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.
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.
You know, countries where affordable internet access is not available?
Examples: USA, Canada.
Get free satoshi (Bitcoin) and Dogecoins
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.
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.
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?
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...
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.
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.