Is there anywhere, a webpage with a table/infographic/flowchart on it, which says “if X happens” (you break your leg, get cancer, get hit by bus), currently, Y happens to you in the NHS; but under the Government “reform” proposals, they say A will happen, but we think B, C and D will also happen. There’s a lot of discussion that B, C, D are bad, but I’ve not seen a clear connection to what happens when I walk into a hospital having done something stupid.
I didn’t know about the first talk in the series; but in advance of the second, I was chatting to a friend over coffee, about how I had not yet seen an academically methodological, technically competent, empirically accurate paper on online/offline integrated activism.
An hour later, I had.
The first talk was the academic theory background. It is needed for understanding the academic bits of the other talks, and some of the background reasoning. If that’s not of interest, you can skip that one.
The remaining two talks are a pair, the second on Occupy and the US, and is now (and certainly was a 3 weeks ago when it was given) a talk about works in progress. The middle talk was looking at the process of revolution in the Middle East (primarily).
They looked deeply at the social, demographic and political reasons and interactions that intertwined in different ways in the different countries. Different reasons, for similar things, in different places, at similar times. It was a very good lecture.
If you’re watching it, the thing that computer people might question, is his use of “wireless” as a tool. He clarifies the means 3G and mobile phones (ie not wired), not WiFi. The connectivity wherever you are.
We’re starting to see some of that with FixMyTransport, or, more clearly, sukey.org where protestors could get comparable situational intelligence to the police. The Guardian Reading the Riots investigation picked up some of this when it was done ad hoc via BBM.
It was a very interesting set of talks, that my dear reader may be interested in.
It’s slightly depressing.
In a week of #COP17, #€geddon, the veto, and the dozen other things that should be in the political news agenda, but aren’t, what did 38 degrees choose to twice contact their members about?
I’m reminded of a survey JISC funded about attitudes of PhD students to lots of things to do with PhDs. It asked them about their opinions on a load of topics, including their views on open access to research. It was about 85% in favour (and there were some who didn’t know enough to answer as they’d only just started).
What’s in a name? Spent convictions in the Internet Age.
Paul Clarke’s recent post about naming of offenders and the issues around open data also misses one point of the 21st Century. Lou emphasises the points about names and spent convictions; but I suspect, modern culture, has a much larger but less complicated issue.