Good move, John, very much appreciated. Fun to look a few things up, as
to say "ETSI" or "LAES" and "TR-45" shit of the late 90ies - great!
Not forget more recent gems such as these
There is always a faint odor of history in the air, when archives sync
to an alchymic informational wedding
WikiLeaks Hosts Cryptome with Search
The Hostile Email Landscape
October 17th 2015
Email perfectly embodies the spirit of the internet: independent
mail hosts exchanging messages, no host more or less important
than any other. Joining the network is as easy as installing
Sendmail and slapping on an MX record.
At least, that used to be the case. If you were to launch a new
mail server right now, many networks would simply refuse to speak
to you. The problem: reputation.
Email today is dominated by a handful of major services. GMail
boasted 425 million active users back in 2012. Outlook.com has at
least 400 million users. It's become increasingly unusual for
individuals or businesses to host their own mail, to the point
that new servers are viewed with suspicion.
Earlier this year I moved my personal email from Google Apps to a
self-hosted server, with hopes of launching a paid mail service a
la Fastmail on the same infrastructure. I've done this before,
and this server was configured perfectly: not on any blacklists,
It is a sad state of affairs indeed. Bradley Kuhn recently wrote
about very similar issues he had running his own mail server:
It sucks in particular because email is already in a more precarious
state than it should be with people relying more on surveillance-as-
a-business services for communication (admittedly gmail is also in
that category, but at least it's a distributed system enough that
one doesn't have to accept its terms to communicate with people who
use it.) I am finding that the proportion of my friends I can write
to electronically is gradually diminishing as a result. I find it
Maybe some new service that is actually engineered to respect people
(there are several reasonable looking candidates) will get popular
enough that it will take the place email had. Maybe.
..... it is (most likely) meant as a reference to "the others" that
capital kills. You know, like trees dying from acid rain, bees from
pesticidal showers and so on.
At any rate, that's how others tended to use the term in the past
(before this unreferenced plagiat).
PS: Don't animate the forces of capital - that was surely one of the
messages in that piece? - let them wallow in their deathness.
'There Is No Human Right to Patent Protection' -- UN Special Rapporteur
by Glyn Moody
Wed, Oct 14th 2015 9:32am
from the fighting-talk dept
Back in March, Tim Cushing wrote about a rather remarkable report from
the UN Special Rapporteur in the field of cultural rights, Farida
Shaheed, in which she warned that copyright might run counter to human
rights. As if that weren't enough, Shaheed is back with another bold
attack, this time on patents. As the summary to her report puts it:
There is no human right to patent protection. The right to protection of
moral and material interests cannot be used to defend patent laws that
inadequately respect the right to participate in cultural life, to enjoy
the benefits of scientific progress and its applications, to scientific
freedoms and the right to food and health and the rights of indigenous
peoples and local communities.
Great piece. Agree with most of the content.
Still I am not convinced of the term thanaticism - despite the nice assonance with Thatcherism.
Forces of capital are all but aiming at death.
They want to live.
Capital is autonomously developing as a new form life.
Money understand itself as living being.
As every dominant living form, it eats and destroys subordinate species - what human species is becoming???
But it has no death drive.
This does not mean that its infinite stupidity together with its immense algorithmic power could not annihilate it, altogether with its human vectors???
I awoke from a dream with the notion that it might make more sense to
call it thanatism, after ..... Peter Linebaugh's "thanatocracy" in "The
London Hanged" (1991) or Suzanne Brøgger's "Deliver Us From Love" (1976)
# 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: nettime< at >kein.org
Perfect timing! I just gave a lecture on the Californian Ideology at
University of York this week, as part of the module where I teach,
'Interactive Media and Society'. I will certainly forward this
publication to my students.
Other interesting historical coincidences, that I offered to my
students as further food for thought: the 'Think Different' campaign
by Apple was conceived around 1997, not long after the publication of
Barbrook and Cameron essay. That campaign reinforced and popularised
the idea that computers are not just tools but liberating machines
(and that freedom was a commodity that Apple could sell). 1997 is also
the year when Wired published 'The Long Boom' editorial (available at
http://archive.wired.com/wired/archive/5.07/longboom.html). And that
also replicated the mantra of the Californian Ideology in quite
explicit terms: technologies will make the world a better place, if we
let the Silicon Valley work by itself.
I also proposed to the students to look at how the Burning Man
blown away by this piece. i usually favor the term fossil capitalism,
because similarly to mandel-jameson's late capitalism somehow hopes to
consign it to a primitive past.
in my mind (since 'inside out' a pop metaphor) two people fight for
audience in the assembly of the self, the rational progressive who
thinks that if we get done with neoliberalism we can recombine social
production, market production, government production in a
climate-neutral and fairer, empowering way (for instance, for all BP's
nefariousness, there's major investment out of fossil and into solar),
and the 1999-2011 insurrectionary black hoodie, who hates the state and
the corporation in her/his bones and only returns fully human when
congregating with similarly riot-prone, post-civilizational anonymous
anarchists, steampunkers, genderbenders, guerrilla garderners, u catch
btw are you reading POSTCAPITALISM by mason? like in klein, there's
usually a subtle conflation between ov
< http://www.publicseminar.org/2014/04/birth-of-thanaticism/ >
Birth of Thanaticism
McKenzie Wark -- April 3, 2014
I don't know why we still call it capitalism. It seems to be some sort
of failure or blockage of the poetic function of critical thought.
Even its adherents have no problem calling it capitalism any more. Its
critics seem to be reduced to adding modifiers to it: postfordist,
neoliberal, or the rather charmingly optimistic `late' capitalism. A
bittersweet term, that one, as capitalism seems destined to outlive us
I awoke from a dream with the notion that it might make more sense to
call it thanatism, after Thanatos, son of Nyx (night) and
Erebos(darkness), twin of Hypnos (sleep), as Homer and Hesiod seem more
or less to agree.
I tried thanatism out on twitter, where Jennifer Mills wrote:
"yeah, I think we have something more enthusiastically suicidal.
That seems like a handy word. Thanaticism: like a fanaticism, a
Well, 20 years after the Californian Ideology, at least we have three
-the antisocial sciences
Like a good cyber-communist, I'm just gonna put 'em in my bag and use 'em.
On 10/16/2015 11:36 PM, nettime's_trial_balloon wrote: