Slashdot Mirror
Universal Access
Universal Access to computing and the Net is becoming a reality, at least for some middle and working-class Americans, rather than the pipedream it was even a few years ago.
Among the sometimes arrogant techno-elite, the expense and complexity of going online is continuously trivialized, dismissed. But corporations seem to grasp how how critical it is for their employees -- and their kids and spouses -- to have Net access. And they?re making it happen.
Last year, the Ford Motor Company became the first major corporation to announce that it would provide computers, monitors and Net access to all its employees and members of their families, worldwide.
The Intel Corp. said that it would also give its employees home PC's plus Net access. Delta and American Airlines quickly followed. Intel actually topped Ford's better idea by providing PC's plus Internet access for its employees. Delta and American Airlines quickly followed suit. Intel topped Ford's offer by providing its workers with PC's that feature a 667-megahertz Pentium III, 128 megabytes, 32 megs of video RAM and a 20-gigabyte hard drive, plus a 17-inch monitor, a printer, a bundle of "productivity software" and a video-conferencing camera. Perhaps shamed by the fact that a car company trumped the tech industry, Intel even threw in each employee's choice of one computer-connected toy for the new Intel playline.
Friday, enRamp announced a new corporate affinity program that would enable businesses and other organizations to provide technology benefits, including complete computing packages to associates and their families. The idea of computing as an employee benefit is also significant. The enRamp program allows participants to obtain PC's by paying monthly charges of $24.95 or less over a three-year period, deducted from paychecks or organization dues.
Hardware aside, there's an enormous political idea here. Computers are increasingly becoming seen as a right, not just an expensive commercial, social or recreational appliance. Such companies like Ford see that access to computing can enhance morale and loyalty, facilitate corporate communications, transcend geographic boundaries, and even benefit family life, since many global employees and their kids would not be able to afford computers otherwise.
Ford and Intel get it.
This is good for the country, and great news for the tech industry: Universal Access, if it really catches, means staggeringly huge sales of computers, software and bandwidth to private companies, educational systems, perhaps even government agencies.
Universal Access is that rarest of social phenomena, the win-win issue. Except for moral guardians clucking about pornography and violent video games, who could really oppose it?: It can advance technology while it helps eliminate potentially bitter social divisions, upgrades literacy, education and research, liberates information, enhances democracy, strengthens community. Some companies even believes if strengthens family ties. It would make the Net a universal business, educational and social tool, rather than a network for the affluent, educated and technologically-inclined it is now.
Universal Access is one of the most unambivalently moral issues relating to technology and contemporary society. It helps fulfill the real promise of technology --- to bring information to everyone on the planet. Not to take anything away from the sweatshop issue, it's hard to think of a cause that would do more for the disadvantaged right here at home. While middle-class Americans are hooking up to the Net like mad, poor Americans aren't. Nor has most of the underdeveloped world. Without Universal Access, they will soon be hating the technologically-connected (especially the American variety) who monopolize and dominate the new technologies driving the global economy.
It's interesting that corporations, of all entities, rather than educational or political institutions (colleges and universities rarely provide personal computers to students taking these strides). Business grasps that internal communications networks, interconnected business environments and systems that involve the whole family are good for business. That they are, in fact, potentially good for everybody.
This will raise some interesting political issues as well, especially in countries with Ford workers but without protected freedom of speech. Since access to the Net makes censorship virtually impossible, countries with foreign workers working for companies like Ford will be under increased pressure to wire up.
So Universal Access inches towards reality. Although only a handful of companies have yet offered their workers full Net access and computing equipment, it seems inevitable that others will follow, if for no other reason that to stay competitive in a tight labor market.
Universal Access to computers doesn't guarantee any sort of social or techno-utopia, but would spread free speech and bring ideas like online voting closer. It will surely bring even bigger changes in retailing, e-trading, online entertainment and communication along with pressure to resolve the host of legal conflicts arising over patents and copyright. Every computer user could shop globally, every retailer sell all over the planet.
The designers of the Net (read C.J.R. Licklider and Jon Postel) fantasized that the computer network would become a universal educational and information tool. Mostly because of class and other factors, that hasn't happened. Universal Access might make it so.
Does that sound the least bit contradictory? I mean, your community is edging toward universal access.
The internet is a fun party-- and is open to everyone-- but you have to find someone to extend the invitation to you.
That's the only trick you have to learn; and it's not even a technical skill. It's how I learned how to use the internet and it's how everyone I know has learned as well; including my 70 year old parents.
The first step is always getting someone to show you how to use email.
The second is finding a person or mailing-list that will tolerate absolute-beginner questions.
The third is to collect the locations of the depositories of useful information.
I believe facilitating these steps will help.
Without social interaction the promise of Universal Access is access to an empty room, a vacant desert.
Best of luck!
Not to mention intellectual property, or virus-writing teens, or folks using Gnutella to host thousands of MP3s on the hardware and connection the company so thoughtfully provided....
I like the concept - if I were Joe Autoworker, it might make a difference whether I applied to Ford or GM, or went to work for Intel vs. Motorola - but I can't help but think the lawyers are going to try to ruin it by saying the corps. have responsibility for what's on these systems.
Anyone who works for Ford or Intel can already afford a computer (especially now with Gateway and others creation of payment plans) and more than likely works with a computer daily at work.
Umm, you're not too familar with what Ford does, are you?
The last time I toured an auto plant, there were suprisingly few web terminals on the assembly line. And even fewer cases of little Jimmy coming in to use dad's computer (on the assembly line) to research his term paper.
Oh, and these people, mostly lower-to-mid middle class, are on the edge of being able to afford a computer and internet access. They probably could, but it would definately not be trivial in their budgets.
BTW, a couple of the other companies mentioned were airlines. Not big computer-on-the-desk kinds of jobs either.
Actually, I suspect it's not the admins that rule with the iron fist. I suspect it's management directives.
:)
I've previously had to write scripts tracking mail to/from. I've also had to hack the popd source code to take info from users incoming mailboxes. All of this has been at management direction, and usually my immediate supervisors and I have argued over it..but it comes down to...do it or someone else can have your job.
I disagree (personally) with doing things like that, but I also like to eat and buy things myself. Perhaps that is a bit selfish
I think we know who the bigger karma whore is here. Wonder why you post a comment that you know will be moderated down as an AC...
I have to differ with the majority of the opinions expressed here.
While I have no objection to allowing people regardless of [fill in criteria here], I do have other objections to universal access.
First, I disagree with access for elementary/middle schools. We've all heard stories about school districts running fibre thrrough the school and then connecting it to the upstream provider with a cable. The sheer waste of money for such endeavors is appalling. Second, test scores for children in the US are consistently among the lowest. Do kids really need to be learning "Web Design 101" when they can't read/write/do arithmatic? What about the teachers who are struggling to get by on low wages in the face of this technology? And this doesn't even address stories of schools calling on tech support to help them set up the computers. Tech support arrives to find that the computers in question are across the room from the nearest power outlet (true story).
Second, universal access for John and Jane Doe is not necessarily a good idea, either. John and Jane use AOL. They conform to much of the AOL stereotype. They use their AOL account to send chain mail along to their other AOL/prodigy/compuserve/... friends. They put up pictures of their beer parties and family outings on the web. While this is all well and good, it is an awful waste of disk space and bandwidth. If you're just going to share your pictures and send mail, use the USPS.
Access has its uses, which I don't even need to list here. However, there are plenty of people for whom access means yet another bill for a service they don't use for much. Is this really a good thing (unless you're an ISP who likes to sell to infrequent subscribers)? I don't think so. Besides, the proliferation of purple-and-lime colored web pages with John and Jane on it has clogged the net (not to mention turning it into an eyesore example of what *not* to do when making a web page).
While the net has its uses, especially for those among us who are power users, I don't think that this is sufficient justification for allowing anyone with a phone line and a power outlet on the net. Indeed, it is even less of a reason for a company to go out and give its employees computers and internet access. Those employees who wanted access already have it, and those who don't add to the clog of lemmings swelling the net.
Who am I?
Why am here?
Where is the chocolate?
What is your Slash Rating?
There Ain't No Such Thing As A Free Lunch
When Harris Teeter gives you their VIC card which enables you to obtain discounts, they are selling your profile to lord knows who. Eventually people are going to be denied insurance claims or perhaps jobs because of their buying habits. They become an easily opened book. So when the cashier asks if I have a VIC card, I show her cash and say, "Here's my VIC crad."
These companies who offer such access will do exactly the same thing. They will spy on you. Heck, if they equip these computers with cameras, they basically have the same setup as described in Orwell's 1984.
Wansu, th' chinese sailor
Instant on computers.
Note that if you can really trust the OS and other constantly running programs not to cruft up (allocate memory and never deallocate it, etc.), you can simply have a sleep mode, where the memory and virtual memory is maintained until the user is ready to use the machine again. Generally the consumer OSes aren't reliable enough to do this with for long periods of time, though.
Ooh, a sarcasm detector. Oh, that's a real useful invention.
American Corporate Employee doesn't mean *Universal*.
This is self-centrical and absurd. Universal would mean than any (put here any really poor country) family has a computer, a communications device (ie. a phone) and health, food, literacy, etc. enough to connect to Internet. It's really hard to press keys when you're starving, isn't it?
Sigh. Sometimes I become desperate when I realise that even for some cultured Americans the Universe is USA...
This whole thing is IMHO just a plot to drag employees into unpaid work-from-home.
--
This is coroporate access, not universal access.
Can you really imagine Walmart giving all their checkout staff a free PC? How about bank workers, postmen, gas station attendants, farmworkers? How about temporary staff, office temps, single working mothers, voluntary staff, and the semi-retired? This is indeed a rather blinkered vision of "universal".
Universal should be all-inclusive. In fact there is a valid argument for giving to poorer and less advantaged communities first, to generate a better standard of living from the ground up, and with it a general increase in economic activity that benefits everyone.
Some might argue, "Well at least it's a start." I disagree. Most of these socially beneficial ideas start with the privileged few and always seem to go out of political fashion before they ever seep down to those who need them most.
Instead of big, bold PR stunts as these, companies should be implementing ethical recycling policies - old PCs + free software = inner city school IT system. How about free PCs for the local community?
--
Barry de la Rosa,
public[at]bpdlr.orgASM,
tel. +44 (0)7092 005700
-- /. ID is lower than Bruce Perens'!
Barry de la Rosa,
public[at]bpdlr.org
My
Being lent a PC and net access by your employer is 'nice', but hardly a moral thing to do :P
..and what about privacy? What happens if our employment contract allows us own software we create on our own time and on our own PC? What happens if the PC is a company asset? What policies can/will companies enforce on their employees in order to take advantage of the offerings?
"You were logged as visiting a pr0n site using company equipment, you're fired"
Give your head a shake. Rue the day that I view my employer lending me gadgets a moral thing to do.
Thus the candle hath singed the moth.
This isn't necessary, and here's why.
What happens when an employee needs to call the office from work? He/she picks up the telephone. Do employers give out free telephones? No. Everyone already has a telephone, and probably a television. Most have VCR's and cable or satellite feeds too.
The economies of scale are moving in the right direction without any assistance. With the convergence of telephone, television, and Internet that is ALREADY happening, it won't be long before employers can reasonably expect that their employees will already have Internet access at home.
And just like many employers currently offer discounted long distance as an employee perk, they can offer discounted Internet access. Hell, they could even give it to them for free by putting a bunch of terminal servers just outside the corporate firewall.
There's no need to implement Hillary Katz's latest socialist plan. Sorry.
--
Tired of FB/Google censorship? Visit UNCENSORED!
1) Companies are giving away computers to their employees for the same reason that some companies give employees company cars: it's a way to pay workers without getting raped by federal taxes. It costs employers $2 to put $1 of cash in employees pockets, thanks to socialist parasites who promote free lunch schemes like universal access. Employer-paid health insurance started as a means of getting around FDR's World War II wage and price controls, y'know.
2) If taxes weren't so damn high employers would just pay us cash and we'd buy whatever we want, without the strings, inefficiency, and paperwork.
3) There are millions of people out there who are too stupid to use computers no matter how much training you give them. You can't exempt humans from the Darwinian evolutionary theory the government education monopoly has been teaching us.
You can have freedom and low taxes, or you can have socialism/statism/fascism/communism, little freedom, little control over your life, and the universal "right" to a "free" PC some bureaucrat picked out for you. Plus Internet service equivalent to AOL run by the IRS.
Where have all the Libertarians gone?
pronoblem
pronoblem
I still think it's generally a good thing for US companies to donate computer equipment and Internet connections to their employees, but to try and tout it as the solution to the world wide problem of the ever growing gulf between the "Haves" and the "Have-nots" shows a complete lack of understanding of the deep complexity of the problem and its root causes.
-- Your Servant,
Your Servant, B. Baggins
What? they aren't allowed to turn off the machines? Such Tyranny!!!
---
I post links to stuff here
I do...
---
I post links to stuff here
You "see zero reason people should be encouraged to join it"? You don't think other people's viewpoints (from a variety of cultures) are important? You don't think /. benefits from people in various countries of differing economic backgrounds? If you don't like "being forced at gunpoint to give them computers" then sell you Intel stock (or ford or whatever other companies do this). If you recall, this is really about companies who've decided to do something for their employees.
You don't believe in the right to information huh? I bet we could save a buncha money by closing down all our public libraries. Hey, maybe /. could start charging for reading articles and posting comments. That'd probably keep the trolls away. I mean, we all know that anyone who can't afford to post isn't really intelligent/doesn't have a vaild point anyway, right? This whole free public schools thing is pretty expensive too. I mean, I don't have kids, why should I pay for schools? I don't see a problem with having my tax money go to programs I don't directly use. Suppose my kid doesn't play an instrument or participate in school sports, does that make it unfair that $.23 of my taxes goes to that? It's a pretty slippery slope when people start complaining that they don't see any benefit from where their tax dollars go. (Sorry for getting a bit off topic, but it seems we're now on to discussing the hypothetical situation of the government giving everyone below the poverty line a free computer)
Ok, I'll admit you lost me somewhere between the Sparc and how we should all die. I don't see believing that information and the internet should be more accessable or that we should try not to be so classist is so bleeding heart, but whatever. As I recall, the editorial is about how the working class is getting increased access to information and opportunites that the rest of us (those in tech fields, etc) already have. I don't understand how you're being forced at gunpoint to provide them with this or how the selfish views that they're going to suck up all your bandwidth are justified. I don't know if you're just trolling or objecting to this editorial because you hate jon kats (although I doubt both), but I think that companies providing their employees with "no strings attached" computers for home is a good thing.
They're not going to remotely search our PCs, they're not going to be able to arbitrarily take the computers back (we will own them), they're not going to monitor 70,000 employees remotly, and they don't have any more right to search the PC they give me any more than they do the ones I already own. I'm sure they could get a court order to search it, but I'm sure they could also get a court order to search the PC I have (that's why I organize all my "sick outs" from cyber cafes and from my friend's laptop using ricochet while on the move). Besides, I'm guessing that installing linux will foil their carefully laid plans for monitoring my behavior (unless maybe they're installing a hardware based spy solution :).
I'll admit, part of the reason I'm anoyed at the paranoid viewpoint is that, these free computer policies are going to get me a new machine (I'll probably upgrade to a notebook) and maybe a cheap DSL connection. Just because a company is part of the "evil empire" (shhh don't let the marketing people know I said that), doesn't mean that when they do stuff, they have hidden motives. I mean, I guess that all those "intel involved" emails I get every week urging us to go volunteer at local schools could be really just so the secret society can plant serial #s in the kids heads, but I tend to doubt it. Sorry for the somewhat sarcastic post, but excessive paranoia irritates me. To bastardize occam's razor, if there's an easier explanation... it's probably true.
Oh yeah, I agree, more digital devide! I think we should have computer literacy test before allowing people to be given free computers. Possibly an IQ test (since we all know that they measure schooling and _not_ intelligence, I'll keep all those dumb people off our net). Maybe we could look up some of those old voter tests that they gave affrican americans back before that whole damn civil rights movement. Yeah, we can't have any of those inferior races polluting our pure net can we? And, we definatly can't give computers to people who can't afford one. I mean, what would we do if to poor got access to the same information that we of the rich tecnical upper echelon had? Dem uppity runt's would think they were as good as us! They'd probably just pawn 'em for booze money I bet.
DO YOU THINK ABOUT WHAT YOU'RE SAYING? I won't try and assume or generalize about your political views, but do you understand that this kind of view calls for closed access so that only the rich elite are the privilaged few who can access the net? Do you believe that putting a computer in a kid's house who's parents may not be able to afford one is bad? I admit, with intel in this country it may not be the case, but at the fabs in other countries and with ford and other companies (danger generalization alert) people may not have access to the benefits you had when you grew up. Do you think that keeping them ignorant is really the way to improve their lives? I must assume that when you said, "There's nothing good in this", you meant "There's nothing good in this for ME". Correct me if I'm wrong, but the comment about bandwidth kinda makes it seem that way. I really hope this isn't a prevalent view point.
I agree Kool Moe, I'd happily see some of my tax money go to schools and libraries. I don't see anything wrong with my taxes being used to fund "socialist" programs like that. Another thing, despite the fact that this story has nothing to do with giving the wino down the stree a free computer (I don't think many intel employees are homeless), I don't see what wrong with giving him/her access to that. If it gives our bum (is that the term you used, I don't remember) new skills so he may be able to get a job, great! We pay a lot less in taxes here than in other countries (then again, I guess thats why our schools and health care may be suffering... but that's off topic), and although it may be inconvenient for me, I'm not starving to death or living in a box like some people in this country. I still fail to see how giving a computer to a family that may not be able to afford one is a bad thing. I think these companies are doing Something Good(tm). I admit that as an intel employee, I have a vested interest in this program, but I still stand by my beliefs.
Yeah, looks like he isn't even *pretending* to be a journalist, anymore. He's just like the trolls that post a link, saying it's something related to the story when it really is a link to pr0n.
Hey, watch me get marked down as a troll for this! Oh, wait, if I don't post as AC, I might get "Informative" instead.
Public libraries are a wonderful, sharing way to get internet access to anybody who needs it. Unfortunately, many libraries are strapped for cash needed to obtain computer hardware and internet access, primarily because most people are such a bunch of tight-wads when it comes to paying taxes.
Sharing computer resources in a public place is a much more efficient use of computer hardware than having 1 or 2 computers in every home that don't get used 85% of the time.
As much as it pains me to say this, the real leader in the area of getting computer access into libraries is the Gates Foundation. You can walk into almost any public library in the US and find a Gates machine with internet access and lots of nice software.
-- Michael Chermside
Talking to one exec about this, she said, and I quote directly: "But one problem we're already
encountering is that many people just can't use computers and have trouble navigating the Net. We can
provide and upgrade and maintain the equipment, which helps, but some people are already asking us for
some education as well, especially in other countries. Do you know anyone who does this or specializes in
this? How difficult would this be?"
IT training is a large and quite profitable industry. I am sure that any large training company would send people to developing countries - if the price was right, and the sponsoring company was willing to pay. An altruistic training company which would do such things on a non-profit basis might be harder to find, but my point is that any company could arrange this if the price was right.
This exec presumably has a computer of her own via her company as part of its, ahem, "universal access" policy, and could well do the necessary searches for such companies herself, if the facility is as wonderful a thing and such a boon as John Katz seems to think. Start with international companies who do IT training in India, perhaps.
I find it rather surprising that this rather fawning piece comes so close on the heels of the recent "corporatism" rant. There's truth on both sides, but it's difficult to trust the sincerity of a writer who can jump from one political extreme to the other with so little apparent self-awareness.
We can all get cynical about multinationals ripping off the third world, but OTOH prehaps just giving some of those people jobs is charity enough for the present.
A small percentage of beneficiaries of such a program may log on to online universities and the like, but what are the rest going to do? Fantasise about books from Amazon or CD's from wherever that they can't afford? Save up their wages to buy a copy of "Geeks" or the "Hellmouth" book? Scan porn?
As someone else intimated, some of these people have more basic needs. "Universal Access" is still much further up Maslow's heirarchy of needs than the level that many of the citizens of third world countries are at.
Eagles may soar, but weasels don't get sucked into jet engines.
How exactly will the hundreds of people living underground in Philadelphia and New York gain access to the 'net?
If you don't understand what I'm saying, go to Suburban Station (sub-urban, get it? most people don't) under Center City Philly and keep looking for holes and grimy stairways leading downwards. You may have to walk a ways out along the rail tunnels if there has been a clean-up recently. True, you may become a protein resource, but you'll get an education... I've never had the balls to go very deep, but there are at least six levels down there. And not very many TVs...
--Charlie
I work at a university in DC, and just recently the students moved out for the summer. In an effort to lighten their luggage some threw away computers. Full machines. Some in various states of disarray, one was a perfectly good powermac. The office that I'm in is in the basement of a residence hall, so we interact with housekeeping on a regular basis. The housekeeping staff represents what I think is a representative of the population. They are people trying to do their job and get by. They know computers are expensive. and when they see them being thrown away they gather them and asked me if they are any good. When they find out that they are, their next question is invariably what can I do with it?
Computers make little difference in the ordinary person's life right now. Beyond the scope of work(whether it be coding or memo writing) and game playing there is no real enhancement to an average persons life. You get home from work, you watch some TV, maybe a good movie is on tonight. They don't see the sense in teaching themselves how to use a computer, which is two steps from witchcraft anyway, when they can pop in a perfectly good videotape for entertainment and watch the news to see what's happening in the world.
Until computers become as easy to use as the television and radio then they will continue to be limited to work and technofile/wannabe technofile use.
Last night I was at meeting at the MTHS where my friend's doughter goes. It bacame obvious that using a BBS like message board would help foster better communication between the administration, teachers and parrents. Unfortunately at this point, only half the families have computers at home. This means that it looks like the main conduit of information flow will be a paper newsletter that goes out two times a quorter. At this point I'm feeling that computers and connectivity are becomming a necessity of life if only for just the communications enhancement it provides.
PS: Anybody know of a good web based message board that is reasonably secure? It needs to be such that if the browser or computer is shut down you have to log back in. I'm sure I could hack that feature into almost any web based message board, but I'd rather not skin that cat again.
Those of you who have been around for a few years know what I mean.
The 'net is dead, killed by universal access. Long live Quake, pr0n and grits.
Or do they not count Jon? you're fantasy of 'Universal Access' needs to be footnoted that it only applies to well educated americans with good jobs. certainly not to dirty foreigners with no electricity..
-- Spankmeister General
Nor was that his point. One point might be summed up as "More people with more information is better." Increased access is not a panacea for all the world's ills, but you'll have a hard time arguing that 'net access decreases the amount of data available, and that a more informed populace is less able to make rational decisions.
And as for this specific question, I don't think jonkatz is talking about educating third world nations - I think he's talking about educating Joe Sixpack. We're so used to these machines that we forget that the guy at the assembly line hasn't had the kind of exposure to them we've had, and that they are an amazingly complicated and intimidating device for the new user.
- eddy the lip
This is the voice of World Control. I bring you Peace.
Maybe the same way they could force you to eat peanuts by leaving a bowl of them on your desk?
:-)
Ancient wisdom: "Beware of Greeks bearing gifts".
In any case, if they are so much interested in my scores in Civilization and Baldur's Gate, all they have to do is ask
Kaa
Kaa
Kaa's Law: In any sufficiently large group of people most are idiots.
Seems like Jon Katz felt the need to convince Slashdotters that connecting people to the 'net is a Good Thing. Gasp! Look at the nerve of the man! Such controversial ideas and right in front of all these geeks. Katz must reall have the courage of his convictions.
Kaa
Kaa
Kaa's Law: In any sufficiently large group of people most are idiots.
FYI ... seems a great many companies in these Orwellian times, have acceptable use policies they make you sign these days ... AUP's that contain sticks like termination for fscking around with the company's machine...be it at home or the office. reality sucks, huh?
;) fire me, im overdue for a raise anyway.
still though i'd be rebel enough to reformat and install slackware on it, piss on the bastards
use Signature::Witty;
I don't think the RIAA will have this program anytime soon.
--
then it comes to be that the soothing light at the end of your tunnel is just a freight train coming your way
then it comes to be that the soothing light at the end of your tunnel is just a freight train coming your way
Well, if you say so. But Uncle Sam's money comes from us. And the top 20 percent of income earners already pay 74 percent of taxes. The bottom 50 percent of income earners pay 5 percent. So you may as well give your wireless Internet device to that homeless man and cut out the middle man. For that matter, the USA already has taxes to fund free Internet access...it's just not called a tax on your phone bill.
It was 1979, and all through the
plant there where terminals. I had
to ask. They called it TIOLR. It was
magic! You could sit down at any one of
them and send a "msg" to any other plant.
Even on the other side of the world!
So I say to all the companys that are starting
to do this, "welcome to the party!".
Add them up and the picture paints of co-branding, cross and up selling and DB's that are chock full of not just real data on you but also autogenerated assumptions based upon profiling.
True, but the laws of diminishing marginal utility also applies to marketing information. After a certain point the act of gathering, indexing, and applying all those various "clues" become more expensive, in an ROI sense, than what you could have gotten from the big clues (Male, 25, Heavy Net user, college educated).
This is something that the company who pays me does, and is currently struggling with. We can create elaborate models with 100's of variable that pinpoint who would be the best possible customer, but whether or not that expense is justified when we can find really good models much more easily is a difficult question to answer. The scope of a campaign is also very important in determining the relative value of the model. (and a bunch of other factors)
You were correct, though, not all marketing information is already available. But there is more than enough there already to reveal insightful bits about your personal life without too much time, effort, or big bro tactics. Just ask your friendly neighborhood private investigator who knows how to use the Net.
--
+&x
To tell you the truth the internet really isn't that vast source of any possible kind of information that one could want. Many, many, many times I have wondered why someone didn't put up such and such information on the net.
What information are you looking for? I used to play a games with some friends where I would look up the answer to pretty much any question (outside the "What was I wearing on Oct 3, 1980" variety) and I rarely had a problem finding stuff. So tell me the truth, what did you want to know?
--
+&x
Jon's articles aren't really here for us. They're here for the people who read
Notice the style of writing he uses. This isn't just his personal aesthetic working its way into his writing, it's meant as a bridge to the USA Today readers, which makes the way of thinking often presented on this board more accessible to a larger audience. It also benefits Katz by being easily quoted or reprinted in mainstream news, so both he and
Do I really have a stake in whether Ford gives their employees computers or Franklin Mint Collectible Plates or whatever? No. I like new technology and court cases and Xfree86 v4 and even "Ask Slashdot To Do Your Homework" (I usually learn stuff from the replies), but I do at least give Katz' articles a glance, and I posted once before trying to point out that he shouldn't be reviewing films. This is the kind of article I think most fulfills Jon's purpose here, and I want him to concentrate on writing more like it.
Perhaps in the future you could actually take three seconds to read a post before you open fire over moderation.
-jpowers
-jpowers
I would rather companies buy books and send employees to training than buy them computers. Truth is that, 99.99% of them will not use it for work. It is more like a bonus kind of thing.
------ Curiosity killed the cat. {satisfaction brought it back | it didn't die ignorant | lack of it is killing mankind
for years, france, (who is generations behind most of the developed worl in terms of internet usage) has offerd free internet access through the Post Office (i believe -- it might be phone co). This access is text based from what i've seen with lynx as the browser, and menus set up to manage your credit lines, buy airplane tickets etc.
They dont provide free hardware, but you needent buy a pc, you can buy a cheep little terminal if you choose, or walk into any post office and use the terminals set up for public use. local phone calls from home are charged by the minute, so the internet experience is more centerd around thrift, but they've sure taken a step int he right direction.
I belive that this service is relativly heavily used from the families i've stayed with in france.
There are inherrent issues, france isn't the best about free speech, and they are running your internet service, but i think the idea is rather noble -- and it shows the it can be done.
~clearcutting prevents forrest fires
Plus it gives them a technologically savvy and primed pool of workers 10-20 years down the road. There is such a shortage of high tech workers that all the big companies (like HP) are pushing to get computers in schools and homes sheerly for the sake of having more workers available in the future. "If we can't get them with visas, we'll get them from the cradle!"
Not that they don't have some philanthropic views in mind, and it looks good for them, but there is definitely some healthy self-interest underlying it.
Geek-grrl in training.
To truly understand recursion, you must first truly understand recursion.
While I tend to look at such programs with a skeptical eye as well, I think that this is an overall a good thing. ;)
Yeap, it builds loyalty, high morale and such, but tell ya what Ford really wants to do with these home computers...
Training.
They spend HUGE $$ on training every year. One of our services is to create computer-based training for manufacturing clients; Ford being one of them.
Imagine the $$ they save if, not only does a given plant not have to send their employees out of state for new training (now that they have the program locally on their factory's network), but they can convince their employees to sit through the training on their OWN time at home!
Cool by us; web-based training has a higher cost justification
I dunno how much luck Ford will have with such a request- the UAW is pretty leery of doing any work for free. But overall, a good plan. If nothing else, UAW/Ford workers will be able to ICQ-plot together during the next labor strike!
Kinda like Moe, but just a little more Kool
Tax-whining. A lot of it may be justified, but not in this case (in MY o, of course). I happily pay a portion of my taxes to build-out the net infrastructure of our schools, libraries, etc. NO PROBLEM! I figure if the gov't is going to use my tax $$ to develop military machinery, the least they can do is use another portion to actually help educate the woefully uneducated American populace.
Imagine the time when your opinion may actually be HEARD by our elected officials.
Kinda like Moe, but just a little more Kool
I hear ya- I hate seeing a third of my paycheck disappear too! But there are alot of other things on which our money is misspent, IMO. While I also agree the school/library cash is being mis-spent, that doesn't surprise me much. It's a large program and our gov't is nothing if not perfectly adept at mismanagement.
Still, it's a needed measure and has my full support.
Kinda like Moe, but just a little more Kool
Oh, and these people, mostly lower-to-mid middle class, are on the edge of being able to afford a computer and internet access."
.don't you?
Umm, you do understand that US autoworkers couldn't be considered poor using any reasonable definition of the word. .
Nah, that was a class statement by the previous statement.
If you're college educated and use a desktop PC, you're middle class or upper middle class.
If you actually assemble stuff for a living, it doesn't matter if you make $70,000 a year, your lower or maybe middle class.
And the poster implied that those wrench wielding blue collar folks would barely be able to understand a coomputer, let alone know why they needed on.
George
Universal access is a good thing, and the cost is not only low, but possibly negative when you consider the network effects.
But doing it through employers is just not a good thing. Look at health insurance: all these uninsured people, and since the money is two steps removed from the consumer (employer pays insurance which pays for services) the economics are completely warped. If the consumer were paying the bills, there would be price competition. But now the prices have been driven up (by exactly those warped economics) to a point where that is not a valid policy option. Worse yet - what happens when the employment relationship goes bad? I had a daughter born with a heart defect, and then my job went bad. She was, in a very real sense, held hostage. Fortunately, my employer was a more than decent person and he allowed me to switch professions without leaving the company.
That employer also set up an employee computer purchase plan, under which I bought a fairly nice (at the time) machine.
The employment relationship is already too tight, too intertwined. Adding the computer to it risks further entanglement that isn't healthy. Particularly since a computer is such a vital job-search tool. If the company owns the computer and your job falls apart, you may lose it just when you need it most.
But as long as the ownership issues are clear (in my own case, the computer I bought using a loan from my employer is clearly and definitely mine and not company property) a computer as an employee perk is a neat thing. Just take a good look at your contract before you write the Great American Novel on it.
Not Internet access, though. Having everybody link up through the company ISP is just asking for trouble. The free speech issues that occur as a natural consequence of the differences in interests between an employer and an employee and a customer and an ISP are bad enough without the employer being the ISP.
Our secret is gamma-irradiated cow manure
Mitsubishi ad
We apologize for the inconvenience.
From my point of view, companies giving PCs to employees comes accross as paternalistic. The company is buying for you what it feels is important. It would be better for the company to say: "Here's $1000, go spend it on what you feel is important for yourself."
I already have computers. It might be nice if my employer gave me another, but in terms of the benefits that would accrue to me, it wouldn't be the best use of their resources.
Give me dollars, and let me prioritize as I see fit.
Universal Access ? Very funny ; I'd be interested in learning what percentage of the world's population has the "basic supplies" it takes to connect a computer to the Net, like home electricity, phone lines... I'm affraid it's not a very high one. Come on Jon, do you have any idea of the way most people live in the so-called "underdeveloped world" ? Or even poor Americans ?
Don't get me wrong, I love computers, and I'm all the more ready to believe that hooking up to the Net has all the positive impact you state. Yes, it's nice that Intel and others are giving away computers to their employees. But calling this Universal Access is a joke. It isn't universal at all, as it is restricted to the minority that can afford it. And even if it weren't a joke, for most people in this planet there's many more problems to solve before they can consider to surf the Web. Would you give a fuck about a computer if you were starving ?
Again, I think what you call universal access should be a Good Thing (tm). But please don't mix it with problems of poverty or underdevelopement, as it is completely irrelevant to these issues.
Of course it's cool to dream about the effects of a true universal access like C.J.R. Licklider and Jon Postel did. But no matter what Ford and the others do, for now it's still utopia.
Maybe the same way they could force you to eat peanuts by leaving a bowl of them on your desk?
The real path to "Universal Access" is not to get someone else, like employers, to pick up the pricetag. Such a "benefit" will be illusionary in that employers typically have a budget for what they spend on benefits. Add free/cheap access and something else will have to get removed/reduced, like insurance, or salaries.
The real way to get "Universal Access" (a misnomer, since the plans here only give access to the lower-middle class) are to build cheap computers. There isn't a damn reason in the world that someone couldn't build a $300 net-enabled computer (monitor included). The only reason we don't have such a thing is that we're all to enamered with the latest technological gee-gaw. Basic connectivity could easily be had for a $300 pc with a $19/month ISP. This is about the same cost as a TV/Cable bill. I suspect you could drive the ISP cost down if you did some sort of cut-rate thing.
Now this is not going to be the latest Voodoo graphics box with a 21" monitor on a DSL line, but then, I remember being perfectly happy, and getting lots of things done, on a 33 Mhz 486 with a 15" monitor and 28.8 modem.
The cake is a pie
Seems to me that the answer is to develope those underdeveloped countries....
That'd be far more useful than giving what is, at best, a flashy telephone/tv to people with more pressing needs.
The cake is a pie
I don't know how these companies handle this, but I think just providing the computer is not enough to get "Universal Access". Poor people (in the third world, but also in the western world) usually have no higher education and since they couldn't afford a computer until they got it from the Company no computer experience at all. So I wonder if they can use their new toy in the ways Jon envisioned. I think the companies should provide accompanying courses.
This also gives interesting opportunities for system integrators, since companies surely will prefer a computer with their corporate identity.
This would give themeable software a great boost.
Uneefersel Eccess tu cumpooteeng und zee Net is idgeeng cluser tu reeleety. Bork bork bork! Oone-a cumpuny effter unuzeer is noo ooffffereeng cumpooteeng iqooeepment und Net eccess tu noo impluyees. Um gesh dee bork, bork! inRemp unnuoonced lest veek thet it's ooffffereeng a prugrem tu prufeede-a cumplete-a technulugy beneffeets tu essuceeetes und zeeur femeelies. Um gesh dee bork, bork! Thees is deffeenitely a greet murel (und booseeness) idea vhuse-a teeme-a is cumeeng. Um gesh dee bork, bork!
Universal Access is a great idea, implementing is will take decades. In metropolises, such as New York, Chicago, and LA, you can get *dsl, or cable modem internet access without putting much of a dent in your wallet. But only within the last year, as Des Moines gotten dsl service and at a cost of $60/month. Here in Cedar Falls, Iowa, we can get cable modem access for $40/month, we are pretty lucky. Waverly (15 miles north of Cedar Falls), is lucky to have 56k dial up service.
My point is this, Universal Access to the internet might be possible, but there will always be divisions between fast and slow service. And while there might be a connection to the internet, the "quality" of the connection might make the Internet unsuitable for anything other than Plain Old Text email.
Doesn't this article contradict your last article about the world slow becoming Corporatized? Make up your mind.
this is pretty muddled, as i am having a bad day. I know I am probably not the norm, but I find the net extremely useful. there isn't a day that i don't use it to look up some obscure fact. I use it as a huge library. But hooking everyone up is not a good idea until they know how to use it, or at least until they have someone to show them the basics. otherwise it will be fair game for marketers. think of what would happen if some corporation installed a tv into every house in the third world.
-----
please don't feed the monkey
Universal access to computers and the Internet is not a right anymore than owning a phone or a television are rights. They are, however, considered "necessary" conveniences of modern life. Computers and the Internet are also becoming necessary conveniences as well. Soon, everybody will have a computer, not because everybody has a right to own a computer but because everybody wants and can afford a computer.
When Intel or Ford provides its employees with free computers and Internet access, it is evidence that they "get it" but not in the way that Jon writes. These companies see such things as perks that they can use to attract and keep workers. The idea is to make the employee think that this is a good company to work for so that they'll think twice before jumping to higher paying job in our strong.
They also see them as tools to make their existing workforce more productive. Just as a company might pay for an employee's cell phone, not out of altruism but because they feel that this employee needs one to his or her job efficiently, so they might also provide their employees with a free computer at home so they can learn to take better care of their computers at work.
Does this
Yes, something like this can be used to force more work out of people, and to target people for unwanted marketing. However, there's another reason why companies are doing this... :). It's manageable and secure.
People want to work from home...they want to get their work e-mail, get their spreadsheets, their documents, etc. Corporations want to give them this...but giving them these options with people's home PCs is *very* costly in terms of support. Everyone's PC is different, different OSes, different hardware, different configurations. Helpdesks have nightmares about this kind of support. The workarounds? You could change everyone's desktop to a laptop and let them take it home...a manageability and security nightmare. You can give them a free PC. Standardized hardware, configuration, OS...very easy for Helpdesk to support. Easy to fix as well (standard filesystem/ghost images - douche and repeat).
IMHO this is a good step for companies to take. Users want access from home, and giving them a free PC along with free connectivity (preferably through the employer - firewalled and logged of course
-witz
Yeah well, it sounds like the sysadmins at your place have way to much time on their hands.
I'm a sysadmin and I couldn't care less what people mail out. Much less have the time to look over logs to see what is being mailed out.
If I were you I'd start looking for a new job.
First off, there were a couple of grammatical errors in the article. Is anybody proofreading this stuff?
"And they?re making it happen." - You can't start a sentence with and, isn't this a fragment?
"Intel actually topped Ford's better idea by providing PC's plus Internet access for its employees." - topped ford's better idea? Was that a mistake?
Also, we need to look at the real reason these companies are doing this. Is it really some kind of moral, goof for your family, we love you kind of thing? I don't think so. How about these reasons:
-Every computer user could shop globally, every retailer sell all over the planet. - That sounds like a good one. Push consumerism even farther. Make people buy buy buy more and more. What corporation doesn't stand to benefit from that?
- Although only a handful of companies have yet offered their workers full Net access and computing equipment, it seems inevitable that others will follow - this seems true. I wonder if intel could benefit from corporations all over the world buying their employers computers? Hmmm...
-if for no other reason that to stay competitive in a tight labor market - From Z magazine - A front page article in the New York Times was entitled "Markets Surge As Labor Costs Stay in Check" (April 30, 1997), featuring the conflict between wage increases and "market" prosperity. The emphasis on labor as a cost of production and excessive wage increases as a threat is a throwback to mercantilism; workers are seen as a means, not an end. This point is reinforced by establishment attitudes toward the growth of worker insecurity. Alan Greenspan was quoted recently as saying, very matter-of-factly, that "job insecurity" was the most important factor explaining why wages were not rising. But insecurity is a serious negative factor in people's lives.
This is just anther way companies can keep wages down. "We're giving you a free computer! (and your starting salary will be $2000 less)" but let's not mention that the coomputer cost us $400...
I have to say, this article from Jon today sounds a lot like something we'd read in newsweek, or some other mainstream arm of the media, hwo specialize in newspeak and expressing the views of the oligarchy, not on slashdot. The only reason I can see that Jon wrote this article was that maybe he got paid by enramp to include that one link, heh...
Also, I don't this this is "an enormous political idea". An enormous idea will be when the hugely rich corporations of the US decide to create a tiny bit of economic equality by implementing broad profit sharing programs, not by giving people $400 PCs, or even $1000 PCs.
___________________________
Michael Cardenas
http://www.fiu.edu/~mcarde02
http://www.deneba.com/linux
hyperpoem.net
Linux support is minimal, but there is a page on their website that at least tries to help you connect with Linux. (I'm still battering away at this; trying to get my Linux box ready so I can run it as a proxy/firewall/file server for my flat - a UK Geek Compound, if you will... If anyone else has done this, pleeeease email your experiences, or some good links, because I'm rapidly losing patience with it!)
My execs are not very tech savvy, and they can use it fine. 'Specially after I hacked up a BO2K special edition for remote admin - haven't had to use it in anger yet (crosses fingers).
Try here for more details.
#include "stddisclaimer.h" IANAL, IANA employee of Pipex, or have any relation with Pipex other than that of a customer. The above reflects my personal experience of Pipex; YMMV.
Damn, don't you just love the Age of Litigation...
Strong data typing is for those with weak minds.
Strong data typing is for those with weak minds.
Ok, so what happens to the speed of the internet once the world's employers start providing everyone with access? Is the infrastructure currently in place to handle the influx? If not, are there existing plans to upgrade the backbone, all the routers etc. (I am not real clear on all the technology, being a newbie still) to handle the extra volume?
I'm all for universal access, but not if it means that the internet experience is unbearably slow using whatever means the company provides for access (most likely a 56k dialup).
This post brought to you by your friendly neighborhood MBA.
And teach them some things about the Internet before they give them a computer. Otherwise, I could see a huge potential for scam artists or just annoying spam.
1. Should you e-mail alot of people at one time if you have a good product you're trying to sell them?
2. Someone offers fo you to work at home on your computer, and you could earn $50K or more a year. Do you take it?
3. You get an e-mail from someone who says they're a friend, running a contest. You just give them all you CC #'s and if one of them is lucky, you win! Good or bad?
4. You've met a big busty porn star in a chat room that can't hold out any longer, and she wants you, in the worst way. What do you do?
5. You have a message that you need to forward to 25 people to win a trip to Disneyland, do you?
6. You see a new article with no comments. Do you say something insightful, or "First Post!"
Wow, what biting insight!
Stop by my site where I write about ERP systems & more
i have noticed theworld edging toward universal access, or at least my community. nearly everyone has an email address, or at least one, and if i tell someone about something internet-related, i can always get an opinion. the internet provides a much-needed form of communication, and with all the users of AIM/ICQ, that communication is becoming reality. like katz said, this is definitely not a bad thing.
IMHO, education will come with time. At first, it took a certain amount of skill to operate a TV remote or a radio. But these have gotten simpler with time. now everyone knows how to do them, and tvs and radios' user interfaces have been simplified over time. the troubles that plagued tv (bad reception, poor picture) have in a lot of ways been remedied. the internet is a semi-new technology, commercially only five or so years old (scientifically much older, but wasn't 1995 the boom year?). give the people working on making it better some time to make it ubiquitous, and then it will seem like driving a car. it takes a little to learn, but it's a needed skill.
Heh..I wonder what happens if you work for Cray or SGI =) If they follow.. Ill take a 30K a year pay cut to get a groovy Box... mmmmmyhhhhhhhh Teraflopss mmmhhhhh
--------========+++Dont Feed The Lab Techs+++========--------
Just as a side note, not everyone at Ford, nor at Intel allready has/can afford a PC at home, much less a decent PC. My guess is that we're probably talking about 40 percent of their employees don't have a PC at all in their homes.
LongTail SSH Brute Force analysis tool is here!
The real divide takes place in three high level broad catagories. They are the elderly, the poor, the displaced worker(usually from the blue colalr layoffs). Corporate America is not going to reach many of these people on the outside. And the government assumption that K-12 access programs will narrow this divide has only one foot in reality. It will require generations not a generation to achieve universal knowledge let alone unioversal access. (I know I sit on the tech committe for a "progressive" school department. Football wins the budget battles there). So where are the rest to go?
:0 )
/. up to date on future non-profit UA activities as well.
Well, take heart, there are non-profit orgranizations with outreach programs in the US. They are targeting the people without.
There are two I know of, because I am helping one grow out of it's infancy. They are the American Computer Foundation (www.acfdn.org), and the CTCNet(ctcnet.org). Both groups are trying to get free access internet cafes and educational centers introduced into all sorts of areas. Helping bridge the divide in a sane way that provides exposure to technology, access, guidence and education in a community oriented fashion.(That means no computers in pawn shops BS
They also promote programs of self-sufficency for these centers through various revenue models like building classrooms for rental purposes or computer recycling programs.
I cannot provide all the details right here, but I know these groups need funding, new and used equipment and HELP!
At this time, I know the ACF website is in the process of a refit. But the general message of the mission is there.
~SO GO TO THERE SITES~I will try to keep
BTW JohnK (and all others noting the outsiders in the response area)we could really use your HELP! If you truly want to get involved email me or one of the organizations listed to find out how to get involved.
I completely understand your concerns, but I think the benefits outweigh the negatives. If a company like Ford will provide internet access for a man or woman working on an assembly line, who never even thought of being able to access the internet, this idea will be a boon to them. If an employee wants to use their employer provided internet connection for the vast majority of other useful things (besides ragging on the company) on the Net (education, news, games, medical info, etc.) they will benefit. So, for a large amount of employees, I think this will be A Good Thing!
Zed's dead baby. Zed's dead.
Sorry to rain on your parade Jon, but thus far the friends I have at Ford have heard nothing since the initial announcement. My brother and many of his friends work for various branches of Ford and Ford Motor Credit (not just cogs either) and not a one of them has a new machine on his desk courtesy of Ford. My bro was quite excited at the prospect of replacing the P120 I gave him 2yrs ago with something brand spankin' new but he is still waiting. I dont know what Fords original timeline was for getting these to employees but they sure seem to be dragging their collective feet. It was a great PR move and a wonderful idea/nice thing to do, but until something solid materializes, it is just Vapor...
-- Hail Eris
Is it benificial for the entire world to have universal access to computers and the internet? What about the affects on the many countries that have societies that function on a relatively low tech basis? If this were to become universalized could it not affect many cultures adversely? Perhaps hi-tech is not the "right" solution for everyone.
Thad
Thad
So? The information remains the same. Here, have some worthless anecdotal evidence: My first computer was a fscking Mattel. My first net connection was a 2400 baud dialup to a crippled, menued shell.
Both of these were desperately obsolete by the time I got my poor-trailer-trash hands on them. Know what? That didn't stop me.
J
More Corporationss are offering incentives, not handouts, and there's a big diference. Incentives to own and get connected ARE a win-win situation.
Corporations offer many different ways to get connected. Katz cited the high profile ones, the ones seeking publicity. Many corporations (I work for Harcourt) simply offer computer and connection discounts through their supplier and encourage customers to take advantage of those discounts. The discounts are availible to all employees at all levels.
That does create a win-win situation. The computer supplier gets more customers and first-time users get low monthly payments on top-of-the-line machines. Many of them are also taking advantage of the full and extended warranties offering 24 hour phone support or on-site help and repair.
These incentives (they are not handouts) are the most common way companies aid their employees in getting connected.
Katz is tapping into a larger effort that companies are making to get their employees computer and web savvy and he's damn right in saying that it's a very positive ethical decision. Ethical.
a) the company subsidises the cost of the computer
b) the employee owns the computer
c) the company heavily subsidises the IP costs
d) the employee is responsible for paying the IP costs
This solves the problem of access and rights and priveleges. The real reason they're doing it is that we are an old fashioned 'dig stuff out of the ground' mining company, that needs bright people to come up with bright ideas to keep us ahead of the pack. In other words, give the people we were smart enough to hire, the tools to do bright things, have bright ideas, anytime.
Where it helps many employees is that, because of the remoteness of many of our sites *, while people have computers, they can't access POPs without paying horrendous line costs. The company bundles these in with it's own comms bill, and everyone's a winner....
What worries me is that they're going to be win2K PCs. The corporate standard for document transfer is either html or office 95...
* you can stand on the roof of the mine managers office, and the next thing you see in every direction is the curvature of the earth
"The reason I was speeding is.....
Under capitalism man exploits man. Under communism it's the other way around.
everyone gets so caught up in the fact that america is supposed to be the "land of the free", but that isn't the reason most people emigrate here. america is more importantly the "land of opportunity", and it's unfortunate that you are so small-minded and petty that you can't help someone get an opportunaty they wouldn't otherwise have. the gulf between the have's and the have-not's keeps getting wider because of people like you. don't give me this crap about "Joe middle class supporting those who are too lazy to work for what they want." my parents busted their asses every day, and sometimes it still wasn't enough. sure there are problems with welfare and it does get abused, but it exists for a reason and sometimes it even works. some peoples lives are a lot harder than yours will ever be, so don't pretend that you understand the situation enough to say what social reform programs are needed or not.
that said, i don't support the idea of universal government funded access to the internet in everyone's home. it is much more effectively done in libraries and schools, where there is a support staff available to answer user questions. but then, that isn't what this article is about, is it? it's about corporations giving or assisting the acquisition of computers for their employees. regardless of what the corporations real motivations are, the employees will benefit from these programs, and their kids will benefit even more.
oh, and i'm sorry you don't ever see your kids and they don't send you fathers day cards, but you have no one to blame but yourself. maybe if you put forth the effort to be a real father to them a)you would see them more and, b)they might give a rats ass about you. don't take your bitterness about them out on kids who don't have all the opportunities you had.
Under capitalism man exploits man. Under communism it's the other way around.
something tells me that if you lived in a third world country and ford came in and provided you with roads, fresh water, electricity, etc... you would think they the Pimp Shit. it's easy to say you don't want a corporation to come along and make your life better when all of these things have already been provided for you (and most likely by corporations btw, like the one my great-great...grandfather owned that built the first concrete highway in california). and chances are ford has already been instrumental in providing these other necessities to the very third world employees that they are giving computers to. after all, it's hard to run a factory without power, or if your employees can't get to work because the "road" washes out every 3 months, or they are constantly sick from drinking unclean water.
Under capitalism man exploits man. Under communism it's the other way around.
You might want to use proper grammer and spelling if you want your .sig to hold up in court.
Lars -
Now imagine the traffic jams and general chaos on the web if literally everyone and his dog is online.
NerdPerfect.com : breakfast of champions.
Probably not for Ford, but somewhere else. Isn't ThinkGeek hiring?
The power of accurate observation is commonly called cynicism by those who have not got it. - G.B. Shaw
-Elendale (I think anyway)
IANAT (I Am Not A Troll)
1. Yes. This will allow me to reach a lot of people.
2. Yes. This is more than I currently earn.
3. Of course. The more CC numbers I give the better my chances. I would of course try to find out which numbers came up recently in order to judge which are more likely in the future.
4. Well, I have a strong moral objection to that sort of thing
5. Yes. They might appreciate the chance too.
6. Of course not. I would say "me too" if I really agreed with it.
Are you kidding? Doing things like this is in the company's own best interest.
You see, last year, Northwest Airlines employees staged a sick-out. They used the computers they had at home, which were supplied to them by Northwest Airlines. Through the lovely, corporate-owned legal system we have in this country, NWA got the computers seized from the homes, went through the email logs, and moved ahead with disciplinary action against the employees that had organized the sick-out.
Quite frankly, I'd be damned wary of any employer offering me a free computer and Net access. My life is so integrated with the Net right now, that it ain't funny. I pay my bills, manage my schedule, shop, and find entertainment online. The last thing my employer should have the ability to do is root around in my life -- so long as I show up on time, get the job done, and help the business move forward, there shouldn't be a problem.
What kills this for me is the inherent lack of morals in modern business. I can already see the legal proceedings looming just over the horizon. Wait a year or two, then I'll come back and say, "I told you so."
blog |
If you buy a man lunch you know he eats. If you give him money and say "Buy lunch" than there is a large possability he will retire to the strip club around the corner.
I want my Cowboyneal
Yawn. Who is going to pay the electric bill in these third world countries?? The phone bill? The phone line? Who is going to service the PC when it breaks? I like the idea of 'a PC in ever home' - but there are a lot of costs associated with owning a PC beyond the initial hardware.
I guess I'm at a loss to see how Ford is going to coax a line employee to log in from home and torque down a few extra lug nuts. I understand that the motivation is not purely altruistic, but I think building employee loyalty would be a more reasonable assumption. Companies routinely attach significant monetary values to "Goodwill", an intangible asset. I don't see why a similar measurement wouldn't be able to be applied internally.
carlos
--
As a matter of fact, I am a lawyer. But I play an actor on TV.
Hitler offered cars to all the people of Germany. Hopefully there will not be any mass attrition or "appropriation" of neighboring countries (Canada and Mexico).
[Connection closed by foreign host]
that's kelsey grammer, right?
http://isoc-ny.org
Katz didn't watch "Touched by an Angel" Sunday night. In this episode, Evil uses the internet to almost destroy a family. Dad gets pornspammed and clicks on it. He gets fired for surfing porn on the job. The images he sees stay in his mind and ruin his marriage. Meanwhile, his daughter has a penpal. She goes to meet him and ends up getting kidnapped by a pedophile!!! Good thing the Angels were there to save the day.
Such is the infinite Grace of Popeye.
Wow, that's a good point. Additionally, what are the implications w.r.t them searching through your files? Can they reclaim the computer at any time? Can they come to your home and demand access to their computer? Or, most disturbing, can they do a remote search without notifying the user? I know their have been court precedents that give employers full access to employees computers at work. I wonder how it applies here. I'll take the wait and see approach. If I ever get one, I'll set it up as a web-tv type terminal.
Why is it bad if companys are trying to get their employies to stay? The job turnover rate, at least in the tech feild, is astronomicaly high. Not a good thing.
-Grant
|grant.henninger.name|
>Yeah, but why do you assume that assembly line workers are less intelligent?
:p
Your words, not mine. I never said they were less inteligent (did I?). I said they probably didn't know, not that they are too stupid to figure it out. Difference between inexperience.ignorance and stupidity.
>You have what appears to be an amazingly low estimation of people's intelligence.
Yeah, well you seem to have an amazing ability to put words in people's mouths and then make disparaging remarks about their values.
There is much cruelty in the universe, John.
Yeah, we seem to have the tour map.
While I'll agree that Net access for one and all is a pretty good thing, it also raises some issues with what effect it will have on society and on people in general. Now, this isn't one of those the internet will make us lose our humanity or that we'll become isolated lonely worthless people because of it comments :-) I'm just saying that with everyone on the net full time it makes running an increasingly intrusive government that much easier. So long as we have our high bandwidth, access to live streaming pr0n, and best of all AOLIM we don't need to care what our government is doing to this Iraqis or anyone else who isn't advanced enough to know the joy of AOLIM. Companies, government, society in general wants a citizen who is submissive and generally disassociated with everyday affairs of government. While it is possible that the Net will grow to allow citizens to become more active in politics and their own lives this is unlikely due to the submissive nature of people these days. I would suggest that while Net access is a wonderful thing, that its services need to include ways that people can easily organize against the PACs and special interest groups that represent everything bad about our republic. I don't know maybe I'm wrong this is just my opinion, but its one I value highly.
My biggest complaint about Universal Access and the belief that everyone should have a computer is why is this a right? Almost everything that Joe Q. Public wants or needs is available in other places already set up. Those being the libraries, news papers, and other written word documents. Also what do most people use the net for? Is it anything terribly productive? No! They look for junk, read news, read email, etc. Plus with a corporation this gives them a reason to have employees work from home. What if I'm sick and call in. My supervisor can say, well we have some paperwork that needs done why don't you do that from home. So you see Universal or even Corporate Access is not something everyone wants/needs. Just my 2 cents.
Anyone want to take bets on how long it takes to go to court over the privacy rights of employees using these freebies. Does anyone have information about the license agreements that may go out with these boxes?
So just how universal is the access? There are "free" sites that advertise you to tears, but for someone who has nothing, maybe it's better than nothing.
Oh incidentally, there are companies out there that are attempting to design protocols so that more targeted advertisement can be performed locally.
Be scared...
The control issue is less what control the company has over the computer than what greater control this allows the company to have over the worker. Now, since everyone has a company provided computer with high speed net access you have no excuse not to log on from home to continue your work during evenings and weekends - your co-workers surely will and you have to be competitive, right? This is like the cottage industries of the 19th century with an industry provided loom in your home - except you'll be expected to go into work for 8-10 hours a day as well as use your nice new corporate gifted loom/computer from home.
I dunno, a big screen tv and a Florida vaction don't seem worth it to me.
But maybe that's just me
...that none of our government agencies are stopping this blatant progression of freedom! Why, anyone of these recent recipients could go out and ... (dare I say it?)... log onto...NAPSTER!!!
good god what is wrong with these people...
our innocent children being sucked into a den of horrors, hell they might even start using Open-source software!!
regards,
Benjamin Carlson
"If voting could really change things, it would be illegal. " - Revolution Books, NY
Right on - if "Universal Access" is going to be doled out by corporate interests, there definitely needs to be some legal standards (or even regulation, as horrible as that sounds mixed with technology) around what control the corporation has over communication products it places in the home. Think of it this way - if a company you worked for offered to install or pay for an install of a second telephone line and a telephone in your home, would this give them the right to tap it? I don't think so, but computers essentially become communication devices under the "Universal Access" paradigm and "tapping" is accomplished by virtue of the records left around on a computer and any information that flows through the corporate network.
Note that I do not think corporate interests are inherently malicious or that most companies would use this grant of computing equipment to employees as a platform to intrude on employee privacy. However, I know that it is easy for people at companies (or in any group, for that matter) to arbitrarily decide on courses of action that might not be logical/ethical/fair in the big scheme of things.
Expect to see some court cases surrounding legitimate employee use of company-granted computers and ability, if any, of the granting company to rollback employee privacy soon. If regulations are not made, case law certainly will.
I continue to be amazed that folks on the left still try to push this issue. 'Net access is getting cheaper and easier every year, and will continue to do so for some time. With devices like the iOpener and ePods, 'net access now costs about the same as buying a TV and subscribing to cable.
The real "Digital Divide" is between people who want access to the 'net, and those who couldn't care less about it. No economic action will ever bridge that gap.
People shouldn't be blowing this out of proportion like it actually is a life changing event. Its a marketing ploy by the companies. Remember perks are just there to attract prospective employees and retain some.
Who wouldn't want a new computer or some other toy from a company just for working there? I heard a short time ago that Best Buy also gave all of their employees $400 just for working there (might have just been the store near my house). That doesn't mean I am going to go to work there, but I thought it was a nice incentive to work at a company.
Just because you get a lot of cool incentives from a company doesn't mean you are happy in your job. Now those of you that get tons of incentives are you happy at your job or do you just like all the cool toys you get?
I do have to give the companies credit for getting themselves some positive press. Hell I might even apply at one of those companies one day for some cool perks.
patience is a virtue... anger is a gift
Ensuring that every person has at least one computer is only the first step. For almost 5 years, we have been promised Internet-enabled appliances, security systems, etc only to find limited product offerings. THe huge growth in PC ownership that will result from these offerings, combined with the availability of low-cost PCs should provide a huge market for these appliances with otherwise limited market potential.
Since every person will have the option of being connected a majority of the day, the demand for household products with TCP/IP communication should facilitate acceptance. In addition to a lack of demand, the current perception of such items as "geeky" or "unneccessary" has prevented them from becoming accepted. Computers are becoming not only accepted by mainstream society (as they are now), but perceived as *essential*. Internet enabled devices are the logical outgrowth of that sentiment.
Hopefully, the next wave of the e-conomy will move away from e-commerce and into Internet appliances, household items.
ByteMyCode.com: A Web 2.0 code sharing community.
Sure you can!
Pardon me if I am having trouble seeing where my company giving me machines and access benefit me as a person. For one, the company can then easily use existing case law as a means to inspect and uncover all of me and my family's net habits, and potentially fire me if they don't like what they see being done with that home equipment.
If this spectre doesn't give you pause, it should. This is one of the primary reasons why we don't have employer-sponsored ISDN access at home--so we don't have some suit looking at the clickstreams and sites we visit, snoop out email, etc. Case law is not currently in the favor of the employee on these issues.
Plus, many companies stand to benefit from selling info they collect about us to the highest bidder and the people who aren't net savvy coming in on these wonderous programs aren't going to be nearly as well informed as even my mother is.
Further, I am a parent who happens to think that the internet is hardly the place for children. Between content issues, criminal and corporate predators(the latter more realistic dangers than the former), and the overwhelming amount of stupidity that the net offers to kids, it's simply not a place you take them. Internet != babysitter. Internet !=substitute for proper education in the 3Rs.
And if Al Gore invented it, it's even less a place I want impressionable kids to be hanging out. ;P
So, today's lesson is to Beware of Greeks, generous corporations, and governments bearing gifts. Someone is undoubtedly going to sack Troy(or maybe just you).
In space, no one can hear you moo.
An editor for Katz? I don't care. Maybe you should read the post a couple more times. There are many obvious benefits to being wired, some of which are in the post. You asked "Why does everyone have to be wired? Why is it so important?" Well, funny you should ask! here's a quote from you that might make it a little easier for you to figure out: "Early adopters will have an edge in the tech jobs market, but that's going to mean absolutely nothing in a few years, once society catches up to itself" The internet has become part of society and companies are taking steps to introduce their employees to this society. So that once "society catches up with itself" their employees won't be left behind. "It's only useful for breeding into the society to which it belongs. The wired society" Any idea of how much of an elitist you sound like? Just like any other elite group that has something that others don't, they want to keep it to themselves. When it is embraced by society as a whole, they no longer have that "something" that sets themselves apart. Ooohhh . . . I'm wired and most other people aren't, I'm special! What?! everybody else is going to be wired also?!? Well its not good for very much and you won't get much out of it. Being wired is boring. Is that the kind of attitude we wish to have? Grow up. I used mind games like that on my brother when he was five and I was ten. Maybe instead we should say "Good for you! Nice of you to join us." Hell, maybe we, as the community of people that have been here for awhile, should throw something together that tells them how to sort out the crap and go straight to the cool stuff.
Somehow or another my original thoughts were skewed here, (gee, how does that happen on /.?).
This is simple. Sometime ago, an agenda was created (most likely in the hallowed halls of heresy - American Academia) which was passed on to our Prez (who holds their dear opinion in such high regard above the people who pay his salary) that there was some sort of "digital divide" between the information technology haves and have nots. Therefore, the current administration, their trolls, the mainstream news media and a series of other "pundits" (to use one of their own words), began a program to "encourage" companies and taxpayers to subsidize an effort to put computers and Internet access in homes of persons who meet a certain ecomomic status, irregardless of whether or not said persons actually desired this technology (after all, they know what is best for them, right?).
The problem with this thinking has many parts. First, there is a belief among our enlightened leaders that providing low or no cost computers, Internet access and access means will encourage persons to persue "high-tech" jobs and careers. False - using free Internet access in its' limited form will not suddenly create Geeks.
Second, they believe that this is fair. That is, that certain persons have been locked out of this so-called revolution due to economic reasons.
False, again - Free market economics have forced cheaper, even free, Internet access (remember 30 or 40 bux a month for a PPP account with 25 hours?). PC's are now either free (with strings attached, of course) or so cheap anyone with enough gumption can buy one.
Finally, advocates of this planning believe that once a computer and Internet access is introduced into a person's life they will wonder how they lived without it before.
False - Nobody can mandate you turn the thing on and connect to the Internet and learn the wonders of this age. It takes desire. The same desire that would most likely cause someone to procur a computer on their own without the government or corporation's assistance.
I was all set to post a detailed reply about how the hardware costs of net access are tiny (like, less than $100 of gear if you can find a garage-sale Mac); how these companies are doing it because it is a write-off and a cheap employee benifit, not out of the goodness of their hearts; how the situation in the developing world is really...
And then I thought, "why bother." After all, most /. readers know the difference between Katz's real articles, and the puff pieces like this which he cranks out when the mortgage is due (or something).
Jon, perhaps you could do us all the favor of self-moderating. In the headline of your article, just add "flamebait" to your rable-rousing Columbine stories, "real story" to your occational investigative works, and "self-indulgent, wanking crapfest" to articles like this.
Sound fair?
Information wants to be anthropomorphized.
What serious problem? That Ford employees want to surf the web, but don't want to pay for it?
For a company to include a computer as an employee benifit is a Good Idea. Just about everybody who reads /. already understands why it's a Good Idea.
When Mr. Katz chooses to pontificate endlessly on what a Good Idea it is (missing the real reason entirely, that companies can buy systems in bulk for less than the employees could on their own), we are not really seeing his best work.
Like I said, this is just self-indulgent wanking. A puff piece. Something that he probably wrote weeks ago and has been sitting on so he would have something to publish as a last resort while dealing with momentary writer's block.
Information wants to be anthropomorphized.
It can also fragment the family. I know of people who barely speak to their families because they're too busy surfing the 'net.
Browsing sites seems to satisfy something in our hunter-gatherer natures that is lacking in most modern societies. It would seem counter-intuitive, then, that it could be a divisive force, but it can be.
www.alarmist.org
This presents the major challenge, since who wants to be the tutor for someone with no enducartional fundamentals whatsoever. I have had to instruct beginners in the most elementary basics, such as the guided tour of the keyboard
I have also been thouroughly thanked for doing just that.
Fortunately, many of these companies are giving access to employyees who are at least semi-skilled, and who can help each other out over the morning cup of coffee. We will now see the true results of our educational systems online, in the average quality of discourse.
Unfortunately, the educational system is geared more to producing compliant factory workers, or clones for corporations, than it is designed to produced competent and independent thinkers.
"It is a greater offense to steal men's labor, than their clothes"
To tell you the truth the internet really isn't that vast source of any possible kind of information that one could want. Many, many, many times I have wondered why someone didn't put up such and such information on the net. Also I would love the government to do one thing. Automatically rid the local telephone network of the restrictions of being forced to use analog equipment and perhaps actually get off their collective asses and allow for each telephone connection to act as an always on internet connection. Right now we are alredy creating software via linux that is essentially server based unless you have a connection to match all this wonderful software just fails. But you know what I think terrifies most people who say that universal access shouldn't be here? I'll tell you why it isn't the miniscule charge to get the stuff working or the cost of slightly raising taxes say $0.50 for every American but it's the thought that little Billy could actually have a chance to create content that say Rob Malda can create with all sorts of magical dynamically generated content and the like.
What is power if not for the furtherance of power. Power is a gift in it's own right and a means unto itself.
Seriously not many places outside of Silicon Valley (and even that's a stretch) have each and every person in a large area wired to the net unless it's a small street or perhaps an apartment building. Don't you have any of the typical reclusive old people who just sit in their house all day doing something like reading? Statistically odds are against you.
What is power if not for the furtherance of power. Power is a gift in it's own right and a means unto itself.
Strategic directed methods of gaining access to a targeted demographic for purposes of currying favor have never been frowned upon at least in the United States.
What is power if not for the furtherance of power. Power is a gift in it's own right and a means unto itself.
state.
The information that is avaible online pales in comparison to the wealth of information that is avaible in the traditional world.
The only thing that has really changes is the method to deliver information has increased in complexity. So why do we focus on tools and not on content. Focus on allowing infrastructures within their respective countries and not on extrateritoriality.
For example the United States has a large population and not many of them can take advantage of having a true IP address on their machine. Basically all the internet boils down to is a little toy for most. Compare the most popular means of things that people do on the inetnet send meaningless little messages back and forth to each other, play demented little computer games that waste thousands of hours of time with futility of never gaining victory (usually one person dominates the scene). How does this help.
What would be truly interesting is to have say a nice OSS massive text document that deliniated say step by step teaching of computer programming languages, history, art, music, sports or just about any science that is currently bottled up in traditional books and only makes it's way onto the internet via incomphrensible research papers for Phd candiates.
It just isn't there. The internet content that is truly interesting that is actually nice costs big bucks in the form of subscription services. This is not good at all.
What is power if not for the furtherance of power. Power is a gift in it's own right and a means unto itself.
Perhaps something like juno but with a linux client that would kick ass. Anyone know of one?
What is power if not for the furtherance of power. Power is a gift in it's own right and a means unto itself.
I usually get almost no personal e-mail in any form. Most of my mail is from mailinglits or other sources. This nullifies most of the use of various internet media. Just having access to the intetnet dosn't mean that you suddently are connected to millions.
What is power if not for the furtherance of power. Power is a gift in it's own right and a means unto itself.
Most of the problems I have had are more easily solved with a $5 book than a stupid web site any day.
What is power if not for the furtherance of power. Power is a gift in it's own right and a means unto itself.
"How much of the book buying budget of your local library is being diverted away now to the support of a bank of computers that provide 'free' internet access to the patrons? It's happening everywhere I look, and yes, in many cases it's forced on the libraries by outside advocates and laws."
Scary isn't it. Read "High-Tech Heritic" for shocking views taken by people in power. One lady working for a school board said something like: "Everyday without the Internet in the classroom is a day without quality education."
"The kids can now do research, etc.."
Didn't you use the library when doing research? Do kids now *need* the internet? The library provides much better quality of information than the Net does, even if it is a bit slower to get the latest news.
We still have a library in our town and our school.
Look, I can't believe that there could be ONE negative word aimed at Global Access! I really don't. Only good things can come about from that.
Sure there are going to be problems, but these things can be worked out over time. Just like giving them tractors (and not having gas to run them) this will inevitably spurn on more progress in those countries.
In the end the more we can get these 3rd world countries up to speed to us western-worlders the better.
Ciao
Joe
Not a thing. I have no idea whether you're rich or poor, and I don't care - you have a viewpoint and express it intelligently. That's what is important here. The real problem isn't that universal access (I'm talking about government-based plans here such as Mr. Clinton would like) would give the poor computers, but that it would give fools computers. There are enough fools on the Net already. We don't need more. Those who are hampered not by lack of intelligence but only by lack of funds can easily use existing resources such as public libraries.
If you recall, this is really about companies who've decided to do something for their employees.
It is for now. Unfortunately the US, at least, has seen recent government involvement here that would severely worsen the problem. Obviously I don't care if Ford etc. decide to give things to their employees - that's simply a private contract between two entities which are not me. The problem is that if people get in their heads that information is a right, a computer is a right, that universal computer and Net access is a good thing, then someone is bound to insist that we "think of the children!" and pay more taxes so that everyone will have access.
I mean, we all know that anyone who can't afford to post isn't really intelligent/doesn't have a vaild point anyway, right?
This is a misinterpretation. While I'm sure you'll have no trouble finding people who would agree, I'm not one of them.
It's a pretty slippery slope when people start complaining that they don't see any benefit from where their tax dollars go.
Indeed it is. It sends us down the path to freedom.
Ok, I'll admit you lost me somewhere between the Sparc and how we should all die.
The point is that making everyone equal means lowest common denominator, which is death. There is no other way. Inequality will always be present as long as humans live. I think this is a good thing. But it's also not much the issue here - because I don't think people should be prohibited from expressing their views just because they haven't any money. That's just silly. And not at all the point.
I think that companies providing their employees with "no strings attached" computers for home is a good thing.
Ok. But I would argue that there are always strings attached. Sooner or later, there will be problems with how, when, and for what purpose this stuff can be used. If there really were no strings attached, I would agree that this is good only if the companies are doing it to increase profitability. If they are doing it for feel-good reasons, I'm scared shitless. There's nothing more dangerous than a corporation that has something other than profits as a motivation. As long as they just want money their actions are easily understood and countered. Someone who thinks he is doing something for your own good is infinitely more hazardous than someone doing it for selfish reasons.
Agreed. If anything, we need more digital divide. Most people who will get this free stuff don't have any appreciation for its uses. Those who do can already get access at public facilities like libraries and universities. All this really does is increase the number of people with net access and no clue. September that never ended, indeed. Then there are the privacy and ownership issues, the bandwidth problems, ... There's nothing good in this.
I am not wealthy. Get over the idea that I'm tryin' to keep the po' man down. It just ain't so. But I don't much care to help him either. He can make his own way as I have.
I do not believe in the right to information. You have the right to whatever you can buy for yourself or convince others to give you. Information can and should be made freely available to those who choose to access it. It should not be forced on those who do not want it, have no use for it, and cannot pay the pittance required to get it, especially by forced extraction of money from the rest of us. Why doesn't the government see lack of a television as an inequity in need of redress? How about nice clothes? Suppose there is universal computer and Net access - isn't it unfair that some people have 21 inch monitors, but the poor only get the free 15 inchers? What about those of us who own real workstations not low-end peecees - shouldn't the poor have a right to an Octane or Ultra 2? And what about those of us who don't have vermin in our homes? Shouldn't the government do something about that inequity? Maybe a forced cockroach-infestation law would salve the liberal-extortionist's guilty social conscience.
Where does it end? Death, plain and simple. After all, why should the living have rights denied the dead? We're all supposed to be so damn equal, and death is the only way to achieve that. Every living human should be killed and fed to the same furnace. Right now. If equality is your goal, that is how you must achieve it. There is no other way.
Damn your bleeding heart to eternal Hell.
Your rose-coloured outlook really misses the point. Big business is rapidly transforming the Net from an egalitarian forum for the exchange of ideas to a one-way street with token interactivity where You The Consumer is fed as much marketing as they can dish out and where your choice for content is limited to what they want you to see. DMCA, UCITA, anti-"hacking" laws, it all leads to a corporate-led dumbing down of the Internet so that it becomes just another boob tube.
What these companies see when they think of all of their employees connected to the Net is not a better-informed and more empowered workforce, they see a huge audience of potential consumers. Of course they want more people to be connected -- the marketroids cynically call us "eyeballs" and "clicks" and god knows what other automaton-like terms. The bigger the audience, the more justification for advertising dollars and the more money they'll make.
Don't get me wrong, it's not necessarily a bad thing. Right now the internet is still a great resource, and being connected is a great source of empowerment and education. But at the same time, don't confuse greed with altruism; at the same time they tell you they're increasing your freedom and access, they're busy trying to limit your choices to what benefits them.
Frankly, I'm horrified that ANYONE could seriously believe that window-dressing was reality. It's all an illusion, designed for good PR and to deceive the gullible.
What sort of network capacity do these folk get? An SDSL line, at >1 MB/s? Not on your life! At best, they might hope for a 56K modem and a subscription to a cheap, cruddy ISP such as AOL.
Does that matter? Yes! It does! If you've a 56K modem, then you are limited to 56K, no matter HOW powerful your computer. You could have a 486DX-33 or a Cray 3, and it wouldn't make any difference.
Lessee, what happens if they're given cable? Not much different, really. Give a workforce of 1,000 people a shared line, and each gets 1,000th of the network capacity, at best. (Minus loss, through retransmits and packet collisions.) In the end, these people are still using slow modems, only they have more jazzy slow modems. Slow modems with go-faster stripes.
What kind of software are these people given? *BSD? Linux? Hell, no! Companies'll only be handing out Windows. Does -this- make a difference? YES! Never mind the software and stability, these are purportedly for Internet use. So why the hell are these people getting the SLOWEST TCP/IP stack in existance today? WHY are they getting the most LIMITED TCP/IP stack today? What kind of a deal is that?
"Something is better than nothing." Yeah, right. Like these employees need to be brainwashed into being convinced that less is more, love is hate, war is peace, and that Big Brother loves them. These people need psychiatric help, to recover from this mindless abuse, if they need anything at all!
Either give something that works, or don't waste people's time. "Good enough" =IS= enough, but good enough is at least something real. This is not.
Are they given the means to search the Internet for information useful to them? I doubt it. Are they given the tools to exploit this medium to the full? Never! Are they given the means to use the resources of the Internet to better their lives and reduce overheads? Forget it!
What would I see as a MINIMUM product to be worth the while of both company AND employee?
Notice I didn't list office s/w. If you want to do office work, go to the office. If you've a network connection to enhance your life and yourself, you don't need to be putting in unpaid voluntary time for your boss. You -were- given this stuff, right? So why pay for it?
It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
Ford may be giving it's employees computers, but what about the rest of America?
Those of us who make minimum wage in a dead-end job. Is Starbucks (the poster job of the "new economy") going to give computers to it's employees?
Are day-laborers and migrant workers going to get a free computer along with the $3 a day that they make?
What about the 40 million americans who live in poverty? Do you honestly think that the workplace (and most of america's poor are working poor, thank you Ronald Reagan) that refuses to give them a living wage will fork over a pentium II?
This is ridiculous. The idea of relying on corporations to "provide" such basic things as communication is very dangerous. Once they give you your computer, they have so many more avenues of exploitation, and even then, those on the very bottom (the people who could really use a computer in order to better organize themselves politically) never receive these supposed "benefits".
We are only people who can provide universal access with no strings attached. We're the ones who know which technologies can be implemented cheaply, we're the ones who have a commitment to both freedom of speech and freedom of information. We're the ones willing to open these things to *everyone*, regardless of race, class, gender or location. We're the ones with a little bit of disposable income.
The idea is to set up computer access cooperatives/collectives. Community owned, non-profit and collectively (read: directly democratic) run "libraries" where people can get full internet access, as well as access to different pc architectures to learn on, without fear of being censored or "watched" (remember how horrible a feeling it was to get in trouble in high school for being at a DOS prompt?).
Some people think that the only way things can get done are via a corporation or the State. I beg to differ. Voluntary groupings of individuals are the only way that projects are born and completed without the authoritarian baggage that the former two institutions insist on.
Michael Chisari
mchisari@usa.net
What kind of crap is this? The story is *mildly* noteworthy, but after 50 other companies this is not news for nerds or stuff that matters.
u s vehicle crowd).
This "techno elite often forget... technology gap" babble embarrasses me, and I'm proud to call myself a liberal. Hearing Jon Katz talk about this gap is like listening to those Volvo Turbo driving PSEUDO environmentalists (note I'm not targeting the environmentalists here just the mee-too's driving the eco-unfriendly-but-still-somehow-socially-conscio
Tell me, how many disadvantaged are getting this helping hand? If "more and more" employers are helping the disadvantaged this way, back up that assertion withan employer that actually HIRES (or exploits) disadvanted folks, such as McDonalds, Tropicana, or the nondescript people in CHinese prisons and sweatshops who will inherit the remaining non-technology blue collar jobs in the USA.
Want to address the information gap? Then attack the problem at the SOURCE... public SCHOOLS. People don't need private corporations to solve social problems.... these things always come with hidden costs.
If we can admit that higher and quality education is what is needed to get people into jobs that allow them to be self-sufficent, then we as a country (and this is not just a USA problem) need to stop pushing the higher and higher costs of education back onto local governments that cannot afford it. There isn't much of a difference between elite public schools and elite private schools, yet there's plenty of bad public schools that churn out illiterates (and don't have the tax base to even fill street potholes). Governments are just becoming weaker and weaker, and handing 6000 years of progress to the multinationals.
Jon sometimes makes some good points, but he takes too long to get there, and usually comes across with the flair of a failed drama student.
Care to tell me how having a computer will make someone who was once illiterate literate ?
crap going on trying to censor everything ?
A computer, like a car,is a tool.. It doesn't make things better just because you have one.. there are still a lot of crazy people out there who drive cars.. just like there are lots of crazy people out there with a computer and access to scripts.. (a.ka. script kiddies).. before you run around giving people computers or cars.. teach them responsibility first.
"Universal Access is one of the most unambivalently moral issues relating to technology and contemporary society. It helps fulfill the real promise of technology --- the bring information to everyone on the planet. Not to take anything away from the sweatshop issue, it?s hard to think of a cause that would do more for the disadvantaged right here at home. While middle-class Americans are hooking up to the Net like mad, poor Americans aren?t. Nor has most of the underdeveloped world. Without Universal Access, they will soon be hating the technologically-connected (especially the American variety) who monopolize and dominate the new technologies driving the global economy.
It?s interesting that corporations, of all entities, rather than educational or political institutions ( colleges and universities rarely provide personal computers to students taking these strides). Business grasps that internal communications networks, interconnected business environments and systems that involve the whole family are good for business. That they are, in fact, potentially good for everybody."
you obviously woke up on the wrong side of the bed this morning.. countries that aren't where the US is in terms of wealth and technology.. are teaching their kids.. and their kids are growing up knowing and wanting to make their country better.. it's called healthy competition..
every entrepeneur in this world had the same desire to have what he didn't have. Giving away free computers though might be good initially.. but in the long run it's bad.. what do u tell the neighbors kid who's father doesn't work for Ford or Intel or enRamp ?
PS: Jon.. please.. double check your post before you post it.. I'm sick of seeing "Intel topped Ford?s idea"... now I know you aren't a good writer.. but geeez.. even AC's don't make such stupid mistakes. What's an it?s ?
well, it's not too hard to be generous when your rolling in dough, I mean raking it in - geez, ever hear about the profit margins on SUV's being on the order of 10K per unit?
try { do() || do_not(); } catch (JediException err) { yoda(err); }
But people who work for large corporations can already afford computers and internet service, and whether or not they have them is just a question of preference. There are lots of people who don't work for large corporations, and who don't own computers or pay for net service, because they spend their money on things they consider more valuable.
You'd come a lot closer to universal access with something like a phone booth. You walk up, pop in a quarter, and get ten minutes of web-surfing time. Like a real phone booth, you get anonymity as well. This would make the internet available in small amounts to people who don't want to spend much money on it. Regular users could use it to check an online PIM or a stock price.
The anonymity of a web phone booth would address many of the concerns voiced that the corporate PC giveaway is meant to track marketing data, or to enable the corporation to coerce people to work at home.
WWJD for a Klondike Bar?
Am I the only one who thinks that this is not good?
7 years ago when I first got on the internet through college, there were no big corporate web sites. AOL and Compu$erve only had email gateways to the internet. They couldn't FTP or gopher. Now everyone and his mother (literally) is getting onto the internet. It's funny that the more of these clueless newbies get on the internet the more of a call we have for regulation.
The latest virus scare is the perfect example. People buy new computers preloaded with windows. They don't understand that they have a choice other than Outlook/Express for their e-mail. Many new targets for a VBA e-mail virus. Virus strikes, and we have media pundits asking politicos what the governments of the world can do to make the internet safer for the children.
I realize that the party's over, it's not "our thing" anymore, but why in the name of Bool are you celebrating that?
LK
"Hi. This is my friend, Jack Shit, and you don't know him." - Lord Kano
The corp will own the PC and the access and will have little trouble reading your e-mail and checking out your browsing habits.
Use the Nancy Reagan defense ("Just say no").
In any case, AFAIK currently the computers are given out free of strings. A lot of companies allow employees have company-owned computers at home (laptops especially), but that's different -- it's clear that it is a company computer to be used for company business only.
And of course, even if in some future some corp decided to force a home PC on me, how will it force me to use it?
Kaa
Kaa
Kaa's Law: In any sufficiently large group of people most are idiots.
I dont think that the companies that are providing these free PCs and internet access are doing it out of the kindness of their corporate hearts.
What is not really mentioned in Jon's article, is that sticking a pc in each employees home, complete with net connection, also gives the corporation a pipe directly to the employee that is available 24/7. It gives the employer another means of trying to coax more work out of the employee.
That said, I think it is still a good thing.
I agree with you for the most part but I also really agree with the original posters point that a company could use this as a further lock on owning projects you work on at home.
It doesn't have to be a conspiracy at all. Just imagine a company gave away PC's to all the employees.
Suppose now that one worker takes that machine and works on some GPL project, providing crucial code for some difficult task, or perhaps a majority of the code altogether.
A year passes, and the company finds itself wanting to do some similar difficult task. Perhaps it finds this free GPL software, and thinks it would like to build the same thing or perhaps considers asking for a license to resell a closed version of the product.
Then, the company finds from the source that an employee of the company contributed a lot of work to the project.
Under a lot of companies IP agreements (including the one at my current company that I am trying to get re-worded) even if you didn't use a company PC for development, they might claim that anything produced while under thier employment is thier IP. As the machine used to do the work was provided by them and the IP agreements all usually have specific clauses saying that anything produced using company equipment is thiers, the company could pretty much take over the ownership of the project copyright and close it off.
It might not even matter if the employee had quit - the agreement my current company is trying to sign says that anything I produce up to a year after I leave also belongs to them.
It doesn't take a conspiracy at all. All it takes is a company to realize that through accident or design they have aquired a possible legal right to something, which they will then fight to protect.
I wouldn't even nessicarily call it evil, currently that is simply the nature of business folk. I think that lacking a deep undertanding of what makes a technological product a success many businesses simply grasp at everything they can hoping for a success.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
...PeoplePC , without the engaging salesman.
l ] allows participants to obtain PC's by paying
The enRamp program [http://news.cnet.com/news/0-1005-202-1798138.htm
monthly charges of $24.95 or less over a three-year period, deducted from paychecks or organization dues.
According to Jon we would have Universal Health Care...if everyone worked for giant corporations. Jon, what was your point again? Oh, yea, computers are good for people... Thanks for the update.
--
+&x
We already know that major corporations pay for marketing information collected from unwitting surfers. Are we willing to bring universal access to humanity at the price of making everyone a target for marketers?
This is definitely not an argument against universal access. Give me your home address and I'll tell you why...o.k. fine, I'll tell you anyway. All of the marketing information is already available. Yes, they might get a bit more detailed info (and know you have a 500mhz p3) but beyond a certain point, gathering marketing information is a useless proposition. hmmm, here's the link. Personally I think marketing info hits a type of Heisenberg limit where the simple asking of the question changes the answer to such a degree that it is meaningless.
Then see if there's another way to finance this venture, one that doesn't depend on turning hapless people into cash cows to be milked by the highest bidder.
Well, for anyone who hopes to makes money with advertising on the Net, the constant parade of cash cows is what it is going to take. And I think it's going to happen anyway. And once they get a taste of dial-up, they'll learn of the freedom that comes with broadband. Hopefully by the time they get there, the Internet will still be Free.
--
+&x
I'm just here to make sure people don't think Katz's stuff is too useful. If he writes these silly little puff pieces that I could pull out of my ass with better links in under an hour, he deserves a bit of flamage.
How about some links on the Digital Divide, Jon? How about info about the have-nots are buying computers at a higher rate than the haves? (which is obvious if you think about it for a second)
How about some "news"?
Katz has a tough audience, one would think that would make him a better writer. One would think...
as an example
Without Universal Access, they will soon be hating the technologically-connected (especially the American variety) who monopolize
and dominate the new technologies driving the global economy.
The highest cost of a computing system is the software that runs on it. Maybe Katz should redirect this attack if he really wants to make a difference or if he really understood the issues.
'Twas a weak article, so I flame it...twice.
--
+&x
-jpowers
-jpowers
Yeah, but why do you assume that assembly line workers are less intelligent? You have what appears to be an amazingly low estimation of people's intelligence.
True, as a sysadmin, I know that there is a good percentage of lusers out there, but I don't think that percentage is any different across different work enviornments.
Hehe...the are likely _more_ lusers in a computing enviornment, but they just think they are smarter.
In the immortal words of Socrates, who said; 'I drank what?'
Universal Access is that rarest of social phenomena, the win-win issue. Except for moral guardians clucking about pornography and violent video games, who could really oppose it?
Actually there are a number of very good counterarguments to universal access, though most of the people who are pushing universal access ignore them as if they were trivial or non-existant.
1) Where are we going to get the money to provide universal access?
In Katz's essay, he says "Universal Access, if it really catches, means staggeringly huge sales of computers, software and bandwidth...". Well, money isn't created in a vaccuum; it has to come from somewhere, from some program which perhaps is arguably more needful of the money, such as research into AIDS or from retirement funds or health care. The "staggeringly huge sales" has to come at a price, and that price is going to be less money somewhere else.
(And don't say "it's going to come from the bottom line of corporations"--as Katz has argued in the past, corporations protect their bottom lines very well.)
2) Are we talking universal access as in telephones? Or as in television?
My point here is this: universal access as in universal access to telephones is a worthy goal. The ability to communicate to the outside world in the event of an emergency, the ability to keep in touch with people who have traveled abroad, the ability to "reach out and touch somebody" is mostly accepted as a good thing. (Phone sex lines aside, of course.) Of course universal access has yet to be accomplished in the United States, as evidenced by a Navaho woman, who upon receiving a computer to help her bridge the "digital divide" pointed out she had no electricity or phone to plug the computer into.
Universal access as in television, on the other hand, is not always accepted as a good thing. In fact, there are many who argue that television is the source of a number of social ills which could best be repaired by turning the boob tube off. Of course I don't necessarly agree with the findings of people who argue television causes rape or violence by children, any more than the Columbine shootings were caused by playing Quake. But it is clear that universal access to television isn't universally accepted as a good thing.
3) Are we talking about using this new-found "universal access" to "bridge the digital divide" in schools?
It's arguable that there is in fact a "digital divide" between wealthy school districts and poor ones that is causing a difference in the educational quality of our students. It's more likely that rich school districts produce better students than poor ones because they have money to spend on textbooks and better teachers. It's also possible that the socio-economic dispare caused by being poor counts as a strike against students in poor schools in the first place.
The fact that there is even a "digital divide" in the first place is questionable: it seems pretty clear to me that rich people have computers because they can afford them, not because having a computer made them rich. Yet those who argue a "digital divide" are in essence arguing this very fact--that having a computer makes someone rich, not the other way around. And unless you are a programmer making a living using a computer, this strikes me as so much bullshit.
So now that we're talking about putting computers into junior high schools and high schools, what are we going to do with them? Use them in place of slide shows and movie strips that many teachers use in lew of creating a teaching plan? Use them in place of memorization of addition tables and multiplication tables (as calculators are being used now), which will cause more and more people to be so "numerically challenged" that they will take as gospil the results of a cash register where they accidently pressed "7" instead of "4"? (I've had this happen, where I've actually had to call out the manager, because some kid was offering me $3 in change on a $4 purchase, because he hit "7" instead of "4". And as everyone knows, 3 + 4 = 10.)
And if we're going to put computers into every classroom, where are we going to get the money to put them in, pay the electricity, maintain them? From the textbook budget? From the facilities budget? From the teacher's salaries? Going back to point 1, what will suffer so we can give students high tech toys which will be obsolete in 3 years, and need to be replaced?
It's fairly clear to me that some degree in computer proficiency is a reasonable requirement, just as typing classes were pretty much required of secretarial types. But given how quickly things are changing, should this computer proficiency be provided by our high schools at tremendous expense, for students who may wind up as an automechanic or a doctor, or should those skills be provided "on the job" by the corporations who decide to use Lotus Notes intead of Microsoft Outlook Express.
Personally I think our rush to "universal access" by governments and corporations and schools is a mistake, and a rather serious one. While I for one wouldn't mind more sources of revenue for Apple, Microsoft, Compaq and others, I don't know if I really want this in place of properly funding retirement plans, or properly funding textbooks in schools, just so that people can experience a "cyberspace" whose pipe dreams are backed by financials which are even now collapsing at warp factor speed.
Universal access is the telephone company. They must give you telephone if you can pay the bill.
Actually, phone universal access is provided to people who cannot afford to pay the bill, if they pass an income test. That is, universal access is a subsidity, paid for out of a "universal access tax", to subsidize phone service to those who would otherwise not be able to afford one.
Pacific Bell's access service is called "Universal Lifeline", and is available to anyone in Southern California making less than $17,400/year (for singles).
That's a good point, but I don't think it's quite accurate. Companies aren't out to make their employees suffer.
My company gave me a free cell-phone. Using it means that I'm on call, but only for problems. I get an average of 1 or 2 calls a month right now. And I normally receive them when I'm on lunch or something to that effect. It cool too, because if the call lasts 2 minutes, I can claim 15.
I don't mind it at all.
Better schools and teachers?
I'll do it for cheesy poofs.
what about all of the other countries, both in the americas and outside this hemisphere? Intel and Ford have employees in other countries, specifically our NAFTA partners. Yet, if you read the releases and such, they don't extend these offers to offices outside of the US.
Sorry to say, but I'd think it's more important to extend this offer outside of the US realm into countries where there is much more of a dividing line between the technological "haves" and the "have nots".
While commending Ford, Intel, and others for their moves, we should also encourage these huge industry leaders to extend their offers outside the US where a large percentage of their employees, and lower-paid employees, work and reside.
if the computer is given out by the company, is it still considered the company's property?
if it is considered the company's privacy, are they allowed to monitor communications to and from that machine as they are allowed to on the office computer?
hmmmm
I concur and I would add, in a somewhat naive fashion, what about better salaries? This company-giving-away-PCs charity sort of thing is nice (conspiracy and surveillance theories aside) but getting more money allows workers to buy PCs, get access from any provider they want or, maybe, forget about the computer and get a whole lot of books or other educational materials. I don't want to sound like a hardcore capitalist but more money can buy them more freedom. What about better distribution of the company earnings? Charity is ok but giving the people the economic means to make their own informed decisions on what, if any, computer to buy and what ISP to choose is, IMO, much better.
"All the things one has forgotten scream for help in dreams". Elias Canetti
This essay does not describe universal access at all. Universal access is access for everyone, not merely a few select individuals who have the money and a few who happen to work for a particular company.
The only way we can assure truly universal access in the US is to legislate this as a requirement.
For instance, cable companies have monopolies in the US. We allow them to have monopolies, but at the same time, they can or can't (by thier choise) offer internet access, and even then, only to certain users they like (non Windows users need not apply), and can restrict the purpose of the server (people who run ircd need not apply). This is not universal access.
Universal access is the telephone company. They must give you telephone if you can pay the bill. They can't say "We don't want to serve you telephone becuase you live too far out there" nor can they can "You like to use that phone from company XYZ and we only allow phones made from ABC."
Additionally, there is no definition of access here. Is access PPP? What about an email address? Do you need mail to have "access"? Is the ability to surf the web withot restrictions like NetNanny access or can access include such restrictions?
I contend that universal access is more than an IP address just as phone access is more than just a peice of wire in one's house. If the people want true universal access, these terms need to be discussed and agreed upon.
When 100% of the population has the opportunity to be online then it will become a choice as to whether or not they want in (just as some people choose not to own a telephone). As things stand now, universal access is just a dream.
- Serge Wroclawski
One's connection should not depend upon one's current employer, as this would only (as many here have pointed out) result in an Internet controlled by corporations. At first it seems as though it would be nice to have *everyone* online, but at this point in society, maybe everyone doesn't *belong* online.
Got Rhinos?
...I wonder if the people that are getting these computers from their companies are the people that:
a) couldn't afford it in the first place
b) would benefit the most from having improved access
Don't get me wrong, I think this is an absolutely great idea. However, in a time when the gap between the haves and the have-nots is at an absolute high, universal access to educational materials is VERY important. Will a few companies dishing out PC's and net access solve this problem? Probably not...and this is definitely NOT universal access. Universal access will come when everybody, regardless of race, age, or socio-economic status gets internet services provided for free in their household.
Right now, we're most likely helping out the people who already have jobs and have children who are in school, probably getting a decent education and most likely have PC/internet access at their schools. We're helping the people who don't need to be helped...but isn't that way it always is in this country?
Jon Katz, if you define Universal Access to computing as companies like Ford and Intel giving money to employees then maybe you need a redefinition of what the word universal means. Anyone who works for Ford or Intel can already afford a computer (especially now with Gateway and others creation of payment plans) and more than likely works with a computer daily at work.
Universal Access will only occur when concrete moves are made to put computers in public schools concurrently with teachers being trained in how to use computers and internet technologies. Until then all that will occur is that the digital divide will grow larger and differences between the haves and have-nots will only increase.
I've been thinking about this one for some time, since I have several people out in "the field" (read: I can't get to them to fix their laptops when they screw them up).
Because of this, I think there need to be a series of pieces that will help companies out:
Instant on computers.
On a recent Jay Leno show, William "The Girdle Wasn't Mine" Shatner talked about how hard it was to use his computer. The On switch was in the back, and it took forever to boot up. I keep thinking that the advances in the Palm OS, or perhaps some super small kernel of Linux for specific hardware systems (where the entire Linux OS was held within a Flash Bios that could boot within 2 seconds). Hit the button, it's on. Hit the button, it's off.
Real tech support
I've been seeing these "Free Computer" deals, where for $30 a month you get the Internet, computer, and "support". But usually support is all online, and for somebody using the Internet for the first time, they don't even know how to get onto the Internet. The iMac has helped with this (plug it in and you're practically done), but PC's should take the same route. As a Linux newbie, it seemed to take forever to hook up my modem to the Internet. (Yes, DSL was easier through the Ethernet, but that's another story.)
Stability
I know I'm preaching to the choir here, so this should be short. When that blue screen pops up, the "average user" doesn't know what it means. Go back to 1 to instant boot computers, and you notice I make Linux the base. Perhaps BSD would be better, but make it so that it's very difficult to crash. It some company were to make these machines like the iMac (hey, perhaps the iMac would be a good choice to begin with...) with one hardware system, they could update the system over the Internet.
Don't require anything to plug in other than power, but allow expansion.
Keep it simple. Allow PS/2 and VGA ports, but don't make the user have to use them if they don't want to. Give it the ability to have new upgrades if the user wants, but don't force them to do it.
Worldwide ISP
I signed on my executives with AT&T because I knew they were global. Guess what: they don't offer global internet access. I was going to use IBM.net, but they got bought by AT&T (the bastards). Now I'm forced to use MSN or AOL so they can get to the 'Net from Japan using the same account. Somebody out there know of a good global ISP that doesn't make me use an install CD I don't want?
Don't force the user to upgrade
I was in a CompUSA once, talking to once of the salespeople, when he made an interesting comment. "I don't like to sell people the iMac," he told me. "If they buy a Windows system, they're always back to upgrade it and make it better. If they buy a iMac, they don't have to upgrade the machine, the OS, or anything else. We usually never see them again."
All right, so that was a little long. But this is what we need. You hardware vendors out there, get cracking. Make it small, make it affordable, and make it so I don't have to force Bob from Alabama to email me his laptop when it breaks down.
John "Dark Paladin" Hummel
We don't just like games, we love them!
52 Weeks, 52 Religions with John Hummel
As for supporting the schools and librarys being connected, I think it's a great idea, but the monies we have to spend is rediculusly high. The money is being mis-managed and mis-spent. If the government regulates/mandates universal access like universal service why would it be any different?
More race stuff in one place,
than any one place on the net.
We're (in the US) already getting screwed by Universal Service, Schools and Libraries version of Universal Access. You pay every moth on both your local and long distance bill. It's a5% tax which goes to wire schools and libraries with pc's and connectivity. Just another socialist program brought to you by good old lobbyists. My question is who will pay for Universal Access? Bet you it'll be the average taxpayer.
More race stuff in one place,
than any one place on the net.
I respectfully disagree. Some marketing information is already out there, not all marketing information. Surfing habit's, purchasing patterns, times on-line, features used, etc. etc. and that's just the advertisers, not bigco that gave you the hypothetical PC. Each little sniglet of information gathered is just a clue. Add them up and the picture paints oof co-branding, cross and up selling and DB's that are chock full of not just real data on you but also autogenerated assumptions based upon profiling.
More race stuff in one place,
than any one place on the net.
Universal access won't be brought to the masses by Ford or Intel or Jimmy's towing service. Universal Access will be brought to you by Uncle Sam. Just as Universal Service was brought to you by Uncle Sam via the Telecom Reform act. Universal Service gets paid for by who? You guessed it, the average taxpayer.
Universal Access is just the @home version of Universal Service (HR 7317). The goverment will end up pushing the effort to brag we're the best most connected country on the planet! Rah Rah Rah. So what? So little average 8 year old Billy can surf pr0n?
I'm so sick of paying more taxes to fund programs like this.
More race stuff in one place,
than any one place on the net.
First off, I'd like to suggest that someone employ an editor for Katz. It's actually getting painful to wade through these posts, and that's probably causing a drop-off in Katz readership. Please, just run them through an editor to check for broken links and erroneous spellings. I'm assuming that was meant to be 'morale', not 'moral' for instance.
I'm not mentioning this to nit-pick or play kick-the-Katz, but because it really is bloody annoying. Do you remember when people used to put blinking text in their ANSI sigs and it'd make your poor little terminal bleed until someone told them that they shouldn't be doing that? Consider it a PSA.
Anyway, on to the point. Universal Access. Who cares? It's only useful for breeding into the society to which it belongs. The wired society. Universal Access isn't going to be some kind of wonder that fixes everything. Early adopters will have an edge in the tech jobs market, but that's going to mean absolutely nothing in a few years, once society catches up to itself.
What good is the internet? That's the question I've been asking myself quite frequently lately. I'm not coming up with a large listing of answers, either.
People employed by 'progressive' companies will now be installing filter software to keep their kids from checking out porn. Woot-oot. Is anybody under the illusion that the average teenager or even child is going to be enriching themselves on the net? Television did wonders for them.
I actually try to enrich myself somewhat, and I'm not making a hell of a lot of progress at the moment.
Don't just say this is a nice step for no reason. Why does everyone have to be wired? Why is it so important?
This doesn't impact, to a huge degree, the workers that are getting them. It doesn't make their jobs any easier. What it does is make it more likely that they'll:
1) Stay with the company
2) Passively headhunt for the company
Woo-oo.
Don't fall all over yourself thinking this is some gigantic leap into the future. It ain't. It's a company utilising an incentive package to keep current employees and lure new ones into their fold.
Considering the possibility that internet use can prove addictive, it may even be on the shady side of legal. Free cigarettes to employees wasn't all that uncommon in years gone by.
Peace.
I agree that universal access is a good thing, but the question will always be one of who the gatekeepers are and what are they doing with the information. When I go to an ISP, I'm a customer and they have a professional relationship with me. When my company provides it, they already have a vested interest in me, and perhaps want to get a little closer than I'd like.
How much information will we allow corporations to gather about us?
The power of accurate observation is commonly called cynicism by those who have not got it. - G.B. Shaw
Plus, what's gonna happen when Joe {insert corporation name here} Employee uses a company-purchased PC to traffic in kiddie porn?
s hip/pro-Jesus/right-wing/fundamentalist/ f lag-waving/thrice-divorced/let's-get-kinky-but-pre tend-we're-really, really religious/"Hey, Chuck, are you gonna play basketball in the church's men's league, tonight?"/"Let's send out kids off to fundamentalist Earth-For-Jesus camp so we can get out damn kids out of the house and give ourselves at least one week of peace and quiet because we work hard, worship hard, and deserve it" folks?
Imagine the local news headlines: "{insert corporation name here} Liable in Kiddie Porn Connection: News at 11"
I realize this happens every day in the workplace, but I would imagine it'll become a sticky situation when, say, the religious zealots/wacko, SUV-driving, soccer moms start suing the corporations because said zealots assume that the corporations therefore are the facilitators for whatever bad bhavior the corporations' employees are engaging in while on the internet.
It's one thing to control the PCs in a workplace, but I can't imagine the legal cans-of-worms which will attempted to be opened by the religious/right wing/anti-smut/anti-porn/anti-internet/pro-censor
Hardware aside, there?s an enormous political idea here. Computers are increasingly becoming seen as a right, not just an expensive commercial, social or recreational appliance.
Jon Katz would presumably like to see some 'bread and circuses' trip granting free internet access to all. Nice idea in the tree-hugging sense, but the economics don't work. Firstly, on a sociopolitical note. There are no such things as 'rights', and anyone who believes so is naive. There are privileges, which have to be fought for to establish in the first place, and to maintain thereafter. Many reading this site will consider education to be a right. In truth, our forefathers fought for this privilege, which has to be paid for somewhere along the line. Even you lucky people in the US of A, who have a constitution giving you rights, (unlike us poor sods in the UK), will only have those rights as long as there is someone strong enough and willing enough to defend them.
Which brings me onto Internet access. This can never be a 'right', because there is the cost of PCs and infrastructure. Somewhere along the line, someone pays. I will resist stating truisms about free lunches.
Stephen Hawking has written another book. It's about time as well.
Universal Access to computers doesn't guarantee any sort of social or techno-utopia, but would spread free speech and bring ideas like online voting closer.
Hmm.. wouldn't this make 'free' speech even more expensive? If your access is controlled by your employer, you better make sure your 'free' speech is aligned with theirs.
Every computer user could shop globally, every retailer sell all over the planet.
Wow! Just like the Home Shopping Network! Lets just give everyone cable TV..
- -
air and light and time and space
"Giving away computers to teach people about computer literacy is like giving teenagers pornography to teach them about sex."
-- Andrei Codrescu
Intel giving its employees computers I can understand, but Ford? What exactly is Joe Autoworker going to do with a shiny new PC if he doesn't have one already?
While I love the idea of computer-as-perk, this is clearly a ploy by management to further encroach upon employees' private time. They're already expected to work extra shifts when called, attend company events, etc., and now they're going to be accessible to the Boss 24-7.
The suits must be laughing their heads off. They've extended the corporate workplace into employees very homes, and the media is lauding them for their generosity!
Did you stay home sick today? Don't worry; you can still work on the nice shiny PC your employer thoughtfully provided you.
Are you sometimes away from home when the boss calls? Check your e-mail when you get back, or you're fired.
Don't have access to an on-site application from home? You soon will, and your boss will be logging your hours. Don't forget; promotions go to "team players"!
-- He's fantastic, made of plastic....
This is definitely a great moral (and business) idea whose time is coming.
Another poster suggests that the word above should have been "Morale", I'm not so sure, but I hope so, because the last thing we need in another entitlement program, which is what Jon Katz seems to be arguing for here. But why is there some moral imperative to provide internet access?
These businesses are providing the computers because it is a good business decision.
That said, it is also a nice thing to do... (Oops, implied that corporations can be nice, Jon won't like that).
Computers are increasingly becoming seen as a right, not just an expensive commercial, social or recreational appliance.
Just because computers are "being seen" as a right, does not mean that they are. First of all "computers" is a very general term, who is going to decide what that entails; Intel or Not, Linux or Windows (Now here's a bandwagon for Bill), AOL or ?? Second, who is to pay for these computers, or all this Universal Access? We cannot even educate our children properly (which, right or not, is certainly a good idea for society), now we are going to waste money providing computers and internet access (not to mention the money spent arguing about it).
Ford and Intel get it.
I guess I don't get it. I'm not cool, in, with it. I don't speak Jon's personal language (notice that he never actually defines "Universal Access"). (Sorry, that term irritates me, with it's connotation that there is some 'IT' that only a few 'GET' - those few who agree with the author.)
It's interesting that corporations, of all entities, rather than educational or political institutions (colleges and universities rarely provide personal computers to students taking these strides). Business grasps that internal communications networks, interconnected business environments and systems that involve the whole family are good for business.
Now Jon is talking nice about corporations, where will the madness end?
-No, wait, all of that happened and I'm still miserable. Universal access will be a Good Thing but only if the big media players get it and realize that the net doesn't mean one to many like TV, radio, or even the written word. If Big Media continues to insist that they know best, the computer will continue to be just a toy, or worse, a device of corporate propoganda. Right now I see it as 50/50 between what should happen (universal, mostly unrestricted access), and what should never happen (corporate sanitization, very little freedom).
Marxism is the opiate of dumbasses
the job i'm at now, the sys admins rule with an iron fist... employees are scared to even open up internet explorer.
sending/receiving email is also a risk, they go through the mail checking to see the attachments.
the company will fire anyone over anything in the emails that arent "work" related.
Its a good idea to give employees net access from home, it gives ppl who normally wouldnt have the opportunity to experience the internet outside of work.
hopefully lots and lots of other companies will follow suit, but atm i just look at my company where the sys admins make the bofh look like barney.
Be you Admins? nay, we are but lusers!
But at what cost? We already know that major corporations pay for marketing information collected from unwitting surfers. Are we willing to bring universal access to humanity at the price of making everyone a target for marketers? Certainly, universal access is a good thing. Eavesdropping and commercial voyeurism are not.
Think about universal access and about what it takes to bring it about before you mindlessly enthuse about it. Then see if there's another way to finance this venture, one that doesn't depend on turning hapless people into cash cows to be milked by the highest bidder.
www.alarmist.org
Many of us have signed IP agreements. By providing equipment to the employee, that just gives them a MUCH firmer ground for claiming anything you produce on that machine.
- chum
Talking to one exec about this, she said, and I quote directly: "But one problem we're already encountering is that many people just can't use computers and have trouble navigating the Net. We can provide and upgrade and maintain the equipment, which helps, but some people are already asking us for some education as well, especially in other countries. Do you know anyone who does this or specializes in this? How difficult would this be?"
I wasn't sure what to tell her, frankly. How hard would this be in an underdeveloped country and are there companies that specialize in this? I'd appreciate any help or guidance. Plse e-mail me and I'll pass it along. Or post here in Threads and I'll pass the word to her and other execs to read through And thanks. I think this is one of those rare ideas that is both morally and economically just a good idea. She did say there would be cultural resistance in some countries, she thought.
jonkatz@slashdot.org
This is a very dangerous line to walk. There's a small step from a company helping it's employees make computer purchases and a company providing a computer and access. And once someone in the corporate world sees some potential for keeping their home employees under their thumb, perhaps corporate owned PCs and network access at home isn't such a bad idea. The corp will own the PC and the access and will have little trouble reading your e-mail and checking out your browsing habits. All, of course, to make sure you aren't violating the terms of your employement and conditions of use of their system.
Sure, it sounds like I'm an alarmist, but I really see this creeping in so slowly as such a benfit to employees, only to be used against them. Hopefully it'll continue to be corps helping employees buy computers and not some horrible 1984 infestation of speechless netizens.
Bad Mojo
Bad Mojo
"If you can't win by reason, go for volume." -- Calvin
Good point.
I doubt the local 24h convinience store will offer their illegal immigrant a free PIII-677 Mhz either.
It is not universal access it is "if you have a job in a big company" access.
Copyright 1998 arne Verbatim copying and distribution is permited as long as this message is preserved
"Homeless, No Work. Need Net. Will Work For Wireless Internet."
Sure universal access would be great if everyone was connected, if everyone had a workstation, etc. I think it's very good of Ford, Intel and the rest for making this possible for their emplyees and their families.
Hoewver
It's not free. Promoting univeral access, especially when viewed as a right will in the lkong run cost Joe Average taxpayer a ton of money. Who benefits? Politicians will claim "look what I did, I brought technology to the masses". Big corporations will claim " Look what we did, we gave all our employees and their families pc's and access". What really will happen, bejhind the scenes is that the politicians will be spending gazillions of our tax dollars to fund another social program. Universal service for access to the homes will be paid for just as it is now as part of the furiously opposed "Schools and Libraries" Bill HR 7317. Basically your telecom bill gets additional taxes levied against it so we can pay for wiring schools and libraries with some token out of date clone pc with a 9600 baud modem and an AOL account.
Secondly the big businesses (especially tech companies) love this stuff. They will sell more product to the general public and also grab and keem a customer base for the future. The kids. Just like Mcdonalds does with it's happy meals. You get the favort of the kids when their young and you have them for life.
Universal Access, Just like Universal Service (Schools and Libraries Bill) is bad for the country and bad for the general public. Society is unfortunately made up of different levels of classes, financial and otherwise, having taxpayers pay so that Trailer park Tammy can have broadband brought into the doublewide is not the right way to get the public up to step with todays technology, that's a very socialist approach. This is all to similar to other social reform programs like Welfare, where I pay through taxes enough to support 10 kids a year, not my kids, I never see 'em and I never get a fathers day card. Universal Access will just be another program that has Joe middle class supporting those who are too lazy to work for what they want.
More race stuff in one place,
than any one place on the net.
Also if my memory servers me correctly Santa Barbra/Monica (one of those) had a scheme of public access net so that even the homless could voice their opinions and concerns on local forums...
Working for the (other) man
Jon, perhaps you could do us all the favor of self-moderating. In the headline of your article, just add "flamebait" to your rable-rousing Columbine stories, "real story" to your occational investigative works, and "self-indulgent, wanking crapfest" to articles like this.
Sound fair?
Information wants to be anthropomorphized.
I'm all for universal access, and I generally think that companies who provide these benefits are doing a Good Thing(tm), but I think we need to consider the reasons behind companies giving out connectivity. I mean, who benefits the most from having access to these technologies? Certainly the employees do, but so do the companies, I would think. Isn't giving everyone a free computer and internet access just another way to tie the employees to their jobs? Imagine a situation where an employer gives everyone a free pager -- good deal, right? Well, that freebie can also be used by the employer to stay in touch with the employees 24 hours a day, so the employees are theoretically "on call" all the time. It's a price they pay for the free technology, but is it worth it if you can't escape your workplace?
www.poak.net
What "moral" reason is there to hand out free stuff and services? There is none. Katz and Clinton can fix the imaginary "digital divide" with their ivory tower, intellectual, elitist, pigplan of handing out free computers, phone lines, and Internet access. Guess what happens? A bunch of low-end PC's for sale at pawn shops within 24 hours.
Free net access and low cost PC's are available right now to anyone who wants them. It takes the desire on a person's part to obtain these things, not a government or corporate plan devised by some non-reality dwelling, take-no-responsibility-when-it-does-not-work academic.
Look what happened to the Inuit indians in Alaska when oil money was liberally handed out in the 1970's. A bunch of drunk Eskimos and broken skimobiles in every driveway. That is immoral. Get real.
Yes, it would be nice if net access existed universally as an infrastructure layer in the same way as paved roads, electricity, gas, drainage, and freshwater do.
Net access isn't as important as these. Look how few people in the world have access to any of the above. Depressing, isn't it?
Furthermore, how would I like it if Ford provided me with electricity, Ford built the road between my house and the factory, and Ford supplied me with fresh water.
No f***ing way would I like it not one little bit. If net access really is this vital layer that like sanitation, street lighting, and chlorinated water will pull civilisation into the next era then I ABSOLUTLEY DO NOT WANT IT CONTROLLED BY CORPORATIONS.
On the other hand if net access is just a way for the rich and the poor of the west to waste their time and money on sterile information and pointless shopping, then hey roll on McAmerica, give the the huddled masses peecees and bandwidth, all for free, nothing to lose but your minds.
"Every computer user could shop globally, every retailer sell all over the planet. "
Yeah nice idea. This is where the rich people on the nice side of the world buy stuff made by the other side of the world. Then, they go on holiday to the poor side and come back to tell all their rich friends how much better the poor side is but what a shame its being spoilt by all those factories and poor people with no rights.
-----
But: getting universal access from your employer makes you dependend on that employer for access. And what if you use that access in a way your employer disagrees with. What if you post opinions (in your free time) that offend others who contact your ISP about it (your employer? Or an ISP who forwards this to your employer?). Or what if you want to post something about your own company (whistleblowing ?) that could get you fired. First case I can think of is the Northwest searching employees home computers because they were suspected of being involved in actions against Northwest.
I have been asked to remove stuff on a website totally not related to my job because a user could get there from the homepage of my employer with a number of clicks so the remarks I made there could be seen as being a negative comment on working at my current job (and this in .nl where people are expected to have a life outside work). One reason I am separating my 'being active on Internet' from my work address/webservers.
The Virtual Bookcase: book reviews