Los anarquistas profesio-nales se oponen a cualquier tipo de restricción y piden que sepermita al individuo desarrollarse libremente, desembarazado deleyes, obligaciones o deberes

por lo tanto, muchos mexicanos suelen tratarlos con desdén porhaberse agringado, haber perdido su mexicanidad, ya no hablarbien el idioma, por pochos, por ya no respetar las costumbresy haber cafdo en el materialismo y la superficialidad.

conceder acceso a tu cuenta de Facebook a otros ni transferir a nadie tu cuenta (sin nuestro permiso).

conceder acceso a tu cuenta de Facebook a otros ni transferir a nadie tu cuenta (sin nuestro permiso).

Una rnatriz de necesidades y satisfactoresLa interrelacion entre necesidades, satisfactores y bienes economicos es per manente ydinamica. Entre ellos se desencadena una dialectics historica. Si, por una parte, 10sbienes economicos tienen la capacidad de afectar la efi ciencia de 10s satisfactores, kstos,por otra parte, seran determinantes en la generation y creacion de aqukllos. A traves deesta causacion reciproca se convierten, a la vez, en parte y en definicion de una cultura, yen determi nantes de 10s estilos de desarrollo.Los satisfactores pueden ordenarse y desglosarse dentro de 10s cruces de una matriz que,por un lado, clasifica las necesidades segun las categorias exis tenciales de ser, tener, hacery estar; y por el otro, las clasifica segun catego rias axiologicas de subsistencia, protection,afecto, entendimiento, partici pacion, ocio, creacion, identidad y libertad. (Ver cuadro 1)La matriz que se presenta en el Cuadro 1 no es de ninguna manera normati va. Es solo unejemplo de tipos de satisfactores posibles. De hecho, cada per sona o cada grupo puedeconstruir y llenar la suya segun sea su cultura, su tiempo, su lugar o sus circunstancias, obien segun sus limitaciones o sus aspi raciones.De la observacion de 10s distintos casilleros de la matriz que contienen pro-Cuadro 1 Matr~z de necesidades y satisfactorescategoriasexistencides Tenersegun categoriasaxiologicasSubsistenciaProteccionEntendimientoOcioCreacionIdentidad1 /Salud fisica saludmental equilibriosolidaridad hurnoradaotabilidad5/Cuidado adaptabilidad autonomiaequilibrio solidartdad9/Autoestima, solidaridad, respeto, tolerancia, generosidad. receptividad,pasion, voluntad,sensualidad, humor131Conciencia critica,receptividad curiosidad asombro.disciplina, intuicion racionalidad17/Adaptabilidad, receptividad. solidaridad, disposicion,conviction, entre ga,respeto, pasion,humor211Curiosidad receptividad imaginacion despreocupacion hurnor tranquilidad sensualidad251Pasion, voluntadntuicion, imaginacion audacia racionalidad autonomia inventiva curiosidad29/Pertenencia, coherencia, diferenciaclon, autoestirnaasertividad21Alimentacionabrigo trabajo6/Sistemas de seguros, ahorro, seguridad social,sistemas de salud.legisla ciones,derechos, familia.trabalo101Amistades, parejas,familia, animatesdomesticos, plantas lardines14/Literatura,maestros, metodo,politicaseducacionales, politicas cornunicacionales181Derechos, responsabilidades. obligaciones, atribuclones, trabajo221Juegos, espectaculos, fiestas,calma261Habilidades, destrezas, metodotrabaio301Simbolos lenguajes, habitos, costumbres. grupos dereferenda, sexualidad, valores, norrnas, roles memoria historica trabalo31Alimentar procreardescansar trabaiar71Cooperar, prevenirplanificar cuidar,curar. defender11/Hacer el amor, acariciar, expresaremo clones,cornpartir, cuidarcultivar. apreciar151Investigar. estudiar,experimentar, educar, analizar, rneditar. interpretar191Afiliarse, cooperar,proponer, cornpar

AMBIENTE EDUCATIVO Y ESTÉTICA SOCIAL

Podemos delinear la concepción de la identidad del pensamiento y el lenguaje a partir dela especulación de la psicología lingüística, que establece que el pensamiento es "hablasin sonido", hasta las modernas teorías de los psicólogos americanos y los reflexólogos,que lo consideran un reflejo inhibido en su parte motora.

Whoisthesubjectofthesedigitalrights?Sinceweareinterestedintheprocessesthroughwhichtheserightsareenactedratherthantheirsubstance,ourquestionof‘who’concernsthatofpoliticalsubjectivitythroughtheInternet.[4]Aswehaveexpresseditinvariousways,‘who’doesnotcorrespondtoanalreadyformedpoliticalsubjectbutafigure:Howisapoliticalsubjectbeingconstitutedasaclaimantofdigitalrights?Wehaveillustratedthroughoutthisbookthatdigitalactstraversemultiplenationalbordersandlegalorders.Yetmakingrightsclaimsthattraversebordersisoftenaddressedthroughsovereignregionalornationallegalordersandtheirparticularunderstandingofrights.

Accounts of hacker cultures often highlight bug fixes (Coleman, 2011; Nafus, 2012), portraying failures as integral to the inventive, creative process of design and engineering (Petroski, 2006). Mothership HackerMoms began to address failure differently from these productivist tendencies. In addition to viewing failure as central to achievement, members identified personal failures and failures to transform hacker cultures, formulating failure as a moment for reflection. To make this argument, we examine two empirical contexts of failure: first, failure as members conceptualize it in the Failure Club project of narrativizing the self; and, second, failure as expressed from the outside through online “hate mail.” By tracing how members redefine failure we show how HackerMoms became a site of resistance: hacking the very ontology of hacking.

Born in the Plantation, the Hacienda, the Latifundio, and the Mine, creolization is now “scattered in those sheet plates and concrete mazes where our common becoming is adventuring itself, in favellas and mega-cities” (Glissant, 1995: 87). Alive and well, cre-olization can be found where Latin Americans live, in the spaces where they are exposed to new technologies. Born of avoidance (like Internet Protocol (IP) packets that find a route around obstacles) and mixing (like mashups and re-mix), creolization fits the realm of ICTs.

Inconsistencies in ideological perspective are not uncommon in activities which attempt to balance individualism and communalism. These very frictions might belie possibilities for a greater imagination or shared experience. However, we argue that it is only in the disputes and frictions between pluralities of publics that democratization emerges. Dissensus across making and hacking communities allows people to experiment, eventu-ally finding communities and processes in which they feel comfortable and can identify. These very migrations, connected by fluid narratives and practices, drive the capacity of communities to develop and innovate.

Many movements have become somewhat unsta-ble and decentralized. This instability allows for fluidity and moments where cultures become complicit in neoliberalism and globalization. This complicit exploitation is espe-cially visible when we consider the relationship between maker publics and technolo-gies. In buying, creating, and re-purposing technologies, hacker and maker groups engage capitalist enterprises that span the globe.

The public has become aware of the popularization of hacking and making mostly through moments of emergency and scandal. Forgetting serves a function for the public, allowing them to get on with their own interests. Concurrently, this public forgetting allows hackers to regain their spaces of creativity and action. Maker culture, too, forgets in order to find a perpetual sense of novelty in their very existence. Forgetting, an important social and cultural project, is also part of the democratic project. Democracies forget to put aside old tensions and re-form in order for the public to sup-port them.

We have framed the theme of this issue as “The Democratization of Hacking and Making” to draw attention to the relationships between action, knowledge, and power. Particularly, hacking and making are about how practices of creation and transforma-tion generate knowledge and influence institutions. These acts concentrate and distrib-ute power through publics and counterpublics. Yet, the very mutability of hacker and maker relations makes them a challenge to identify and research. Hacking and making collectives have proven capable of constituting and reconstituting themselves in physi-cal and virtual spaces. They integrate across infrastructures, collaborative systems, socio-economic divides, and international boundaries.

Eventually she became more entangled with social relationships, which helped her work on technical projects that brought a comfort of similarity from previous work. Initially she didn’t identify with the term “hacker.” Only later did she came to understand herself as oriented around self-sufficiency and creative problem-solving. For her, the resonance with hacking as an identity came after participation and a deeper entanglement.

This work perceptively suggested that people often don’t arrive at hackerspaces with an identity fully-formed. Tools and projects, as socio-material assemblages, shepherded new arrivals in and helped them understand

That hackers are created, not born, is hardly a new claim. In Coding Freedom Gabriella Coleman described how an open-source hackers’ identity emerged from a fervent brew of digital connectivity, technological concepts, and shared work (Coleman, 2012). Political awareness was connected to liberalism through open-source and code over time. Put simply, being a hacker is a trajectory with multiple points of origin and destinations. Neither is suggesting that hackers are ordinary meant to discard a concern with exceptional hackers. We should be concerned with the Chelsea Mannings and Edward Snowdens of the world, and the causes they have championed.

We may simply misunderstand what motivates them to do what they do as new groups adopt the identity. We presume they follow in a certain mold of hackers, or are Trojan horses for Silicon Valley.

características

Like many other AI practitioners, I’m a philosophical functionalist: I believe that a cognitive state, such as one derived from reading, should not be defined by what it is made of in terms of hardware or biology, but instead by how it functions, in relation to inputs, outputs and other cognitive states. (Opponents of functionalism include behaviourists – who insist that mental states are nothing other than dispositions to behave in certain ways – and mind-brain identity theorists – who argue that mental states are identical with particular neural states, and are tied to specific biological ‘hardware’.)