Quoting Kyle Banerjee <banerjek_at_UOREGON.EDU>:
>
> We rely on many services, and declaring them all equal has the effect
> of hosing valuable services in the name of protecting them. Wanting to
> believe that enough capacity is out there to make prioritization unnecessary
> does not make it true.
Kyle, generally I agree. But if just ONCE a youtube video of a cat
playing the piano gets priority over a medical xray, then *my* worst
fears will have been played out. It's not whether some services should
take precedence, but who decides. In a society where money talks, and
where no public entity is as powerful as a big corporation, the only
solution seems to be to not allow any preferences to be allowed.
kc
>
> Our professional paranoia is a major contributing factor to our
> marginalization. We are obsessed with g-men coming in to find out what books
> someone checked out, but we don't sweat the fact that the vast bulk of the
> information people use (i.e. google, amazon, netflix, FB, meebo, just about
> everything else on the web, their CC transactions, etc) is far more
> extensive and contains far more interesting info because they need it to be
> able to provide what people actually want.
>
> kyle
>
>
> On Tue, Aug 10, 2010 at 4:29 PM, john g marr <jmarr_at_unm.edu> wrote:
>
>> On Tue, 10 Aug 2010, Lovins, Daniel wrote:
>>
>> I haven't studied it closely enough myself yet, but here's Larry Lessig's
>>> take, courtesy of the New York Times:
>>> http://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/2010/8/9/who-gets-priority-on-the-web/a-deregulation-debacle-for-the-internet
>>>
>>
>> Here's a tiny url for that and its several associated links:
>> http://tinyurl.com/23w6c5u
>>
>> IMHO, everyone is overlooking the basic issue that the legal system
>> addresses, i.e. the interests of economic expansion [i.e. profit generation]
>> always override personal concerns (e.g. the "good" to society of the former
>> override the non-economic "rights" [e.g. freedom of expression] of the
>> latter).
>>
>> IMHO (do I have to keep saying that?), it is time for the provision of
>> information to be considered a vital public service, rather than a form of
>> entertainment or data being a restrictable commercial commodity, and for
>> ISPs to be designated "public utilities" subject to the same levels of
>> government oversight as other "utilities." Or, maybe the Government can be
>> the ISP for the US and we can receive Internet access as a "right" via our
>> tax forms.
>>
>> Still there will always be the problem of who controls the corporations
>> and/or the governments at any particular time. We seem to be evolving
>> toward some sort of restructuring of both those concepts, which, I suspect,
>> will do a great deal of harm in the process until the madness of
>> misdirection is recognized.
>>
>> Cheers!
>>
>> jgm
>>
>> John G. Marr
>> Cataloger
>> CDS, UL
>> Univ. of New Mexico
>> Albuquerque, NM 87131
>> jmarr_at_unm.edu
>> jmarr_at_flash.net
>>
>>
>> **There are only 2 kinds of thinking: "out of the box" and "outside the
>> box."
>>
>> Opinions belong exclusively to the individuals expressing them, but
>> sharing is permitted.
>>
>
>
>
> --
> ----------------------------------------------------------
> Kyle Banerjee
> Digital Services Program Manager
> Orbis Cascade Alliance
> banerjek_at_uoregon.edu / 503.999.9787
>
--
Karen Coyle
kcoyle@kcoyle.net http://kcoyle.net
ph: 1-510-540-7596
m: 1-510-435-8234
skype: kcoylenet
Received on Thu Aug 12 2010 - 10:09:48 EDT