I'm glad I finally got some time to address this, Steve, now that the list is somewhat settled. It seems that you have made some erroneous assumptions on my point of view. It is my responsibility to correct these assumptions. I will thus end my end of the discussion, and you may do as you wish with the corrections.
Dr. Steve Eskow wrote: >Taran Rampersad wants to believe, it would seem, that 20 people owning 20 >motorcycles amounts to the same thing as a bus. (I'm guessing here that >that's what the missing message argues.) > > (1) If you want to speak of me in the third person on the list, I would appreciate it if you used my full name; Taran Amar Panday Rampersad. You may find referring to me in the first person more convenient. It's 'Taran'. Even my mother, when upset, reverts to that. (2) My contention is that you have been equating 20 people using the same bus as the same as 20 people sharing *1* motorcycle. The space-time continuum does not allow students to use 1 computer at the same time whereas your suggestion seems to be that they can, and that this would be called 'public computing' - an equivalent of 'mass transit' from what you have described so far. What you are really describing is 'time-sharing', something which was common in the 1960s and 1970s with mainframe computers and punch cards that one would not wish to drop for fear of getting the program out of sequence. If the concept of 'public computing' is indeed 'time-sharing' - which your explanation so far seems to be - then perhaps we should decide right now how much time is enough for each student, and perhaps purchase 3 minute timers. Having had to sit and wait to use a 'public computer' on more than one occasion in my travels, I can assure you that this is frustrating and does not lend itself to happy people, much less students. This is why CyberCafes and Telecentres usually get more systems to fulfill the need. They can't be useful with people standing around waiting to use a computer. They cannot be secure with someone looking over your shoulder. It is not comfortable for some people to be using a computer while people are staring at them and tapping their watch, or staring at the clock, or asking every 3 minutes whether they will be done soon or not. I have seen it in Trinidad and Tobago, I have seen it in St. Lucia, I have seen it in the Dominican Republic, I have seen it in Nicaragua, I have seen it in Costa Rica, I have seen it in Panama... and yes, I have even seen it in 'economically disadvantaged' (read: poor) neighborhoods within the United States - from Boston to Florida, and from New York to New Mexico. >And he wants to inject the important notion of the "network" into the issue: > > ><<In a network, public computing is made possible by smaller computer in >the network. Which means it's all the same thing. So the more people who >have *individual* devices contributes to *public computing*.>> > >That's of course true, and irrelevant to the issue. > Yet, Steve, time sharing is not? > If 20 people could >afford to own 20 computers at $480 each, or $240, or even $100, that might >be seen as preferable to 20 people sharing one $480 computer, or one $100 >computer, but the issue that the public computing concept is trying to solve >is how to make computing available to those who can't afford to own, learn, >and maintain computers as individuals. > > You're simply switching time and convenience for cost - ignoring the value of time and convenience that allows you to type messages such as this. Further, cost analysis would have to be done over a period of time in different contexts to discuss this sensibly. There is a cost of ownership and a value to ownership. Renting time on a machine is not necessarily cost effective, and this is a hidden assumption that you seem to be making. At some point, renting becomes more expensive than owning - and since hopefully we're on the same page about renting one motorcycle to move 20 people around, it should become apparent that at some point, personal computing has to be available. Another hidden assumption that you are making is that computing will remain the same as it is now - which is a fallacy. Computing is becoming more portable and more cost effective. Even Nokia is joining in seriously: http://www.knowprose.com/node/1869 Is the Simputer, and machines like it, for everyone? Certainly not. And they fall into the time-share trap as well (the time travel problem and the Digital Divide? Intriguing.). >Or, to risk belaboring the point which appears elusive, if 20 people chip in >$24 each they can possess in common the same Simputer that you can afford to >buy and use without sharing. And, interestingly, the flash card in its >design makes clear that it is intended to be a public computer. > > Time-sharing. Yes. You can rent the motorcycle, but all 20 people cannot use it at the same time. The Simputer a motorcycle when used like this, but it is a stepping stone. >Our Benjamin Franklin created the first subscription library in the US on >the public principle: if 20 people joined together and bought one book >each--a different book each--and put them in the common stock when they were >finished, each subscriber could read 20 books for the price of one. This is >the origin of the term still in use here, "circulating library": the books >"circulate" rather than remain on an individual owner's shelf. > > Yes, the predecessor to file sharing was instituted by Benjamin Franklin. But only one person read a book at a time. >You muddy the waters, Taran, when you try to blur the distinction between >personal and public computing. Twenty people owning $480 computers for a >total capital expenditure of $9600 is NOT the same as twenty people having >access to a computer for $24. > > Thank you for getting back to first person. But I answer and say that if I have muddied any waters, I did not supply the mud. By giving 'time-sharing' the misnomer of 'public' and/or 'social' computing, you seem to mistakenly think that other people's time is less valuable than mine, or yours. >Twenty people on a bus is not the same as 20 people on 20 motorcycles. > > Nope. I never said that, you assumed it. >That's basic economics. > > Well, that's the problem. Your argument is basic economics in that it doesn't value time of people. I'm talking Quantum Electrodynamics at this point. :-) -- Taran Rampersad Presently in: Panama City, Panama [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.knowprose.com http://www.easylum.net http://www.digitaldivide.net/profile/Taran "Criticize by creating." — Michelangelo _______________________________________________ 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.
