connecting*the*dots

Just as we were getting used to how folksonomies can help us find relational information, ‘dem darn kids take it to the next level.

Long gone are the days when protesting corporate bullshit was limited to groups of people gathering on the street outside of a main office. Nowadays, you can protest by simply dropping a single word into the workings of the retail experience itself.

Check out what DefectiveByDesign is doing:

How passé is crafting a product review now that you can group multiple sucky products that share a common sucky trait with a few key strokes? Why tag your frustrations on your blog, when you can hit the fuckers where it hurts the most — in the virtual aisles and checkout lines themselves?

Excuse me while I head over to Amazon to spread my love of hating DRM.

UPDATE: Tag-daddy, Thomas Vander Wal, makes a profound statement on my flickr comment thread.

(via BoingBoing)

(originally uploaded by Bog_King)

ZDNet.uk
Chuck D lays down the law on DRM
by David Meyer

Digital rights management (DRM) has its benefits, but should not overly restrict users, according to musician and mobile entrepreneur Chuck D.

The rapper, who was a founding member of hip hop group Public Enemy and now runs a content service, told delegates at the Mobile Content World conference in London that he had always looked at technology as “something you can apply to a better world if you stay on top of it and don’t let it stay on top of you”.

“[Napster founder] Shawn Fanning revolutionised the way we get music — he doesn’t get the respect he deserves even today,” said Chuck D on Tuesday.

He said he does “believe in some sort of DRM” but pointed out that MP3 was the most popular compression format because it does not limit how the customer can use the file once bought.

“You’ve got artists who are just starting out who are understanding that DRM is a way of life,” Chuck D said, adding that musicians “understand it doesn’t have to be the Pirates of Penzance as it was”, a reference to the free-for-all early days of Napster and similar P2P engines.

The issue of DRM has become increasingly contentious with the growth of new media distribution services. Some see it as a way to protect the intellectual property of content creators, while others see it as unnecessary infringement by distributors on the rights of the consumer.

Speaking to ZDNet UK after his presentation, Chuck D described the current situation with DRM as “just a lot of fucked-up shit“.

[…]

Until the bottom-feeding leetches of the RIAA are kicked out of the music industry, artists and consumers are going to be screwed by DRM.

(via Pete)

First, there was the machinima net neutrality PSA. Now it’s straight up, raw information:

Check out the tag archive for “net neutrality”.

The Consumerist
Ma Bell To Shut Down New Orleans WiFi

One of the surprising acts of compassion and competency that came out of New Orleans after Hurricane Katrina was that the city began providing a free WiFi service to business owners and residents whose phone service had been wiped out. The 512 kbps service allowed many business owners to begin struggling back to their feet and corporate sponsors like Yahoo and Google were in discussion to expand the service in the coming months.

Well, no longer. Telecommunication lobbyists from Bell South have put the lean on New Orleans, demanding that the free service be outlawed. Apparently, it violates a law that prevents the public sector from competing with the telecommunication sector. By law, then, cities can provide no more than a 128 kbps service to citizens.

“The vendors, the BellSouths of this world, are not only going to force us back, making our existing Wi-Fi illegal, but also they want to close a loophole for emergencies so that we would not do this again,� says Greg Meffert, New Orleans’ chief information officer. But Greg’s no lily-livered pansy. “If I have to go to jail, I guess I will,� he said. “If they really want to play that game, I guess they are right. But we simply cannot turn off these few lifelines we have to our city and businesses.�

[…]

More sources

• FactoryCity - BellSouth to New Orleans: Let Them Eat Cake
• Sploid - Telecoms out to kill NOLA’s free WiFi
• WebProNews - Telecoms Better Keep An Eye On The Big Easy
• Red Herring - WiFi Fight Brews In Big Easy

(via missrogue)

Everything is everything… for real.

Go see it today and then do something positive.

Why I started my Chomsky indulgence with Understanding Power and not this digestible gem I’ll never know.

Uncle Sam is a brilliant pocket reference of Noam Chomsky’s world view, specifically his unflinching criticism of US foreign policy. His genius with linguistics provides him the means to absolutely tear apart the propaganda surrounding isms, bringing the conversation and arguments back to the table of reality. By comparing declassified government files, public policy and geopolitical events occurring between the early 1940’s to 1992, Chomsky cuts directly through the posturing of the US to frame cause and effect in the struggle for global power.

The man is fearless. He critically deconstructs policy from within the sovereign US to expose the post-WWII new world order policies of US planners — clearly describing how the Third World has been shaped to remain the peasant working class via neo-Nazi techniques of torture and intimidation, satisfying the needs of the US investor class.

His arguments are completely lucid and relevant in today’s world, even though it was published in the early nineties. Want an example? Keep an eye on the US propaganda regarding the “left-wing rhetoric” of Hugo Chavez. The BBC is already picking up the US talking points of Venezuela elections being rigged. Chomsky describes these US tactics in detail.

Chomsky’s take on US indoctrination of its citizens to contributing productively to pure capitalism is classic, as he tackles complicit participants from the mainstream media to academia. Just as stinging is his perspective on the marginalization of 80% of our population, which reminded me a bit of the 5% Nation, but without the optimism.

Here’s a section about the US in a Rent-A-Thug role (remember, this was written during the original Gulf War conflict with George H.W. Bush in charge):

[…]

“In any confrontation, each participant tries to shift the battle to a domain in which it’s most likely to succeed. You want to lead with your strength, play your strong card. The strong card of the United States is force—so if we can establish the principle that force rules the world, that’s a victory for us. If, on the other hand, a conflict is settled through peaceful means, that benefits us less, because our rivals are just as good or better in that domain.

Diplomacy is a particularly unwelcome option, unless it’s pursued under the gun. The US has very little popular support for its goals in the Third World. This isn’t surprising, since it’s trying to impose structures of domination and exploitation. A diplomatic settlement is bound to respond, at least to some degree, to the interests of the other participants in the negotiation, and that’s a problem when your positions aren’t very popular.

As a result, negotiations are something the US commonly tries to avoid. Contrary to much propaganda, that has been true in Southeast Asia, the Middle East and Central America for many years.

Against this background, it’s natural that the Bush administration should regard military force as a major policy instrument, preferring it to sanctions and diplomacy (as in the Gulf crisis). But since the US now lacks the economic base to impose “order and stability� in the Third World, it must rely on others to pay for the exercise—a necessary one, it’s widely assumed, since someone must ensure a proper respect for the masters. The flow of profits from Gulf oil production helps, but Japan and German-led continental Europe must also pay their share as the US adopts the “mercenary role,� following the advice of the international business press.

The financial editor of the conservative Chicago Tribune has been stressing these themes with particular clarity (William Neikirk, “We are the World’s Guardian Angelsâ€? 9/9/90) We must be “willing mercenaries,â€? paid for our ample services by our rivals, using our “monopoly powerâ€? in the “security marketâ€? to maintain “our control over the world economic system.â€? We should run a global protection racket, he advises, selling “protectionâ€? to other wealthy powers who will pay us a “war premium.”

This is Chicago, where the words are understood: if someone bothers you, you call on the Mafia to break their bones. And if you fall behind in your premium, your health may suffer too.

To be sure, the use of force to control the Third World is only a last resort. The IMF is a more cost-effective instrument than the Marines and the CIA if it can do the job. But the “iron fist� must be poised in the background, available when needed.

Our rent-a-thug role also causes suffering at home. All of the successful industrial powers have relied on the state to protect and enhance powerful domestic economic interests, to direct public resources to the needs of investors, and so on—one reason why they are successful. Since 1950, the US has pursued these ends largely through the Pentagon System (including NASA and the Department of Energy, which produces nuclear weapons). By now we are locked into these devices for maintaining electronics, computers and high-tech industry generally.

Reaganite military Keynesian excesses added further problems. The transfer of resources to wealthy minorities and other government policies led to a vast wave of financial manipulations and a consumption binge. But there was little in the way of productive investment, and the country was saddled with huge debts: government, corporate, household and the calculable debt of unmet social needs as the society drifts towards a Third World pattern, with islands of great wealth and privilege in a sea of misery and suffering.

When a state is committed to such policies, it must somehow find a way to divert the population, to keep them from seeing what’s happening around them. There are not many ways to do this. The standard ones are to inspire fear of terrible enemies about to overwhelm us, and awe for our grand leaders who rescue us from disaster in the nick of time.

That has been the pattern right through the 1980’s, requiring no little ingenuity as the standard device, the Soviet threat, became harder to take seriously. So the threat to our existence has been Qaddafi and his hordes of international terrorists, Grenada and its ominous air base, Sandinistas marching on Texas, Hispanic narcotraffickers led by the arch-maniac Noriega, and crazed Arabs generally. Most recently it’s Saddam Hussein, after he committed his sole crime—the crime of disobedience—in August 1990. It has become more necessary to recognize what has always been true: that the prime enemy is the Third World, which threatens to get “out of control.�

These are not laws of nature. The processes, and the institutions that engender them, could be changed. But that will require cultural, social and institutional changes of no little movement, including democratic structures that go far beyond periodic selection of representatives of the business world to manage domestic and international affairs.”

[…]

Exactly.

Okay, I’m off to read Cluetrain again. I call this “gray matter iteration.” ;-)

Every week or so, I plan on dropping a new illustrative diagram. This week the subject is greed.

I can’t tell you how much I love playing Spades.

52 cards, split up between four players in teams of two. Your partner is your pahtnah; you know his tendencies, he knows yours. If you’re really tuned in during the bidding process and through the first two books, counting count cards and deductive reasoning takes over without much effort. After some practice, especially with the same partner, you can look forward to setting your opponents with amazing regularity.

Spades is about sharing that moment of victory with your pahtnah; it’s a game for bravado and talking smack. It’s Love & Hate on Radio Rahim’s knuckles. It has a pulse of its own.

Poker is so different.

1. No matter what game of poker you’re playing, you’re on your own.
2. Only cards dealt face up and player movement will give you a hint in counting cards.
3. You have to play your hand, the cards on the table, more than one deck at a time and the tendencies of your opponents. Patterns have to be established from the way your opposition reacts to various situations, but unless you play with the same people for an extended period of time even that strategy doesn’t help too much, as tendencies based on a stereotype aren’t too reliable.

Poker forces you to execute at a precise moment in time based on a plethora of variables; a majority of which are unknown.

A player folding twice in a row, with face cards in the second hand just to throw the table is a perfectly, rational strategy. Being conservative with three aces to raise the stakes, after raising on a bluff to gain a stake of the pot is SOP. Playing a straight game 85% of the time–in the midst of the madness — creates even more of a competitive advantage.

Poker is cold and calculating; poker is schizophrenic.

A poker player doesn’t strive for that moment of Quan; he plays to take all the chips for himself.

So which of these two games would you guess to be more popular in institutionalized environments, such as a federal prison? Which would you guess is more popular with Wall Street types on a Wednesday night after raking in $10k of commisions on speculative stock trades?

Let the gamble of our non-sustainable future continue.

I’m a registered Independent, so everyone is fair game for me to criticize. And that’s my only beef with Michael Moore’s approach to his work. While I agree with his stance on about everything he’s dropped, he practically disappeared from the theatre-going public eye for eight years while Clinton was in office. Okay, he made “Big One,” but that doesn’t quite count.

If you’re a documentary filmmaker, attempting to represent the best interests of the people in this country, specifically the under-privilaged, don’t be partisan. There’s more than enough bullshit on Capitol Hill to sift through during any administration in the White House.

Greed, shadyness and stupidity don’t hold political cards.

I realize that Moore didn’t vote for Clinton or Gore in the last two elections, but his films projects a perception of a hardcore anti-Republican stance, instead of one that just supports doing the right thing, first and foremost. The government of this country—including the media—operates with the smoke and mirrors of a two-party system, meaning that Moore’s output can then be manipulated to work against the Democratic party, as he is presented as a strong supporter of “the other side.”

There’s nothing wrong with choosing a party to support per se, but when his agenda is to open the eyes of the fringe to sway votes (with Fahrenheit 9/11), middle-ground needs to be served in the midst of the sniper fire as a peace offering.

No matter! I’m counting the days for the release of “Fahrenheit 9/11.” I’m hoping he can put to celluloid at least a chunk of emotions that I’ve been struggling with for the past 3+ years. Call him what you may, but Moore does have a knack for capturing the poignancy of a particular issue.

Michael Moore is the man.

Well, not "The Man" (that would be the racist, greedy, loathsome punk he’s tirelessly chasing down), but he is one righteous cat. Damn, it’s refreshing to hear a man speak from his heart and not from the corner of his mouth. If you hadn’t guessed by the title of this entry, I saw ‘Bowling for Columbine’ last night. I’m (almost) at a loss for words, but I’m now provoked and really upset.

Top 10 things that struck me after watching "Bowling…"

10) Work for Welfare is a joke
9) Right wing Christians (or anything else right wing) live a scared life
8) Dick Clark has as much compassion as real skin left on his face
7) If James Nichols had Osama bin Laden’s bankroll… he’d be more dangerous
6) You probably won’t get shot in Canada
5) Marilyn Manson is more intelligent than most of our leaders
4) You can get a rifle when opening a bank account in the US… really
3) I’d probably consume raw sewage before ever working for Lockheed Martin
2) This country was built on fear, violence and oppression. Sounds like a modern day TVlineup, eh?
1) Charlton Heston needs to be put out of his misery… with a rifle

I realized most of these points before going to the movie (except for the part about Dick Clark…what a… dick), but the presentation was worth it’s weight in gold.

I don’t consider myself to be left or right, like the masses that will debate the credibility of this film for the near future. I try to formulate my opinions based on the situation at hand. But to a righty, that’s a lefty. To a lefty, it’s a non-committed vote. To me, it’s the only way to remain sane in this twisted society we live in.

Michael Moore has the courage of a warrior and the conviction to follow up. Thank God. Hopefully, my brother’s documentary gets picked up and he can follow in Moore’s enormous footsteps.

Righteous cats.