Re: Speaking for myself NOT for others about OI

Gavin Nicol (
Mon, 12 Sep 1994 00:47:41 +0500

>The Internet was a decision made in the US. Macintosh was a decision made
>in the US. The telephone was a decision made in the US. I am offended by
>your apparent insistance that the US isn't in a position to make these
>decisions. The leader in new industries or technologies _always_ makes
>these decisions. The US has always been the leader in information
>technologies and I doubt that is going to change any time soon.

Foo! The Internet was orginally spawned in the US, as were these other
technolgies, noone says they weren't, but when a decision affects 20+
million people, many of whom are *not* in the US, I think it only
common decency that the US ask for input from other countries. BTW. In
many cases, new technologies are not controlled by the original
inventor, and in many cases, inferior technology with superior
marketing win.

I just invented a new method of information dispersal: I'll print the
information on flyers, and shoot them into the air with a huge pump.
Now I'm the leader in this information technology, so I DON'T CARE AT
catch the garbage.

The Internet is far, far, more than the original ever was. It has
evolved into a truly international community, and that community
helped to build it. It's a pity most people don't realise this... if
they did, the might realise that they have an obligation to the
society that has evolved. As it is now, it's more like the pioneering
days, or perhaps more like the colonisation by the british.

>Mosiac is still a first generation browser, it will improve, as will other
>browsers. Ignorant Masses? The targets of ad men? I think the maybe you
>misunderstand what it really takes to market a new technology. You have to
>remove that ignorance. No target market is "the masses", every single one
>is a group of _real_ people whom you hope will buy your product. Your
>perspective really smacks of the used-car salesman's approach to sales.
>That hasn't sold major commercial products in over twenty years.

Perhaps it hasn't sold commercial products, but we are talking about
selling technology to technologically ignorant people. I find it
amusing that in a country where televangelism generated(s), huge
amounts of money, selling something to mindless masses is
unimaginable.... the hype associated with the "Information Super
Highway" and the WWW is incredible. I'm sure thousands of people are
buying PC's and network connection purely becasue they feel they
should, not because they have a need.

>Don't attack commerce because a some of the people engaging in it don't
>understand it. They will fall by the wayside soon enough. Believe me, the
>market will settle down and the players that remain will know how to run a
>professional business that cares first about its customers.

And who will shepherd the thousands of lost sheep in Cyberspace?

>what _we_ want. In the long run, all commerce must meet the needs of the
>community, and I don't see any inherent conflict in trying to work with the
>industry to reach our goals. I think that makes more sense than working
>against it.

In the long run, it's true. Right *now* though, there are hundreds of
televangelistic priests selling the "Way of the Internet", and they
are doing damage. 500 channels of garbage is not my cup of tea, and I
don't want to be affected by it, but already, I have seen slowdown on
some of the slower links, probably caused by video or WWW traffic, and
even on some of the backbones.

Let's end this meaningless drivel and get back to the scheduled
program, and discuss again, *why* OI is good, and where we can get
more data about it.

I apologize to the entire list for taking up so much bandwidth.