Introduction:How European Players Captured the Computer and Created Scenes

Playfulness was at the heart of how European players appropriated microcomputers in the last quarter of the twentieth century. Although gaming has been important for computer development, that is not the subject of Hacking Europe. Our book’s main focus is the playfulness of hacker culture. The essays argue that no matter how detailed or unfinished the design projecting the use of computers, users playfully assigned their own meanings to the machines in unexpected ways. Chopping games in Warsaw, hacking software in Athens, creating chaos in Hamburg, producing demos in Turku, or partying with computing in Zagreb and Amsterdam—wherever computers came with specific meanings that designers had attached to them—local communities throughout Europe found them technically fascinating, culturally inspiring, and politically motivating machines. They began tinkering with the new technology with boundless enthusiasm and helped revolutionize the use and meaning of computers by incorporating them into people’s daily lives. As tinkerers, hackers appropriated the machine and created a new culture around it. Perhaps best known and most visible were the hacker cultures that toyed with the meaning of ownership in the domain of information technology. In several parts of Europe, hackers created a counterculture akin to the squatter movement that challenged individual ownership, demanded equal access, and celebrated shared use of the new technological potential. The German Chaos Computer Club best embodied the European version of the political fusion of the counterculture movement and the love of technology. Linguistically, in Dutch, the slang word kraken, the term used for both hacking and squatting, pointedly expressed such creative fusion that is the subject of this book

De huisarts en de tijdgeest

Issues of Huisarts and Wetenschap from 1957 to 2008 were analysed to see whether the professional ethics of general practitioners have changed in response to changes in patient characteristics and changes in government policy. In addition, semi-structured interviews with three generations of GPs were carried out. Results showed that professional standards have changed over the years. In the 1950s and 1960s, GPs acted as ‘parents’ for their patients, determining what was appropriate for them. GPs still had this role in the 1970s, but it was no considered important to teach patients to be independent and to take responsibility for their health. This change, with emphasis on one’s own responsibility, was instigated by GPs and not by changes in patient characteristics. In the 1990s, restraint became a professional standard, but this policy proved difficult to communicate to patients. The introduction of market forces to health care has made it increasingly difficult for GPs to be restrained in the provision of care. How the professional ethics of GPs will change in the future depends on the solidarity among GPs and on government policy