« ARG vs Wikipedia vs blogosphere | Main | Web 2.0, a quick refresher. »

August 18, 2005


Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

Gardner Campbell


Back to desire. Or perhaps to the superset of desire, which is love.

Perhaps it is convenient for institutions to construct education using taxonomies of desire built on lack. You have something, I want it, I submit to your process to get it, even if "it" turns out to be little more than a certification.

What would an education built on taxonomies of desire springing from abundance, play, love look like?

Only when work is play for mortal stakes....

Alexander Hayes

Hi ya!

Posting here in sunny Sydney, Australia. Love the blog, love the rant and the riddles.

It's interesting is it not how far things have come in a year ! Looking forward to your posts for years to come.



generic viagra

The term is closely associated with Tim O'Reilly because of the O'Reilly Media Web 2.0 conference in 2004. Although the term suggests a new version of the World Wide Web, it does not refer to an update to any technical specifications, but rather to cumulative changes in the ways software developers and end-users use the Web. Whether Web 2.0 is qualitatively different from prior web technologies has been challenged by World Wide Web inventor Tim Berners-Lee, who called the term a "piece of jargon"— precisely because he intended the Web to embody these values in the first place.

django developer

multicampus discussion, then add to it in another entry, garnering feedback from still other audiences., a thing not at all possible with face-to-face classrooms or BlackBoard.

The comments to this entry are closed.

Twitter latest

    follow me on Twitter




    Become a Fan