At 5:38 PM +0000 2/8/99, Ivan Pope wrote:
> That's why I like eGroups,
> whatever others say. It is just so simple.
But it's a centralized service. It's fine, within eGroups. But the
net is a decentralized system. Saying the net would be much better if
it all centralized and used eGroups is like saying all the net needs
to do is ecome AOL. There are advantages and disadvantages to
centralization -- but on the internet, centralized services simply
aren't going to happen across organizations. Hence the need to move
things to the client-side of the equation, since that's where it IS
centralized (you get all of your stuff from multiple sources, but
it's sent to a single source. And that's where you'll need to do a
lot of the processing).
> end. I think people get burned by lists, they get on them one way or
> another, then they can't work out how to get off them.
People get burned by the net. Or more correctly, people get burned by
other people on the net.
Nothing new here. I've got a good friend who was visciously attacked
on a mail list once, to the point where he simply won't deal with
most of the net any more. That was a decade ago.
> and stop joining lists. And then the Internet loses, because a classic
> input route is stifled. I mean, Web sites aren't on the whole communicative
> in both directions.
Here's a scary reality. With the exception of a few key people, the
individual doesn't matter. And even those key people tend to get
replaced if they drop off the map. On the ent, if I don't answer a
question on a mail list, someone else will. That's one of the joys of
the group mind. But while we can't forget the individual, we also
have to not overemphasize the role of the individual in these
communication mediums.
At some level, that's almost espousing a socialist theme. But think
about list-managers. Name anyone (other than the people who own the
machine running the list) who, if they left the list, would cause
this list to fail? And frankly, if greatcircle ever stops running the
list, one of a dozen of us hanging around will simply start it again
somewhere else. So even "owner" of a resource has a limited "take my
toys and go home" effect.
> Basicallly, I am interested in a next generation of technology that may
> allow us to operate a bit more as we do in the 'real' world. The other day
> I wrote that I didn't like 'real world' analogies, and then used one in the
> next sentence!
Welcome to the wonderful world of complex systems. Personally, I
don't WANT the on-line world to simply invent a virtual version of
the real world -- I think we can do a lot better. On the other hand,
we can't ignore the real world, because no matter what we think,
we're part of it.
--
Chuq Von Rospach (Hockey fan? <http://www.plaidworks.com/hockey/>)
Apple Mail List Gnome (mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED])
Plaidworks Consulting (mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED])
<http://www.plaidworks.com/> + <http://www.lists.apple.com/>
Featuring Winslow Leach at the Piano!
