cooper@arisia.Xerox.COM (Martin F N Cooper) (11/12/90)
>is, in a nutshell, 'bow down before the all-powerful companies and pray >that they won't cut off my net access!' I didn't give any advice at all. >True, we will >lose a small number of people and contacts from this one company. But >the company will lose the entire net. In any sort of loss/gain >comparison, it seems fairly obvious that it is the company that loses >more than the net. That "small number of people" depends on the company we're talking about. But more importantly, I agree with you that it seems fairly obvious - but that is to you and me, not to senior management in a large corporation, who may have completely different views on the subject, if they even know that Usenet exists. >This leaves aside the point that I don't think a company would do such a >thing. Right now, right here, I wouldn't put too much money on that... Don't get me wrong - I personally don't have any real concerns about disseminating information of whatever type via the internet, and I'd cite the Tienanmen Square events as a great example of how the net can be used to great global advantage despite the odds - I'm just trying to make sure that people understand that it could also hurt the net - and I'm trying to protect my own access while I'm at it... :-) Martin.
draphsor@elaine12.stanford.edu (Matt Rollefson) (11/12/90)
cooper@arisia.Xerox.COM (Martin F N Cooper) writes: >[un-attributed] I write: >>is, in a nutshell, 'bow down before the all-powerful companies and pray >>that they won't cut off my net access!' >I didn't give any advice at all. Excuse me for assuming that the following was advice. >However, remember that many people on the net work for private corporations, >and that newsgroups such as rec.music.synth are populated in the main by >people who are not employed in areas directly related to the subject at >hand. So a company might just decide that in the interest of increasing >productivity (as a stated reason, at least) they should cut off access to >the net for their employees. That, to me, is certainly to the detriment of >the net as a whole. >I'm not saying I agree with these ideas, all I'm saying is that they could >easily happen, and we wouldn't like the result. True, on looking at it more closely, it's not advice, at least not explicitly. However, there is an implicit argument that everyone should avoid rocking the boat. That is what I was referring to in my article. Explicit advice or not, it is this dangerous attitude that was the reason for my response. >>True, we will >>lose a small number of people and contacts from this one company. But >>the company will lose the entire net. In any sort of loss/gain >>comparison, it seems fairly obvious that it is the company that loses >>more than the net. >That "small number of people" depends on the company we're talking about. >But more importantly, I agree with you that it seems fairly obvious - but >that is to you and me, not to senior management in a large corporation, >who may have completely different views on the subject, if they even know >that Usenet exists. So, simply because this senior management is not only paranoid, but also ignorant, we should bow down to their wishes? That's ridiculous! Accepting someone's power as unalterable, especially when you admit that their decisions are based on misinformation, is tantamount to intellectual suicide! "I'm sorry, sir, you really don't know what you're talking about, sir, and you're going to take the company down in flames, sir, but you're the boss, sir, so I won't tell you what I'm more qualified to know about." Allowing the kind of people who are unwilling to listen to better informed opinions to dictate *our* actions is simply allowing the blind to lead us off a cliff. >Don't get me wrong - I personally don't have any real concerns about >disseminating information of whatever type via the internet, and I'd >cite the Tienanmen Square events as a great example of how the net can >be used to great global advantage despite the odds - I'm just trying to >make sure that people understand that it could also hurt the net - and >I'm trying to protect my own access while I'm at it... :-) I'd suggest that the best way to protect your own access is to make sure that your senior management understands that only by maintaining free dissemination of information will the net remain useful, and by showing them how useful the net actually is to you in your work. > Martin. -- Draphsor vo'drun-Aelf draphsor@portia.stanford.edu
xanthian@zorch.SF-Bay.ORG (Kent Paul Dolan) (11/12/90)
Would someone please take the jerk who posted an inflamatory article on software piracy to six big groups, without putting in a followup line, out back and shoot him? We just went through this same pointless drivel in mid-summer, and as soon as a new bunch of gullible school kids get on the net, this bozo has to set off another wide bandwidth, zero value posting war. The guppies who suckered into following this up, _please_ correct your "Newsgroups: " lines to contain _only_ misc.legal in all successive postings. It may save your accounts. It will certainly do wonders for my nerves. Why the news posting software writers haven't corrected the obvious flaw of allowing cross-posted articles without followup-to entries, after so many ample demonstrations of the complete necessity of such a fix, is beyond me. Kent, the man from xanth. <xanthian@Zorch.SF-Bay.ORG> <xanthian@well.sf.ca.us>
kdb@macaw.intercon.com (Kurt Baumann) (11/13/90)
In article <draphsor.658392458@elaine12.stanford.edu>, draphsor@elaine12.stanford.edu (Matt Rollefson) writes: > and by showing > them how useful the net actually is to you in your work. But is it? How much time is wasted yearly reading netnews, for the fun of it? Hmm, just how many times are you reading some newgroup that has nothing to do with your "work"? I agree that the net is useful to corporations in many ways, but let's not kid ourselves about how much useful work gets done on the net. Go take a look at most of the soc groups. Sigh. -- Kurt Baumann InterCon Systems Corporation 703.709.9890 Creators of fine TCP/IP products 703.709.9896 FAX for the Macintosh.