Endnotes

К оглавлению
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 
17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 
34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 
51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 
68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 
85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 
102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 
119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 
136 137 138 139 140 141 142 143 144 145 146 147 148 149 150 151 152 
153 154 155 156 

1 However this approach (of spaceless places) have become questioned.

Miller & Slater (2000) for example take a critical stance against the ways

in which Internet (cyberspace or virtuality) have been examined. They

mean that one has to understand the Internet media as continuous with and

embedded in other spaces, that they happen within mundane social

structures and relations that they may transform but that they cannot

escape into a self-enclosed cyberian apartness (see also Brown & Perry,

2002). Similarly Hine (2000) provides accounts of how space and place

are brought in to activities taking place on the Internet, as ways of

structuring trust, importance, reliance etc.

2 Standing at a bus stop does not necessarily mean that the people want to

embark onto the bus. A subtle negotiation between passengers and bus

driver is needed to handle the understanding of the location and to verify

a shared notion of it. As one driver described: “People show their

intentions. They walk forward if they want to get on the bus. They get up

from the bench. They return into the booth and sit down or turn their backs

to the bus if they don’t want to board… They can also wave to show that

they don’t want to get on the bus.” Similar negotiation, and uncertainty,

occurs when a passenger wants to disembark public transport. The bus

stop is also negotiable and passengers and drivers can agree on stopping

at other locations than those that are marked.