publicized, cases that could prove equally worrisome over time. > > > A company called Thomson Multimedia, for example, owns patents to the > popular MP3 digital music format. So far, the company has made it > relatively easy for others to adopt the technology, which has facilitated > its wide use and rapid acceptance. But like Microsoft, Thomson could > decide > at some future date that the time has come to more fully exploit its > dominant position as the key enabler of online music-delivery systems. > Thatuncertainty puts at risk the business plans of every company or artist > > that relies on MP3s, which is just one of the reasons there are so few > investors interested in online music ventures these days. It's just too > risky building a business in a sandlot someone else owns. > > > Lessig says the solution to that and other problems can be found in the > age-old idea of the commons -- that is, the notion that society and the > economy are better off when certain resources are protected and made > freelyavailable. Public streets, for example, provide accessible places > where businesses can set up shop and where goods can be transported. > Likewise, laws that prevented phone companies from discriminating between > voice and data traffic allowed free use of those lines for other purposes, > > which in turn helped create the Internet. > > > The Creative Commons conservancy service is intended to extend that > approach to as many other areas as possible. > > > "One of our goals is to lower the cost to give something away, and to make > > it harder for people to be ambushed [by proprietary claims]," says Lessig. > > > The result will be a more robust, healthier high-tech economy. > > > And this time, remarkably, a lawyer will actually deserve credit for > helping make it happen. > > > Veteran Silicon Valley writer and broadcaster Hal Plotkin is also a > contributing writer at Harvard Business School's publishing division. > - -- > ========================================================================== > [email protected] > Tom Damrauer > > > PGP fingerprint: D9 29 D2 9D E7 92 87 23 9B B7 4B FB 56 3B CF BB > My public key is available by fingering me or on public key servers. > > # 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: [email protected] and "info nettime-l" in the msg body > # archive: http://www.nettime.org contact: [email protected] > > ------------------------------ > > Date: Tue, 12 Feb 2002 10:24:52 -0500 > From: "ricardo dominguez" <[email protected]> > Subject: <nettime> EDT deny responsibility for closing the WEF site > > Hacktivists Stage Virtual Sit-In at WEF Web site > > Noah Shachtman, AlterNet > http://www.alternet.org/story.html?StoryID=12374 > > February 7, 2002 > > Although the streets of New York City remained relatively subdued while > the World Economic Forum (WEF) met here, over 160,000 demonstrators > went online to stage a "virtual sit-in" at the WEF home page. > > Using downloaded software tools that constantly reloaded the target web > sites, the protestors replicated a "denial-of-service" attack, which > cripples > a webserver by sending it more requests than it can handle. 40,000 > downloaded > the sit-in tool on Thursday, January 31st, the first day of the WEF > meeting. > > "We're getting hits like we've never had before," WEF communications > director Charles McLean reported as the protest began. > > By 10 AM Thursday, the WEF site had collapsed, and remained > down until late Friday night. > > "At first, the [WEF] website got more general traffic than it had > experienced before. Then, [the site] had what appeared to be > an intentional denial-of-service attack, which made it impossible > for people to access content," said Paul Sagan, president of > Akamai Technologies, which was called in by the WEF to get its > site up-and-running again, and to shield the WEF's web fare from > additional protests. > > Ricardo Dominguez, co-founder of the Electronic Disturbance Theater (EDT), > one of the groups that organized the sit-in, called the > action a "global ya basta -- enough is enough!" > > MORE > http://www.alternet.org/story.html?StoryID=12374 > > # 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: [email protected] and "info nettime-l" in the msg body > # archive: http://www.nettime.org contact: [email protected] > > ------------------------------ > > Date: Tue, 12 Feb 2002 10:37:44 -0600 > From: Bill Spornitz <[email protected]> > Subject: <nettime> Re: the wireless future at Davos Uptown > > It may just be the Cariboo[1] metabolites floating in my bloodstream > fogging my mardi gras morning, but I'm having a hard time believing > what I'm reading here. > > You're telling me that these people are so cynical as to hand out a > stupid and useless piece of garbage to the world's decision makers, > proudly print their names on the tote bags and that the system > failure as regards this deployment was *enterprise-wide*? > > Wait a minute... > > I went to the AvantGo website and they tell me that > > 28 of the Fortune 100 (whatever that is) use AvantGo solutions > > with clients like NASA and FORD and the United States Senate. See? > They are a real company. > > I went to the Accenture website and they told me that > > Accenture has the global resources and a collaborative network of > businesses and capabilities to deliver innovative solutions for our > clients. > > > Innovative solutions are what we need in an ever-changing world, > that's for sure... and collaborations... > > > Then I went to the Microsoft website and they told me that > > Microsoft's vision is to empower people through great software - any > time, any place and on any device. As the worldwide leader in > software for personal and business computing, Microsoft strives to > produce innovative products and services that meet our customers' > evolving needs. At the same time, we understand that long-term > success is about more than just making great products. > > Clearly, even the great and powerful Oz deserves to be empowered > through great software - any time, any place and on any device - on > devices like the ipaq (imac?) btw, Compaq tells us that > > > Ipaq is a family of innovative, personal devices which let you take > advantage of he Internet, make life easier and keep you in control. > > > See? The great Lord Bono (did you see him at the superbowl? Was he > sweating all over the american flag? Is that a slur?) anyway, _all_ > our Lords and Ladies need to be in control, from anywhere, on any > device, plus you gotta figure in their *evolving needs* - this would > include further empowerment and innovation, no? > > > Actually it's pretty clear. It's a crisis of responsibility, isn't > it? - I imagine down at porto alegre people were doing a lot of > talking about taking responsibility. At Davos Uptown, not even the > major sponsors have a popcorn-fart of a clue about that most > superficial and banal responsibility - the responsibility of not > wasting other peoples' valuable time and resources. Twisted Cynical > Bastards. > > > grumpily > b > > > > [1] Cariboo - a fortified wine served in mass quantities at the > Festival du Voyageur, on all this week, up here in the Ether City... > > > > At 9:46 PM -0800 2/10/02, Brad DeLong wrote: > > > >> And > >>did you get the free Compaq WinCE handheld? > > > >Yes... > > > >>Did yours work? > > > >No. But I didn't really expect it to. By the time I picked mine up, the > <...> > > # 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: [email protected] and "info nettime-l" in the msg body > # archive: http://www.nettime.org contact: [email protected] > > ------------------------------ > > Date: Tue, 12 Feb 2002 10:38:34 -0600 > From: "wade tillett" <[email protected]> > Subject: Re: <nettime> All right, I admit it -- I went to Davos > > Alright, I admit I was there too... at the Davos in NYC. > But my new compaq never got issued to me. The word on the street was > that they were not free, but that they cost $25,000. What gives? In > fact, now that you mention it, I never got a radio-frequency ID tag > either, and no one ever even questioned me about it. But I did get an > undercover policeman to follow me around as I went about on the > streets and subway (for my own protection, I am sure). Did you? In > fact, as I walked up towards the hotel, the police lined up for me, > shoulder to shoulder for seemingly miles. What a red carpet entrance! > But just as I was getting closer to the hotel, the police all stepped > in front of me and all around me and put these metal barricades around > and stood around with video cameras and nightsticks and pepper spray > and told me to go home. Damnedest thing. Now that you mention the > radio-frequency ID tag I wonder if maybe that is why they didn't let > me in. (I thought they just didn't like what I was saying.) I didn't > even bother bringing my swiss army knife. I was a little scared if > those paranoid police found it. Instead, I stuck with the goggles and > a bandana soaked in vinegar (so I could look good if I got to meet > Bono). When the police still would not let me through, I pleaded and > implored the police that there must be some mistake, that this is a > democracy. Surely the good folks at the wef, that bastion of > democracy, wanted to hear my voice, but the police would have none of > it and finally forced me to leave... without my free compaq mind > you!!! > > # 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: [email protected] and "info nettime-l" in the msg body > # archive: http://www.nettime.org contact: [email protected] > > ------------------------------ > > Date: Tue, 12 Feb 2002 10:58:21 +0000 > From: Josephine Berry <[email protected]> > Subject: <nettime> the ass between two chairs > > I forward this text from Howard Slater. I think this is a much needed > contribution to the whole debate around what 'knowledge' (and by > extension a knowledge commons) could be. > > As you'll see from the title, it was written as a communique to the > Copenhagen Free University. Any questions or comments should be > directed to Howard Slater, Jakob Jakobsen and Henriette Heise at > <[email protected]> > > J > > > THE ASS BETWEEN TWO CHAIRS > > A Communique to the Copenhagen Free University > > "Become many, brave the outside world, > split off somewhere else..." - Michel Serres > > > Education systems are crumbling. Whatever country it is to which we > do not belong, whatever state or nationality we have been abstracted > into, whatever desire it is that can never be granted... we can agree > that education is concerned with the reproduction of conformist > subjectivities; it produces isolated beings rather than social > becomings, it produces conscientiousness rather than > self-consciousness, political emancipation rather than human > emancipation. > > As the factories dissapear, new factories open. Factories of facts, > data and information. Factories that put the final gloss on socially > enforced ignorance with a machine-tool monitoring. Here people are > made to want to be follower-factotums. Children - careerists; > careerists - children. So, the enlightenment project has succeeded: > sensual apprehension has been driven out of mind by too much > education. The general intellect has been copywritten. > > Nowhere does the link between the state and a capital that > presupposes it, show itself up more revealingly than in education. We > were never educated for a practice of life but, instead, were > disembodied for a non-practice of work. Split faculties. They never > mentioned that learning could be a matter of a 'desire-to' or a > 'desire-for'. No. They left it so that we did not know what our > desire could be until it was too late, until we desired the job and > became libidinally attached to it. Dependent on needs we know not > wherefrom they came. > > So, the educational qualification amounts to this: it is a form of > value. We know that money makes equivalencies; it reduces the > differences between things to something that can be measured by the > same form. The educational qualification reciprocates by reducing > human differences to the same standard of measurement: it awards our > aptitude to reproduce the already 'known'. Both forms of value > operate by providing the 'practical illusion' of difference: just as > differences in price cover over the profit motive so too do > adjudicated differences in ability cover over a hierarchical > structure that instills ambition. > > Your certificate is a cheque. You're in the queue to realise its > value. As with all queues there's time to reflect: what they call > 'knowledge' is really only a knowing how to conform without thinking > about it; a downgrading of experience to the point of your being > made ashamed of the ellipses of intuition. What they call > 'qualification' is really only your being sanctioned to dispense with > any desire to know; it's the freedom that comes with arrogance. So, > education creates perfect citizens: knowledge is not practiced but > possessed, it becomes private property and is attracted to those > states and corporations that know how to accumulate masses of the > same thing, that offer their interest. > > As an 'associate-researcher' of the Copenhagen Free University I have > temporarily adopted and adapted a Nietzchean maxim: "knowledge; i.e., > a measuring of earlier and later errors by one another" (1). Too > often, it seems, we are witness to a wielding of 'knowledge' that is > quite the reverse of the openness that Nietzsche had in mind. > 'Knowledge' is either wielded like a weapon or placed into > conversation like a rampart; it is a form of attack-defence that > blocks any flow, an operation sanctioned by the education system > whereby a modicum of difference from the prevailing norm is > celebrated not for its critical purport, but for the way it bolsters > an economy of knowledge that is in conformity to private property: a > culture of individualism rides eloquently over the social relations > that bore it. > > This operation, the ring-fencing of ideas, their being attributed to > individuals rather than to practiced social relations, is one factor > that has always made 'knowledge' into value for capitalism. Knowledge > is an acquisition, a property, and, as such it needs insurance and > protection. This is afforded by the labour of coherence: knowledge > becomes aestheticised, hermetic, when it is made to take on forms and > structures that alienate it from the practical sensuousness of > discovering and sharing (a book is overcoded and copy-protected); > knowledge becomes currency when its bearers seek the securities of > non communicating certainty and in so doing excacerbate the autistic > social relations of private property through seeking commendation for > the possession of the same patchwork coat each of us wears. > > Here we have another ramification of the education system. Its costs > are high. Dangerously so. For in touting learning as possession, in > thereby instilling intellectual property rights, there is the > reinforcement of ego boundaries. Knowledge, in being pegged to the > individual as gradiated value, becomes a contributing factor in > social separation rather than a proof of social wealth, abundance. In > the absence of equitably distributed social wealth and its > concomittent reevaluation of needs, the psychic cost of relating > knowledge to possession is immense: knowledge becomes a rarefied > object rather than a diffuse activity, it hardens into certainties > that become dogmatic thus making us reluctant to experience the > emotional suppleness of not-knowing. When there is always something > to prove rather than to discover, a result instead of an exposure to > 'error', individuals become autistically attached to themselves and > not precipitates of social practices, intutitons of relations. Our > education systems offer us self-demonstrative fulfillment rather than > social-remonstrative questioning: knowledge bureaucratised in a paper > trail that could have been a tinder-flint. > > For Nietzsche 'knowledge' is a practice that allows for the traumatic > and time-wasting experience of being wrong. This is one way of coming > to re-appreciate that what we 'know' is intimately tied-up with a > sensuality, an emotional investment. It is in history and in our own > history. Reminiscensitive (2). Just as Nietzsche defies the customary > split between 'earlier' and 'later', there should be no boundary > between what we know and how we know we feel it. What we know is not > a possession, but an achronological modality of feeling, an emotional > continuum. Knowledge is mood in modulation. Crucial to this is the > social-relation that Nietzsche places firmly in the midst of his > fleeting definition of knowledge: it is the combination of an > openness to admit 'error' and the socialisation of being-amongst that > can make knowledge into a mode of intimacy. We come to know other > people through how they feel their knowledge, how they express it. > Here we begin to depart from the notion of knowledge as a value that > separates people (alienation of grading, patrolling of ego > boundaries) and come to see knowledge as that which, far from being a > coherent object, is a 'labour process' that must be enabled to reveal > both its means of production (social relation) and its means of > expression (celebration of 'error') if it too is not to contribute to > the reification of social wealth as 'scarcity'. It could be > tinder-flint, a spur to social change: the abolition of property > goes hand in hand with an exposure, an abandonment of our 'self' to > 'error'. In one of his last works Foucault has written: "Does not the > entire theory of the subject have to be reformulated once knowledge, > instead of opening onto the truth of the world, is rooted in the > 'errors' of life? (3). We could perhaps add that such a knowledge, a > sensualised knowledge that demands empathy, could reformulate the > subject as a pre-individual, as caught up in a non-definitive > affectivity, and could have wider ramifications than those envisioned > by Foucault. Being able to be practiced everywhere, being capacitated > to setting up relational contexts and situations, such a knowledge > 'rooted in the errors of life' would no longer have need of an > education system that offers itself as a pivot between the state and > private property. > > Is it not that the Copenhagen Free University is attempting to offer > an enabling change in context? To be between chairs with an > off-knowledge? To know to feel? What occurs when knowledge is > valorised is the same as happens when our capacity to produce renewal > is stifled into wage labour. We have no sensuous relation with the > objects we produce. Education alienates. Its institutional spaces are > stock markets. Its educators are stipended tellers filled full with > the arrogance of functional curriculums. There is a business of > knowledge and no volition. > Rene Daumal: " I thought I knew a few things quite well. Since then, > however, I've been pushed into a corner and I've regurgitated my > small appearence of understanding. Now I know that I know only in > order to be silent. No more knowing, not yet understanding, the ass > between two chairs, tell me is it a position for discourse?" (4). > This could be the context for a free university - to be between 'two > chairs' in the way Daumal means - to have to levitate, to refuse to > sit comfortably, to be exposed to 'error' - means that educators > should be 'idiots', which is to say, we are all educators with > nothing much to prove, but with many 'errors' to share. Only 'idiots' > can want to research, find out; only 'idiots' can have 'error' feel > through them enough to make desire-to-know a force, a production of > knowledge-objects that can carry affectivity, that, being a practice > of pre-individuals, are 'not yet understanding'. > > In this light, before arriving at 'knowledge' and hence perpetually > subverting its commercial value, there can be no divisions between > teachers and students. More. There can be no more curriculums, but > participants who, meeting as pre-individuals, willingly share their > own ignorance. In this way there cannot only be the production of > affective-objects (passion can come from what there is to know, not > from the already known), but the production of a crucial solidarity. > As with that solidarity that could be formed in the factory > environment, the new means of production, knowledge, could become a > similar factor in cohesiveness. It is necessary for such a solidarity > to inform the context, to be in-built into the social relation, for > coming to people with your own error is traumatic: we must "suffer an > alteration (a becoming other) through learning. Whoever already > possesses knowledge... is not obliged to suffer an alteration" (5). > This is perhaps why the education system fails and produces > individuals who are taught to possess knowledge and why initiatives > like those of the Copenhagen Free University, that come together on > the premiss of the freedom of 'failure', are not so much aiming at > potential knowledges to sell as at practices of knowledge that are > creative of becoming: non-definitive affectivity of pre-individuals. > > How is knowledge practiced? To begin to grope we could perhaps offer > that the basic activity of the Copenhagen Free University, the > activity that institutes its social relation, is speech; simple > relational talking. But, how does this social practice of speech > effect the 'knowledge' that a university is supposed to produce? In > the social relational space of the Copenhagen Free University it > could be said that an 'object of knowledge' does not form from those > "myriads of drifting minds" (6) that are not minded individually, but > comes to be attributable only to a relational context by means of > which subjects can reformulate themselves as the precipitate of > histories of interaction, as pre-individuals displaced by their > affectivities. With speech, then, language, the conduit of knowledge, > the means of 'knowing things' and a 'self', is made malleable by the > immediacy of its practice. The uncensored enters into it as an > associative interruption and any resultant 'knowledge' is > sensualised ... immeasurable ... continuously open (7). > > When we speak to each other we do not simply exchange quanta of > information, but practice language by means of an erring and > meandering speech that has no definitive object. Rather than finding > the 'last word', rather than drawing the conversation to a close, > this very spoken stumbling, the feeling in intonated language, is > itself the presence of intervening emotion. The presence of 'error' > in what we say, assured by the emotional quotient in an unedited > sentence, means that we experience our practice of language as an > effort of articulation that is premissed on what Giorgio Agemben has > referred to as the 'unsayable'. Whereas a defined 'object of > knowledge' in all itsvarious guises as 'truth', 'coherence', > 'judgement', hinders the will to communicate, the unsayable, not only > makes communication a necessity, but, as a thought-emotion beyond our > grasp, is creative of becoming. > > If, for some, then, it is an immense effort to speak it is perhaps > because our experience of the education system is one that, not > premissed on 'error' and paying no cognizance to the unsayable in > each - the same struggle with articulation whatever the potentially > expressed content - instills in us a notion that to speak is to > speak the 'truth' of a centred self. So, an education system that > judges and measures, that has a conception of 'knowledge' that is > viewed as appropriate to a 'self' effects a servility that is linked > to a diminishment of the unsayable: like a mass produced object that > which has already been said is repeated in the hope of commendation. > Rather than an 'object' of knowledge becoming sensualised through > speech-acts informed by 'error' and openness,which in turn leads to a > reformulation of the subject, everything and nothing becomes sayable > and we not only have a diminishment of the desire to gather together > to communicate to know, but a standardisation of the means of > expression. In short, we have the 'sayable' as politics; the > covering-over of 'error'. > > Following on from this it should be said that the pursuit of the > unsayable as the spur to a sensualised practice of knowledge is not > another way of seeking an original formation of thought, something > entirely new or filled with 'genius'. These latter are what form an > 'ideology of knowledge' that reinforces the whole idea of individuals > being in possession of some 'object' of knowledge that is measureable > (or capacitated by a certificate). What militates against this > pervasive outlook is that when knowledge is practiced as speech in a > context of solidarity it is not knowledge that takes on a life of its > own (alienated object), but the relation between participants who > come to a practice of life by means of being free to express > themselves regardless of institutional legitimation. The 'unsayable' > in this instance, then, is the spur to singular means of expression, > which is to say, the risk of improvised thought coupled to the risk > of saying it with a language that is not only enabled to speak of > experience and intuition (i.e. outlawed conjecture), but can become > acknowledged as originating in a speech-act made original by its > time, place and interlocutors. Does this not amount to an affectivity > that reformulates the subject as a composite of the context: a > pre-individual? So, so many sensuous deceptions that deceive a sense > of self, so much becoming: "I invented the colour of vowels... I > organised the shape of every consonant, and by means of instinctive > rhythm, flattered myself that I was the inventor of a poetic > language, accessible sooner or later to all the senses" (8). > > Taking a cue from Rimbaud it may be that the question of knowledge is > a misnomer. How can it be differentiated from sensual experience? How > can it be separated from an emotional investment? The reason seems to > be that knowledge, prized as a commercial value, must be failsafe. As > a component of production it must take on the greased, metallic turns > of fixed capital, it must be that which is regurgitatable without > glych. But this is knowledge in its alienated form: as information > that cannot admit of its basis in 'error'. Admitting this basis would > not only create the 'absolute doubt' that Charles Fourier pursued, > but it would necessitate an awareness of the emotional component in > what we 'know', which is to say, following Nietzsche's maxim of the > 'falseness' of emotions per se, that what we 'know' would become a > matter for experimental personae in conflict with a sense of self > shored-up by the activity of possessing. > > The much instilled mania for paraphrasing, for getting at an > 'essence', for 'finical criticism', has the effect of severing > knowledge from sensual experience and thus makes the effort to say > the unsayable even more of a non-starter. The narrative form of > knowledge (pedagogy), with all its indicators of being rehearsed, > with its need to keep within the bounds of a syllabus, comes to > police any improvisational speech-act that takes its impetus from > intuited experience: the attempt to recount a tale 'as' another > person, an enactment of another, reveals' knowledge' as a matter of > bringing emotion into expression by means of experimental personae, a > play of the 'false', a becoming the 'other'. > > The emotions cannot be trusted so we sever them from our utilitarian > conception of 'knowledge'. As 'variable labour' they cannot be > trusted because they are destabilising, they urge us to alternate, to > be receptive, to be between forms, between chairs, to be > error-ridden, to 'suffer an alteration'. As the 'unsayable' they urge > us to become rather than to be. Rather than this be a case of the > inferiority of emotions in relation to the powers of conceptualising, > we could say that emotions, being compounds of feelings and > receptivity to place and to others, are what can redraw knowledge as > our capacity to be 'affected'. This is maybe what Marx meant when he > offered that the "senses have... become theoreticians in their > immediate praxis" or what, much later, Deleuze meant when, in his > last work, he offered that "sensation is pure contemplation" (9). For > both is it not that the illegilibility of emotions, their > imperviousness to instant expression in language, is what provokes in > us a form of thought that cannot be readily articulated; a form of > thought that subtends what we call 'knowledge'; a means of expression > that is a sub-tense marking out what is 'unsayable'? > > The ramifications of this for the Copenhagen Free University or any > akin initiative of self-institution are manifold: with 'error' rather > than 'expertise' as the watchword there are no barriers, patrolled by > experts, placed before participation which means that trust comes to > replace judgement; that the 'unsayable' is identified as the impetus > to a winning of the means of expression means that there is a > permanent constituting tension played out in improvisational > speech-acts or through a clash of differing means of expression i.e > lingual, visual, aural; that there is a sensitvity to 'knowledge' as > that which is subtended by the 'theoretical' work of the senses means > that 'contemplation' is valued as a constant attribute of lives lived > in practice. > > But perhaps the most telling ramification is that capital's benign > relaunch as a 'knowledge economy' has not only effected a > 'for-profit' colonisation of the education system but, by having > 'knowledge' as a component in the production of value it has redrawn > the question of the > 'revolutionary organisation'. Whereas the left has managed to produce > much knowledge and theory it has consistently failed to bind > knowledge to social experience in such a way as to undermine the > paradigm of the education system. Be it 'summer schools' or > 'seminars' the same social relation has been replicated, a relation > to knowledge as private property rather as a modulation of social > experience, a glut of the sayable rather than a reach for the > unsayable, a dogmatic 'making true' rather than an experimental > 'making false'. Such an adoption of the educational paradigm with its > fear of 'error' and its mania for 'empirical affidavits', means that > its associated authoritarian and defensive positions are perpetuated > at the expense of an affectivity that increases participation by > being creative of trust and solidarity. The Left falls into the trap > of overestimating the power of an informatised knowledge to change > things: if only people knew what was going on... > > That 'labour power' is becoming more explicitly equatable with > 'knowledge' is nothing new - what is a syllabus if it is not a > manufacuring blueprint upon which both teachers and students labour > to complete? But, what is maybe new about the situation is that it > reveals that there has always been a knowledge component to labour > whether our work was classed as 'intellectual' or 'manual'. Whether > 'knowledge' is seen as raw material or private property it is still > that, a means of production, through which we are defined as 'labour > power'. The point, then, is that capital is not just saying that it > wants our 'labour power', but that it wants our 'knowledge'. In the > terms we have discussed knowledge here this represents a request for > our very sensuality: capital has always been bio-political > production; it has always aimed at the subsumption of surplus > energies. Similarly, under the terms of the 'knowledge economy', the > wage-relation remains unchanged and the question to pose is still one > of reappropriating the means of production and taking control of our > own energies, our own 'intermutuomergent' desires. > > So, rather than its being a matter of our having to work to live, to > be the objects of a labour process, it should be possible for us to > live to work, to produce our own becoming: "the only thing distinct > from objectified labour is non-objectified labour, labour which is > still objectifying itself, labour as subjectivity" (10). This process > of objectifying our work under our own terms, in our own time and by > means of our own institutional contexts is what differentiates it > from its being objectified for us in the education system or at a > place of work. Such institutions have always been underwritten by the > presupposition of private property, but if we begin to view knowledge > as collective endeavour, an activity premissed on the idea of the > 'error' of emotion, an assemblage of desiring-energy, then could it > be that any resultant 'knowledge' could challenge the concept of > 'labour' itself? > > The notion of a 'knowledge economy' can present an opportunity to > shift the space of struggle to meet bio-political production head on. > If it is that the 'object' of bio-political power is the production > of subjects - a production based on the premis that an individual is > the paradigm of private property (an 'owner' of genes) - then, > 'labour as subjectivity', what Marx has elsewhere called 'free > expression' and 'the enjoyment of life', is still the stake in any > revolutionary endeavour. Is this endeavour tantamount now to a > fledgling politics of becoming? Under the regime of bio-political > power we could say that the subject is reduced to a knowable being > rather than an unknown and unforeseeable becoming. The possible is > reduced to what is probable, empircally ascertainable and > exhaustible. Here knowledge, to quote Nietzsche, is "possible only > only on the basis of belief in being" (11), and it is a knowledge > that reduces life to a state of equilibrium by excluding the > non-knowledge of the emotions, the sensuous knowledge of > affectivities. These latter, as provocations to forms of thought that > resist categorisation as 'knowledge' and as such defy the surety of > being, are factors that can inform a 'labour as subjectivity' and > secure its potential to resist a bio-political power that values > 'knowledge' as that which reinforces being as an object, that > delineates it to the point of incarcerating it. So, is it not that > free university initiatives, in contesting the relation between > knowledge and economy, are tantamount to new forms of revolutionary > organisation? Can they be factories of everyday life wherein > knowledge is sensualised away from its status as private property to > become a component in the production of subjects as 'non-definitive > affectivities' ? Can these factories' produce pre-individuals as the > affective classes? > No more occupations! > Put the ass between two chairs! > All Power to the Affective Classes! > > Howard Slater > @ Break/Flow: January 2002 > > Notes: > > (1)Friedrich Nietzsche: Will To Power, Vintage 1968, p281 > (2)James Joyce: Finnegans Wake, Penguin 2000, p23 > (3)Michel Foucault: Life: Experience and Science cited by Giorgio > Agamben in Potentialities, Stanford University Press 1999, p221. > (4)Rene Daumal: Between Two Chairs, Nouvelle Review Francais, March > 1936. Translated by Louise Landes-Levi for Text 7, 1978. > (5)Giorgio Agamben: Potentialities, ibid, p179. > (6)James Joyce, ibid, p179. Could also insert here Joyce's phrase > "intermisunderstanding minds", ibid, p118. > (7)cf Gilles Deleuze: "... interactions caught at the point where > they do not derive from pre-existing social structures and are not > the same as psychic actions and reactions, but are the correlate of > speech-acts or silence, stripping the social of its naturalness, > forming systems which are far from being in equilibrium or invent > their own equilibrium - interactions are established in the margins > or at crossroads, constituing a whole mis-en-scene or dramaturgy of > daily life, opening up a field of special perception..." See Deleuze: > Cinema Two, Athlone 1989, p227. > (8) Arthur Rimbaud: Collected Poems, Oxford 2001, p135. > (9) For Marx see 1844 Manuscripts in Early Writings, Penguin 1975, > p352. For Deleuze see citation by Agamben, ibid, p233. > (10) Karl Marx: Grundrisse, Penguin 1971, p272. > (11) Friedrich Nietzsche, ibid. > > - -- > > ->- www.metamute.com -<- > > # 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: [email protected] and "info nettime-l" in the msg body > # archive: http://www.nettime.org contact: [email protected] > > ------------------------------ > > End of nettime-l-digest V1 #625 > ******************************* > > _______________________________________________ Nettime-bold mailing list [email protected] http://amsterdam.nettime.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/nettime-bold