Copy Link
Add to Bookmark
Report
Netizens-Digest Volume 1 Number 247
Netizens-Digest Tuesday, January 12 1999 Volume 01 : Number 247
Netizens Association Discussion List Digest
In this issue:
Re: [netz] response to Kerry (and Ronda's rcs-mail): intial thoughts..
Re: [netz] response to Kerry (and Ronda's rcs-mail): intial thoughts..
[netz] of FCC, taxes, charges, and legends. [extremely long]
[netz] Gov't Sites & Proactive Research
[netz] km013: intial thoughts..
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: 12 Jan 1999 03:57:16 +0100
From: Carsten Laekamp <lakamp@capway.com>
Subject: Re: [netz] response to Kerry (and Ronda's rcs-mail): intial thoughts..
Jamal Shahin <J.Shahin@selc.hull.ac.uk> writes:
> There is disagreement on the net (our breadboarding is a perfect example,
> no?), and the potential for disagreement on the Internet (as it becomes
> more pervasive and enveloping, and grows in membership) is greater.
> Politics is a modern pursuit, but it is inevitable? imho, yes. Also, the
> best arbiter of disagreement is the state, at present, and the Internet is
> evolving in this milieu.
Hmmm.... are you talking about the actual state(s) ? In that case,
allow me to disagree. Don't forget that the Internet is a
supra-national structure. The various states have to be seen as
leading parties, not arbiters. If OTOH you are talking of an "Internet
state", well, yes, I agree. However, the question is then: Is it
achievable ? Will today's states allow it to exist ?
>
> To cite from _The Doubter's Companion_:
> (from http://www3.ns.sympatico.ca/kerryo/saul-d.htm - thanks!)
> Democracy is the only system capable of reflecting the humanist premise of
> equilibrium or balance [q.v.] The key to its secret is the involvement of
> the citizen.
> John Ralston Saul, The Doubter's Companion: A Dictionary of Aggressive
> Common Sense (NY: Free Press, 1994), pp. 94 -106.
>
> Perhaps I'm treading over old ground here, but with *so* many variables,
> how can I be expected to work out how to govern myself? Organisation, or
> compartmentalisation. (The reason for the democratic state, as you once
> mentioned Kerry.) And thus, I remain wedded to _modern_ institutions and
> practices, even in information-space.
Yes !
> The Internet has become something different to what its original sponsors
> and creators imagined. Its users (and uses) are much more divergent (even
> now) than when the Internet was being created. Commercial interests
> cannot be removed from the equation (Internet + funding = better
> Internet),
Is that the real equation ? Funding, or rather financing is essential
to the very existence of the 'Net.
> since individual governments are unwilling to foot the bill for
> the maintenance and development of the vital functions of the Global
> Internet. I think that the USG was right to decide to farm out these
> responsibilities.
Yes !
> Perhaps what is needed is a truly global organisation to
> deal with this.
Very much so.
> To finish this rather large, wandering posting [apologies to those still
> there], I'd like to conclude with a final point. Maybe, we're approaching
> the same issues with different epistemes.
This seems rather obvious :-)
Cheers,
- --
Carsten Läkamp
claekamp@mindless.com
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 12 Jan 1999 13:08:04 -0500 (EST)
From: Ronda Hauben <ronda@panix.com>
Subject: Re: [netz] response to Kerry (and Ronda's rcs-mail): intial thoughts..
Carsten Laekamp <lakamp@capway.com> writes:
Jamal Shahin <J.Shahin@selc.hull.ac.uk> writes:
>> and creators imagined. Its users (and uses) are much more divergent (even
>> now) than when the Internet was being created. Commercial interests
>> cannot be removed from the equation (Internet + funding = better
>> Internet),
Not at all - the design of the Intenet was to provide for diversituy.
The problem now is thqat the commercial interests are claiming they
have to made all the same to fit their mold.
I am not a commerical interest - I am paying - it isn't in fact the
commercial interests who fund - it is the users and government etc.
The commercial interests want to make money off of it rather than
contribute to the Internet and they can even do that if they don't try
to interfer with the autonomy of the component networks and the autonomy
of the users. However they (certain commerdcial users) insist that
they have to control the Internet and its users and make the Internet
into what is good for them, rather than what its design is or
its users want.
See my draft paper about the original intent and design of tcp and it
should clarify what I am saying.
>Is that the real equation ? Funding, or rather financing is essential
>to the very existence of the 'Net.
No financing is *not* essential to the Internet. Users are essentail,
component networks are essentail, etc.
And the IP numbers are worth billions and that is why there is this
effort by certain folks who feel they can make power plays to grab
control of them.
m
>> since individual governments are unwilling to foot the bill for
> the maintenance and development of the vital functions of the Global
> Internet. I think that the USG was right to decide to farm out these
> responsibilities.
>Yes !
But NSI is making millions. The USG is protecting U.S. commercial
interests (some very mimal interests) by what it is doing.
I realize that this is the clothe they cloak their theft with, but
that doesn't change the nature of the theft.
The Office of Inspector General of the NSF in its 1997 report to
the NSF made this clear, the NSF millions hve made this clear.
>> Perhaps what is needed is a truly global organisation to
>> deal with this.
>Very much so.
That was what my proposal made possible. The ICANN is the opposite.
It is power being put in very few hands, though some of the names
of those on the board made be from folks of different nationalities,
the interests they represent are the same -- those without commercial
self interest from around the world are being excluded from this
whole process.
And we are the major users the Internet - those who use the Net as a medium
of communication are the major users, and this whole ICANN mess is
ignoring that.
>> To finish this rather large, wandering posting [apologies to those still
>> there], I'd like to conclude with a final point. Maybe, we're approaching
>> the same issues with different epistemes.
>This seems rather obvious :-)
So are you both agreeing that the minimal few commercial interests from
wherever in the world they spring should get control of the essential
functions of the Internet?
>Carsten Läkamp
>claekamp@mindless.com
Ronda
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 12 Jan 1999 14:44:08 -0500
From: "P.A. Gantt" <pgantt@icx.net>
Subject: [netz] of FCC, taxes, charges, and legends. [extremely long]
At first blush yesterday I dismissed this
as the recurrent urban legend... after
much consultation with tech friends,
hunts on lists, plowing through articles
and the dry FCC list... Wellll you read
and decide. Any other light anyone can
shed would be greatly appreciated.
==========================================
> From: Kay Sheil <vieamie@juno.com>
> Subject: IMPORTANT!!! PLEASE READ!!!!!!
> Date: Fri, 8 Jan 1999 10:52:30 -0600
>
>Hi Everyone,
>I received the following this morning and contacted Ashcroft/Bond and
>Danner's offices for info. Of course, I was promised they would get back
>to me asap. If this info is correct and the decision is to be made in
>two weeks it would not be legislation but a decision by a regulatory
>agency, in this case the FCC. Just wanted everyone to know about this
>and it wouldn't hurt for you to call your senators and/or reps and ask
>for information and voice you disapproval. I'll pass along anything I
>get as soon as I receive it.
>Later,
>k
>-------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>This brief partial quote from the writing to let you see the tenor
>of the missive here. If they get away with this, the cost of
>doing e-mail will go through the roof. Also, this would possibly
>be a way for the gov't to curtail half or more of the e-mail traffic.
>
>"the Government would in two weeks time decide to allow or
>not allow a Charge to your phone bill equal to a long distance call each
>time you access the internet."
>
>Date: Tuesday, January 05, 1999 7:50 PM
>Subject: INPORTANT!!! PLEASE READ!!!!!!
>
>THIS IS NO JOKE !!!
>
>CNN stated that the Government would in two weeks time decide to allow or
>not allow a Charge to your phone bill equal to a long distance call each
>time you access the internet.
>
>The address is http://www.house.gov/writerep/
>
>Please visit the address above and fill out the necessary form! This is
>not a joke....but REAL. We all were aware that the Government has been
>pressured by the telephone companies to consider such a charge and now
>it's reality.....
>
>If EACH one of us, forward this message on to others in a hurry, we may
>be able to prevent this injustice from happening!
>
>Evidently, this is for real.... Please take the time and visit the url
>address and follow the instructions...
>Your vote may make a BIG difference..... None of us should be charged a
>long distance call each time we access the Internet....
>
>In addition, please forward this to all your friends and relatives
>that also access the Internet..
>
>end
===========================================
This morning...
Heard on a radio today:
"The federal subscriber line fee is supposedly going up by $3/month on
2nd &
3rd telephone lines."
Ah ha! "They" did pull a quicky. Though you must check the dates
and charges yourself. Problem with Urban Legends is you have to have
the right descriptors to do a good search. Not the slight of tongue.
A tax is not a tax if it is an access fee for a second phone line.
=============================================================================
Now for the fine print.
An additional charge will be made for additional phone line service
not the primary phone line.
=============================================================================
http://www.fcc.gov/Daily_Releases/Daily_Business/1998/db980917/stgt823.txt
September 17, 1998
Separate Statement of Commissioner Gloria Tristani
Re: Truth-in-Billing and Billing and Billing Format
However, some long distance carriers "pass through" that charge to their
customers not
as 53 cents per month, but as a dollar a month, and in some cases more.
The reason, they
claim, is that
they are unable to differentiate primary residential lines from
non-primary lines,
so they "blend" the 53 cent charge with a higher monthly charge that the
Commission intended
only for non-primary lines. This produces a charge of a dollar or more
in many cases. And
while local and long distance carriers engage in a regulatory food fight
over whose fault this
is, millions of consumers pay a charge that exceeds what this Commission
intended when it
created a gradual, phased-in plan for removing subsidies from long
distance telephone rates.
The Truth-in-Billing proceeding will examine whether identifying the
charge in this way is
misleading.
http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Factsheets/access2.txt
The FCC's Interstate Access Charge System
<snip>
Included in this
package were changes in the rate structure for additional phone lines
used by residential customers.
<snip>
January 1, 1998. Some of those changes concerned the federal
subscriber line charge, which is part of the fees paid by you the
individual residential or business
telephone service subscriber. Changes to the subscriber line charge
only affect business and residential
<snip>
MYTH: The FCC is taxing additional residential phone lines.
FACT: The FCC's order reduces existing "access charge" subsidies for
additional phone lines--it does not impose a tax. Local phone
companies recover some of the costs of the phone line connected to your
home through a monthly charge on your bill called the
"subscriber line charge" (SLC). Currently, the remaining costs of those
lines are recovered through per-minute charges to long-distance
carriers. The SLC for residential lines is currently capped at $3.50 per
month, to ensure that all Americans are able to afford basic phone
service. The FCC's decision merely shifts the method by which large
(price cap) local phone companies recover these costs, in the context
of an overall plan to reduce long-distance phone rates substantially.
=============================================================================
I will send a proactive research post of Gov't offices in a separate
post.
Best to all,
- --
P.A. Gantt, Computer Science Technology Instructor
Electronic Media Design and Support Homepage
http://user.icx.net/~pgantt/
mailto:pagantt@technologist.com?Subject=etech
http://horizon.unc.edu/TS/vision/1998-11.asp
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 12 Jan 1999 14:46:39 -0500
From: "P.A. Gantt" <pgantt@icx.net>
Subject: [netz] Gov't Sites & Proactive Research
A tax is not a tax, it's an access charge
=========================================
Why the Internet is important to:
protect???
keep reasonable,???
accessible???
I find one of it's best is
access to information on an almost real-time basis
to discerning citizens not ready to take the media
at face value but willing to research.
Given the recent urbans or not... hold the fort...
Confirming a new rumor, heard on a radio station
re: 2nd and 3rd.. phone line charges. Proactively on this one
researching... researching... researching...
http://lcweb.loc.gov/global/executive/fed.html
Official Federal Government WebSite
Library of Congress
EXECUTIVE BRANCH
Executive Office of the President (EOP)
Executive Agencies
INDEPENDENT AGENCIES
Federal Communications Commission (FCC)
http://www.fcc.gov/
http://www.fcc.gov/search/wordsearch.html
Federal Trade Commission (FTC)
General Services Administration (GSA)
Consumer Information Center (Pueblo, CO)
Government Listings:Blue Web Pages
National Commission on Libraries and Information Science
(NCLIS)
National Science Foundation (NSF)
United States Information Agency (USIA)
United States Information Agency Home Page (USIA)
United States Information Agency International Home Page
(USIA)
United States International Trade Commission (USITC)
United States Trade and Development Agency
BOARDS, COMMISSIONS, AND COMMITTEES
Federal Laboratory Consortium for Technology Transfer (FLC)
President's Commission on Critical Infrastructure Protection
QUASI-OFFICIAL AGENCIES
Smithsonian Institution (SI)
Go to:
Judicial Branch
Legislative Branch
http://lcweb.loc.gov/global/legislative/congress.html
Constituent Email to House of Representatives
http://www.house.gov/writerep/
Constituent Email to Senate <broken link>
http://www.senate.gov/senators/index.cfm
Senators of the 106th Congress use the one above!
New alphabetical listing
Newspaper & Current Periodical Room Home Page
http://lcweb.loc.gov/rr/news/ncp.html
http://lcweb.loc.gov/rr/news/ss.html
Search Engine
Library of Congress Home Page
Best to all,
- --
P.A. Gantt, Computer Science Technology Instructor
Electronic Media Design and Support Homepage
http://user.icx.net/~pgantt/
mailto:pagantt@technologist.com?Subject=etech
http://horizon.unc.edu/TS/vision/1998-11.asp
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 12 Jan 1999 18:19:17 -0400
From: kerryo@ns.sympatico.ca (Kerry Miller)
Subject: [netz] km013: intial thoughts..
Jamal,
{ The "arrow things" were bothering me,
{ so this is just going to be some of my own prose, with your comments
{ firmly stuck in my mind..
{
I've seen the term 'fences,' as if one has to climb over them to get to
the 'proper' text. (Now I suppose someone will fetch me a writing
style...)
{ Why is the Netscape portal so valuable? Because most
{ people don't know how to change the default "home page" setting!
A Tofler or someone could make a case that because the underlying digitry
is so simple, the commercial challenge has been to pile on so much so
fast that it *looks* like really complicated and arcane stuff to the
user. Since the public is _used to_ using all sorts of hardware of which
we have no idea how it 'really' works, it hasnt been all that difficult
a snow job.
{ I don't think that we should get bogged down in technological
determinism.
{ We can't just delegate to "nice net-friendly hardware"...Has anyone
read
{ "we" by Zamyatin, or the countless others written after it, including
"the
{ machine stops" by (i think) Forrester?
If I may just use this as a handy example, my point was the 'public
engineering' of the mechanism, not using some conjured-by-experts-out-of-
nowhere coin-in-the-slot game. (If mechanism still doesnt sit well,
substitute 'paradigm.') The net makes us producers as much as consumers -
and we deserve to (not just 'might as well') get good at it.
{ > the Net is a great place to design [ie from a production p o v],
{ > if we can just bring ourselves to get beyond listing criteria ['what
{ > we want' as consumers],
{ >and c) this two-step distinction is no more and no less than what is
{ >required.
{
{ That's where I think that the link between these two steps is
{ problematic, Kerry.
YAAR (you are absolutely right)! The distinction was easy IPL (in
physical life ;-)) because of the 'bandwidth' limitation of expressing an
idea in *material. Here in cybercomm, we have to 'do it ourselves'; that
is, to conceive, and *practice, a kind of prestidigitation (excuse the
pun) -- holding two perspectives at once.
As a (hardware) designer, I'm used to doing this as a mental exercise,
balancing 'resources' (what one has) with 'outcomes' (what one wants) and
*implementing* 'tools' to plug the conceptual gaps between. The net lets
(forces?) one to extend/ project/ involve *multiple minds* in this same
process -- and the terrible irony is that folks have used the foremost
tool for the purpose (language) so long in trivial cases that we have as
good as forgotten *how* it works. Trivial? Yes: first, where a material
'backup' referent has been available ('*This is a handsaw; *that's a
hawk.'); secondly, where 95% of what we say and hear is *already
understood* (embedded in shared experience/ culture/ environment) --
indeed, most 'communication' is simply to reinforce that commonality (Im
one of you/ youre one of us).
(Since you handly provided my earlier comment:
{ "and 'how we think we think' is
{ highly conditioned by the *institutionalized* structures which separate
{ data/ inputs from decision/ outputs. <br> In information-space, such
structures are absent..."
I will add that institutionalization is the symptom (actually the
synonym) of 'forgetting how lang works' on the DIY level -- and that
as long as people *assume their lang is shared, instead of plugging in
and *building a shared lang (experience, etc) their efforts will fail,
regardlessof the 'content'.
=======
{ "political activity, then, arises out of disagreement, and it is concerned
{ with the use of government to resolve conflict in the direction of change
{ or in the prevention of change".
{ J. D. B. Miller, {iThe Nature of Politics} (Harmondsworth, Middlesex:
{ Penguin, 1962), 16.
{
{ There is disagreement on the net (our breadboarding is a perfect example,
{ no?), and the potential for disagreement on the Internet (as it becomes
{ more pervasive and enveloping, and grows in membership) is greater.
{ Politics is a modern pursuit, but it is inevitable? imho, yes. Also, the
{ best arbiter of disagreement is the state, at present, and the Internet is
{ evolving in this milieu.
I'd say the Internet is stagnating in that milieu. I finally got on the
IFWP list, and ICANN begins to look like a pretty good idea! Here's an
issue, its importance is agreed on, the importance of 'consensus' as an
ingredient in any alternative to 'topdown' net-admin is agreed on, the
list is not marginal like netizens, but was formed as part of the
process, and obviously the contributors have been contributing regularly
for some time now -- but the tirades and the attacks and the personal
slurs are just as puerile and as incessant as they were 10 years and more
ago when usenet first flourished! Zittrain's (and others) efforts to ask
rational q are fine, but who's listening?
Disagreement exists on every level, not just the political -- or
conversely, the fundamental 'politic' is communication. Conflict
resolution is a thriving field in its own right, you know, - and the
first ingredient is to get the parties to 'step back' from their
terminology so they can 'rediscover' a *language in which *both positions
can be expressed in the same terms. (If one side insists that its 'jobs
versus owls,' and the other says its 'ecological balance,' they arent
going to be able to talk to *one another*, but only those who already
agree with them.) Being merely human, *of course* there is disagreement;
the 'secret' is to accept it; use it as a constructive force to 'educe'
common ground - not to deny it, and definitely not to escalate it to the
next ('institutional') level (as by, say, dropping a tree on someone
because you 'work for the company' and he doesnt).
============
{ Democracy is the only system capable of reflecting the humanist premise of
{ equilibrium or balance [q.v.] The key to its secret is the involvement of
{ the citizen.
{ John Ralston Saul, The Doubter's Companion: A Dictionary of Aggressive
{ Common Sense (NY: Free Press, 1994), pp. 94 -106.
{
{ Perhaps I'm treading over old ground here, but with *so* many variables,
{ how can I be expected to work out how to govern myself? Organisation, or
{ compartmentalisation. (The reason for the democratic state, as you once
{ mentioned Kerry.) And thus, I remain wedded to _modern_ institutions and
{ practices, even in information-space. Am I really able to achieve
{ (political/governance) equilibrium by myself?
As a citizen (or a netizen), you are not by yourself -- that's the
secret. We call it 'self-government' in contrast to (objective) govt --
but it is nevertheless a collective process.
=========
{ Again, Miller:
{ "..people who seem to be in conflict with one another are really in
{ agreement about essentials, of only they knew it. The disagreements might
{ be represented as a series of mistakes, or superficial differences below
{ which one could discern findamental agreement. This, it seems to me, is
{ quite untrue: what we have to contend with in politics is a variety of
{ perpetual disagreements which arise from fundamental differences of
{ condition, status, power, opinion, and aim." [p.17]
{
Doesnt the Net demonstrate that those differences are *derived* from
(personal level) experience? To my mind, he hasnt gone deep enough: what
is a 'mistake' if we are not agreed on what 'should' be the appropriate
data-inputs and decision-outputs? That is, one can equally say,
"...what we identify as (significant differences of) conditions of
condition, status, power, opinion and aim are misunderstandings arising
from fundamental varieties of experience."
'If only we knew it' of course is the crux: knowing implies common
experience. In the absence of external commonalities (material or
institutional) here, the *only experience we can share and know that we
have shared is of using language together. Suppose I write, como estan
Ud, or tapai-lai kushal chan: it means absolutely nothing-- there will
be no grounds for 'conflict' or 'disagreement' -- unless we *agree that
Im trying to represent something in Spanish or Nepali. Only then can one
have a opinion ('thats not right!') but the usefulness of that too will
rest on our *agreement: are we talking about its (intentionally garbled)
*style* ('thats not how one says 'how are you'), or about the *content*
('I understand what youre saying, but its not relevant to *this
discussion*') -- and so on: *each of these 'logical levels' (the phrase
is A N Whiteheads) is directly analogous to the personal/ political*.
Moreover, J Miller notwithstanding, *most disagreements are confusions of
logical level*, and thus of assumptions of (= failure to find agreement
on) what is essential/ superficial.
{ Making the oppressed change their mindset (which, I guess was the gist
of
{ the Friere quote you supplied, Kerry) is done in relative terms, is it
{ not? Thus, making individuals change their mindset about their lives is
{ again, a modernist pursuit? It's linear, and progressivist, isn't it?
Friere would have my head if I agreed! His whole argument is that one
*cannot 'make someone change their mind'; all you can do is encourage
them to see their own contradictions for themselves. This is 'dialectics'
- -- about as far from linearity as you can get.
{ The
{ same applies to our breadboarding, our communication, our usage of the
{ Internet to form these communities.
With that proviso, yes ;-)
{ Is global communication about mistakes? Will the right answer (sN?)
{ merely
{ reveal itself? Who agrees? If not, who cares? That's a utilitarian
{ approach, which declared that war was about misunderstandings. In
{ reality,
{ it's not is it? Just because I can talk to you doesn't mean that we
{ won't disagree - and in some cases, between certain people over
{ certain issues, violently, unfortunately. This is politics, and this
{ is reality.
If youre saying that 'politics' is *getting in a hurry*, I agree ;-)
Otoh (On the other hand) if we were in full agreement, we wouldnt have
anything to say, would we? So 'politics' (in general, discussion at any
level) is a process of _sorting out_ our agreements and disagreements
(and confusions) on *another* level. (Btw, I try not to say 'higher' and
'lower' -- TISH (tho it sometimes happens) -- since as often as not, a
'lower' pov is a reading of a 'higher' state of affairs; what 'reality'
is, for instance, and tacking on 'imo' doesnt often help.)
==========
{ It appears that
{ self-governance assumes there is an sN to agree with, and I don't think
{ that's necessarily the case. If self-governance didn't have an sN
{ (=objective reality) then it can't function, can it? There would be as
{ many sNs as there would be netizens!
{
I visualize subchannels as *conditions for agreement*: (Suppose we try
to decide (s1) if $5/ day is a living wage: I say *If bread costs a
dollar, then $5 is a living wage') which then goes into the matrix as a
s2 question: Does bread cost a dollar? -- to which you may say *If youre
in Kansas, it does (and Greg may say, *If youre in New York, it doesnt.)
( As a result of reading this, Ronda may add another condition: *If
'living wage' depends on where one lives, then $5 is not a living wage;
i.e. the s2 q, Does it depend...? and so on, but lets keep it simple for
now!) How big N is (or how many q on any level si) is not important,
but a) once there are no more conditions for one's 'vote,' then I'm not
to come back and say 'Oh, but man does not live by bread alone.'
Two points, then: a) the numbering has to be dynamic: we may recognize
that theres an 's0' level to be addressed; e.g that *what Ronda means* is
that a fixed dollar amount is not the way to go, and without 'starting'
with that, we're never going to get her agreement *because the question
has not been asked*. (It has been 'begged'; that is, to be excused/ left
implicit, or as some say, 'beggared.')
b) No condition is exclusive; I should always (while the
discussion is open) be able to amend a contribution (*and if petrol is
not at issue, then...); that is, to add a question.
OK, three: c) the questions will almost always be highly cross-linked;
where they 'fit' cannot be *fixed by the questioner. (In fact, a large
part of the discussion is likely to be Does condition X fit better here
or there: is Ronda's q on s2 or s0? -- and this is entirely 'fitting.')
I wont go all mathematical, but what we have is a highly correlated
matrix. Even this primitive example cries out for a *mechanism to keep
track, so that we can, severally and jointly, attend to our inputs,
review the outputs, and not get wrought up over who said what, or what
they were thinking when they said it.
{ Thus, politics is central to the debate over the future of the
Internet,
{ as it is a *political* discussion! And not merely one of "this is
right,
{ and you are wrong", and this is where the case of the governance *of*
the
{ Internet needs discussion.
...
{ Perhaps what is needed is a truly global organisation to
{ deal with this.
Which, as Ronda has been valiantly saying, is what the Internet *is*.
===========
{ A very interesting book I have started reading [J. Macgregor Wise,
{ {iExploring Technology and Social Space} (London: Sage Publications,
{ 1997)] helps me in this discussion.. I'll get back to you with more if
{ you're interested into how Wise deals with developments in human social
{ space and actor-network theory...
How does Jamal Shahin deal with developments in social space?
kerry
For extra credit :-)
d) By framing conditions (rather than 'openended' questions), the
fabled tendency of English speakers to generalize is controlled: One can
ask, What is the Internet? but what one really wants to know is *what
difference does it make* if it is thus-and-so? If the hypothecated
mechanism does nothing more than to securely situate the individual p o v
(i.e. what diff does it make *to oneself*), it will be a considerable
achievement in cybercomm.
------------------------------
End of Netizens-Digest V1 #247
******************************
