If jonkatz is getting paid to write these junior high school calibre reviews, then you guys need to seriously consider finding someone else. First, his jurassic park III "review" was a cop-out, (you can't just leave and say it sucked) His sloppy rants lack accuracy (ie, the witherspoon/clueless screw up)any kind of insight, and are void of any valid arguments. How old is he, twelve? i'm all for personal opinion, but if you're gonna post on a good page, you should at least use/have some skill.
It seems that this article itself is pulling attention away from the real issue. The problem is not with attention, it is with controlled mass media.
"For hundreds of years, attention has been a luxury or a by-product. Now it's become one of the most valuable commodities in the world. That suggests the people who will be the most successful at gaining attention are those with the deepest pockets to pay for it. "
Actually, it suggests that the people who control closed mass media technologies, (tv, radio, news papers, magazines, Microsoft Windows, etc...) attempts to steer attention for their own benefit. There was no mass cry of people asking CNN to spend 20 hours a day talking about Monica Lewinski. But lots of people watched it, simply because they were bored and there was nothing else to do. The only thing interesting about that story, is that so much dumb ass attention was focused on it.
The solution is open mass media technologies and time. As individual humans share content with each other, attention eventually turns away from mass media towards open media. Attention is moving towards a democratic order, in which the most popular information is the easiest to find.
For example, look at file sharing software. The most popular shows are the easiest ones to find. Jo blo sci-fi fan looking for a good show to watch, eventually will find a show that lots of people enjoy, because allot of people are sharing it. Jo blo sci fi fan, then delegates some of his attention to see what all the fuss is about. If he likes it, the popularity will continue to grow.
My point is that, when everybody shares information, when everybody has a server, information will be self-ordering. It already is. Look at Slashdot. Look at USENET. Look at Linux. Look at p2p. People by there nature organize information there interested in. As time goes by, more people are sorting more information, and information becomes easier to find.
With the Internet we are not just creating chaos, we are ordering it to. And we are getting better at it all the every day.
Infinite bandwidth enables infanite open source
on
Telecosm
·
· Score: 1
this book looks fascinating, I can't wait to read it entirly. But still Gilder looks like he's missing a few concepts.
From the review, IMHO the key issue that George Gilder overlooks is how infanite bandwidth enables infanite sharing of data and processing.
Infanite sharing enables infanite open source development on every level.
this infanite bandwidth does not at all apply to the old economic model. Economics was founded on the supply and demand curve. When supply is infanite, all econimic equations end up going to infinite or zero. Corporate Economics, therefore, is currently an ineficiant model to moderate infanite badwidth. Anarchy on the other hand works great when suplies are infanite.
With infanite bandwidth, we are creating and sorting chaos at exponential rates.
Slashdot Mirror
"it was a dark and stormy night"
It seems that this article itself is pulling attention away from the real issue. The problem is not with attention, it is with controlled mass media.
"For hundreds of years, attention has been a luxury or a by-product. Now it's become one of the most valuable commodities in the world. That suggests the people who will be the most successful at gaining attention are those with the deepest pockets to pay for it. "
Actually, it suggests that the people who control closed mass media technologies, (tv, radio, news papers, magazines, Microsoft Windows, etc...) attempts to steer attention for their own benefit. There was no mass cry of people asking CNN to spend 20 hours a day talking about Monica Lewinski. But lots of people watched it, simply because they were bored and there was nothing else to do. The only thing interesting about that story, is that so much dumb ass attention was focused on it.
The solution is open mass media technologies and time. As individual humans share content with each other, attention eventually turns away from mass media towards open media. Attention is moving towards a democratic order, in which the most popular information is the easiest to find.
For example, look at file sharing software. The most popular shows are the easiest ones to find. Jo blo sci-fi fan looking for a good show to watch, eventually will find a show that lots of people enjoy, because allot of people are sharing it. Jo blo sci fi fan, then delegates some of his attention to see what all the fuss is about. If he likes it, the popularity will continue to grow.
My point is that, when everybody shares information, when everybody has a server, information will be self-ordering. It already is. Look at Slashdot. Look at USENET. Look at Linux. Look at p2p. People by there nature organize information there interested in. As time goes by, more people are sorting more information, and information becomes easier to find.
With the Internet we are not just creating chaos, we are ordering it to. And we are getting better at it all the every day.
this book looks fascinating, I can't wait to read it entirly. But still Gilder looks like he's missing a few concepts.
From the review, IMHO the key issue that George Gilder overlooks is how infanite bandwidth enables infanite sharing of data and processing.
Infanite sharing enables infanite open source development on every level.
this infanite bandwidth does not at all apply to the old economic model. Economics was founded on the supply and demand curve. When supply is infanite, all econimic equations end up going to infinite or zero. Corporate Economics, therefore, is currently an ineficiant model to moderate infanite badwidth. Anarchy on the other hand works great when suplies are infanite.
With infanite bandwidth, we are creating and sorting chaos at exponential rates.