Copy Link
Add to Bookmark
Report
Netizens-Digest Volume 1 Number 231
Netizens-Digest Friday, December 18 1998 Volume 01 : Number 231
Netizens Association Discussion List Digest
In this issue:
Re: [netz] BCBI: Netizen Polls Vary from TV Polls
Re: [netz] BCBI: Netizen Polls Vary from TV Polls
[netz] ICANN names membership committee
[netz] The Web Proxy Auto-Discovery Protocol
Re: [netz] Re: Voltaire's Bastards
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: 18 Dec 1998 02:17:29 +0100
From: Carsten Laekamp <lakamp@capway.com>
Subject: Re: [netz] BCBI: Netizen Polls Vary from TV Polls
"P.A. Gantt" <pgantt@icx.net> writes:
[Polls]
Exactly what netizenship should not be. These aren't meaningfull poll,
because those who 'vote' came there for that purpose (btw: you could
have given the real URLs, on the Dreamscape site).
The second site even gives the current results to the potential
respondents. Ridicule !
If representants are going to vote according to THOSE polls, democracy
will be in *real* trouble ! (the fact that they are influenced by real
polls is already bad enough). Anyway, the different figures show that these
cannot be trusted anyway.
I still love the 'probably yes' and 'probably not' answers on openpoll, which are
really meaningfull :)
- --
Carsten Läkamp
claekamp@mindless.com
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 17 Dec 1998 20:44:21 -0500
From: "P.A. Gantt" <pgantt@icx.net>
Subject: Re: [netz] BCBI: Netizen Polls Vary from TV Polls
> [Polls]
> have given the real URLs, on the Dreamscape site).
Go to dreamscape. Can't read from there?
> mindless.com
Indeed, mindless ;^}
- --
P.A. Gantt, Computer Science Technology Instructor
Electronic Media Design and Support Homepage
http://user.icx.net/~pgantt/
<a href="mailto:pagantt@technologist.com?Subject='eTech'">Email me.</a>
http://horizon.unc.edu/TS/vision/1998-11.asp
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 17 Dec 1998 23:38:49 -0400
From: kerryo@ns.sympatico.ca (Kerry Miller)
Subject: [netz] ICANN names membership committee
Sigh, passed over again!
=============
www.news.com
CANN names 13 to advisory committee
By Paul Festa Staff Writer, CNET News.com
December 17, 1998, 5:05 p.m. PT
The new, nongovernmental authority for the Internet's
infrastructure today took a small step toward making
itself accountable to the public by naming a key advisory
committee.
The Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers
(ICANN) announced the appointment of 13 volunteer members
to its membership advisory committee.
The committee will report to the ICANN board of
directors -- which oversees the Internet's infrastructure, including
its addressing system and technical protocols -- upon the
election of at-large board members.
ICANN has faced a slew of public criticism from some in the
Internet community who have voiced concerns that the body
will be unresponsive to the public. Today, ICANN interim chair
Esther Dyson called the advisory committee's creation an
important aspect of democratizing the organization.
| "These are to be the voice of the public," Dyson wrote in an
| email to News.com. "And it is this public that will elect future
| at-large directors."
|
| ICANN's bylaws call for the creation of the membership
| committee. This committee, which includes both ICANN
| directors and others, is charged with deciding how "at-large"
| directors, or those not nominated by ICANN's supporting
| organizations, will be elected.
ICANN's larger mission is to assume the authority over the
Internet infrastructure that the U.S. government relinquished
this year.
Board members include representatives from around the world.
ICANN previously had been criticized for being too United
States-centric.
Board members include:
George Conrades, chairman (ICANN; United States)
Izumi Aizu (Asia Network Research; Asia & Pacific Internet
Association; Malaysia/Japan)
Diane Cabell (Fausett, Gaeta & Lund; United States)
Greg Crew (ICANN; Australia)
Paval Duggal (Cyberlaw Consultant; India)
Kanchana Kanchanasut (Asian Institute of Technology;
Thailand)
Daniel Kaplan (Consultant; Internet Society France; France)
Siegfried Langenbach (CSL GmbH; Germany)
Nii Quaynor (Network Computer Systems; Ghana)
Oscar Robles Garay (Latin American & Caribbean Networks
Forum/ENRED; Mexico)
Dan Steinberg (Open Root Server Confederation; Canada)
Tadeo Takahashi (Internet Society Brazil; Brazil)
Jonathan Zittrain, non-voting liaison to Berkman Center
membership study (Berkman Center for Internet & Society at
Harvard Law School; United States)
===============
reproduced without permission.
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 18 Dec 1998 00:45:53 -0400
From: kerryo@ns.sympatico.ca (Kerry Miller)
Subject: [netz] The Web Proxy Auto-Discovery Protocol
http://eggplant.rte.microsoft.com/wpad//wpad.txt
A mechanism is needed to permit web clients to locate nearby web proxy
caches. Current best practice is for end users to hand configure their
web client (i.e., browser) with the URL of an "auto configuration file".
In large environments this presents a formidable support problem. It
would be much more manageable for the web client software to
automatically learn the configuration information for its web proxy
settings. This is typically referred to as a resource discovery problem.
Web client implementers are faced with a dizzying array of resource
discovery protocols at varying levels of implementation and deployment.
This complexity is hampering deployment of a "web proxy auto-discovery"
facility. This document proposes a pragmatic approach to web proxy
auto-discovery. It draws on a number of proposed standards in the light
of practical deployment concerns. It proposes an escalating strategy of
resource discovery attempts in order to find a nearby web proxy server.
It attempts to provide rich mechanisms for supporting a complex
environment which may contain multiple web proxy servers.
[...]
------------------------------
Date: 18 Dec 1998 13:43:42 +0100
From: Carsten Laekamp <lakamp@capway.com>
Subject: Re: [netz] Re: Voltaire's Bastards
kerryo@ns.sympatico.ca (Kerry Miller) writes:
> We (here and elsewhere) all
> preach that the net expands 'communication' and promotes international
> 'understanding,' but the terms are always left undefined, so that (to be
You've certainly got a point here. Ok, I'll keep replying on the list :)
> precise) the effects of the very difference you mention, between thoughtful
> general comment and 'quick and dirty' point-by-point response,
I didn't mean "quick and dirty". Only, point-by-point arguments often
lead far away from the initial topic. I thought we had gone that far.
I would have sent that second part to you directly, anyway ;)
> JRS describes Voltaire's 18c as one in which "justice still used torture as an
> official means ofd interrogation, and the condemned faced a variety of brutal
> punishments, being broken on the wheel, for instance. This and other tools of
> arbitrary power constituted a social form of darkeness.
Certainly. Note that JRS calls this a *social* form of darkness
(remember that a bit further down :) )
But things weren't that clear cut either: e.g. England had already
adopted the Habeas Corpus and the Bill of Rights when Voltaire was
born.
> The philosophers of
> Europe, England and America threw themselves into the arms of reason, convinced
> that birth would be given to new rational elites capable of building a new
> civilization...
This is a bit reductive. Their design wasn't political only. They
wouldn't have been called philosophers otherwise. And I doubt that
their vision of reason was that of an instrument either.
Also, it is dangerous to mix all the "philosophers of England, Europe
and America" together. Everyone had his own definition of knowledge,
reason, etc... and thus different conclusions about their relative
importance.
Voltaire warned of the dangers of dogmatism that came along with
rationalism. And Locke, who was certainly the most influent on the
evolution of political ideas before Marx, advocated the separation of
powers, which isn't fundamentally elitist :) Montesquieu, who did
consider an aristocratic Republic among other alternatives, based the
Republic (either democratic or aristocratic) on Virtue, not on Reason
(he was also the one who gave the final form to the separation of
powers).
Yes, the "pure" rationalists saw Reason in a *central* role. However,
their targets were religion and science, NOT politics.
> " And yet the exercise of power, without the moderating influence of any
> ethical structure, rapidly became the religion of these new elites. Their
> reforms included an unparalleled and permanent institution of state violence...
> acoompanied by a growing struggle between democratic and rational methods,
> with the rational increasingly at an advantage." (p 5)
>
> My interpretation is that JRS is distinguishing the human capacity of reason
> from the *institution* of reason
I must admit that the more I read the less I understand what JRS calls
"rational". I also wonder where and when reason got institutionalised.
I think JRS's big mistake is to consider that the structures of
18th-century democracy are a direct consequence of the 17th-century
philosophical ideas. Of course, the latter are also used by today's
institutions as a *justification* for themselves.
One has to see that the American Revolution wasn't a proper
revolution: its primary goal was not to change society but to adapt
the political organisation to the social and economical
structures. The French Revolution started out the same way, then
became a real (failed) revolution and, 2 republics, 2 kingdoms and 2
empires (!) later, ended up the same.
The influence of the philosophers was rather limited in both cases: it
made the idea that the structures could be changed popular, it was
certainly the basis for various Bills of Rights and for the inner
structures of government, i.e. the choice of a parliamentary
democracy.
This last point means that they had nothing to do with the structures
of power and with social organisation. The proof is that the US ended
up with 2 systems, one in the North and one in the South, that were
obviously different.
The setting up of a technocracy was not done on rational arguments but
rather on pragmatic ones (in France, the technocracy wasn't even the
deed of the revolution but of Napoleon).
> I agree, and i think JRS would agree, this is true for reason *as an idea*, if
> we can sum up the small-r 'individualistic' reason this way. But when you
> write,
>
Reason can only be an idea (or rather a concept). I don't see how it
could be anything else...
> { If we look at today's political
> { systems, only Western-type democracy is based on Reason, whereas
<CUT>
> then I think it misses the point. Economic and political *systems are not
> ideas, but institutions, with their own 'compelling logic.'
>
I said "based on" and should have said "set up with [...] as
their basic inner principle". I never said they were ideas !
But they certainly work *now* with their inner logic... or rather
mechanic. Opposition systematically criticising government, a certain
country's government starting a war or a bombing whenever the
president is in trouble are just mechanical acts, which rely on no
logic, rationality or "reasonableness", because they are even applied
when it is clear that they will backfire.
> Institutionalization is not 'just another layer' of social organization, but is
> the embodiment of power.
JRS himself says that torture and other means of power constituted a
*social* form of darkness (above). This does mean that *he* sees
instutions as part of society. Although it is certainly possible to
define both institutions and society so that the latter doesn't
include the former, their interaction (esp. in a democracy) is too
strong to separate them on the functional level. Moreover, this is
IMHO just a device to blame "the others", i.e. the institutions, for
the shortcomings of society in general.
> "Ours is a civilization astonishing in the degree to which is seems to see
> and to know. Never before have there been such enormous elites carrying such
> burdens of knowledge. This success story dominates our lives...
I don't really agree. The knowledge of the individual member of the
elites has rather diminished, due to specialisation.
> "The possession, use and control of knowledge have become their central
> theme... However, their power depends not on the effect with which they use
> that knowlege but on the effectiveness with which they control its
> use.
Hmmm... the control of technology (since this is what seems to be his
definition of "knowledge") is in the hands of the *economical* elites,
not of the political or scientific ones. And this is more true every
new day. The same also applies to the control of political power, and
even, now, to political power itself. This means moving away from what
we call Western-style democracy, hence it cannot be blamed on the
latter (but on society, which admits such things to happen). Ok, seems
we're back on topic now :)
> Thus
> [we have] an absolute belilef that the solution to our porblems must be a more
> determined application of [*]rationally organized[*] expertise.
I am starting to think that JRS means "pragmatic" when he says
"rational". Pragmatism cannot be blamed on rationality but on
"reasonableness".
Still, that evolution of the use of "expertise" is a tool of
controling knowledge, not a consequence of that control.
> The reality is
> that our problems are largely the result of that application. The illusion is
> that we have created the most sophisticated society in the history of man. The
> reality is that the division of knowledge into feudal fiefdoms of expertise has
> made general understanding and coordinated action not simply impossible but
> despised and distrusted." (p 8)
I agree. Still, I don't see the relation with the statement I was
commenting on, i.e. that knowledge was useless, since it didn't
prevent violence.
> { It would have been a good idea to give those definitions here from the
> { beginning, especially when they differ from the common ones.
>
> Are they so different? It was your comment that the 'humanists' were perhaps
> 'the new heroes' which seemed to me to twist the meaning.
As you said yourself, the media would present them as heroes. The
media follow in part common understanding and partly form
it. Therefore, they're a good tool to see what is generally
understood. :-) However, post-Roman history has more "self-made"
heroes as those "called by the people".
> In contrast to the
> _cynical suggestion that JRS was setting out toly 'prove himself' by the same
> standards he was using to criticise the establishment, I wrote that he was a
> _careful writer.
He clearly criticizes the system without looking behind the myths of
the system. The system claims to be rational and the system is bad,
therefore reason is bad. (ok, this is certainly over-simplified :-) ).
He doesn't ask the question whether the system is really based on
rational reason. When I talked about "dark designs", I was probably
wrong, since I forgot about him being N. American, which implies
believing in the basic myths of the N. American civilisation.
> Humanism accepts the full spectrum of human characteristics -- "spirit,
> appetite, faith and emotion, but also intuition, will, and most important,
> experience." ( p15; in the London interview, he lists "common sense,
> creativity, ethics, intuition, memory, and reason.")
What are the political implications of Humanism then ?
> { Oops, I didn't understand that "the West" was Canada...
> { And I think that at least Eastern Canada has some very active
> { extremists. But maybe "the West" refers to BC only ? :)
>
> What extremists?
Hmmm.... never heard about Quebec ? There are many extremists on both
sides (and I'm not meaning "Pro- or anti- <<French>> extremism" but
the general positions some take)
> The point of contention is simply that Reason is only *one*
> such characteristic, and deserves to be kept in proportion.
I agree on that. The points of contention are rather about the place of
reason in today's society and in history, as well as its definition,
then :-)
> By means of its
> (institutionalized) power (the 'Age of Reason'),
The "Age of Reason" is just another void, self-satisfactory, phrase
when applied to a society.
it has "driven the other
> { > Does 'mutual ownership' mean stockholders? Or linked boards?
> {
> { what I meant was companies owning shares of each others. Linked
> { boards, if I understand the term right, are, in part, a consequence of
> { this.
>
> Isnt it more accurate to say the shareholders are the owners and members of the
> board(s) are *managers*?
Yes. But who does nominate managers ? :-)
> The *institution* of the law is entirely, 100% on the side of the rational.
> There are a few unreconstructed souls who try to apply it still in a humanist
> way -- and who get ridiculed for their trouble.
No. Law is a very complex thing. The proposition of bills and passing
of individual laws depends on various factors, which can be of all
sorts: reasonable, rational (seldom), the action of pressure groups
and lobbies (no idea how this would be categorized :) ), the
predominant moral climate (emotional), etc...
The way the law is applied also depends on many factors: first on the
side of the police and prosecution (or other control organisms), it
depends on reasonable factors ("is this something we will bother to
handle, do we have enough ressources to do so or should we concentrate
on more important issues "?), on political and social pressure (what
will the general opinion say ? We want to show that we can handle the
drug problem... let's go get some marijuana dealers <g>), this all of
course in addition to (or rather: moderating) the law. In the case of
the US, there is even a further possible step, all on the side of
reasonable reason: negotiation between the parties. Judgements also
depend on a) the law (which is, from this point on, neither reasonable
nor rational. It just *is*), b) jurisprudence (rational), c) the
personal ways of thought (reasonable, rational, etc...) and morals
(emotional) of the judge or members of jury. It is also based on
wealth and luck (the quality of the lawyers and/or prosecutors, the
ethnical, social, etc... context of the jurisdiction) and even, in some
cases, public and/or political pressure (as in the O.J. Simpson case).
> The larger question is which interpretation leads to further thought
> ('improves understanding'). "A" (JRS) made a claim, and provided an example in
> support; "B" (CL) disputes the example, but "C" (KM) doesn't see that the claim
> of cyclicity ('just another swing') _leads_ anywhere. (In short, I'd call it
> _ex post facto_ -- but maybe in 1989 you foresaw the penchant for body
> piercing?)
I see it this way:
A) JRS made a claim ( people are being turned into sheep and accept it
as long as they keep the appearances of freedom)
B) CL disputes the example, saying that those appearances of freedom
are vanishing at the same time as the freedom itself... and that this
is due to the people (via the revival of morals and conformism) at
least as much as to the "elites".
This was already the trend in 1989. It may even be possible that the
end of the swing is near.
I am not saying that what I'm saying is leading anywhere. I'm just
saying that JRS's statement isn't.
But real questions would be: how come that this swing was that strong
? What are the influences of Eisenhower's and Reagan's policies on it
?
A question on appearances: what do you think of some branches of Rap
music, where people make millions while telling others to rebel
against the system ?
> { - During the late 60's, 70's, the contestation targetted as much the
> { system as appearances...
> { - Today, we are heading back to a very structured society ...
>
> And now do you think the drive for bigger faster *personal* computers reflects
> something else?
> What about the revival of automotive extravagance ?
Well, it just means appearances are back.... but those of the consumer
society, not those of rebellion.
> Or the whole drug milieu?
Which seems to be rather outside society: on one side those who have
been left out of it, on the other side those who deem themselves above
it.
> { Therefore, what JRS seems to denounce as a plot to keep the masses
> { quiet (but, then again, it is an impression from an *excerpt*) is,
> { IMHO, just another swing of the pendulum.
>
> 'Plot'? No, just the alienation of the indiv from any *real sense of power.
The plot would rather be to make them accept to have it taken away
from them. But still, I don't follow him there.
> I disagree. The common man used to know 'everything he needed to know' to live
> his life; now I need a plumber to fix the water pump (what's a 'foot valve'?)
> somebody else to repair the gas furnace (wheres the 'sensor switch'?) -- and
> both are useless when the electricity goes off!
But that hasn't got anything to do with the vocabulary ! Even in the
middle ages, you had to go to the specialist for some things (e.g. the
smith, the miller, ...). Our society is more based on technology than
theirs was, that's got nothing to do with language.
Now, swap your gas furnace for wood ovens (which are much more
effective -- and cost effective -- than anything else today) and you
won't need a sensor switch anymore. For getting a well, it might be a
bit more difficult, if you're living in town :)
>
> { Still, how would you trim a rosebush "reasonably" ?
>
> I would do whatever was necessary to make it look reasonably trimmed ;-)
You were commenting on the action of trimming, not on the result...
> { I said "this lead him to", which means there was an implication:
> {
> { - when he wanted to free all slaves, his "common sense" told him that
> { they could certainly not live in the same society as the whites. This
> { led him to the project to ship them off to Haiti. But this "common
> { sense" was the product of his experience (as c.s. always is). Had he
> { grown up in another society, he might have had different
> { thoughts.
> {
> { - when he commented on Voltaire's theory about some sedimental stone,
> { his common sense made him find the better explanation (Voltaire's
> { really seems stupid today), because his empirism was better fit for
> { that kind of subjects than Voltaire's rationalism.
>
> I'm confused; are these examples of cleverness or stupidity?
One of each :) The second one should be clear enough, for the first
one consider also his beautiful writings about Man and you'll see that
the two don't fit.
> The main
> effect, imo, of institutionalization is the glorification of the analytic, and
> in a culture which gets the message that 'breaking down' things is the only
> road to success, anybody looking 'upstream' for causes and explanations is cast
> as a philosopher.
Great, I'm a philosopher ! :)
No, be honest: if you keep re-inventing words, there is no way
have a conversation.
> I dont know how it is in France, but I guess that in English, the phrase
> 'know *how*' is heard 10 times more often than simply 'know.' And what but the
> same *instrumental* idea explains the use of 'knowledge' as an exact synonym
> for 'information'? Or, for that matter, to use your own example, the
> identification of an 'ology' as 'something'? ( _Technique_ uses knowledge;
> technology *ought to mean the knowledge embodied in (or abstracted from)
> technique. But, you see, this is looking *back* for the meanings of words, and
> is no longer readily acceptable in 'popular' discourse, which prefers to always
> push ahead, as if 'whatever' will fully cover any confusion of what one means.)
If you really looked back for the meaning of "technology", it would
mean "the study of techniques" :)
The problem with using "knowledge" for "know-how" is that the first
meaning of the word disappears. The same is true for "science" used in
place of "technology". The meaning disappears (since the word isn't
replaced by another one), followed shortly by the concept itself.
The result is that people don't feel a need for "real knowledge"
anymore. This has two consequences:
- - scientific research is replaced by development. This is already
what's happened in the US. It works because you can still rely
on the scientific research of other countries and, when in need of
competent people for transferring that new scientific knowledge to
technology, you can import scientists ( does "von Braun" ring a bell ?)
But what happens to your own folks ? They cannot get those well-paid
jobs (which wouldn't be that well paid then, I agree :) ). What will
happen when all countries have followed the same way (and be afraid,
this will be the case soon !) ?
- - The few people who still have the knowledge in the US won't be
understood by the vast majority, even of "know-howers". And here comes
your rule of the experts. I wouldn't have thought that you would
promote that !
> Yes, science 'looks both ways';
Well, that's what you wouldn't admit before :)
> the fact that early
> childhood nutrition leads to better health and 'performance' in school wait for
> 'thorough research' and peer reviewed blind studies before 'we' need to believe
> in them, when any South Pacific islander or 'underdeveloped' family has known
> such things for years.
Very nice example, because it allows me to say a few more things :)
First of all, those islanders certainly didn't know about such things
a few generations back. They just ate what they could get (which isn't
much, in terms of variety, on a small island).
Second, this (health) is exactly a domain where no scientific research
is necessary to make such or such product popular in the US. Various
food brands and/or pills will be available for a "new" substance,
will be advertised and massively bought even before a study on their
possible harmfulness is carried out. There are enough recent examples
for this.
Therefore, the rule would rather be: advertising instead of knwoledge.
- --
Carsten Läkamp
claekamp@mindless.com
------------------------------
End of Netizens-Digest V1 #231
******************************
