writing hardware?

Found myself using an old router as a note writing pad thing..
Perhaps this could be an interesting way to do stuff? What is the tech is broken and functions are written on it? To repair? To make it organic?
What if this is old tech, working but with a big Hey.. ..and it is to be donated to people who can do with it..? Is this a more way interesting/challenging for imagining art processes..?

http://www.computers4africa.org.uk/appeals/view_appeal.php?id=35

rape spectacle audience power and money or

any numerical exchange?

Was watching a bad film feeling fascinated. The accused is an illustrative cinema with predictable characters, narrative and an instrumental cinematic tropes..
However, I lingered on because there seem to be some unintended elements that revealed darker imaginations..
One was regarding the role of audience/crowd in a spectacle/act. The other was the performance of numerical exchange/money within a social body.

Perhaps am reading too much into certain elements, however, perhaps it is fun to do just that..?

The sex rape was encouraged by people watching.. They clapped, they suggested who should be next, called the victim names and did not try to stop the actions. They watched the act a bit like they would a theatre or a sport game, or a computer app usage – hence am thinking of this in terms of spectacle..
According to the procession, the accused, despite seemingly being only witnesses to a rape, they actually Helped it happen. They could not say/tell whether the rape would not occur without the audience, or how it would have been without the context of a cheering crowd. However, for the specific illustration, the charge was that the crowd must have known there is an illegal act, rape, and not just witnessed – but cheered it on.
This perhaps provides an interesting distinction between a witness to a crowd/user/audience? The witness is more passive, however there could also be a question of the actors/app/event-participants seeking witnesses.. ie, i might do x because I want people to witness, and that is all.. No?

The other element is that of power and the perks it provides. Being set in usa, power is symbolised via money/numerical-exchange mechanism. The more of the exchange numbers one has – the more power they have. That power provides certain protection.. Hence, the illustration is focused on a rich woman, seemingly born into a rich family, and a poor one. It seems that life circumstances rather than abilities make the differences.
These circumstances, eg of birth, made it so the poor woman can be in a greater danger of being raped with impunity for the rapists.. Hence, probably, more chance of being raped/assaulted..

This, in my view, brings an interesting perspective into money and its innate social effects – hierarchy. It can be argued that numerical exchanges are simply tools, neutral in terms of social effects. However, because for numerical exchange to have a value, it requires an hierarchical order, we need to asses these type of exchanges with that innate element.. (perhaps there are others..)
To say that in a certain exchange, 1 is worth more than 100 – or vice versa – we are making an hierarchical order. I’d argue that such orders deprive society and culture of richness from an instrumental pov, and people of more interesting lives – from a human pov.. (eg, in the film, the poor woman might not have been raped if she was not, err, poor.. In that sense, the hierarchical order in and of itself is affecting people and society – no? I’d say depriving rather than affecting, but perhaps am wrong.. I guess that at times the effect is not just of de-prevision.. However, there is an effect..)
However, even with out a negative/positive, view – is it not at least an aesthetic and political question? Of how we want to imagine the order – if any – that links with exchange values, or lack of them?

——————–

Actually, I think there is a fundamental mistake in the idea that there is a binary logic between hierarchy and network/non-hierarchical being.
I distrust bibaries because life is more complex.. Binaries seem over simplifications.. Perhaps cool for illustrating a pov, not even a life of a pov.. Unless they become more complex, eg in computing..

Anyhow, the reason I think what seems like a binary – hierarchy and network/non-hierarchical – isn’t one is because the question of emancipation, allowance, preclusion, flexibility and prejudice..
An hierarchical exchange, and its support system, will make life hard for an horizontal exchange and a network to live or indeed thrive within it. The hierarchical culture will be challenged and naturally fight back. We can see that in the evolution of the internet, where despite the network/horizontal/non-heirarchical/distributed nature of network tools and technologies, once placed with in the numerical exchange realms, it had to conform. The stuff that doesn’t is in the darklands of the internet..

The link, from hierarchy to non-hierarchy perspective seems therefore binary. However, if we look from a non-hierarchical perspective, the link is that of affordability and allowance.
Non-hierarchies can allow hierarchies to pop up, if and as, might be required. Hierarchies within a network reality does not challenge the network as a whole nor at any specific local juncture. The hierarchy, at certain space-times, might be needed.
However, if we imagine a street within a city that suddenly became economically horizontal, the least it will do is raise some concerns for the powers to be.. A case in point is that when there were eu food and drink mountains and it was thought like a good idea to horisontalise it by giving it away – big business stepped right in to stop it. When there are local internet provision social hubs, big – or even smallish – business complains that, err – they take business of from them.. (..and do it “unfairly” for being free of charge..)

btw – Are there network/non-hierarchical rhythms..?

ghosts with rhythms of life and art or?

art linked linking? searching?

Woke up this morning and coffeed to the tune of 10k+ dead from Haiyan Typhoon.. Apart from the feeling that personification of winds gives them sort of ghostly feel/sense/aesthetic – the dead felt for me as ghosts.. As un-timely dead from preventable rhythms, as per our politicised/economised/capitalised ecological environment.. or is it organic environment?

Anyway.. these thoughts prompted me to combine, or to make imagining combinable the number and rhythms of deaths from all preventable stuff..
eg
war / famine / fire / environment /
etc.

Hence, 1st thing that came to mind was various calculators based on data that might be out there already.. So did searches like these and this one.

It dawned on me that to do these kind of calculators, I might need to scrape & calculate the numbers myself, and adding the time element will be another issue..

Is this really what I want to be dealing with? Sure, I think that the aesthetics of premature deaths, of all beings, as well as languages (possibly), has many interesting trajectories.. However, time wise, can I afford? There are other stuff + the financial/living/food/drink elements, no?

So, given all that, is there no way I should/could squeeze myself?

Or, all these ideas are really result of certain tropes, modes of work tropes? Would I have imagined along these lines if this was 1973? ’83? ’91? ’99? 2004?

What is really interesting for me in these ideas? Is it the calculators, or are the calculators as tools for imagining? If indeed the latter, why not just do that without the extra manipulative layer? (~eg, manipulative in the sense that embedding a technology with imposed meaning – rather than keeping it a search?)

http://178.63.84.82:8092/yacysearch.html?query=rhythms+of+ghosts&startRecord=&maximumRecords=&nav=all

is this a sort of search art writing – or just

search culture sorry being performance and a long queue?

Supermarkets come with queues, and more often than not, a sort of failed look out and pseudo calculations as to which might take less time to be processed through.
There is also the quick, often queueless machines, but they come with a rather un comfortable baggage made of being made to do a job for without being paid for it – and risking other people’s jobs at the same time..

So earlier today I found myself in a queue. The person at the till was trying to work out the price of bananas, the kiwis, and after a few painless items, he got seriously stuck with the melon. No one could come to his aid, because the supermarket cuts down on staff – so the queue got longer, and people began drifting into other queues which in tern – became longer as well.
By the time he got some help – people were seriously getting exacerbated, and that was before my turn to be processed..

This got me thinking:
Following such events, as a rather new/learner check out person – would I have said sorry to each person in the queue as you processed them? Or would you rather get on with out a mention/reminder of your activities?

If I said “Sorry” what search would that Sorry be from?

The sorry could come from a fear for my job, but that’s a psychological issue.. The cultural search from Sorry would be a tool/device to enable a process/practice for refinement/correction of activities, no?
If I said sorry, then I could make myself recall the mistakes and hopefully do better later. Assuming I do not enjoy saying or even being sorry..
Also, there is there a sort of civic-cultural performative act. Each person in the queue might have recalled my sorry saying every time they are in a similar situation/sequence – and might consider doing their own version..

The sorry might have been said just because I thought it was a cultural thing to-do – but I’d mean it not. Perhaps not even be clear/open for all these various aesthetics and cultural aspects of Sorry.
However, it can be argued, that even meaninglessly, the act/performance of sorry, might function as a regret one doesn’t want to repeat. The slight uncomfortableness of addressing each person and saying a word in link to an act you are not entirely proud of – is not something I’d like to repeat as often as possible, no?

Perhaps No – unless its fun, a joy, an act I can perform with a hidden gap between expression and shared stipulation. (eg, am happy/indifferent, but have to make a sad face..)

The other option is to utterly perform this. ie to be open about being an active performance of regret.. I’ll be very regretful in the next few mins, as a short performance of someone being very sorry indeed..

Are these 3 different cultural/cultivating searches? (being sorry, being a distance between sorry and hidden joy, and cultivating the shared pretence of being sorry..) Or is there a missing search there?
Perhaps these are searches/processes of a singular more wide search??

safety and caution – a conflation? or a

cultural conservatism?
Got an email from yahoo re an account I opened mid 90’s or there about, and used for spammable sign-ups since..
They said that the email is for “safety” as there was some unusual activity on that account.
Safety? Say someone is hacking the account, and that was my prime used email. Safeness of what?
That they read my most secretive thoughts? (perhaps they could decipher them for me..)
That they’d pretend to Be me? (..good luck!!)
That they’d delete everything? (lol the server has a time machine..)
That they’d learn where I live and pay me a visit? (..anyone with a bit of motivation could do that now as much as they could 107 years ago..)

..or is it a case of being cautious? If it is caution, then perhaps the question could be – should we culturally accept such caution, in such a circumstance? Is this cautious approach legitimate?
Is it like being cautious while in the process of road crossing, because we imagine other people’s movements to be legitimate in the public realm.
Or is it a case more like when there is a rapist on the loose and women get advised to stay at home..?
Is it that a hurricane is coming, or some Nazis/Fascists/Capitalists fancy having a go at people?

In that sense there might be here also a culture of cultural conservatism. A process of refining how to be cautious and feeling – arguably, rather than being – actually safe.
That is precisely the kind of stuff “anonymous” & wikileaks are a prime-visible elements/example of, no?

Perhaps/hopefully am wrong here, but these seem to be ways of accepting how stuff/life seems to be at the present, with all its oppressive measures and drives, and instead of changing, organisations like wikileaks say: you have to be afraid, very afraid – here is an advert for that, e.g. this/that person.
And anonymous seems to pipe off from that by saying – yes we are afraid, but need to live, so lets be unknowns to anyone – so there’s no comeback. Lets all just stay at home while the monster is loose..

But no-one does anything re monster, nor the home/house/building that in this digital kind of case, is really apple/google/fb/twitter/ms and your isp.. Is this safety? Cautiousness? Conservatism?