I've found that using AOL to make this analogy is helpful in explaining the issues with free basics (and net neutrality in general) to non-technical folks. For example, many people have experience with parents who think the only way to receive their email is by logging in through AOL's desktop application, installed on their Windows computer.
I don't understand what the fuss is over this. Using your analogy, if AOL were legitimately free to non-technical folks, it would be worth it for many of them to have their curated/locked in ecosystem. I can't help but feel the hate for freebasics is an example of the privileged declaring what's best for the unprivileged.
If those opposing the FreeBasics are trying to decide on behalf of poor, isn't FreeBasics itself not doing the same thing?
In fact the word play now is just ridiculous. When questioned about the above, they point out that this is an open platform now where any service can come in. When questioned on why not simply give free capped bandwidth then, the answer is that "basic internet services" like education, health are more important for poor. And if left to themselves, they will spend all bandwidth on things like porn. (The last statement is not from Facebook but from certain supporters of FreeBasics)
I'm not exactly sure what the problem is. Ultimately the target user can choose from whatever options are available to them (apparently freebasics or nothing right now). For a free service there certainly is a limited amount of bandwidth available. It makes sense to ensure that the maximum amount of users get the maximum utility from it, which means preventing the bandwidth sink that porn will be.
The way that story played out is that people hooked on AOL validated the concept and paved the way for broadband and Web as we know it, so not sure how it's illustrative of the issues with Internet.org.
That's a fair point. Another way that it played out is that people like my parents were under the impression they still had to pay $9.99/month for AOL email as recently as like 2 years ago.
I am right there with you. I am in my 40s, and have a solid career as a corporate & solo dev. and I have started feeling that weight as well. You might just be describing a "modern" mid life crisis. Self reflection without the need to buy an impractical car.
I think part of the reason I find dystopian cyberpunk stories so cathartic is they present an glitzy, exaggerated version of now, where it's easier to see what can be done to fix things.
For the same reasons (size) I picked up an Amazon Fire phone inexpensively, rooted and reloaded it with Cyanogenmod. It's 4.7" with decent hardware (nothing cutting edge). So far so good.
This reads much like "The Minority Report" which was written in 1956. While this author has a modern spin and is attaching it directly to a company we all know - how is it any different? Has science fiction given us these ideas and led us to this point, or has it been a neon warning we've been ignoring all this time? Maybe this path was inevitable?
It's different in that none of this is actually science fiction, but just science. All the tech is already there. There's just one more step until we reach AI level.
In 1956 it was impossible. Today, all of this is almost here.
The path to AI is inevitable, but it branches into many - we should try and find a way to pick the right one before we reach the crossroads.
I second this - and am happy to see an ipdb.org link - there is a ton of information there. I picked up an old Xenon - http://www.ipdb.org/machine.cgi?gid=2821 - worked it over with guides online and it still runs great 10 years later. If I had the room I'd have more!
Thirded. One of the most satisfying restorations we've ever done was a sand-it-down-to-the-wood repaint/restore of a Space Shuttle. There's an extra level of satisfaction to play a machine where every screw, bolt, wire, and switch is something that you personally put in place.
