Welcome to Etherpad!

This pad text is synchronized as you type, so that everyone viewing this page sees the same text. This allows you to collaborate seamlessly on documents!

Get involved with Etherpad at http://etherpad.org
data feedback loop
user generated content into context

biotechnology-nature
how technologies as visualisation can define what is for exmaple a body a real body,nature.

ginger: misfits 
clothing

formation of software..allow and defines your freedom autonomy online

what if we do not have abody anymore
==travelling in space

https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.en.html

With these freedoms, the users (both individually and collectively) control the program and what it does for them.  When users don't control the program, we call it a “nonfree” or “proprietary” program.  The nonfree program controls the users, and the developer controls the program; this makes the program  an instrument of unjust power. 
A program is free software if the program's users have the four essential freedoms: 

• The freedom to run the program as you wish,       for any purpose (freedom 0).
• The freedom to study how the program works, and change it so it       does your computing as you wish (freedom 1). Access to the source       code is a precondition for this.   
• The freedom to redistribute copies so you can help your neighbor       (freedom 2).   
• The freedom to distribute copies of your modified versions       to others (freedom 3).  By doing this you can give the whole       community a chance to benefit from your changes.       Access to the source code is a precondition for this.   

A program is free software if it gives users adequately all of these freedoms.  Otherwise, it is nonfree.  While we can distinguish various nonfree distribution schemes in terms of how far they fall short of being free, we consider them all equally unethical.

software archeology mathew kierchenbaum; 

https://mkirschenbaum.wordpress.com/2014/04/24/new-essay-what-is-digital-humanities-and-why-are-they-saying-such-terrible-things-about-it/

malesurpression techniques applied to free software exclusion. 

queering of operating system
cynical of maker-culture naieve engaged with production...problematic position (timelab gent) re-produce what is already out there. social fabric its interesting

the sockertable; gendered female against male and a less full team in percentage misrepresentation.

http://www.gdtoolbox.eu/toolbox/what-does-a-gender-equal-project-environmental-look-like/master-suppression-techniques/

                                Master Suppression Techniques                                                                   
Master suppression techniques (also known as domination  techniques) are conscious and unconscious strategies used to assume  power over others. The concept of master suppression techniques  originated with a social analysis based on theories of gender and power.  It asserts that women and men are valued differently and that men, as a  group, generally have a higher status and more power economically,  politically and socially than women do as a group. In other words, the  analysis suggests the existence of social superiority and subordination.
There are seven suppression techniques:

1. Making invisible
2. Ridicule
3. Withholding information
4. Double binding
5. Heaping blame and putting to shame
6. Objectifying
7. Force and threats of force.

Norwegian professor and politician Berit Ås defined these master  suppression techniques. They were originally formulated based on studies  of how female politicians were treated in an environment dominated by  male norms.
Those who use master suppression techniques exploit an advantage or  position of power they hold to either put or keep other people at a  disadvantage. Master suppression techniques are often used in connection  with insults or harassment related to gender, sexual orientation,  ethnicity or disability.
Master suppression techniques can be used man-against-woman,  man-against-man, woman-against-woman and woman-against-man. They  restrict victims’ ability to influence their situations and limit their  options for action. Feelings of being stupid, being invisible, not being  allowed to think whatever you like, not being able to express yourself  or choose how you will look, and not being allowed to believe in your  own abilities make it difficult for victims to defend themselves. If we  are aware of such techniques, there is a greater chance that we will  recognise them, react to and deal with them effectively at their source.


queer table: play in a different way to protect your players; not democratising, humaizing he soccor table.

kinectSTL
makerware
libfreenect, openNI

http://www.nlm.nih.gov/research/visible/visible_human.html

kinect time of flight scanning
photogrammatry

sizeusa


blender

my mother was 
biometric architecture