<HTML><BODY style="word-wrap: break-word; -khtml-nbsp-mode: space; -khtml-line-break: after-white-space; "><DIV>Hi Juha,</DIV><DIV>hi list,</DIV><DIV><BR class="khtml-block-placeholder"></DIV><DIV>How to change the world, with my own, with my own two hands (Jack Johnson), that is my favorite topic too.</DIV><DIV><BR class="khtml-block-placeholder"></DIV><DIV>From the readings on this list I gather that for most people Web 2.0 doesn't hold so much intrinsic room for conceptual progress, theoretic insight and notions of a democratic network.</DIV><DIV><BR class="khtml-block-placeholder"></DIV><DIV>I hope that therefore we can shift the discussion to a terrain that lies way open still, rfid 2.0, Internet of Things 2.0, ubicomp 2.0, meaning that the discussions on the protocols, standards and deployment of sensor networks have up untill now been influenced and directed by the barcode standards organizions (EAN and UCC now GS1.com) logistics and retail, security and surveillance (military and anti-terror), a drive towards more lean processes in business, anti-theft (shrinking), and a management view that refuses to throw the dominant dashboard model of management ( i got all the data here before me in neatly visualized streams) overboard and opts for ever more control over where things are going by knowing where all your objects are all the time, where they are going and where did they come from (Bleeckers blogjects).</DIV><DIV><BR class="khtml-block-placeholder"></DIV><DIV>There is a beginning of artists working with RFID. If you check out we-make-money-not-art, the RFID section will highlight about 170 projects already. Most of these either play or bypass the two notions that influence the debate sparked by rfid - privacy and EMF (Electro Magnetic Frequency will be pervasive with rfid readers being pervasive) - to the extent that Mark Baard in a recent article in Wired discussed artists as beta-testers for the industry, making it difficult to become critical design (Dunne & Raby).</DIV><DIV><BR class="khtml-block-placeholder"></DIV><DIV><SPAN class="Apple-style-span">This industry (wireless, umts, telecom, media) is faced with a deadlock. Technology as such is no longer capable of producing a techno-optimism and a high demand for stuff and devices. It no longer suffices to put a new thing on the market. As all the things are networked, they no more stand alone and thus the all the possible spheres in which this networking takes place is no intrinsically part of the product too. The deadlock is that for an internet of things world to work, people (who are becoming information spaces themselses- no longer 'people' is in the analogue sense of the word) must distribute themselves as data in the environment in order to get realtime feedback anywhere, anytime, anyhow. Therefore, trust in the environment is key. But, as people are being constantly informed <I>not </I>to trust the environment, as it is insecure, unsafe and untrustworthy, this is not likely to happen. So, deadlock.</SPAN></DIV><DIV><BR class="khtml-block-placeholder"></DIV><DIV>Interestingly, the players themselves, for example Philips, are not only very much aware of this but conceptually informed by Derrida, Deleuze and Guattari in order to go beyond the No Logo phase of branding by design to the very notions in literary theory and the gestural and intrinsic qualities of the body in performance. In his text An Inside Story to the EXperience Economy</DIV><DIV><A href="http://www.experience-economy.com/wp-content/UserFiles/File/InsideStoryOnExperienceEconomy.pdf">http://www.experience-economy.com/wp-content/UserFiles/File/InsideStoryOnExperienceEconomy.pdf</A></DIV><DIV>Philips researcher Mark van Doorn hammers on the importance of these for the succes of Ambient Narratives and his interest in writing them into patents for Philips. Philips naturally is not the only organization making this shift towards ever more contextualized content. A Dutch telecom like KPN, for example, likes to think of itself as a Media organization.</DIV><DIV><BR class="khtml-block-placeholder"></DIV><DIV>Altough it is very tempting to see a sensorworld as kind of wide open territory, that is always dangerous as it has all the inhabitants we know ( just look around you now and try to ake all that stuff around in as being tagged with a digital connectivity). I do think we can safely assume that companies will try to drag their IP and notions of copyrights and patent into this hybrid territory. (Who owns the relationships that your underwear has?) Maybe it is a very interesting exercise to think about alternative business models in this wireless world. They could centre on micropayments and microcredits, from the notion of service and trust, it might be that we will have to set up our own MBA's, moving from the macho money making models ( a lot! fast! now!) to making money constantly over a longer period of time ( perfectly tuned to Mark Weisers first ideas on ubiquitous computing- selling services).</DIV><DIV><BR class="khtml-block-placeholder"></DIV><DIV>Anyway, all I'm trying to say is that there is a deep and very real need for theorists and designers to get involved in these issues before GS1 becomes another Microsoft in front of our eyes,</DIV><DIV><BR class="khtml-block-placeholder"></DIV><DIV>Greetings from rainy Ghent, Rob</DIV><DIV><BR class="khtml-block-placeholder"></DIV><DIV><BR class="khtml-block-placeholder"></DIV><BR><DIV><DIV>On May 27, 2006, at 10:29 PM, juha huuskonen wrote:</DIV><BR class="Apple-interchange-newline"><BLOCKQUOTE type="cite"><DIV style="margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; min-height: 14px; "><BR></DIV><DIV style="margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; ">Hello everyone,</DIV><DIV style="margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; min-height: 14px; "><BR></DIV><DIV style="margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; ">Here is my contribution to the buzzword business -</DIV></BLOCKQUOTE></DIV></BODY></HTML>