A project such as Project Gutenberg concentrates on the content of a work of Art, rather than the object itself (e.g. an original Shakespeare Folio).
The view has been expressed that as content becomes more freely available, the value placed on objects - such as first editions, or signed copies - will increase.
What does Michael Hart think? Will people be more inclined to buy books for their curiosity/iconic value? Will this reduce the value placed on the content, the thoughts and ideas, as people buy books much as they now buy antiques or works of art? Will this be a good or a bad thing?
Andrew Ó Baoill
Re:The real story of radio, as I see it.
on
100 Years of Radio
·
· Score: 1
Re. the claim that Marconi only got into radio in the 1930s.
Marconi started a transmission station in Galway, Ireland in 1904 or so. He had previously made the first trans-Atlantic transmission in 1901, from New Foundland to Cornwall.
I had the good fortune to interview his daughter, Elettra, in Galway, in 1995. At that point, we were actually close to the 100th anniversary of the transmission by Marconi over a distance of 1 mile, which first occurred in either 1895 or 1896 (can't remember exactly).
Regarding the claims of others, such as Tesla, I think that radio is a mix of several items:
wireless transmission
communication
and so I would think Marconi's claim to the title is reasonable.
Slashdotters may be interested in an essay I had published in First Monday which analyses the extent to which Slashdot serves as a public sphere.
The model of the public sphere was developed by the German Philosopher Jurgen Habermas. It defines strict conditions under which a given forum can be viewed as a Public Sphere. Of possible interest, and relevance to Jon Katz's piece, is that I critique Poster's analysis of the internet (albeit a different essay, The Net as a Public Sphere), arguing that some of what Poster sees as flaws actually enhance the public sphere role of the internet.
Taxation funds the activities of government. In my country (Ireland) the main areas are Education, Health and Social Welfare. These alloacations are decided by the representatives of the people in the annual budget. Within certain bounds, the necessary tax rates are decided based on the amount of money which the legislature want to spend. I believe that the tax take should be fairly spread amongst those who are able to pay - this is easier to see when talking about income tax, but also applies to sales taxes and the like. In certain situations it may be decided to give an exemption to a certain class of business or area of society. This is usually for one of a small class of reasons: - The cost of regulation and collection would outweigh the money received (or make the collection too inefficient to be worthwhile) - A tax break acts as a form of subsidy for a socially worthwhile activity. For example, the income of artists is tax-free in Ireland, since art/culture is seen as something that society should support. - A tax break is necessary to encourage economic development, increasing employment or supporting a sluggish industry or economy. In this case, the 'trickle-down effect' ensures that society gains more than it loses in fore-gone revenue. I am unconvinced that any of these situations applies to the (now booming) on-line economy. Even if tax breaks are allowed to encourage the development of on-line commerce, these should be fazed out over a period of time. The point has already been made that on-line sales mean lower sales off-line. If the same tax-take is collected from off-line retailers (with no input by on-line sales) the percentage tax on off-line sales increases, making them even less attractive to customers. This would seem to be an unfair distoortion of the market. Incidently, if on-line sales are allowed to be tax free, I can see a situation where retailers will install terminals in their brick-and-mortar shops to make _all_ sales technically be 'on-line'.
While losing data is a problem, an more important issue for most people is being able to find _useful_ and _relevant_ information on an ongoing basis.
The main dangers are: 1 necessary information has disappeared due to obsolescence - it has already been noted that most necessary information has a limited lifespan, so this problem is limited as long as standards have a 'reasonable' lifespan 2 too much junk - high signal to noise ratio - this can be tackled with processing power, but can still be a problem 3 'Non-essential' information has not been preserved, because it isn't seen as valuable to those creating the archives. An example - Titanic will continue to be a money-spinner, and will probably be 'ported' to any new medium. A documentary on racism, or conglomerate control of the media, may be of educational use, but may not be preserved in a central archive, because it will not be sufficiently profit-making, or will damage the image of the parent company. Another example is Fantasia - can _you_ find a copy of the original version?
If this is true, and it is quite possible,it is indeed scary.
The US government and others in NATO have protested against the censorship in Serbia, and the fact that State media acts as a mouthpiece for the government.
Yet here we have a situation where the US/NATO/whoever is removing any chance of accurate/non-state-approved information being available.
What is the aim? The only thing I can think of is that it will make Serbians feel even more cut off and alone, and increase their determination to oppose the attacks on them and their country. Why have all NATO tactics had this (predictable) result?
The NATO attack is in breach of international law. If the Serbian government (it is poor tactics to try to personify it as only being Slobodan (sp?)) is attacking Kosovars, as claimed by NATO propoganda, then there is a moral imperative to take effective action. The keyword though is effective - and the action to date has merely been murderous, destructive and cowardly.
My flatmate is frightened of guys with long hair and black clothes, despite the fact that her only (!) experience of meeting one was unilateraly positive. It reminds one of the cliche regarding "[Insert ethnic group] people can't be trusted/steal/are bad. Of course John/Jill is different, but they are an exception. And no, I don't know any blacks/jews/whites/asians, other than John/Jill."
Most of my (male) friends (I am in my mid-twenties) have long hair and wear black clothes (and long coats). In general, such people are among the quietest, friendliest, most-least-likely-to-harm people I know. I know it has been said before, and most people reading Slashdot will know it anyhow, but it bears repeating over and over - and not just here, but in any social setting we find ourselves in - in order to defend people's freedoms: Fashion and computer games don't kill, people with guns do.
On School, I come from Ireland, and my experience was that much of school was blighted by the natural propensity for evil of a small proportion of teenagers, and the instinct of the majority to blend in with the confident students.
However, I think that the situation described by many commentators - on Slashdot and elsewhere - where Sports Jocks are viewed as minor gods, and the only way a teenager should want to be, is not matched here in Ireland. I always thought those films and TV shows were using an unrealistic stereotype (geeks vs. jocks), and wondered why it was so popular an image. Now I know.
One (short) final point : here in Ireland, coverage of sport in the media has reached saturation point. I like current affairs and talk radio, but it is impossible to listen to a talk-based station, without a sports item being put into every general programme, as well as dedicated sports shows. This saturation thing is recent. Are there similar developments elsewhere, and is there a solution?
Slashdot Mirror
The view has been expressed that as content becomes more freely available, the value placed on objects - such as first editions, or signed copies - will increase.
What does Michael Hart think? Will people be more inclined to buy books for their curiosity/iconic value? Will this reduce the value placed on the content, the thoughts and ideas, as people buy books much as they now buy antiques or works of art? Will this be a good or a bad thing?
Andrew Ó Baoill
Marconi started a transmission station in Galway, Ireland in 1904 or so. He had previously made the first trans-Atlantic transmission in 1901, from New Foundland to Cornwall.
I had the good fortune to interview his daughter, Elettra, in Galway, in 1995. At that point, we were actually close to the 100th anniversary of the transmission by Marconi over a distance of 1 mile, which first occurred in either 1895 or 1896 (can't remember exactly).
Regarding the claims of others, such as Tesla, I think that radio is a mix of several items:
wireless transmission
communication
and so I would think Marconi's claim to the title is reasonable.
Andrew
The model of the public sphere was developed by the German Philosopher Jurgen Habermas. It defines strict conditions under which a given forum can be viewed as a Public Sphere. Of possible interest, and relevance to Jon Katz's piece, is that I critique Poster's analysis of the internet (albeit a different essay, The Net as a Public Sphere), arguing that some of what Poster sees as flaws actually enhance the public sphere role of the internet.
Andrew
Taxation funds the activities of government. In my country (Ireland) the main areas are Education, Health and Social Welfare. These alloacations are decided by the representatives of the people in the annual budget. Within certain bounds, the necessary tax rates are decided based on the amount of money which the legislature want to spend. I believe that the tax take should be fairly spread amongst those who are able to pay - this is easier to see when talking about income tax, but also applies to sales taxes and the like. In certain situations it may be decided to give an exemption to a certain class of business or area of society. This is usually for one of a small class of reasons: - The cost of regulation and collection would outweigh the money received (or make the collection too inefficient to be worthwhile) - A tax break acts as a form of subsidy for a socially worthwhile activity. For example, the income of artists is tax-free in Ireland, since art/culture is seen as something that society should support. - A tax break is necessary to encourage economic development, increasing employment or supporting a sluggish industry or economy. In this case, the 'trickle-down effect' ensures that society gains more than it loses in fore-gone revenue. I am unconvinced that any of these situations applies to the (now booming) on-line economy. Even if tax breaks are allowed to encourage the development of on-line commerce, these should be fazed out over a period of time. The point has already been made that on-line sales mean lower sales off-line. If the same tax-take is collected from off-line retailers (with no input by on-line sales) the percentage tax on off-line sales increases, making them even less attractive to customers. This would seem to be an unfair distoortion of the market. Incidently, if on-line sales are allowed to be tax free, I can see a situation where retailers will install terminals in their brick-and-mortar shops to make _all_ sales technically be 'on-line'.
While losing data is a problem, an more important issue for most people is being able to find _useful_ and _relevant_ information on an ongoing basis.
The main dangers are:
1 necessary information has disappeared due to obsolescence - it has already been noted that most necessary information has a limited lifespan, so this problem is limited as long as standards have a 'reasonable' lifespan
2 too much junk - high signal to noise ratio - this can be tackled with processing power, but can still be a problem
3 'Non-essential' information has not been preserved, because it isn't seen as valuable to those creating the archives. An example - Titanic will continue to be a money-spinner, and will probably be 'ported' to any new medium. A documentary on racism, or conglomerate control of the media, may be of educational use, but may not be preserved in a central archive, because it will not be sufficiently profit-making, or will damage the image of the parent company. Another example is Fantasia - can _you_ find a copy of the original version?
Andrew
If this is true, and it is quite possible,it is indeed scary.
The US government and others in NATO have protested against the censorship in Serbia, and the fact that State media acts as a mouthpiece for the government.
Yet here we have a situation where the US/NATO/whoever is removing any chance of accurate/non-state-approved information being available.
What is the aim? The only thing I can think of is that it will make Serbians feel even more cut off and alone, and increase their determination to oppose the attacks on them and their country. Why have all NATO tactics had this (predictable) result?
The NATO attack is in breach of international law. If the Serbian government (it is poor tactics to try to personify it as only being Slobodan (sp?)) is attacking Kosovars, as claimed by NATO propoganda, then there is a moral imperative to take effective action. The keyword though is effective - and the action to date has merely been murderous, destructive and cowardly.
Andrew
My flatmate is frightened of guys with long hair and black clothes, despite the fact that her only (!) experience of meeting one was unilateraly positive. It reminds one of the cliche regarding "[Insert ethnic group] people can't be trusted/steal/are bad. Of course John/Jill is different, but they are an exception. And no, I don't know any blacks/jews/whites/asians, other than John/Jill."
Most of my (male) friends (I am in my mid-twenties) have long hair and wear black clothes (and long coats). In general, such people are among the quietest, friendliest, most-least-likely-to-harm people I know. I know it has been said before, and most people reading Slashdot will know it anyhow, but it bears repeating over and over - and not just here, but in any social setting we find ourselves in - in order to defend people's freedoms: Fashion and computer games don't kill, people with guns do.
On School, I come from Ireland, and my experience was that much of school was blighted by the natural propensity for evil of a small proportion of teenagers, and the instinct of the majority to blend in with the confident students.
However, I think that the situation described by many commentators - on Slashdot and elsewhere - where Sports Jocks are viewed as minor gods, and the only way a teenager should want to be, is not matched here in Ireland. I always thought those films and TV shows were using an unrealistic stereotype (geeks vs. jocks), and wondered why it was so popular an image. Now I know.
One (short) final point : here in Ireland, coverage of sport in the media has reached saturation point. I like current affairs and talk radio, but it is impossible to listen to a talk-based station, without a sports item being put into every general programme, as well as dedicated sports shows. This saturation thing is recent. Are there similar developments elsewhere, and is there a solution?
Andrew
-------