- nexa - server-nexa.polito.it

Celebrazione del Pubblico Dominio 2012, Conferenza spettacolo - 5 giugno 2012

by Giuseppe Futia

Celebrazione del Pubblico Dominio 2012 *Conferenza spettacolo* *Martedì 5 giugno 2012, ore 17.30* *Salone d'Onore, Castello del Valentino -- Viale Mattioli, 39, Torino* Il Sistema Bibliotecario del Politecnico di Torino <http://www.biblio.polito.it/>, il Centro Nexa su Internet & Società del Politecnico di Torino (DAUIN) <http://nexa.polito.it/> , MuseoTorino <http://www.museotorino.it/>, Biblioteche Civiche Torinesi <http://www.comune.torino.it/cultura/biblioteche/index/index.shtml> e Fondazione Teatro Nuovo Torino <http://www.teatronuovo.torino.it/> presentano una conferenza-spettacolo, evento conclusivo delle iniziative promosse per la celebrazione del Pubblico Dominio 2012. Si tratta dell'ultima tappa di una collaborazione che ha visto i giovani attori del Liceo teatrale e del Corso Professionale Attori della Fondazione Teatro Nuovo presentare agli studenti del Politecnico*la rivisitazione dei testi di James Joyce, Gaetano Mosca, Virginia Woolf, Luigi Natoli e Amalia Guglielminetti, alcuni dei grandi scrittori entrati quest'anno nel pubblico dominio, ai settant'anni dalla loro scomparsa*. Gli spettacoli sono stati proposti con la modalità del flash mob in biblioteca: una sorpresa che ha destato curiosità e interesse tra i ragazzi impegnati tra appunti e tesine. *Nell'evento del 5 giugno verranno riproposti 4 dei 7 corti teatrali realizzati*: due corti tratti da opere della Woolf e di Natoli, l'interpretazione della favola di Joice "Il gatto e il diavolo" e "Che cosa è la mafia" di Gaetano Mosca, scritto del 1900 ma ancora molto attuale, anche alla luce dei recenti fatti di cronaca e del ventennale delle stragi di mafia. *Verranno inoltre proiettati i trailer dei video girati durante i flash mob*. Per condividere i risultati e lo spirito dell'iniziativa, è stato creato un sito internet visitabile alla pagina http://www.biblio.polito.it/eventi/flashmob/, in cui è possibile consultare le biografie e le bibliografie di scrittori e artisti in pubblico dominio nel 2012, accedere a link in cui trovare materiale gratuito scaricabile online, visitare il catalogo del Sistema bibliotecario del Politecnico per sapere dove trovare i volumi degli autori. Sono stati inoltre caricati video e fotografie delle performance rappresentate e materiale di altre iniziative in tema. *Programma*: 17.30 Benvenuto delle autorità 17.45 Presentazione dell'incontro: Prof. Sergio Pace 18.00 Corti teatrali a cura della Fondazione Teatro Nuovo Torino tratti da scritti di: Virginia Woolf, James Joice, Gaetano Mosca e Luigi Natoli 19.00 Conclusioni

June 1, 2012

Re: [nexa] Fwd: [ NNSquad ] Saving the Internet, Ourselves, and the Future

by Andrea Glorioso

Perdonatemi il cinismo. Bellissima (oddio, io la trovo eccessiva, ma "de gustibus"..) retorica, zero pragmatica. In questo modo non si va molto lontano. Ciao, Andrea On Fri, Jun 1, 2012 at 8:57 AM, J.C. DE MARTIN <demartin(a)polito.it> wrote: > Memorabile post di Lauren Weinstein, > che penso echeggi i pensieri di molti. > > JC > > Begin forwarded message: > > From: Lauren Weinstein <lauren(a)vortex.com> > Date: 01 giugno 2012 02:55:42 CEST > To: nnsquad(a)nnsquad.org > Subject: [ NNSquad ] Saving the Internet, Ourselves, and the Future > > > Saving the Internet, Ourselves, and the Future > > http://lauren.vortex.com/archive/000963.html > > > Since its birth as the U.S. Department of Defense ARPANET research > project, the Internet has faced various threats -- some technical, > some in the policy realm, and some purely political. > > Recently we've seen the SOPA and PIPA legislation. Make no mistake > about it -- the Hollywood content giants have not given up on their > desires to reshape the Internet in their own traditional images. > > We now face CISPA and its cyber-scaremongering, with cyberwar > profiteering threatening to undermine decades of privacy protection > legislation. > > Everything in the vast repertoire of mankind is finding its way onto > the Net in various guises, from wonders sublime and beautiful, to > horrors of the most crass and demeaning. > > There are marvels of generosity, cooperation and good will to be found > all over the Net. > > But there is also blatant exploitation by those who see the Internet > and its technologies merely as a "gold rush" to be exploited, the best > interests of the community at large be damned -- organizations > explicitly entrusted with the well-being of the Net sometimes joining > the dark side in the enablement of obscene profits. > > Our overall unwillingness -- especially as technologists -- to "play > the game" the way the "big boys" play has allowed entities with less > than admirable motives to gain sway over many aspects of the Net. > > In the U.S., net neutrality and service quality have languished as a > few dominant ISPs have reached their pinnacles through exploitation of > original monopoly grants, cherry picking deployments of broadband, and > outright lying to communities -- not to mention outright political > chicanery to help kill off effective competition. > > We have allowed relatively minor issues such as arguments about Web > cookies to become political pawns, diverting us while governments plan > and deploy vast schemes to control and censor the Internet, turning > the Net from a tool that could greatly enhance individual rights, into > a mechanism to muzzle and control. > > Fear that efforts to find new, innovative ways to solve the Net's > problems might not succeed, have resulted in a continuing panicked > embrace of organizations and policies of demonstrated failures, > creating ever broadening wedges between the wide variety of Internet > stakeholders around the planet. > > And now, as the United Nations (UN) and International Telecommunications > Union (ITU) contemplate a horrific takeover of many aspects of the > Internet, we reap what we have sowed through our long complacency > and unwillingness to use all tools at our disposal to fight > for Internet freedoms. > ( http://j.mp/KhOR8m [Vint Cerf Congressional Testimony {PDF}] Lauren's Blog > ) > > We may yet still have time to turn the tide for many of these issues. > But every day the odds loom larger against us, and the image of Don > Quixote stabbing uselessly at windmills is increasingly difficult to > banish from one's mind. > > When I started working on the ARPANET decades ago, most of the other > students at UCLA were confined to using keypunches and IBM punch > cards. > > I've watched as computational power that used to fill rooms has been > vastly outstripped by a tiny box hanging on my belt, and even smaller > devices still. > > Communications capabilities hardly even dreamed of decades ago are now > commonplace. Even the masters of classical science fiction mostly had > a blind spot to coming technological magic like smartphones and other > personal communications devices. > > To see so much of what we have jointly created being put at risk > today, for the sake of government suppression and the almighty dollar, > is frankly nothing short of being quintessentially depressing. > > I'm not one of those persons who had an organized "plan" for my life. > I never intended to become deeply involved in technology policy issues > as I am now, and I morphed into that role gradually from a more > traditional code hacking environment. > > In retrospect, I might well have been happier if I had stayed more > completely in the software engineering realm. Conceptual > "satisfaction" seems much easier to derive from deployed system > metrics than from seemingly intractable public policy dilemmas. > > And yet, one does what one can, and I've endeavored to be scrupulously > honest in the process. Over the years my various attempts at > commentary and analysis have at one time or another upset just about > all points on the spectrum. Perhaps this means I've struck an > appropriate balance in the long run. Perhaps it means I struck out > entirely. All I've ever tried to do in these regards is call the > issues as I see them, suggest where I thought matters were awry and > how they might be improved, and let folks make their own judgments. > > But as the saying goes, all that plus a dollar will buy you a cup of > cheap coffee these days. > > The future will look back on what we're doing now -- right now -- > towards protecting Internet freedoms. They may peer back with > gratitude for what we achieved, or they may curse us in our graves for > opportunities lost. > > That aspect of the future is still ultimately under our control, today. > > I grew up along with the Internet, and I like to think helping it in > my own small ways -- watching it evolve into the technology > infrastructure and communications foundation of the world. > > We are now at a moment, a crossroad in history and time, where the > decisions we make about the Internet, and its importance to our lives > and freedoms, will have lasting effects for many years, decades, or > perhaps far longer. > > Will the Internet be sucked completely into the pit of oppression, > censorship, and greed, or will we have the moral fortitude to say, > "No! Not to our Internet. Not to what we worked so long and hard to > achieve in the name of freedom, humanity, and community." > > Quixotic or not, the quest for the best possible Internet for everyone > is an effort in which I've been honored to be engaged. To lose this > battle, this war, is potentially to lose so much else that will matter > to your children, and to their children, and potentially to many more > generations yet to come. > > It's about so much more than bits and bytes, disks and fiber, CPUs and > JavaScript. The Internet is humanity. We are the Internet. > > If we lose the Internet, we lose ourselves. > > Take care, all. And thanks. > > --Lauren-- > Lauren Weinstein (lauren(a)vortex.com) http://www.vortex.com/lauren > Co-Founder: People For Internet Responsibility: http://www.pfir.org > Founder: > - Data Wisdom Explorers League: http://www.dwel.org > - Network Neutrality Squad: http://www.nnsquad.org > - Global Coalition for Transparent Internet Performance: > http://www.gctip.org > - PRIVACY Forum: http://www.vortex.com > Member: ACM Committee on Computers and Public Policy > Lauren's Blog: http://lauren.vortex.com > Google+: http://vortex.com/g+lauren / Twitter: http://vortex.com/t-lauren > Tel: +1 (818) 225-2800 / Skype: vortex.com > _______________________________________________ > nnsquad mailing list > http://lists.nnsquad.org/mailman/listinfo/nnsquad > > > _______________________________________________ > nexa mailing list > nexa(a)server-nexa.polito.it > https://server-nexa.polito.it/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/nexa > -- -- I speak only for myself. Sometimes I do not even agree with myself. Keep it in mind. Twitter: @andreaglorioso Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/andrea.glorioso LinkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/profile/view?id=1749288&trk=tab_pro

June 1, 2012

Trib. di Firenze: websearch e responsabilità

by Blengino

Una sentenza da leggere, che farà discutere, ma mi pare corretta e condivisibile: http://bit.ly/Me0tdL

June 1, 2012

Fwd: [ NNSquad ] Saving the Internet, Ourselves, and the Future

by J.C. DE MARTIN

Memorabile post di Lauren Weinstein, che penso echeggi i pensieri di molti. JC Begin forwarded message: > From: Lauren Weinstein <lauren(a)vortex.com> > Date: 01 giugno 2012 02:55:42 CEST > To: nnsquad(a)nnsquad.org > Subject: [ NNSquad ] Saving the Internet, Ourselves, and the Future > > > Saving the Internet, Ourselves, and the Future > > http://lauren.vortex.com/archive/000963.html > > > Since its birth as the U.S. Department of Defense ARPANET research > project, the Internet has faced various threats -- some technical, > some in the policy realm, and some purely political. > > Recently we've seen the SOPA and PIPA legislation. Make no mistake > about it -- the Hollywood content giants have not given up on their > desires to reshape the Internet in their own traditional images. > > We now face CISPA and its cyber-scaremongering, with cyberwar > profiteering threatening to undermine decades of privacy protection > legislation. > > Everything in the vast repertoire of mankind is finding its way onto > the Net in various guises, from wonders sublime and beautiful, to > horrors of the most crass and demeaning. > > There are marvels of generosity, cooperation and good will to be found > all over the Net. > > But there is also blatant exploitation by those who see the Internet > and its technologies merely as a "gold rush" to be exploited, the best > interests of the community at large be damned -- organizations > explicitly entrusted with the well-being of the Net sometimes joining > the dark side in the enablement of obscene profits. > > Our overall unwillingness -- especially as technologists -- to "play > the game" the way the "big boys" play has allowed entities with less > than admirable motives to gain sway over many aspects of the Net. > > In the U.S., net neutrality and service quality have languished as a > few dominant ISPs have reached their pinnacles through exploitation of > original monopoly grants, cherry picking deployments of broadband, and > outright lying to communities -- not to mention outright political > chicanery to help kill off effective competition. > > We have allowed relatively minor issues such as arguments about Web > cookies to become political pawns, diverting us while governments plan > and deploy vast schemes to control and censor the Internet, turning > the Net from a tool that could greatly enhance individual rights, into > a mechanism to muzzle and control. > > Fear that efforts to find new, innovative ways to solve the Net's > problems might not succeed, have resulted in a continuing panicked > embrace of organizations and policies of demonstrated failures, > creating ever broadening wedges between the wide variety of Internet > stakeholders around the planet. > > And now, as the United Nations (UN) and International Telecommunications > Union (ITU) contemplate a horrific takeover of many aspects of the > Internet, we reap what we have sowed through our long complacency > and unwillingness to use all tools at our disposal to fight > for Internet freedoms. > ( http://j.mp/KhOR8m [Vint Cerf Congressional Testimony {PDF}] Lauren's Blog ) > > We may yet still have time to turn the tide for many of these issues. > But every day the odds loom larger against us, and the image of Don > Quixote stabbing uselessly at windmills is increasingly difficult to > banish from one's mind. > > When I started working on the ARPANET decades ago, most of the other > students at UCLA were confined to using keypunches and IBM punch > cards. > > I've watched as computational power that used to fill rooms has been > vastly outstripped by a tiny box hanging on my belt, and even smaller > devices still. > > Communications capabilities hardly even dreamed of decades ago are now > commonplace. Even the masters of classical science fiction mostly had > a blind spot to coming technological magic like smartphones and other > personal communications devices. > > To see so much of what we have jointly created being put at risk > today, for the sake of government suppression and the almighty dollar, > is frankly nothing short of being quintessentially depressing. > > I'm not one of those persons who had an organized "plan" for my life. > I never intended to become deeply involved in technology policy issues > as I am now, and I morphed into that role gradually from a more > traditional code hacking environment. > > In retrospect, I might well have been happier if I had stayed more > completely in the software engineering realm. Conceptual > "satisfaction" seems much easier to derive from deployed system > metrics than from seemingly intractable public policy dilemmas. > > And yet, one does what one can, and I've endeavored to be scrupulously > honest in the process. Over the years my various attempts at > commentary and analysis have at one time or another upset just about > all points on the spectrum. Perhaps this means I've struck an > appropriate balance in the long run. Perhaps it means I struck out > entirely. All I've ever tried to do in these regards is call the > issues as I see them, suggest where I thought matters were awry and > how they might be improved, and let folks make their own judgments. > > But as the saying goes, all that plus a dollar will buy you a cup of > cheap coffee these days. > > The future will look back on what we're doing now -- right now -- > towards protecting Internet freedoms. They may peer back with > gratitude for what we achieved, or they may curse us in our graves for > opportunities lost. > > That aspect of the future is still ultimately under our control, today. > > I grew up along with the Internet, and I like to think helping it in > my own small ways -- watching it evolve into the technology > infrastructure and communications foundation of the world. > > We are now at a moment, a crossroad in history and time, where the > decisions we make about the Internet, and its importance to our lives > and freedoms, will have lasting effects for many years, decades, or > perhaps far longer. > > Will the Internet be sucked completely into the pit of oppression, > censorship, and greed, or will we have the moral fortitude to say, > "No! Not to our Internet. Not to what we worked so long and hard to > achieve in the name of freedom, humanity, and community." > > Quixotic or not, the quest for the best possible Internet for everyone > is an effort in which I've been honored to be engaged. To lose this > battle, this war, is potentially to lose so much else that will matter > to your children, and to their children, and potentially to many more > generations yet to come. > > It's about so much more than bits and bytes, disks and fiber, CPUs and > JavaScript. The Internet is humanity. We are the Internet. > > If we lose the Internet, we lose ourselves. > > Take care, all. And thanks. > > --Lauren-- > Lauren Weinstein (lauren(a)vortex.com) http://www.vortex.com/lauren > Co-Founder: People For Internet Responsibility: http://www.pfir.org > Founder: > - Data Wisdom Explorers League: http://www.dwel.org > - Network Neutrality Squad: http://www.nnsquad.org > - Global Coalition for Transparent Internet Performance: http://www.gctip.org > - PRIVACY Forum: http://www.vortex.com > Member: ACM Committee on Computers and Public Policy > Lauren's Blog: http://lauren.vortex.com > Google+: http://vortex.com/g+lauren / Twitter: http://vortex.com/t-lauren > Tel: +1 (818) 225-2800 / Skype: vortex.com > _______________________________________________ > nnsquad mailing list > http://lists.nnsquad.org/mailman/listinfo/nnsquad >

June 1, 2012

Re: [nexa] la decisione della Commissaria Kroes in merito alla Net Neutrality

by Carlo Blengino

"Wait and see" era la posizione della Commissione nel 2011 -COM(2011) 222 final- Ora che abbiamo visto, ...continuiamo ad aspettare. Utile rileggere la stizzita reazione in allora in tema data protection del EDPS http://db.tt/tJQpQTA0 C. Inviato da iPad2 Il giorno 30/mag/2012, alle ore 12:23, "J.C. DE MARTIN" <demartin(a)polito.it> ha scritto: > http://blogs.ec.europa.eu/neelie-kroes/netneutrality/ > > La mia prima reazione a caldo è che sia una decisione > sbagliata per almeno quattro motivi principali: > > 1. sottostima le capacità dei consumatori non solo di ottenere > le informazioni necessarie, ma anche e soprattutto di capire > le implicazioni potenziali delle proprie scelte; > > 2. sottostima le difficoltà (certamente in Italia, ma mi stupirebbe > se fossimo gli unici) di cambiare ISP: se lo switch ha un costo > sostanziale (e ce l'ha), come si fa a costruire l'intera decisione > sulla possibilità di "votare coi propri piedi"? > > 3. per non parlare che in aree rurali, o anche solo in città non grandi, > l'offerta di ISP, dove c'è, è limitata; > > 4. per non parlare infine, che gli ISP non sono tutti uguali, > tranne l'eventuale differenza "full internet" / "limited Internet" > (che per me è un ossimoro, ma ci siamo capiti): le loro caratteristiche > sono multi-dimensionali. Come farà l'utente, per di più non super > evoluto (vedi punto 1), a confrontare l'ISP veloce ma "limited Internet" > con l'ISP lento ma "full Internet"? E confrontare i vari "limited Internet" > tra di loro? Se c'e' un settore dove l'asimmetria informativa, per > non parlare della più bizantina offerta commerciale, regna sovrana > sono le TLC e la Commissaria Kroes dovrebbe saperlo. > > Se si pensa di risolvere questi quattro problemi ex post, > good luck with that. > > E' purtroppo facile prevedere le conseguenze di questa scelta > della Commissaria Kroes: la maggioranza degli utenti opterà per il > servizio a prezzo minore (che, c'e' da scommetterci, nel giro di un > 1-2 anni costerà come quello "full" di adesso...), purchè gli venga > garantito Facebook, email, e YouTube.... > > > juan carlos > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > nexa mailing list > nexa(a)server-nexa.polito.it > https://server-nexa.polito.it/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/nexa

May 30, 2012

R: la decisione della Commissaria Kroes in merito alla Net Neutrality

by G.Battista Frontera

.....succede anche in Italia che gli operatori del mobile, tutti, sbadatamente, non consentano sempre skipe. In alcuni casi (devo però aver conferma) addirittura non consentono lo scaricamento dell'applicazione. Mi sa che per cambiar qualcosa nella Commissione, ciò deve passare per un rinnovamento della classe politica che in Francia è già avvenuto, in Germania sta per accadere ed in Italia auspichiamo fortemente. Ciao. Gb

May 30, 2012

Re: [nexa] la decisione della Commissaria Kroes in merito alla Net Neutrality

by Paolo Brini

On 05/30/2012 12:23 PM, J.C. DE MARTIN wrote: > http://blogs.ec.europa.eu/neelie-kroes/netneutrality/ > > La mia prima reazione a caldo è che sia una decisione > sbagliata per almeno quattro motivi principali: > > 1. sottostima le capacità dei consumatori non solo di ottenere > le informazioni necessarie, ma anche e soprattutto di capire > le implicazioni potenziali delle proprie scelte; > > 2. sottostima le difficoltà (certamente in Italia, ma mi stupirebbe > se fossimo gli unici) di cambiare ISP: se lo switch ha un costo > sostanziale (e ce l'ha), come si fa a costruire l'intera decisione > sulla possibilità di "votare coi propri piedi"? > > 3. per non parlare che in aree rurali, o anche solo in città non grandi, > l'offerta di ISP, dove c'è, è limitata; Sono perfettamente d'accordo, e mi sembra addirittura che il punto 3 sia sottostimato a livelli drammatici. Non si tratta infatti di offerte limitate solo in aree rurali o città non grandi, ma addirittura in interi Stati Membri. Un esempio significativo: da 2 anni, come la Commissaria sa benissimo, non è più possibile usare Skype e altri servizi VoIP in Francia con gli operatori mobili, perché tutti li bloccano. I cittadini, almeno quelli informati, stanno usando VPN commerciali per poter utilizzare Skype o altri servizi VoIP di non appartenenza degli operatori mobili, con conseguenti costi aggiuntivi, anche se comunque convenienti rispetto al non poter usare il VoIP per nulla. Ci sono indicazioni che altri operatori di altri Stati Membri (Italia compresa) stiano seguendo la strategia del blocco protocolli e applicazioni con una politica comune che meriterebbe indagini per tentare di scoprire eventuali accordi segreti fra gli operatori mobili. La distorsione del libero mercato (ammesso e non concesso che si possa ancora parlare di libero mercato) in questo contesto è palese, ma la Commissaria (e naturalmente gli Stati Membri , le designate autorità delle comunicazioni e forse anche le autorità antitrust) a mio avviso ha sempre fallito nel correggere una situazione che configura delle pratiche anticompetitive. Vorrei anche sottolineare che una volta che gli operatori saranno certi di poterla fare franca dopo aver soffocato Skype e altri concorrenti VoIP sul mobile, è ragionevole ipotizzare che non avranno più alcuna remora ad estendere i blocchi a qualsiasi altro settore che reputino minaccioso, purché ne diano informazione nei loro contratti. Ciao, Paolo

May 30, 2012

la decisione della Commissaria Kroes in merito alla Net Neutrality

by J.C. DE MARTIN

http://blogs.ec.europa.eu/neelie-kroes/netneutrality/ La mia prima reazione a caldo è che sia una decisione sbagliata per almeno quattro motivi principali: 1. sottostima le capacità dei consumatori non solo di ottenere le informazioni necessarie, ma anche e soprattutto di capire le implicazioni potenziali delle proprie scelte; 2. sottostima le difficoltà (certamente in Italia, ma mi stupirebbe se fossimo gli unici) di cambiare ISP: se lo switch ha un costo sostanziale (e ce l'ha), come si fa a costruire l'intera decisione sulla possibilità di "votare coi propri piedi"? 3. per non parlare che in aree rurali, o anche solo in città non grandi, l'offerta di ISP, dove c'è, è limitata; 4. per non parlare infine, che gli ISP non sono tutti uguali, tranne l'eventuale differenza "full internet" / "limited Internet" (che per me è un ossimoro, ma ci siamo capiti): le loro caratteristiche sono multi-dimensionali. Come farà l'utente, per di più non super evoluto (vedi punto 1), a confrontare l'ISP veloce ma "limited Internet" con l'ISP lento ma "full Internet"? E confrontare i vari "limited Internet" tra di loro? Se c'e' un settore dove l'asimmetria informativa, per non parlare della più bizantina offerta commerciale, regna sovrana sono le TLC e la Commissaria Kroes dovrebbe saperlo. Se si pensa di risolvere questi quattro problemi ex post, good luck with that. E' purtroppo facile prevedere le conseguenze di questa scelta della Commissaria Kroes: la maggioranza degli utenti opterà per il servizio a prezzo minore (che, c'e' da scommetterci, nel giro di un 1-2 anni costerà come quello "full" di adesso...), purchè gli venga garantito Facebook, email, e YouTube.... juan carlos

May 30, 2012

da leggere: studio BEREC su Net Neutrality

by J.C. DE MARTIN

http://erg.eu.int/doc/consult/bor_12_30_tm-i_snapshot.pdf *A view of traffic management and other practices resulting in restrictions to the open Internet in Europe* Findings from BEREC's and the European Commission's joint investigation 29 May 2012

May 30, 2012

EU commissioner Nellie Kroes message Net Neutrality

by Laura Abba

May 29, 2012