----------
>From: "Ray E. Harrell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>To: Thomas Lunde <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>Subject: Re: Digital Monoculture
>Date: Tue, Jul 6, 1999, 10:07 PM
>
> Hi Tom,
> Sitting here with a computer that more resembles a "Hot
> Rod" and that makes me very sorry not to have taken the
> auto mechanics course that my mother insisted upon and
> I resisted. Sitting here with a machine that is not made
> by a big monopoly or with a decent warrenty. A machine
> that the small businessman, who sold it to me at an inflated
> price and then went bankrupt, had promised service and
> quality for four years. A machine that I must now spend
> time learning how to be an electrician, a mechanic and a
> programmer. A machine that takes more time then I can
> spend working on it.
Thomas:
I do detect a note of frustration here and I can sympathize. However, -
this is the same as a "but", I would offer another explanation to support
the monopoly theory I have been putting forth. Large companies, having the
benefit of volume and profit in manufacturing, as well as profit from sales
often make it difficult for a small retailer to have enough margin to stay
in business. I would venture that if the person who sold you the computer
could enter this conversation, his defence might be the same as mine. The
large monopolies set the price so low for their product and give him such a
small mark-up that it becomes impossible for the small business to survive.
In other words, it is the large Company that has done you in. Now, if you
had bought from Dell or Compact, there is no guareetee that you would be
better off. I'm sure with a little inquiry, many posters could tell you the
horror stories of dealing with a name brand.
>
> I never worked on "hot rods" I bought new cheap cars so
> that I could spend time with my dates or traveling the country
> rather than sitting in the shop.
Thomas:
My answer has often been to buy used. Not only do I not pay the big price
and all the profits, the equipment has probably been broken in, is working
fine and I usually get a pile of software thrown in. My two cents - go look
for a used machine for a couple of hundred bucks or sometimes it just comes
as a gift.
Ray:
The question today is whether
> developing new art is more important than learning the inner
> workings of this mongrel.
Thomas:
In my opinion, developing art is more important.
>
> So next time I will buy Dell or Gateway or some other big
> company product that has a more "economie of scale"
> attitude and will take less of my time.
>
> Those Russian airplanes are coming in at half the
> price and have a lot of goodies on them with less
> attitude.
>
> Does it work? That should be the answer before,
> will it sell?
>
> up with monoculture!
>
> REH
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Thomas Lunde wrote:
>
>> What to me is surprising is the failure to recognize that the natural
>> structure of capitalism is towards monopoly. Monopoly is attained and
>> maintained by the concept of profit. Mergers, stock ownership, credit, all
>> fall to those who have been the beneficiaries of large consistent profits
>> which give them the surplus to absorb more of any given market area or
>> product area or as in the case of stocks, holding massive amounts of wealth,
>> much like a cow that can continually be milked. There is no social benefit
>> to this, no moral value that can be extrapolated from this, it just is a
>> nice byproduct of a system design.
>>
>> Respectfully,
>>
>> Thomas Lunde
>>
>> ----------
>> >From: "Cordell, Arthur: DPP" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>> >To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>> >Subject: FW: Digital Monoculture
>> >Date: Tue, Jul 6, 1999, 2:01 PM
>> >
>>
>> > While not directly related to FW, this seems sufficiently interesting to
>> > pass along FYI
>> >
>> > ----------
>> > From: Gary Chapman
>> > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>> > Subject: L.A. Times column, 7/5/99
>> > Date: Monday, July 05, 1999 10:30AM
>> >
>> > Friends,
>> >
>> > Below is my Los Angeles Times column for today, Monday, July 5, 1999.
>> > As usual, please feel free to pass this around, but please retain the
>> > copyright notice.
>> >
>> >
>> > ------------------------------------------
>> >
>> > If you have received this from me, Gary Chapman
>> > ([EMAIL PROTECTED]), you are subscribed to the listserv
>> > that sends out copies of my column in The Los Angeles Times and other
>> > published articles.
>> >
>> > If you wish to UNSUBSCRIBE from this listserv, send mail to
>> > [EMAIL PROTECTED], leave the subject line blank, and
>> > put "Unsubscribe Chapman" in the first line of the message.
>> >
>> > If you received this message from a source other than me and would
>> > like to subscribe to the listserv, the instructions for subscribing
>> > are at the end of the message.
>> >
>> > ------------------------------------------
>> >
>> > Monday, July 5, 1999
>> >
>> > DIGITAL NATION
>> >
>> > Troubling Implications of Internet's Ubiquity
>> >
>> > By Gary Chapman
>> >
>> > Copyright 1999, The Los Angeles Times
>> >
>> > Early last month, institutions around the world were crippled for
>> > several days by a new computer virus called the ExploreZip Trojan
>> > horse. A Trojan horse, in computer jargon, is a nasty software
>> > program that hides inside a file a user is likely to want to see or
>> > open.
>> >
>> > The ExploreZip virus -- more accurately, a computer "worm," which
>> > spreads more automatically than a virus -- affected machines running
>> > Microsoft's Windows operating system and Windows application
>> > software. Computers throughout the world were shut down, including
>> > some at Microsoft and other large corporations as well as the
>> > Pentagon.
>> >
>> > The ExploreZip worm was a more debilitating version of the Melissa
>> > virus that struck Windows machines earlier this year. Because of the
>> > apparent vulnerability of Windows-based machines, some computer
>> > experts have started to use the metaphor of a "monoculture" to
>> > describe our current computing predicament.
>> >
>> > The word "monoculture" comes from ecology and biology, another
>> > example of the merging of biological terms with computer jargon, like
>> > "virus" and "worm." In ecology, monoculture refers to the dominance
>> > or exclusive prevalence of a single species or genetic type in an
>> > ecological system -- a state typically regarded as pathological and
>> > dangerous. Agricultural monocultures, for example, are highly
>> > susceptible to blight, soil depletion, disease and other disasters.
>> >
>> > In computing, the recent use of the term has referred to the
>> > widespread dominance of Microsoft products. But we may want to extend
>> > the metaphor further and contemplate whether we're developing a
>> > universal digital monoculture, one with a troubling potential for
>> > negative side effects. Think of it as the perils of digital
>> > convergence.
>> >
>> > By now, nearly everyone assumes that almost everything we do will be
>> > absorbed into the digital "infosphere" -- as in IBM's advertising
>> > phrase "Connecting everything to everything." It's only a matter of
>> > time before television, radio, music, games, commerce and politics
>> > are assimilated into the Internet.
>> >
>> > This phenomenon is growing every day. We're about to step into the
>> > so-called "post-PC" era, when networked computing will permeate our
>> > homes and everyday objects such as refrigerators, telephones, cars
>> > and stereos. This model is known as "ubiquitous" or "pervasive"
>> > computing, when the Internet will be present in everything and
>> > everywhere.
>> >
>> > But few people stop to think of the vulnerabilities this might entail.
>> >
>> > Recently there's been a controversy on the Internet over a new
>> > product called Third Voice (http://www.thirdvoice.com), from a
>> > company of the same name based in Redwood City, Calif. Third Voice is
>> > a free browser plug-in (currently it only works with Windows and
>> > Microsoft Internet Explorer 4.0) that allows users to create and see
>> > notes or messages attached to Web pages by other, independent users.
>> >
>> > The messages attached to pages are listed in a small menu bar on the
>> > left of the browser screen. When the list is clicked, the messages
>> > pop up over the Web page like digital Post-It notes. Third Voice
>> > advertises its product as a way for users to have their own say about
>> > Web content. Others have called it, pejoratively, "Web graffiti."
>> >
>> > The controversy was generated by Web masters and Web designers who
>> > don't like having their pages "defaced" by this product -- it puts
>> > the appearance of their pages beyond their control, and, some of them
>> > argue, it may be a copyright violation.
>> >
>> > The interesting thing about Third Voice, however, is how it works.
>> > The content of the Web page it modifies is not altered on the
>> > originating server. The messages are simply stored on Third Voice's
>> > own computers and merged with the Web page when a Third Voice user
>> > requests the page. The messages then become a kind of "overlay" on
>> > the original content, which is otherwise unaltered and available for
>> > viewing by other users in its original form.
>> >
>> > It will be interesting to see if this product provokes litigation and
>> > if so, how that unfolds. But the real impact of Third Voice, along
>> > with the recent viruses we've seen, is their demonstration of the
>> > malleability of digital data, especially given their common format on
>> > the Internet.
>> >
>> > As we embed the Internet into everything we do and use, it's as if
>> > we're building a global nervous system that can be tweaked or
>> > twitched in infinite, unexpected and perhaps unpleasant ways by
>> > anyone clever enough and using the right tools.
>> >
>> > One could use the examples of Third Voice, viruses and the hundreds
>> > of automated network "agents," or "bots" -- software programs that
>> > roam the Internet and perform tasks specified by their users -- to
>> > speculate on mind-boggling scenarios for the future.
>> >
>> > Financial data, for example, could be manipulated in truly scary ways
>> > that might not be detectable before serious damage is done. Digital
>> > products might alter the appearance of videos or images or the
>> > content of sound recordings. Companies could use digital copyright
>> > management schemes that would allow automated network searches for
>> > and prosecution of people holding unauthorized material. "Smart"
>> > electrical power grids could be tempting targets for hackers and
>> > virus programmers.
>> >
>> > There was a case involving a pair of Armenian activists who
>> > programmed a bot to replace the word "Turkey" with the word
>> > "genocide" in all Usenet newsgroup postings (unwittingly producing
>> > some odd online recipes for genocide). When two Arizona attorneys
>> > introduced the first case of commercial spam by broadcasting e-mail
>> > that advertised their firm, one programmer threatened to retaliate by
>> > whipping up a "kill bot" that would seek out and delete any future
>> > e-mail from the firm.
>> >
>> > In other words, a digital monoculture makes us vulnerable to all
>> > sorts of manipulations that have not been possible before. The more
>> > ubiquitous this monoculture becomes, the more vulnerable we will be.
>> > The year 2000 bug is probably the best example, but it's only the tip
>> > of the proverbial iceberg.
>> >
>> > The real problem is our unreflective rush into a digital monoculture,
>> > a new kind of ecological hazard, using systems so complex, malleable
>> > and unpredictable that almost no one understands the danger looming.
>> >
>> > Gary Chapman is director of the 21st Century Project at the
>> > University of Texas at Austin. He can be reached at
>> > [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>> >
>> > ------------------------------------------
>> >
>> > To subscribe to a listserv that forwards copies of Gary Chapman's
>> > published articles, including his column "Digital Nation" in The Los
>> > Angeles Times, send mail to:
>> >
>> > [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>> >
>> > Leave the subject line blank. In the first line of the message, put:
>> >
>> > Subscribe Chapman [First name] [Last name]
>> >
>> > Leave out the brackets, just put your name after Chapman.
>> >
>> > Send this message.
>> >
>> > You'll get a confirmation message back confirming your subscription.
>> > This message will contain some boilerplate text, generated by the
>> > listserv software, about passwords, which you should IGNORE.
>> > Passwords will not be used or required for this listserv.
>> >
>> > Mail volume on this listserv is low; expect to get something two or
>> > three times a month. The list will be used only for forwarding
>> > published versions of Gary Chapman's articles, or else pointers to
>> > URLs for online versions of his articles -- nothing else will be sent
>> > to the list.
>> >
>> > To unsubscribe from the listserv, follow the same instructions above,
>> > except substitute the word "Unsubscribe" for "Subscribe."
>> >
>> > Please feel free to pass along copies of the forwarded articles, but
>> > please retain the relevant copyright information. Also feel free to
>> > pass along these instructions for subscribing to the listserv, to
>> > anyone who might be interested in such material.
>> >
>> > Questions should be directed to Gary Chapman at
>> > [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>> >
>
>
>
