Twinked!

Moving rapidly from frog-fighting street thug into the ranks of the newly rich, I met up with Chek in Star Wars Galaxies. Chek, being accomplished in the arcana of the game’s mechanics was throwing around goodies like credits and a nice hover bike now residing comfortably in the… well, pocket of yours truly. Biking in the sunset I was given a great tutorial and was later taken to see the stately – postcardly situated – houses of certain esteemed game researchers.
Oh, and Chek keeps some dragons around. And I think he is closer to the emperor than he cares to admit :-)

The Crusade against intelligence

Wired continues the story about The Crusade Against Evolution rightly noting that

This is an issue, of course, that was supposed to have been settled long ago.

Is the evolution of human beings (or other organisms) by natural selection a proven fact? No.
Is it a theory backed by a crushing yet increasing weight of evidence likely to convince anyone but the most hardened anti-materialist? Oh yes.

I’m so glad to live in Denmark where that debate could never occur.

The architectures of thought

Believe it or not, when I wrote my master’s thesis “The Architectures of Trust” concerned with ways in which behaviour could be regulated by code (essentially) I had never read a word by Lawrence Lessig. Indeed, I remember first paying attention to his name in march 2003.

Odd then, that when I recently read Lessig’s Code cover-to-cover (5 years too late) his main argument and particularly his terminology seemed curiously like my own (even if his main interest is different from mine). There is little question that he says things more clearly than I – and even less doubt that he used the phrase “architectures of trust” long before me – but still, I’m curious as to 1) Why didn’t I know of this book? (why didn’t anyone tell me?) and 2) How did I come so close to his theory/terminology without hearing it spelled out?
Conspiracy?, self-deception?
I’m guessing: The memes did it.

Thoughtful

nowuseit.com :: it’s about excitability
Co-candidate Martin on his fashionable – if constantly morphing – nowuseit.com mentions the “potential dangers of usability culture”. This is a topic which I used to be rather obsessed with as an undergraduate, going as far as to write a largely misunderstood student paper entitled “The Disenfranchised User”. In this underestimated masterpiece I argued that usability is wonderful in the short term but the requirement that users must not (for the love of God!) think may have dire consequences (insert, in the background, the shrill sound of high-pitch violins) in the long term. But it all depends on your conceptualization of IT – if IT is like electricity we have little reason to be concerned with the relative ignorance of users (or if we do, it takes someone more STS than me to realize it) but if IT is like a communicative infrastructure the design of which has large-scale consequences for both private and public life then we may not want to resign ourselves to ignorance, no matter how blissful in the short term.

Abandon all hope

Luhmann writes that trust…

“always bears upon a critical alternative, in which the harm resulting from a breach of trust may be greater than the benefit to be gained from the trust proving warranted. Hence one who trusts takes congnizance of the possibility of excessive harm arising from the selectivity of others’ actions and adopts a position towards that possibility. One who hopes simply has confidence despite uncertainty. Trust reflects contingency. Hope ignores contingency”.

As an example, Luhmann says that leaving your child with a babysitter is not a case of trust but of hope.
I’m experiencing absolute uncertainty as to my selection between multiple interpretations.
What, I beg you, does he mean?