On Sat, Mar 11, 2006 at 06:39:59AM -0500, Fred wrote: > On Tuesday 07 March 2006 21:12, Jeff Kinz wrote: > > On Tue, Mar 07, 2006 at 05:52:53PM -0500, Ben Scott wrote: > > > On 3/7/06, Neil Joseph Schelly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > This isn't something to get so bent out of shape for really. > > > > > > Sure it is. Didn't you know that Internet access is a > > > Constitutional Right? ;-) > > > > Don't laugh Ben, its already been seriously discussed. :-) > > > > "Access to information shall not be abridged." > > (Bujold, 1991, 358) > > > > And the way our technological society is moving, eventually we must > > ~somehow~ insure that everyone who wants access to the net > > can get it it even if they can't pay for it. > > > > Why? > > > > One reason: It will be cheaper to deliver many of the government > > managed services to persons in need via the web than any other way > > and since some of those services are either mandated or court ordered, > > we (The taxpaying citizens), might as well get it done at the lowest > > cost. > > Since when has the government been interested in delivering service to us at > the lowest cost?
At the level of abstract goals government is interested at being efficient. The real obstacle to creating an efficient government service is that there are few, if any, rewards for efficiency to the individuals who actually supervise/do the work. For example, in the business sector, a person who is productive keeps their job and gets a raise occasionally. The general public perceives that people in civil service don't have to be efficient or productive to keep theirs jobs and get an occasional raise. (I can't speak either way on this perception as I have no data). People in business have clear incentives to change: money and jobs. > While it may make perfect sense to us, the government mind > does not think that way. Usually, the government has to be dragged kicking > and screaming into doing things more efficiently and at a lower cost. And > the *cost* of dragging the government there can itself be pretty high. Individuals have to be dragged into change unless they see a clear benefit to themselves in the change. This is a basic human trait. Change is uncomfortable, people avoid discomfort unless they perceive an advantage on the other side of the change. Remember, both change and Linux are inevitable. :-) > > > Another reason is that persons who don't have some net access will be > > (are!) seriously disadvantaged in a way that is roughly comparable to > > being functionally illiterate has been a disadvantage for the past 100 > > years. > > Having access to the Net is not the panacea for all those supposedly > "disadvantaged", if there is such a beast. Alas, one must be able to *read*, > use the technology, and find what one wants. There are many people who are > simply technology-phobic, and not necessarily in the so-called > "disadvantaged" groups, either. I personally know of one or two who would > have a hard time just using Google! The phrase was "will be". In the near future our entire society will be radically transformed by the level of connectedness and information access instantly available to large portions of humanity. Those portions which lack sufficient levels of access and connectedness will be at a distinct disadvantage economically and socially. And, as it turns out, social connectedness is a direct contributor to economic proficiency so it's a double curse. The level of the changes coming are both much more and much less radical than we can appreciate at this time. The unintended consequences will not be apparent until, or possibly much after, they have arrived. One example - still not much known today, the great crime rate drop of the 80' and 90's was caused not by burgeoning economic times or great social programs. They were caused by the women suddenly being able to freely obtain an abortion. (Freakonomics, Levitt & Dubner, 2005.) Heard from my own kids: "Daddy, what's a 'phone dial'? " "Daddy, what's a 'record player'? " Heard from my Great grandfather as he drove through the wall of the barn in 1920-something the day my grandfather was trying to teach him to drive: "Whoa!" > And talk about being "functionally illiterate", those that fall into that > category are going to have a hard time using the Internet anyway. Thats wasn't the point. The point was that the disadvantages of each are roughly analogous...... and.... you're wrong. Computer technology is actually going make illiteracy less of a problem in at least two very different ways, possibly more. Think about it. > Then there is my adage: > You can lead a man to knowledge, > But you can't make him think! s/knowledge/college/ :-) > Today, nearly everyone who wants Net access has it. Kinda like the TV. And if > you don't have it at home, you can always get it at your local Library. > Those that don't have it are either technophobes or illiterate or simply > don't see the value. The description of "local library" being called "internet access" is orders of magnitude below the level of access/connectedness that society in general will have within 20 years. And anyone who doesn't have it. Imagine having every sub-vocalized whim answered instantly. (Non-physical ones, that is) > As far as Internet Access being a "Constitutional Right", I'm a little dicey > on that. While I hold that all should not be restricted from accessing the > Internet, I don't want to see that turn into a "we must give everyone > Internet Access at taypayers' expense" political ploy. If you are such a We give everyone access to the roads at taxpayers expense. Do you not see the Internet as a critical and integral part of our future infrastructure? And if it is, then that access to it is part of the basic bundle of privileges and opportunities which, like equally funded education, our system has decided that we must try to deliver to everyone in an equal fashion isn't it? While it is not a constitutional right, I can certainly see the potential for a legal argument to common access being made that is roughly analogous to the legal battles being fought today about education funding. The issue is very similar. And the current set of precedents are clearly favoring such "equal treatment". My personal view of whether this is right or not doesn't matter. The state and federal courts have already made the decision. Please note that my political POV is mostly libertarian. (except here in Mass, I believe in gun control. After seeing how these people drive, there's no way I want to let them have guns! :-) ) > lazy bum as to be too pathetic to drag yourself out of bed and down to the > Library, In many public libraries today the number of Internet browsing seats available are woefully below what the patronage would utilize if it were available. That's one reason why so many are adding wireless access. To heck with Universal health care. I want Universal Wireless! ;-) In Rochester, New York, A city whose population matches the number of college students in Boston, Some day care centers and senior centers have installed tele-medicine stations which, with cameras and some medical instruments wired into the PC, allow people to "visit" the doctor without traveling. And the doctors are writing prescriptions and what not based on these "exams". Treating it very much like a real visit to the doctor. If they are doing this in a small city that has more and better highways than Boston imagine the benefit to a population like the one in our region. (Note: the rush hour in Rochester NY lasts approximately four minutes..) -- Jeff Kinz, Emergent Research, Hudson, MA. _______________________________________________ gnhlug-discuss mailing list gnhlug-discuss@mail.gnhlug.org http://mail.gnhlug.org/mailman/listinfo/gnhlug-discuss
