Basically, the book illustrates how those in power can shape the uses of new technologies to meet their needs. In 10 maybe 20 years the rules for using the internet will be much different. And if history repeats istelf those rules won't be in our favor.
Shirky is an excellent writer with a great ability to toss out many insightful bones for readers to chew on. I have been reading him for the last couple of months since an article he wrote appeared on Slashdot appeared a couple of months ago.
My only reservation about Shirky is his dogmatic belief in the power of consumer agency and the "free" market. Nothing, especially humans and their communication technologies, can easily be cast in black and white terms. Sure consumerism is a prime force in today's economy but it is just one of many. He leans on this force a bit too much in his analysis. I'd go on, but this is only Slashdot, after all. Just beware of this half-fallacy.
When one looks at the adoption rates of other 20th century and late 19th century technologies and compares it to the adoption rate of the internet, I'd say we are way ahead of the curve:
Electic light: Approx. 40 years to hit 80% of households
Telephone: Approx. 80 years to hit 80%
Television: Just under 15 years for 80%...wow!
Auto: 65 years!
Radio: About 20 years
To have roughly 50% of Americans install a very complex device (relative to the above technologies), and a fairly expensive one at that in under 10 years (when the internet became truly accessible) is pretty darn good, I think.
The following is a direct quote from the article you did not read. Asynch circuits are already being used:
For example, Royal Philips Electronics has built a pager using asynchronous electronics, taking advantage of the fact that the circuits produce far less radio interference than do clock-driven circuits. This makes it possible to operate a radio receiver that is directly next to the electronic circuit, greatly increasing the unit's operating efficiency.
Philips has also actively pursued research into asynchronous logic. Two small start-ups, Asynchronous Digital Design in Pasadena, Calif., and Theseus Logic in Orlando, Fla., are developing asynchronous chips for low-end consumer markets and high-performance computing systems.
My elderly mother pays hundreds of dollars each quarter for the privilege of being able to flush her shit into the local water treatment plant. It never makes headlines, though.
Check out this page on ZDNN if you want to see how really annoying web advertising can be. Do your best to resist falling into the trap of thinking that the ad is a new "feature" as ZDNN tries to spin it as.
The whole union/non-union debate comes down to one thing: power. And where you come down on this debate boils down to your understanding of power.
If you understand that those who hold power usually abuse it, you will be pro-union. If you think that the individual can have as much power as institutional authority, you believe there is no need for unions.
All I know is that this country was built on a balance of power and checks and balances. A balance of power cannot be a bad thing. Unions are good.
Do the math and you'll see you are wrong. AOL has a 50% market share. Overall, IE has an 85-90% marketshare. That means roughly 70-80% of people NOT on AOL use IE.
Does it really matter which 2000 lb. gorilla you go with?
The only thing worse than being a slave is to be a slave to two masters. So I'm just going to bend over now and let either company shove their browser as far up my ass they can and hope for the best. I only pray they wear a condom.
Did you hear about the guy who had his electricity shut off because he fought against the utility company's deregulation legislation? He got a hold of internal document leaked to him about how the company would be able to *increase* rates if the proposed bill passed.
Or did you read about the woman who had her cable television service cut from her home for handing out "secret" documents on the company's customer service policy at the city council meeting?
No? Of course not! That's because they never happened. Neither should @Home be cutting off a very important service to their customers. If the customer really did something wrong, the place to duke it out is in the courts, not yanking their service. That's total bullshit.
Re:Net should remain as it is
on
Anonymity
·
· Score: 1
What you don't seem to get dude is that I do have the right to be anonymous without the fucking internet. I could go to Kinko's and print out 6,000 flyers spewing out nonsense about some corporate honcho (as long as it wasn't libelous) and pay some kid (maybe you) to go hand them out for me and tell him not to tell anyone where he got them from. Guess what? No one could force him to tell them!
Re:Anonymity vs Free Speech
on
Anonymity
·
· Score: 1
"You shouldn't have to have anonymity to be immune to a corporation destroyihng you..."
Yeah, bud, but this is where your argument runs right into the wall of reality. In an ideal world we could speak the truth without fear of reprisal. Unfortunatley, speaking the truth can get you fucked. That's why anonymity is important.
"...you're hiding behind anonymity because you lack the real rights."
I'd argue this point but I don't even know what the hell you are trying to say. What are you talking about not having "real rights"?
Re:Anonymity vs Free Speech
on
Anonymity
·
· Score: 1
Yeah, and I guess that those three founding fathers who wrote the Federalist Papers anonymously were irresponsible dirtbags.
You idiots and your talk of "responsibility" just sound like a bunch of whiny Republicans. Funny thing is, you talk so much about it because you are the very same people who knocked up their girlfriends, snorted coke, and drove drunk. Now you are "older and wiser" and can preach your responsiblilty bullshit to the rest of us, right? Anyway, this crap about "responsibility" has nothing to do with the argument at hand.
More importantly, what you really fail to realize is that the crucial part of this story is that people's anonymity can be stripped away without them even acting irresponsibly! A person could say something perfectly truthful and sincere, but the offended party could claim that it wasn't and then, through the courts, expose that person's identity and destroy them (in the case of the NYT article it would mean the person's job.) This puts the kabosh on truthful free speech too.
The companys that use such tactics to silence truthful individuals are the very fucking definition of irresponsible!
Gee, Katz has sure done a 180. Just two weeks ago he was telling us politics was dead and going the way of the Catholic church. Now here he is writing an article about events happening in the presidential debates.
Well, I guess by the response this article is getting, you have to give him credit for creating interest.
Leave it to the "free" market to find a way to create scarcity where there is none to help put a damper on things. If they could, companies would find a way to sell sunshine. You can bet your ass companies will make MORE money under this scheme and that's the only reason it's on the table.
The way I see it, this would increase the digital divide. Let's say I'm a computer whiz kid developing the next Napster on steroids. Am I going to be able to pull together the 110 bucks per month to pull it off? Hell no.
Just about anybody can afford $20/month. Maybe you'd have to sell an extra 3 joints or work an hour extra each week bagging groceries to pull it off, but you could do it.
I'm all for a sliding scales for expensive items like taxes, college tuition, and heating bills, but coming with some complex and mystical formula (you thought your phone bill was confusing?) to justify saving families a few bucks a month is plain bullshit.
Don't believe a fucking word of it. Metcalfe is a shill for the capitalists. I heard it straight from his mouth on the radio that he is voting Republican. Fuck him.
Slashdot Mirror
It was only one town off for me.
Basically, the book illustrates how those in power can shape the uses of new technologies to meet their needs. In 10 maybe 20 years the rules for using the internet will be much different. And if history repeats istelf those rules won't be in our favor.
Does this mean the open source community will be able to deduct there services as charitable contributions?
...was a puddle of drool on my desk.
My only reservation about Shirky is his dogmatic belief in the power of consumer agency and the "free" market. Nothing, especially humans and their communication technologies, can easily be cast in black and white terms. Sure consumerism is a prime force in today's economy but it is just one of many. He leans on this force a bit too much in his analysis. I'd go on, but this is only Slashdot, after all. Just beware of this half-fallacy.
Electic light: Approx. 40 years to hit 80% of households
Telephone: Approx. 80 years to hit 80%
Television: Just under 15 years for 80%...wow!
Auto: 65 years!
Radio: About 20 years
To have roughly 50% of Americans install a very complex device (relative to the above technologies), and a fairly expensive one at that in under 10 years (when the internet became truly accessible) is pretty darn good, I think.
For example, Royal Philips Electronics has built a pager using asynchronous electronics, taking advantage of the fact that the circuits produce far less radio interference than do clock-driven circuits. This makes it possible to operate a radio receiver that is directly next to the electronic circuit, greatly increasing the unit's operating efficiency.
Philips has also actively pursued research into asynchronous logic. Two small start-ups, Asynchronous Digital Design in Pasadena, Calif., and Theseus Logic in Orlando, Fla., are developing asynchronous chips for low-end consumer markets and high-performance computing systems.
The above password and username do work. Now use them.
My elderly mother pays hundreds of dollars each quarter for the privilege of being able to flush her shit into the local water treatment plant. It never makes headlines, though.
http://ink.e-quill.com/view/3876482d4c6d9b94
FOLLOW THE MONEY!
http://ink.e-quill.com/view/719591c07994ab70
They will piss on this offer.
No, I know someone who works in the front end of a supermarket and employees using their cards for customers is strongly discouraged.
http://www.digitrends.net/marketing/13637_14459.ht ml
If you understand that those who hold power usually abuse it, you will be pro-union. If you think that the individual can have as much power as institutional authority, you believe there is no need for unions.
All I know is that this country was built on a balance of power and checks and balances. A balance of power cannot be a bad thing. Unions are good.
Do the math and you'll see you are wrong. AOL has a 50% market share. Overall, IE has an 85-90% marketshare. That means roughly 70-80% of people NOT on AOL use IE.
The only thing worse than being a slave is to be a slave to two masters. So I'm just going to bend over now and let either company shove their browser as far up my ass they can and hope for the best. I only pray they wear a condom.
Did you hear about the guy who had his electricity shut off because he fought against the utility company's deregulation legislation? He got a hold of internal document leaked to him about how the company would be able to *increase* rates if the proposed bill passed. Or did you read about the woman who had her cable television service cut from her home for handing out "secret" documents on the company's customer service policy at the city council meeting? No? Of course not! That's because they never happened. Neither should @Home be cutting off a very important service to their customers. If the customer really did something wrong, the place to duke it out is in the courts, not yanking their service. That's total bullshit.
What you don't seem to get dude is that I do have the right to be anonymous without the fucking internet. I could go to Kinko's and print out 6,000 flyers spewing out nonsense about some corporate honcho (as long as it wasn't libelous) and pay some kid (maybe you) to go hand them out for me and tell him not to tell anyone where he got them from. Guess what? No one could force him to tell them!
Yeah, bud, but this is where your argument runs right into the wall of reality. In an ideal world we could speak the truth without fear of reprisal. Unfortunatley, speaking the truth can get you fucked. That's why anonymity is important.
"...you're hiding behind anonymity because you lack the real rights."
I'd argue this point but I don't even know what the hell you are trying to say. What are you talking about not having "real rights"?
You idiots and your talk of "responsibility" just sound like a bunch of whiny Republicans. Funny thing is, you talk so much about it because you are the very same people who knocked up their girlfriends, snorted coke, and drove drunk. Now you are "older and wiser" and can preach your responsiblilty bullshit to the rest of us, right? Anyway, this crap about "responsibility" has nothing to do with the argument at hand.
More importantly, what you really fail to realize is that the crucial part of this story is that people's anonymity can be stripped away without them even acting irresponsibly! A person could say something perfectly truthful and sincere, but the offended party could claim that it wasn't and then, through the courts, expose that person's identity and destroy them (in the case of the NYT article it would mean the person's job.) This puts the kabosh on truthful free speech too.
The companys that use such tactics to silence truthful individuals are the very fucking definition of irresponsible!
Want to see the latest craze about to storm Slashdot? Click here.
Well, I guess by the response this article is getting, you have to give him credit for creating interest.
The way I see it, this would increase the digital divide. Let's say I'm a computer whiz kid developing the next Napster on steroids. Am I going to be able to pull together the 110 bucks per month to pull it off? Hell no.
Just about anybody can afford $20/month. Maybe you'd have to sell an extra 3 joints or work an hour extra each week bagging groceries to pull it off, but you could do it.
I'm all for a sliding scales for expensive items like taxes, college tuition, and heating bills, but coming with some complex and mystical formula (you thought your phone bill was confusing?) to justify saving families a few bucks a month is plain bullshit.
Don't believe a fucking word of it. Metcalfe is a shill for the capitalists. I heard it straight from his mouth on the radio that he is voting Republican. Fuck him.