Copy Link
Add to Bookmark
Report
Netizens-Digest Volume 1 Number 444
Netizens-Digest Wednesday, March 26 2003 Volume 01 : Number 444
Netizens Association Discussion List Digest
In this issue:
[netz] Apologies to Mark and Larry
Re: [netz] Many voices online and off
Re: [netz] Many voices online and off
Re: [netz] Many voices online and off
Re: [netz] Many voices online and off
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Wed, 26 Mar 2003 13:05:18 -0500
From: "Howard C. Berkowitz" <hcb@gettcomm.com>
Subject: [netz] Apologies to Mark and Larry
>In a message dated 3/26/03 1:45:10 AM Eastern Standard Time,
>hcb@gettcomm.com writes:
>
>>Just as Larry quite properly took me to task for using "regime"
>>colloquially rather than technically, so do social scientists often
>>have precise definitions. I suspect they do not like those
>>definitions co-opted as well, judging by Larry's comments of my
>>interpretation of the way you used "regime" to suggess lack of
>>legitimacy.
>>
>
>
>Actually Howard, it was Mark making the point this time. I am a
>mathematician. I leave the 'William Safire' to your capable hands.
>
>Larry
I've noticed that I've done equal opportunity misattributions to both
of you. I can only plead that my Scandinavian friends tell me that I
have an unprecedented ability to try to speak Svensk to the Danes and
Dansk to the Swedes.
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 26 Mar 2003 14:41:37 -0500
From: "Howard C. Berkowitz" <hcb@gettcomm.com>
Subject: Re: [netz] Many voices online and off
At 9:34 AM -0500 3/26/03, lindeman@bard.edu wrote:
>I suspect that the issue whether the Internet is "the technology" or is a
>symbiosis of users and technology is something of a red herring. Probably
>worth discussing, but not an issue on which list participants must agree in
>order to have fruitful discussions on other issues. Howard has contributed
>vigorously and productively in many threads about political and
>social aspects,
>concomitants, potentials of the Net.
I certainly don't expect to limit myself to technical issues alone. I
do, however, have a problem when rhetoric about social interaction
makes it extremely confusing over what real networks the interaction
is to occur. I find I have an even greater problem when I feel a
suggestion that agreeing that a particular position on a social
interaction mechanism somehow implies my tacit agreement with an
ideological position.
>
>Jay wrote:
>
>> >For me the Internet is the users and the
>> >technology in a symbiotic like relation producing a system and practice of
>> >communication. That communication has for human society 2 important
>> >characteristics. It has the potential to be universal and to provide
>> >uncensored speech so that all contributions can be made and considered. It
>> >is in that sense that I wrote that the march resembled the Internet.
>
>That's interesting. But, apart from Howard's points, I have to say
>that I find
>the Internet itself a more useful contribution to uncensored speech
>than a mass
>demonstration. When I'm looking for ideas, I go to the Net, not to demos.
I refer back to my distinction between pull and push models for
information transfer. It would be noncontroversial, I would hope, to
say that mass demonstrations are built on the push model.
>
>
>My problem with Jay's original post was that it seemed to be much heavier on
>opposition to war than on any effort to understand the Net or Netizenship. I
>won't try to elaborate on that reaction, except to remind Jay and others that
>_I_ oppose the war.
I shall remind all that I probably am enough of a centrist on the war
to be equally annoying to both partisan sides. :-)
>
>
>Jay wrote:
>
>> >That maybe true but we may differ over what is meant by "the political
>> >process". For me the march was a piece of that process. So seeking the
>> >connection of the march to the Internet is worthwhile.
>
>and Howard responded:
>
>> And if you and others persist on making that connection and
>> broadening the scope of the list beyond places where it is a unique
>> place to discuss very specific interactions that may not be discussed
>> well otherwise, you won't find me here.
>
>My response would be a bit different. If I had thought that Jay was
>primarily "seeking the connection of the march to the Internet," I might have
>been interested, or not, but I would not have had the "oh, geez, another
>gratuitous political diatribe" reaction that I actually did. I did not learn
>much from Jay's post, it seemed more likely to alienate than to engage folks
>who might not agree with his analysis of the war, and therefore I frowned when
>I read it.
My reaction exactly.
>
>I am a card-carrying expert (heh) in public opinion analysis. There is no
>expert consensus even on the definition of "public opinion." We
>have taken the
>time to learn some part of each other's conceptual languages, so that we can
>generally understand each other, support each other's work when
>possible, shrug
>our shoulders when not, try to learn from each other.
Important points. Whether people like the definitions used by
Internet technologists, their terminology tends to be extremely
precise and understood by an important community. Believe me--join
me on multi-hour conference calls where we may struggle to remove all
ambiguity from a specific term. The general practice, which I
commend to other discussions including social policy, is not to
overload or coopt terms with well-crafted, context-sensitive meaning,
but to introduce additional well-crafted terms.
>We judge the credibility of our arguments in part by whether we can
>justify them without reference to our ideological precommitments, and (more
>important) whether our colleagues who do not share those precommitments find
>them convincing.
Again, I agree completely.
>
>Howard wrote,
>
>> Just as Larry quite properly took me to task for using "regime"
>> colloquially rather than technically,
>
>I think you're thinking of me, Howard. (sniff)
>
>Mark Lindeman
Apologies separately posted. Further groveling available on demand.
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 26 Mar 2003 16:16:53 -0500 (EST)
From: lindeman@bard.edu
Subject: Re: [netz] Many voices online and off
The lovefest continues (I hope Jay doesn't feel at his expense).
Howard wrote in small part:
> I certainly don't expect to limit myself to technical issues alone. I
> do, however, have a problem when rhetoric about social interaction
> makes it extremely confusing over what real networks the interaction
> is to occur. I find I have an even greater problem when I feel a
> suggestion that agreeing that a particular position on a social
> interaction mechanism somehow implies my tacit agreement with an
> ideological position.
Just so.
> I refer back to my distinction between pull and push models for
> information transfer. It would be noncontroversial, I would hope, to
> say that mass demonstrations are built on the push model.
Yes, I find the distinction very helpful here.
> The general practice, which I
> commend to other discussions including social policy, is not to
> overload or coopt terms with well-crafted, context-sensitive meaning,
> but to introduce additional well-crafted terms.
And _I_ think it's fair to add that the broadly accepted expert _and_ lay
definition of "Internet" is as a network of computers -- which probably puts
some onus on those who want a broader concept to introduce a new term to
describe it. While confusion about the term "Internet" may be among the least
of our problems, arguably that's all the more reason to fix it.
I don't mind being confused with Larry, if Larry doesn't mind being confused
with me.
Mark Lindeman
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 26 Mar 2003 17:42:48 -0500
From: "Howard C. Berkowitz" <hcb@gettcomm.com>
Subject: Re: [netz] Many voices online and off
At 4:16 PM -0500 3/26/03, lindeman@bard.edu wrote:
>The lovefest continues (I hope Jay doesn't feel at his expense).
>
>Howard wrote in small part:
>
>> I certainly don't expect to limit myself to technical issues alone. I
>> do, however, have a problem when rhetoric about social interaction
>> makes it extremely confusing over what real networks the interaction
>> is to occur. I find I have an even greater problem when I feel a
>> suggestion that agreeing that a particular position on a social
>> interaction mechanism somehow implies my tacit agreement with an
>> ideological position.
>
>Just so.
>
>> I refer back to my distinction between pull and push models for
>> information transfer. It would be noncontroversial, I would hope, to
>> say that mass demonstrations are built on the push model.
>
>Yes, I find the distinction very helpful here.
Certainly in mathematical communications (e.g., Shannon), and control
theory (e.g., Wiener), and I suspect in social science, the quality
of an information source can be measured by the ratio of useful
signal to information outside the scope of what is to be transmitted.
I see Internet-based social exchange not as a leveling to a least
common denominator, but as an enabler to participate in multiple,
focused discussions, with the syntheses in the minds of the human
users (with the caveat that on the Internet, nobody knows if you are
really a very literate cat.)
Push models easily overload receiving and processing capacity unless
they maintain a very good signal to noise ratio. Spam, for example,
is a pernicious example of a push model, in which the receipt of
advertising imposes at least an inconvenience and may actually push
expenses onto a nonconsenting user.
>
>> The general practice, which I
>> commend to other discussions including social policy, is not to
>> overload or coopt terms with well-crafted, context-sensitive meaning,
>> but to introduce additional well-crafted terms.
>
>And _I_ think it's fair to add that the broadly accepted expert _and_ lay
>definition of "Internet" is as a network of computers -- which probably puts
>some onus on those who want a broader concept to introduce a new term to
>describe it. While confusion about the term "Internet" may be among the least
>of our problems, arguably that's all the more reason to fix it.
Let me cite some attributes of the public Internet, as it would be
defined by most Internet engineers. I'll freely admit this is a
technical and perhaps impenetrable definition for many, but I want to
draw attention to the way "we" think of it.
-- A system of intercommunicating hosts and intermediate devices
that communicate using the Internet Protocol, Version 4, within
an addressing system cooperatively administered to ensure
uniqueness of addresses.
-- A system in which information on the reachability of addresses
is communicated using the Border Gateway Protocol, Version 4
(BGP-4). The fundamental units of BGP information interchange
are Autonomous Systems, which are collections of routers, address
space, and hosts, under one or more administrations, that
present a common routing policy to the public Internet
-- Logical transmission that isolates the application and error
control services to the edge of the Internet, yet provides
a seamless logical view over a variety of physical transmission
techniques
The Domain Name System is not strictly part of the essential
definition, although it is operationally crucial.
Let me return to those physical transmission techniques and their
implementation. These may be wire, optical fiber, or wireless links
operated by physical connectivity service providers. The important
thing is that the same links can simultaneously, and with adequate
security, simultaneously carry public Internet, private data, voice,
video and image traffic.
What "users" tend to think of as the "Internet" are the user and
server hosts and applications at the "edge" of the Internet. It is a
fundamental architectural principle of the Internet, however, that
the "inside" is largely unaware of the application traffic flowing
over it, other than the caveat that certain classes of service may
receive preferable handling. Some of these preferred classes include
information necessary to the operation of the Net itself.
A pragmatic definition includes the application protocols (web,
email, digital voice and video, ftp, etc.) that enable end-to-end
communications, but excludes the content carried by those protocols.
>
>I don't mind being confused with Larry, if Larry doesn't mind being confused
>with me.
>
>Mark Lindeman
And sometimes I just feel confused.
Today's Great Technical Insight, from a conference call:
"Stupidity has no single point of failure."
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 26 Mar 2003 21:21:51 EST
From: AGENTKUENSTLER@aol.com
Subject: Re: [netz] Many voices online and off
- --part1_1db.61b5f3c.2bb3ba3f_boundary
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
In a message dated 3/24/03 11:55:48 PM Eastern Standard Time,
jrh@umcc.ais.org writes:
> The march resembled
> the Internet.
Probably more appropriately does the march represent spam in that it is
unsolicited and does not really balance nor respect the rights of others in
its selfish urge to express itself. Nonetheless it is civil and it is
tolerable as long as both the duration and frequency of message is low --
just like spam.
I don't know.
The thing that evades me is, for what reason would we want to compare the
marches with the Internet?
The set of constraints or features that uniquely define each of these
communication systems (marches v. Internet) are not quite analogous and would
naturally tend to influence the behavior of those who wish exploit these
tools differently, in ways that are unique to each medium.
Moreover, I argue that the product of these behaviors might not be
meaningfully comparable.
For example, "Digital Performer" and "Cubase" are two leading commercial midi
sequencer/digital pro-audio production systems. Theoretically, one should be
able to generate or realize the same musical composition with both because
the aggregate feature set is equivalent. It could be said that the feature
sets of both applications are analogous. Nevertheless consider practical
issues of realization of a feature sequence. By a feature sequence, I mean
you want to exercise a sequence of transformations of the sound, be it
effects or addition of more note events or whatever. A record producer must
figure out how to get his application to exercise this precise feature
sequence to get the sound that he envisions.
Because of issues such as differing user interfaces that pack features in
different functional groupings, implementation of a particular feature
sequence might be more natural to execute in one of the applications than in
the other.
In real life, it is very likely that the producer will get a different kind
of realization from each sequencer system, having starting from the same
concept, just because of the unique constraints i.e. functional groupings
that each application imposes on the creation process.
Now let's compare the results of having used Digital Performer against a
concept and Cubase against the same concept:
When I used Digital Performer to actualize a particular feature sequence,
what did I learn about Cubase in realizing the same feature sequence?
When I used Cubase to actualize a particular feature sequence, what did I
learn about Digital Performer in realizing the same feature sequence?
Like I said, the feature grouping is different in each application, meaning
that I have to go into different menus and pick out different subsequences of
functions to achieve an equivalent feature sequence.
I did not really learn anything about one tool by using the other even though
they can do the same thing. As it is possible to come out with the same
result, it is not likely because as a musician you are not likely to stick to
the plan of figuring out how to get each application to execute an equivalent
feature sequence; something different about the process in each tool will
seduce you; so you naturally diverge from the plan.
So you come out with two different realizations starting from the same
musical concept.
What is meaningful about comparing these two different musical realizations?
They both sound different and great. So what?
Even if you came out with the same musical realization using two different
tools with the same aggregate feature set? So what? I still do not learn
anything unique about one tool by analyzing the other tool. I do not learn
anything unique about one tool by analyzing the musical result that came
about by using the other tool.
I'm confused. I fail to see how I can learn about the Internet by examining
the march.
Larry
- --part1_1db.61b5f3c.2bb3ba3f_boundary
Content-Type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
<HTML><FONT FACE=3Darial,helvetica><FONT SIZE=3D2 FAMILY=3D"SANSSERIF" FACE=
=3D"Arial" LANG=3D"0">In a message dated 3/24/03 11:55:48 PM Eastern Standar=
d Time, jrh@umcc.ais.org writes:<BR>
<BR>
<BLOCKQUOTE TYPE=3DCITE style=3D"BORDER-LEFT: #0000ff 2px solid; MARGIN-LEFT=
: 5px; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px; PADDING-LEFT: 5px">The march resembled<BR>
the Internet. </BLOCKQUOTE><BR>
<BR>
Probably more appropriately does the march represent spam in that it is unso=
licited and does not really balance nor respect the rights of others in its=20=
selfish urge to express itself. Nonetheless it is civil and it is tole=
rable as long as both the duration and frequency of message is low -- just l=
ike spam.<BR>
<BR>
I don't know. <BR>
<BR>
The thing that evades me is, for what reason would we want to compare the ma=
rches with the Internet? <BR>
<BR>
The set of constraints or features that uniquely define each of these commun=
ication systems (marches v. Internet) are not quite analogous and would natu=
rally tend to influence the behavior of those who wish exploit these tools d=
ifferently, in ways that are unique to each medium. <BR>
<BR>
Moreover, I argue that the product of these behaviors might not be meaningfu=
lly comparable.<BR>
<BR>
For example, "Digital Performer" and "Cubase" are two leading commercial mid=
i sequencer/digital pro-audio production systems. Theoretically, one s=
hould be able to generate or realize the same musical composition with both=20=
because the aggregate feature set is equivalent. It could be said that=
the feature sets of both applications are analogous. Nevertheless con=
sider practical issues of realization of a feature sequence. By a feat=
ure sequence, I mean you want to exercise a sequence of transformations of t=
he sound, be it effects or addition of more note events or whatever. A=
record producer must figure out how to get his application to exercise this=
precise feature sequence to get the sound that he envisions.<BR>
<BR>
Because of issues such as differing user interfaces that pack features in di=
fferent functional groupings, implementation of a particular feature sequenc=
e might be more natural to execute in one of the applications than in the ot=
her. <BR>
<BR>
In real life, it is very likely that the producer will get a different kind=20=
of realization from each sequencer system, having starting from the same con=
cept, just because of the unique constraints i.e. functional groupings that=20=
each application imposes on the creation process.<BR>
<BR>
Now let's compare the results of having used Digital Performer against a con=
cept and Cubase against the same concept:<BR>
<BR>
When I used Digital Performer to actualize a particular feature sequence, wh=
at did I learn about Cubase in realizing the same feature sequence?<BR>
<BR>
When I used Cubase to actualize a particular feature sequence, what did I le=
arn about Digital Performer in realizing the same feature sequence?<BR>
<BR>
Like I said, the feature grouping is different in each application, meaning=20=
that I have to go into different menus and pick out different subsequences o=
f functions to achieve an equivalent feature sequence.<BR>
<BR>
I did not really learn anything about one tool by using the other even thoug=
h they can do the same thing. As it is possible to come out with the s=
ame result, it is not likely because as a musician you are not likely to sti=
ck to the plan of figuring out how to get each application to execute an equ=
ivalent feature sequence; something different about the process in each tool=
will seduce you; so you naturally diverge from the plan. <BR>
<BR>
So you come out with two different realizations starting from the same music=
al concept.<BR>
<BR>
What is meaningful about comparing these two different musical realizations?=
They both sound different and great. So what? <BR>
<BR>
Even if you came out with the same musical realization using two different t=
ools with the same aggregate feature set? So what? I still do no=
t learn anything unique about one tool by analyzing the other tool. I=20=
do not learn anything unique about one tool by analyzing the musical result=20=
that came about by using the other tool.<BR>
<BR>
I'm confused. I fail to see how I can learn about the Internet by exam=
ining the march.<BR>
<BR>
Larry</FONT></HTML>
- --part1_1db.61b5f3c.2bb3ba3f_boundary--
------------------------------
End of Netizens-Digest V1 #444
******************************
