Yes, Steve has explained well the need for 'public commons' in access to and
use of technology. This is precisely what experts like Stevan Harnad, Peter
Suber and Leslie Chan are advocating in the case of scientific journal
literature. Till the early part of the last centrury there were only a few
journals and virtually every institution carrying out research was able to
subscribe to most of them. While subscribers in Europe might have received
copies of these journals within days of their publication, subscribers in
Asia would have received them a few months later - the time taken by the
boat to bring them. But almost all of them had access to the material. The
situation changed dramatically especiaally in the past two decades. The
subscription prices of journals increased rapidly, often at rates far higher
than the general inflation. This led to the serials crisis which made even
libraries in the West to shed many journals, what to talk of the already
information-starved libraries and scientists of the developing world. It is
in these circumstances, the open access movement acquires great
significance. A number of journals became open access journals. The journals
are free for anyone to access through the Net. The production costs are met
from other sources (such as authors' institutions or funding agencies in the
West and from government grants in countries like India). The open archives
provide another viable model. Those who can afford will subscribe to the
journals where the articles appear and those who cannot can access them
electronically at no cost to themselves.
Arun
[Subbiah Arunachalam]
----- Original Message -----
From: "Dr. Steve Eskow" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "The Digital Divide Network discussion group"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Tuesday, May 31, 2005 9:24 PM
Subject: RE: [DDN] Update on the Simputer
Taran Rampersad, presently in Panama City, writes:
<<I'm not convinced on the 'Public Computing Concept', so maybe that
should be the focus of discussion now that it seems that the merit of
the Simputer is understood, Steve.>>
There is no necessary conflict between the "public" and the "private."
Those
who can afford private automobiles should be allowed to have them, until
the
world's pollution problem becomes so great that we have to consider
limiting
that right. Those who can afford to buy the book should be allowed to do
so:
those who can not should have access to the book via the public library.
Those who can afford their own cell phones and computers and ISP's should
of
course be allowed to purchase them for their exclusive use. Those who
cannot
should not be denied the use of these technologies, and that means some
form
of sharing, some form of communal support: the public computer.
One writer here used the term "public commons," the notion that
democracies
are characterized not by an Ayn Randian glorification of selfishness but
by
the communal support of basic institutions.
Steve Eskow
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
_______________________________________________
DIGITALDIVIDE mailing list
[email protected]
http://mailman.edc.org/mailman/listinfo/digitaldivide
To unsubscribe, send a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with the word UNSUBSCRIBE in the body of the message.
_______________________________________________
DIGITALDIVIDE mailing list
[email protected]
http://mailman.edc.org/mailman/listinfo/digitaldivide
To unsubscribe, send a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the word UNSUBSCRIBE
in the body of the message.
