Thing is that massive bandwidth would be nice, but where are you going to get it from. I have the dubious distinction of having a father who thinks that HAM radio is the be all and end all of hobbies. The constraints on RF bandwidth created by demand as it presently exists is a common conversation topic. As things stand, the second you bounce something off a satelite (as is the case with much info on the 'net), it is taking up RF bandwidth. That is a limited commodity, constrained by the physical limitations of radio frequency radiation. If we were to install massive fibre optic webs on the ocean floor, this would increase available bandwidth, or if we outlawed TV and Radio and gave the bandwidth to the 'net that would increase bandwidth, but not much else is going to work. Sometimes, the physical limits interfear with futurist dreams.
And I still want my direct neural connection. When I get one, the future is here.
You are right. But, the 'net can be used as a revolutionary tool. It is easy, free information, free any and all types of information. Give it away, for in doing so you destroy the corporations ability to sell it. Mirror your sight through a server in Bhutan so that they can't sue you (remember Napster's lesson).
The 'net presents an interesting connundrum. It exists outside national boundaries, so no nationstate can controll it. However, it does not exist outside Multinational boundaries, this is where the great battle is and where it is still being fought. What we must ask is are those of us who resist Multinational Corporations going to fight back or roll over and die. I think Napster makes a good example. Will it move it's server to UK or Germany? (Or Nepal?) Or will it go corporate? Individuals don't get rich from 'net tech, but Corporations get richer.
I think it is important to consider not just how humans in the information culture are, but what they should be, and what they have the potential to be.
Slashdot Mirror
Thing is that massive bandwidth would be nice, but where are you going to get it from. I have the dubious distinction of having a father who thinks that HAM radio is the be all and end all of hobbies. The constraints on RF bandwidth created by demand as it presently exists is a common conversation topic. As things stand, the second you bounce something off a satelite (as is the case with much info on the 'net), it is taking up RF bandwidth. That is a limited commodity, constrained by the physical limitations of radio frequency radiation. If we were to install massive fibre optic webs on the ocean floor, this would increase available bandwidth, or if we outlawed TV and Radio and gave the bandwidth to the 'net that would increase bandwidth, but not much else is going to work. Sometimes, the physical limits interfear with futurist dreams. And I still want my direct neural connection. When I get one, the future is here.
You are right. But, the 'net can be used as a revolutionary tool. It is easy, free information, free any and all types of information. Give it away, for in doing so you destroy the corporations ability to sell it. Mirror your sight through a server in Bhutan so that they can't sue you (remember Napster's lesson).
The 'net presents an interesting connundrum. It exists outside national boundaries, so no nationstate can controll it. However, it does not exist outside Multinational boundaries, this is where the great battle is and where it is still being fought. What we must ask is are those of us who resist Multinational Corporations going to fight back or roll over and die. I think Napster makes a good example. Will it move it's server to UK or Germany? (Or Nepal?) Or will it go corporate? Individuals don't get rich from 'net tech, but Corporations get richer.
I think it is important to consider not just how humans in the information culture are, but what they should be, and what they have the potential to be.