G'day Ann, >With all due respect for Castells I think our Doug is one who believes that may not amount to too much - and I do reckon Castells pays for that gratifying big picture approach and pleasantly rambling style with too little specificity/definition on the very criteria with which he wants to drive his story. >, the issue still centers not on IP regimes >( although the 'regime' mentality always rings true for the (neo)liberal, >(neo)realist political 'scientists' ( are these distinctions more or less >dismal in these days of ratchoice?), but on infrastructure, for example the >(de)valued story of Iridium and its satellites and other networks has yet to >be completed. Low earth orbit satellites are yet to be tested in the world of low cost fast high capacity - it all seems a little behind schedule already - and certainly they're not attracting the press they were two years ago. >Bypass may be a more compelling issue for haves and have-nots. >I'm not sure whether the flag of the win95 key will become the >(trans)national symbol yet. Well, it's my vote for that role - and bigger than the twin arches, too. >Y2K may be a much better test, I haven't met a single person who reckons they have a clue how that one is gonna wash out - and then there's the real possibility it becomes a technical non-event and a whopping great sociological phenomenon (panic buying and panic selling etc). >especially with the more basic electricity networks ( and their deregulated disintegration ). Yeah, I'm told these are where we're to expect a lot of undiscovered 'deep-level' old 286 chips to be. Networks that have been corporatised or privatised apparently made the job of finding these, and the likely tendrils of consequence of their failure, very much harder - said companies having sacked their engineers to build up their marketing departments. Still not sure it bites any more deeply into MS's flesh than anybody else's, though ... Waddya reckon? Cheers, Rob.
