The inventors described in this book have provided timeless scientific knowledge that has and will continue to endure. This sentiment was highlighted in an article by scientific analyst, Vannevar Bush and it rings true; knowledge and scientific truths become an evolutionary factor for the human race. Such knowledge grows and evolves and will surely be kept alive throughout generations. The knowledge passed down from early invention feeds human kind and encourages it to thrive.

The early scientists and inventors such as Chappe, Cooke, Edison and Babbage provided the world with a vision, a means, and a method. These inventors were fortunate to live in an age where revolutionary breakthroughs were discovered, such as electomagentism and how far and fast electricity travels. These were exciting times and the fundamental lessons learned from these early years have yet to be transcended. These lessons will continue to be passed on into the future.

Tom Standage brings a pesonal and human element to the story of these early inventors. Such as detailing the life of Samuel F.B. Morse and how he could have witnessed the burial of his wife Lucretia, if he had only invented his electric telegraph sooner. It showed a broader scope of the man as a painter, and an entrepreneur looking for different means for selling artwork to the public. Morse’s journey of discovery was not easily won – he employed the minds of many top scientists of the time and had many trials before his eventual success. The inventor of the optical telegraph, William Chappe had a tormented soul and his invention was used but also highly controlled by the likes of Napolean. He eventually succumbed to paranoia and scrutiny by killing himself. This detail and description were very interesting and captivates the reader – because these characters aren’t just historical figures but they were real people.

His aim was to correlate and compare a contemporary viewpoint of the Internet and World Wide Web with the viewpoint that society’s had during the inception of telegraphy and telephony. He also aimed to show that contemporary breakthroughs in communication and computer technology have a similar impact on society as did the telegraph did over a hundred years ago. It drew the same vision of excitement by those who embraced progress and it also drew skepticism of need and use by those who were set in their ways, resistant to conformity and also for those wary and cautious of scientific advances. Tom Standage brings personality and a sense of realism to the historic characters that are most often rememberd by name only. He also outlined the trials and roadblocks that these inventions faced; they faced the similar beurocratic red tape and attempts at manipulation and controversies over control and distribution of these technologies.

Tom does convey his message in a concise and amusing manner. While his style of writing makes for a quick read he also provides an intelligent insight of someone who is well-versed and knowledgeable about modern day communications. He appeals to those history buffs that are interested in an entertaining approach to the evolution of technological progress. Standage shows the human side of this progress and how it can envoke such unprecedented human expression; such as when these telegraphic lines were used to marry a couple. This type of human articulation is very apparent in todays modern technological world with the numerous online dating sites and sense of need for individual expression. Standage does show that the human element is constant and the need for expression is real. His account of events is not merely a timeline but a touching story. He conveys this well by including reasoning for historical events and showing how historical milestones were reached while preserving human emotion via the stories of real human characters.

The Victorian Internet does show the importance, virility, and neccessity that mass rapid communications provide. This historical account dutifully shows the catalysts for which we humans need to progress into the future. These catalysts, the modern day World Wide Web as well as the electric telegraph provide the means for human evolution, by stimulating thought, sharing information, and expanding knowledge. This presentation, put into easily understood terms and written in an anecdotal fashion relays this message very well. It is a very appropriate reference and comparison to the modern day internet.

Our capitalist society thrives on the idea of “if we invest in something we want to see a monetary return.”  According to an article I found from the Digital Divide.Org (a University of Washington based group) the way that we can help those who are less advanced and less technologically able is not to give them tools like computers and Internet access, but rather to help them through socio-economic residuals.  This website argues that multinational companies should be the forerunners of trying to bridge the gap in the Digital Divide between developing and developed nations.  They believe that not only should government be kept out, but that these multinational corporations should not look to providing Internet computer technologies to the poorest people, but to instead influence them through trickle down programs that use newer technologies.  This influence could potentially cause them to “earn” their way into pulling themselves up.  This type of help would not mean furnishing the third world with laptops, but finding a way to influence the need for advanced technologies in these areas – perhaps by finding ways to provide clean running water, but not necessarily enabling those to learn and expand on this technology.  These corporations would start at the next tier down from that of the most affluent people of the world.  This would spurn “learning and earning” which would eventually trickle down to the next tier of less affluent peoples of the world.

I disagree with this strategy.  The course, by which these multinational corporations should take, according to this article, is that of the trickle down economics school of thought.  In other words they should not aim to bolster social reform – but rather, they should continue to nurture capitalism and keep those who are down at manageable level.  Those multinational companies who are in agreement and would be involved in such ventures are not philanthropists who would reach out to the world and try to expand a technologies and education.  Many of these companies would be located over-seas and would stay out of the reach of government jurisdiction.   These companies would aim to stay clear of government and public scrutiny.  They may be privately funded and or subsidized companies whose main concern is capitalism and new potential for making money. The multinational companies that may benefit from this may be thinking long term, but will this type of “help” actually bypass those who the world looks at as “a cancer of the world?” These are the people that should be helped to sustain themselves but may never really advance. 

This article outlines the idea that closing the Digital Divide should involve serving the poor but not necessarily furnishing them with there own computers or access.  The argument that governments will simply capitalize on the potential growth of GDP in these poor countries through use of subsidies and trade barriers thus negating the usefulness of such an endeavor is a diversion tactic.  The need for worldwide policy is there and it is real – private corporations need to be held accountable and need to follow a standard.     

According to the One Laptop Per Child Foundation’s website – their efforts are meant to be an “education project, not a laptop project.”  Founder, Nicholas Negroponte’s goal is to provide children around the world with “new opportunities…”  His work aims to provide learning tools for the children of the world.

I believe that one laptop per child is a good and righteous effort.  Although, not fool proof – this type of help and outreach can have immediate affects.  This type of effort is amicable and should remain as a philanthropic endeavor.  Whether governments or multinational corporations aim to capitalize on the potential for enabling the poorest countries in the world, there needs to be protection from exploitation and a world wide agreement to uphold this ideal.  Ideal, yes, perhaps, but I believe it is a worthwhile effort.   

Sources:   

Smith, C. (March–2008) Digital Divide,Org.
   http://www.digitaldivide.org/dd/contact.html

The sites that I did not like and stood out as being “bad”were the Miami Herald and the Arizona Republic.  They did not have an immediate appeal and seemed to be obligatory publications.  These sites could use some pointers from the San Francisco Chronicle; they could use more commentary and blogs, as well as reformat their front page.  The San Francisco Chronicle is a paper that I will continue to read.  I really like the ease of use and I think it’s inclusion of a “share it,” “email it,” and “comment” link attached to every story is great!  Overall, the San Francisco Chronicle’s organization and ease of use is what won me over.

1. How can companies such as Vonage market themselves in a more effective way to convert more consumers into being VOIP consumers?

2. How can VOIP lure major analog data and phone companies to convert into using this digital service?

3. How will the electrical companies and electrical grids handle a complete change over to VOIP?

I see from this exercise the need for RSS feeds and podcasts.   The sites that did not have RSS feeds or podcasts readily available seemed out of date or behind the times.  After looking at these sites I feel that the newspapers that these sites represent are doing themselves a disservice by not including interesting feeds from around the world and by not tapping into the public sharing tools that could boost their readership.

Just as we need to provide computers and access to underprivileged societies around the world, we must also pay attention and find the importance of leveling out the playing field at home. Here in the United States we should support programs that aim to help students at home as well as they are helped while at school. This is the only true way to bring fairness and proper education to all children regardless of race or class.

This relationship has everything to do with profitability and the willingness of the IEEE to support a cheaper public usage of the Internet. They also need to allow for access to underserved countries by accepting the limitations of security and/or choosing to improve those insecurities without relying on profits alone.

Kofi Anan fully supports proposals to bring Wireless Fidelity applications to developing countries so as to make use of unlicensed radio spectrum to deliver cheap and fast Internet access.

This idea involves inexpensive radio equipment and transmitting on unlicensed frequencies. This could lead to universal access. Those that support this movement want to see a revolution in rural universal access – they want a new suite of wireless technologies with supportive public policies and business approaches. This could provide Internet access and voice service cheaply to rural and under-served communities.

Value added technologies, such as the Simputer and the Sinsamut ICT computer, barrier free entry and urban licensing (vice rural licensing) can eventually provide revenues and add value to many underserved communities. Access should be looked as a “driver of development” instead of a government source of revenue. This article also argues that access should not be taxed, or it should be taxed less, in order to boost usage globally.

Spectrum license exemptions can provide cheap access and be a catalyst for providing universal access that is “sustainable, profitable and empowering.” This article outlines how universal access can pay for itself.

This article outlines viable plans for affordable universal access such as the example from Southern India – which shows that this type of access could cost only a few dollars a day. Its reach via wireless connections could make an otherwise difficult to near impossible coverage a reality. This type of access could bring much needed education and subsequent boost in economy for many rural and underserved locations in the world.

1. What impact does global or universal access to the internet really have?

2. How do you think offering cheap technological devices to the underserved will change international commerce and the global economy?

3. How will eliminating taxes on internet connectivity affect the future of the global marketplace?

Hillary’s site is persuasive – it immediately draws an observer in by showing a video clip of a woman from Texas. This is an effective and easily executable tool, which caters to the most current target demographic of voters. Hillary’s proponents say that she needs to win Texas for the democratic nomination. It is a good strategic move to cater to those who are most important to a candidate at the time. However, the second thing I noticed about this site also presents itself as ‘Hillary on the defensive’; it is a banner which draws the eye directly to a contribution button and call to “close the gap” with her opponent – Barack Obama. This seems like a tactic that attempts to draw a person’s attention away from the positive attributes that Hillary could be describing or displaying. I do, however, like that next to this banner she has a link for learning the Facts and Myths about the race for delegates; this link is informative and educational. This is where I feel she should focus her strength and not focus on pointing fingers at other candidates who she essentially portrays as the ‘enemy.’ I don’t think that her “help make history” calls are effective. This type of sophomoric play on emotions reminds me almost of a campaign that is run like a student governement campaign in highschool. Her site features a link that says “get your Hillary gear”- this seems so contrived and commercial. Overall her site seems adolescent.

I am more of a Hillary supporter than a John McCain supporter, but to me, McCain’s site is better. I feel that Hillary’s verbiage also is less intelligent. For instance, the description of her “American Health Choices Plan” is very poorly worded. It includes words that seem like they are trying to cater to the ‘less intelligent’ or those with a lesser IQ. She includes words like “pick” instead of “choose” when describing that Americans under her plan could have more choices when it comes to health care providers. Yes, it’s true, that working class families may be the one’s that are most interested in health care reform, but they do not need to be talked down to or made to seem less intelligent. This condescension seems to lean towards the idea that lower class is equivalent to lower intelligence. I disagree with this portrayal. The articles that are on Hillary’s website, outline her views and goals, they are not written with her voice, and they convey an heir of superiority that I feel is a little offensive.

I do however like the stance that Hillary takes on stem cell research. The stem cell article included on her site is informational, but the best parts about it are the direct quotes from Hillary – I think she would do better by including articles that were written fully by her self.

In comparison, I immediately see that John McCain’s site is catering to and attempting to tap into the American military supporters. John McCain calls his contributors “McCain Aces.” John shows a picture of him in a POW photograph and he touts that he “a true American Hero.“

I do like that he has the pull down menus “about John McCain, Why John McCain and on the issues.” I like that he includes a news bloglike section called “in the news.” Informationally I like what John McCain presents on his site better than I do Hillary’s. It seems that there was much time and upkeep given to make this site appealing; the colors and fonts of the home page of this site work well.

There are attributes about John McCain’s site that are effective but that I also do not care for. His site features leading questions and polls that play upon people’s emotions by offering up simplistic facts and data – but do not elaborate on the motives behind the data. For instance, the poll that John shows of how much the “democrat’s budget resoluton” would raise American taxes, but it does not explain what these taxes are intended for and how they may serve a purpose.

John McCain says that he is “ready from day one” – this is a sentiment that I hear coming from Hillary Clinton constantly as well. John’s site may show information that is more accessible and has a more appealing layout (on the whole), but it does not sway me to think that he is the better candidate or that he has more important things to say. As far as visual appeal, McCains sub-articles, especially his article on health care are hard to look at and thus hard to read.

I do think that John McCain wins in the battle for a more appealing website. He has more sources and outlets for information. He includes ready sound bites and video clips that capture one’s attention. And he gives a lot of detail in his arguments compared to Hillary Clinton. Hillary seems to be more diplomatic with a lot of her explainations, but she does offer links that lead to more information.

Neither of these sites lead me to think any more or less of these candidates. I still think John McCain means well and Hillary is very capable, but these sites do not invoke in me a sense that I need to support them.

What is a quality website?  A quality website is one that is not cluttered, has a soothing appeal and flow of information.  It is one that shows that time has been taken to make it a worthwhile site.  This site also should keep the advertising to a minimum and also not have blaring sound bites or jpegs that automatically play once you enter.  A quality site is one that offers quick access to information and doesn’t require someone to go to a search or find tool to find it.