TCLP 2011-07-13 Monologue: Serendipity

This is a feature cast, an episode of The Command Line Podcast.

Listener feedback this week was from David about my frustrations over iTunes with my newer podcast and Charles in response to my quick review of The Net Delusion, in response to which I still urge interested listeners to check out Cory Doctorow’s much more in-depth critic.

The hacker word of the week this week is flippy.

The feature this week is a monologue examining the value of serendipity, in response to a request from my good friend, John Taylor Williams.


View the detailed show notes online. You can grab the flac encoded audio from the Internet Archive.

Creative Commons License

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 United States License.

3 Replies to “TCLP 2011-07-13 Monologue: Serendipity”

  1. Granted, I still feel like we’re talking past each other and missing each others points. Not to say that I am a compleate devotee of Morozov, I just feel like you and Cory are way to quick to point out the negatives of morozov’s work. In other words, I am facinated by the pathos you both display in your dismissals.

    Rightly or wrongly, Morozov found a nerve. That to me that is more telling then the minutia excanged between you “experts.”
    (which frankly I haven’t seen any definitive data supporting cory’s view of the middle eastern revolutions, shouldn’t there be a tell all book by now?)

    I feel compeled here to point to a quote in cory’s review


    This statement, the last part anyway, stikes me as at odds with the the tenor of the review. As later on in the review it is rather explict that doctorow seems to feel that the internet in some form replaced/augmented the revolution, which at the very least begs the question, what are cory’s substantive explinations of the differences between the revolution in the USSR and the one in the middle east.

    Or in other words, what exactly do the hactivist mean by a “tweeted revolution.” Did the regime in the middle east fall on its own like the USSR did? Or did twitter some how tip the cow? and if so how? (what were the mechanics? and why aren’t they more widely know given the flood of media attention?)

    Does Doctorow’s own statement, that the USSR fell, that it was bloated, off-balance, and out of control not somehow have bearing on his views of the situation in the middle east? This is what I want explained, was twitter just the ignition source for the powerder-keg of the middle east? Or was Twitter the powder-keg, explinations from both sides of the issue sparse. (Unless perhaps you are fully engaged and have time outside of your daily bread for the internet.)

    I don’t think I ask for much when I ask for a simple defention of this happenstance. It has been conventional wisdom to just accept the “twitter revolution” explination.

    You have to remember here, I’m part of the general public and given that I work a lot of hours per week and I have no internet access at home so I am cut out of a great deal of simple/ time consuming referencing and the susequent self-actualization of gestaults, that is part and parcel of “net culture”.

    Look I know I am pestering you a lot. If its too much let me know, I can try and tone it down some. Still I am genuinely interested in the subject matter (ergo my posts like this). I just wish the internet was at times more forgiving of my (lack of) station in life. But if you feel the need to tell me to bugger off, don’t hesitate. I appreciate the feedback you’ve given me.

  2. Oops look like my quote got sniped here is what is supposed to be between the

    “The Soviet Union didn’t fall because of political organising, brave dissidents, or photocopied zines – it fell because it was a badly run nightmare that lurched from crisis to crisis until it imploded.”


Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *