Search results for "mental "

distraction

Author: joe

Wednesday, 17 June, 2009 - 21:42

No I haven't posted for a while, largely because of diverting all my energy to degree shows, marking, my hauntology project and more marking, of which I should be doing more even as we speak.

I am currently party to the joy of assessing PDP essays which I suspect were written with less time and effort than I spend reading them.

FML!

Anyway, I have at least managed to create the hauntology website and post some initial content there about my ongoing digital haptic narrative installation participatory story-telling embodied audio art piece, which will culminate in a week-long residency in Poole in October. More news here as it arises.

Also I have had a very stimulating time following the latest CeWQoL meeting, in which I had the opportunity to discuss with other members ideas about object-led interactive narrative installations for nursing conferences, HCI for kids with disabilities, and the definition of 'community' as it is useful to understandings of health, welfare, well-being and quality of life.

Head exploding. plus tomorrow I must call a man about Arduino and hacking workshops. mental. boom. gah...

Categories: update, mental, distraction,
Comments: 0

Don't bogart that totalitarian regime, my friend

Author: joe

Sunday, 21 May, 2006 - 14:23

p2p. It stands for peer-to-peer. It refers to a kind of network architecture. Some people fall into the trap of thinking it refers to the way people connect on a one-to-one basis over the Internet, as in, for example email conversations. Metaphorically it may do. But that really isn't what it means. You might think I'm being a pedantic asshole, here, but the reason why I'm quibbling is really important.

The 'traditional' architecture used in interconnected networks, which allows web-servers and mail-servers to work is called 'client-server' architecture. You connect to a webserver in order to get 'served' web pages. When you do so you are a 'client' - actually your browser is the client, rather than you.

The reason this is important is because if you take out the server, you can't get the webpage. Okay, some content may get cached on other servers, or copies of the content may get hosted somewhere else, but the bottom line is that client-server architecture makes it easier to attack the distribution model. Hence you get, for instance, cease-and-desist orders against people hosting copyright-infringing content on their servers and they legally must oblige and comply, and law-enforcers can make it so.

Peer-to-peer technologies use a different kind of architecture, in which transactions between what would otherwise be called 'clients' take place between each other. This is not to say that 'servers' don't come into it. The old Napster, for instance, used a central server to connect peers to each other. The eDonkey file-sharing network uses servers to index users' files for searching. A Bittorrent file requires a 'seed' which may sit on a server rather a user's computer. The key thing, though is that the network is distributed across nodes, rather than centred around a server.

Now the reason I say all this is because I've been reading dissertations from media students about to graduate who think that email is a p2p technology, or that anything that isn't TV (i.e. a one-to-many relationship) is therefore p2p. I've even heard people who should know better (teachers!) call it 'person-to-person' technology, which is clearly bollocks. Peer-to-peer specifically refers to architectures which attempt to bypass centralised models. The benefits include things like reduced cost and bandwidth for distributors (webservers charge you for the bandwidth required to provide a copy of a file to everyone who wants it, while p2p means you may only need to provide one copy), but also it means that you have more chance of circumventing centralised controls and even snooping mechanisms.

It's important to get these things right because over the last decade, governments' desires to gain ever more control over and access to digital transmissions has gradually produced ever more draconian laws such as, in the UK, the RIP Act, and in the US, the DMCA. Even as transmission of data moves away from easily controlled central servers, governments try to get more control over the other centralised conduits by which your data moves: requiring, for instance, ISPs to store user activities, demanding encryption keys for encrypted data, etc. It might even be worth mentioning that the UK government currently wants to allow ministers to enact any laws they please - the very definition of totalitarianism. Don't you think an unregulatable and unsnoopable, and more importantly, an indestructable distributed transmission mechanism might be useful in such a scenario?

Now in the US, the NSA is spying on US citizens with the happy assistance of AT&T. Who, incidentally, want to start differential charging for different kinds of data carried across their fibres. Do you think they'll resist government pressure to make it difficult for you to use p2p architectures in privacy? When you might be a pirate terrorist making money from kiddie-porn? Do you think they'll care if you're actually sharing photos of your holiday with your friends?

Why is why, boys and girls, p2p is, most importantly, a network architecture, not a metaphor for personal conversations or a hippy alternative to mainstream media.

Categories: p2p, network, architecture, law, governmental power, totalitarianism, file-sharing,
Comments: 0

Richard Dawkins for president of the world

Author: joe

Monday, 09 January, 2006 - 21:41

I have just finished watching the first episode of Richard Dawkins' new series on Channel 4, The Root of All Evil.

Firstly, the most pressing thing to say is that this is the best and most important piece of programming I have seen on the Television since Adam Curtis' The Power of Nightmares.

Secondly, Dawkins must be congratulated for having the courage of his convictions and pressing his views home in the face of undoubted risk from fundamentalist fascists who may now consider him a target.

Thirdly, why did the editors of this programme feel the need to switch a to 'fly-on-the-wall' documentary style whenever Dawkins' exposition veered towards blasphemy? Channel 4 would have shown real conviction by allowing Dawkins to lay out his arguments in the same way that Robert Winston is allowed to present his, or likewise Schama is able to expound on his subject. By using editing techniques to signify that Dawkins is presenting a 'point-of-view', they defeat the entire object of his argument.

Fourthly, I would like to see the BBC dare to produce programming like this in a prime-time slot.

Finally, why are there only two episodes, and not an entire digital channel?

That aside, hurrah, bravo, make the man a mullah, etc

Categories: science, fundamentalism, religion, education, media, fascism, politics, documentary, television, faith, reason,
Comments: 0