Slashdot Mirror
Can Google Connect the Unconnected 2/3 To the Internet?
lpress (707742) writes "Google, along with Facebook, is a founding partner of Internet.org, which seeks "affordable internet access for the two thirds of the world not yet connected." Google is trying to pull it off — they have projects or companies working on Internet connectivity using high-altitude platforms and low and medium-earth orbit satellites. These extra-terrestrial approaches to connectivity have been tried before, without success, but Google is revisiting them using modern launch technology (public and private), antennas, solar power, radios and other electronics, as well as tuning of TCP/IP protocols to account for increased latency. For example, they just acquired Skybox Imaging, which has a low-earth orbit satellite for high resolution video imaging. In the short run, Skybox is about data, video and images, but the long range goal may be connectivity in developing nations and rural areas — substituting routers for telescopes. Skybox plans to operate a constellation of low-earth orbit satellites and that sounds a lot like Teledesic's attempt at providing connectivity in the mid 1990s, using the technology of 2014."
Google wil never ever connect the tinfoil people to the internet. It may be any company in the world, but not Google.
Content and distribution in one hand should be illegal.
Kinda makes the case for treating internet access as a public utility, doesn't it?
Though I fear that kind of regulation would kill innovation. I seriously doubt we'd have smartphones if the old POTS regime were still a monopoly under heavy regulation as a "public utility".
From Google's perspective it does of course, because more people online are more people to sell ads to. But what about us, other connected citizens of earth? Will Mbembe's life really be enriched by being able to spend two dollars on special candies in Candy Crush? What about Min Soo-Ah, how will wifi balloons save her from living in a country where hot water doesn't reach above the second floor? How is this not just silicon valley jerking itself off?
So, it's like the Internet, but in the sky? Let's call it SkyNet!
Ezekiel 23:20
So what is "Affordable" supposed to mean for subsistence farmers?
What does affordable mean to somewho who cannot even conceive of the concept of money, for someone not even able to conceive of the concept of numbers?
Affordable is not a word that even makes sense to use in the same sentence as 2/3 of the 2/3s.
Troll is not a replacement for I disagree.
There's still nothing freaking available other than dial-up out at my parents. Not even good cell reception (south eastern ohio).
I hope they won't. The Internet was such a wonderful place as long as it was purely academic network.
You know, countries where affordable internet access is not available?
Examples: USA, Canada.
Get free satoshi (Bitcoin) and Dogecoins
Slashdot's resident troll makes a total fool of himself yet again. Moron.
The Internet was such a wonderful place as long as it was purely academic network.
I don't think it's the primordial academic network that the geek remembers with affection but rather a time when the Internet was his personal playground.
Now whose being prejudiced?
You might want to take a look at this (safe for work and all, don't worry, it's just a map of the night earth).
And then you might ponder whether giving these people internet is going to do them much good.
Hint: Sending a fridge into the middle of the desert doesn't allow the people there to refrigerate their goods. You know why? Same reason why internet won't work!
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
Now who is being prejudiced?
However that's true of a lot of people. I don't see why someone who programs or designs things on a computer would have a better chance. A better test would be to take away all their money and connections and see what they can do.
I have mod points, but I'd rather simply explain this...
Warren Buffet has actually made this exact analogy before (I believe when he and Bill Gates did a joint Q/A session). He acknowledges that he has no skills that would be of any use if he were on a deserted island. He's even joked that he'd be eaten in a couple of days if he were born while humans were still hunter-gatherers.
What many fail to understand is that there are positions in society. I'm not talking about peasant versus king positions. I'm talking about people who are particularly skilled in a certain area and they can take advantage of those skills to make a living for themselves and/or make others' lives easier. Farmers are necessary, soldiers are necessary, teachers are necessary, and investors are necessary (note, I'm using the term investor as define by Benjamin Graham), etc...
Why is manual labor considered morally superior to allocating one's money where it would do the most good? Why are those who pour hundreds or thousands of dollars into construction companies, mining companies, or wood/metalworking companies demonized for allowing companies in those sectors to expand their business, hire more people, and offer their product in larger markets?
Did the rich build this country? Of course not. However, without the rich, no-one else could afford to.
I would bet that the people who criticize the rich for having money are the same people who criticize those who finance expensive houses, a Mercedes-Benz, and Prada bags with debt for being irresponsible with their money.
Is being poor supposed to be the only moral way to live?
man, that went into the weeds fast.
With as much money as they've got? Probably. At this point, they just sort of make money off of people being on the internet without having to do much else, so they've got every reason to. Hells, they may just up and decide to give everyone on the planet the equivalent of 56k for free with equipment, or something like that.
Nobody has brought up an obvious (to me I guess) consideration.
How would 'other 2/3' perceive the internet / computers in general in their cultural context.
Imagine a refugee camp where war torn peoples flock across a border and are placed into a predesignated area. Now (if it was Turkey*) they'd have all the basic amenities, food, shelter, water, plumbing...tv. What they are lacking (as far as I can tell) is any pervasive computer/internet. Consequently, boredom is one of the biggest problems in these refugee camps.
What if they all had the internet though?
What would they do with something of that magnitude that they've never had before? Would it become self-organizing? Would they require classes? If so, how in-depth? What if the literacy rates were low? Could small pictographic games still provide entertainment? Could MMOs (or whatever) provide a sense of purpose, if only virtual, to somebody's life?
Now take that microcosm and multiply it by 'the other 2/3'.
We need to approach this as a legitimate problem that is capable of being solved through research and refinement.
* http://www.nytimes.com/2014/02...
Yes, yes it did. I've tried giving basic points before and allowed people to follow the them to the logical conclusions on their own. Unfortunately, I've found they subconsciously either stop thinking about it or refuse to continue when they realize they're looking from a viewpoint they simply don't agree with. Therefore, I have to not only give them the map but be their guide as well.
Then there are those who claim they welcome a debate, but adamantly refuse to acknowledge even the possibility that they're wrong no matter how many facts you present them with.
Eventually you get tired of hearing the same arguments and the same opinions you've already argued against and debunked, so you simply stop debating. At that point, you're considered closed-minded.
Did the rich build this country? Of course not. However, without the rich, no-one else could afford to.
I would bet that the people who criticize the rich for having money are the same people who criticize those who finance expensive houses, a Mercedes-Benz, and Prada bags with debt for being irresponsible with their money.
Is being poor supposed to be the only moral way to live?
Wow. There are corporations for profit or not, and all their capital. Then there are individuals, and their personal wealth.
How is society benefited by wealthy INDIVIDUALS?
Feel free to point out examples of successful ventures where personal financing was absolutely necessary, because you haven't yet.
Of course they'll succeed with this critical mission. After all, the first thought a starving child has when they wake up with no food, parents with no jobs, and wondering if they'll eat today, all that matters nought. Their first thought is "I wish I had high speed internet."
The fact that the first thing these people would do is trade a free smartphone for food is also irrelevent.
After all, we're out to save the world through cat videos and LOLs. Screw rational thought.
I do not fail; I succeed at finding out what does not work.
I wonder if the 2/3 Google is considering are with internet technology or the kinda of people who don't even have access to a pc? Considering the many rural areas in India, where people are significantly technologically backwards.
Adwalpalkar Constructions - Apartments in Goa
It's just a commercial to mark Google as the "innovative" company. It won't sell (much), as won't the project Ara phones but it's a nice public advertisement to show Google's potential.
Reason Google is behind this drive is that it will allow them (and NSA) to reach more consumers.
Similar to how USA and other countries' corporations were happy to make Iron Curtain fail - not exactly for political/goodwill reasons, but to reach more consumers.
Where do you find these 2/3 that is not connected?
Some you find in countries that are connected in general, with other words those not connected do not want to be.
I guess you meen that you find the rest in 3rd world countries, but, I guess you havent realized that they skipped the 'sitting athome at a monitor' they went directly to mobilphones, with access to the net. The phone market in Africa is booooooming, there is small sellers everywhere.
The world has moved on, not everything is where it was 20 years ago, and its time to realize that part.
Because I'm from Africa, you lie and claim I don't understand money. Fuck you and your racist kind. I not only understand money, but I make six figures in the Detroit area.... because I'm black ... Fuck you Republicans .. [blah blah blah]
Wow, what a post! It's made my day.
I didn't see any mention of "black", "Africa" or "Republican" in the GP, he was talking about subsistence farmers and clearly you are not one. OTOH, you are close to projecting yourself as another stereotype, one I won't describe here but not a very nice one.
Anyway, the GP saying that subsistence farmers don't understand money is nonsense. We get too much of earnest do-good romantic hype giving the impression that everyone in Africa lives in a straw hut, trades with hippo teeth, and wears loincloths. It's bullshit.
Google may or may not accomplish this goal, but the real question is, how long after that will it be before Comcast does a hostile takeover of Google and fuck it all up for everybody?
Are YOU using the TOOL, or is the TOOL using YOU? Think about it!
When you explain why did you cluster food [farmers], which is basic necessity for survival, with investors, who are merely filling a function in an invented by humans [nothing to do with natural law or survival] system, then we can talk.
A system [finance] that has grown to be a global parasite that contributes nothing to humanity, quite the contrary. The worst societal myth is perpetuated by economists - they lead people to believe that the way we do things is "natural", that the "laws" of the economic game are immutable and build-in, like the true Laws of Nature. Dingo's kidneys!!
Are you going to claim that there is no other way to conduct economy? No other ways to build a country? And do me the courtesy not to retort in the lines of "we have tried other systems, this one is the best", because we haven't. The fundamentals of the system are/were the same for quite some time now regardless of political nuances. So we have the opposite of economy, we spill and trash and destroy everything in the name of an invented game that is killing us and we claim the game is natural, part of who we are.
That's the worst fucking nightmare of humanity, our collective insanity, the blind spot, the big obstacle. To believe that our way is the only possible way.
At this moment in time I am so disappointed, I would seriously consider hitching a ride even on a Vogon ship. After all I could probably trick them to torture me with poetry [which does not affect humans since we are subjected to the worst poetry in the Universe, the Vogon's being a distant third worst] and let me go "as a broken man" on the first spaceport. It's worth a try!
I just thought of a better option. Memorize the poetry of Paul Nancy ect...and when asked "what did you think about my poem" fire back! Assume command of the ship while everyone is rolling on the floor in pain..