From: davidbarrera (davidbarrera@worldonline.es)
Date: Tue Dec 05 2000 - 07:31:53 MST
Just one point regarding information.
I donŽt think about information in terms of freedom or power. I just believe
that the future of information is a personalized one, with no limits in its
extension, and with endless power. An intelligent agent in our computer will
do the work for us, after weŽve decided which information we exactly want.
And a little bit later, heŽll learn by himself, studying our habits, what do
we want.
No problem if we change habits. The algorithms introduced in its software
will allow him to catch, in real time, our new preferences.
My bet goes for intelligent agents software, as powerful AND free as you can
imagine.
A different thing is that weŽll have to pay for certain information and
certain access for the future global intelligent Internet.
So lets try to build it with all our efforts, at least from those who'd like
to be in the fast train.
What about the people that don't believe or try to develop that kind of
technologies in the very near future, even present?. Just unplugged...
Greetings for every extrop.
D.
----- Original Message -----
From: Samantha Atkins <samantha@objectent.com>
To: <extropians@extropy.org>
Sent: Tuesday, December 05, 2000 1:36 PM
Subject: Re: Privacy now and in the future
> Jason Joel Thompson wrote:
> > Absolute disagreement, for precisely the reasons I have already cited.
Your
> > direct equation of "power" with "freeness" is simplisitic. Does money
> > become more powerful if it's free? Or it is made useful by the
> > control/limits we place on it?
> >
>
> I did not make a simplistic association. I do not speak a vague
> generality. I am speaking of information and only of information, not
> of money. Please keep on topic.
>
> > > > Laws of scarcity. Maybe you think it would be nice if every kid on
the
> > > > planet could have a mint copy of Action Comics #1, but you can't
argue
> > that
> > > > such a distribution wouldn't destroy an interesting market.
> > > >
> > >
> > > Irrelevant to the discussion.
> >
> > Only if you haven't been paying attention, or are unaware of the
> > transformation of creative energy into replicable data prevalent in
today's
> > media environment. If 'collectibility' is an asset worth protecting in
the
> > material world, why isn't it in the electronic one?
> >
>
> Irrelevant because there is one and only one of those actual physical
> items. I am not speaking of actual physical items but of information,
> of bits. That is the difference as I pointed out in my previous post.
> Dragging an actual physical item in to make your point is a mistake.
>
> > A first edition is a material artifact.
> > > It is not information but a given physical embodiment in a particular
> > > form produced at a particular time. It cannot be duplicated by
> > > definition. But every kid can have a copy of the contents of that
first
> > > edition.
> >
> > Yes Samantha, and think very carefully about what that "definition" is.
> >
>
> I did. Do you have something to add?
>
> > Here, allow me: we have arbitrarily placed value upon a particular
edition
> > of a magazine. Although the technology exists to create a nearly exact
(for
> > all practical intents and purposes) duplicate, we have passed laws
against
> > any attempt to pass such a forgery off as a first edition. Essentially
we
> > have decided to outlaw the replication of a particular print run of
material
> > goods, despite the fact that we could easily put an accurate forgery in
the
> > hand of every elementary school kid on the planet. We do that to
> > (arbitrarily) protect a market-- and as a result, there is one.
> >
>
> This does not work. A duplicate is a duplicate and in the world of
> collectibles can never be worth what the original is. Again, please get
> out of examples that have nothing to do with what I am talking about.
>
> > > Yes there is a place for secrets - in war or the equivalent, one's
> > > personal information and affairs.
> >
> > That's not the position of the post to which I replied: Zero Powers
wrote:
> >
> > "I personally think those who demand the perpetuation of personal
"privacy"
> > in a future that will live and breath on the unrestricted communication
and
> > processing of ever increasing amounts of information are unknowing
Luddites.
> > As I see it our ultimate "purpose," if there is one, is to facillitate
the
> > efficient storage, transmission and processing of data. Everything at
its
> > core is information and the more of it we can grasp and utilize, the
better
> > off we will be."
> >
> > But in peace and in non-personal
> > > information, the maximal power and good of each of us is highly
> > > dependent on the free flow of information.
> >
> > Again, total disagreement. It's not just about free flow of
information,
> > (isn't that obvious?) it's about access to the right information.
Further,
> > you specifically use the term 'each of us' referring to individuals:
can't
> > you think of a few (thousand) ways in which the maximal power and good
of an
> > individual is highly dependent on the controlled flow of information?
> >
>
> We are speaking at cross purposes. I suggest we both take a breather
> and reset.
>
> - samantha
>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Nov 01 2002 - 15:32:12 MST