As you scroll down the page just mouse over some empty space where the menu was, and it will pop back into view.
|
|
WEB Infrastructure in need of upgrading
Mendham:
Search:
WEB Infrastructure in need of upgrading
     By whois on Wednesday, August 10, 2005 - 7:49 pm: |
Be it resolved:
Is basic Internet infrastructure in need of upgrading or repair?
Myself for the affirmative,
The answer is most decidedly YES. The simplest and perhaps most persuasive argument in the affirmative is the simple truth that the Internet was never thoughtfully designed before it was implemented. The Internet basically has been evolved through small bursts of innovation, provided by small groups of innovators, basically one piece at a time. First there were the protocols of connection, then the standards of communication, then the language of linking...etc. Through this process of stages there wasn't any controlling force obligating innovations to be perfected before they were popularly adopted-- so begins what has become the internal drag on efficiency that is the "damage (spam) control" needed to compensate for a poor original design.
The catastrophic flaws in the current design are numerous, obvious and exist throughout the infrastructure.
Here is a short list of the most egregious "design flaws"
E-mail protocols provide the ability to Disguise Identity stripping the system of accountability and denying the system any ability to enforce rights and responsibilities. Spam e-mail is an offense to our sensibilities, intelligence, and it substantially marginalizes the efficiency and in turn value of the overall technology.
The DNS or domain name system is not substantially flawed technically-- damage to this system was more or less a willfully corrupt "political" decision made outside of the public's notice. The racket works something like this: Domain names (whatever. something) translate into a number that basically provides a unique slot in a Internet address database. There is very little practical expense to establishing the database reference and the switch to direct traffic to the location-- actual cost per registration might be less than 50�. The unnecessarily capitalized system established to perform this 50� of work, through amazing dysfunction, provides this service to the average domain owner at a cost that ranges from $8 to $35 a year. There is absolutely no practical need to have competitive providers of this basic necessity of infrastructure. They're all basically re-selling the exact same thing and providing absolutely no added value for the 2 to 7,000% "greed tax" they are imposing.
Internet Search technically does not exist as a part of Internet infrastructure. That is to say the infrastructure makes no accommodation to the obvious fact that the network needs to be mapped to be usefully functional. The design flaw is in essence the act of omission that has allowed unrestrained chaos to define functionality. Put simply, a "search industry" evolved by chaos has created "incentives" completely inverse to the objective of rational, logical and efficient navigation. Simply described the system is basically rewarding people for sneaking weeds into the Internet Garden and provides no practical ability for anyone to pull any weeds out. Using another real world analogy imagine if there was unrestricted freedom to erect roadside billboards... that anyone could either pay someone to put one up, or they could build one themselves and that they could make them look just like offical road signs... obviously such a scenario would make it fairly easy for the traveler to take a wrong turn, and waste a lot of time. Also obviously, the inexperienced, and the less intelligent would be the most easily victimized. This is in fact the "superhighway" we have created and it is the antithesis of efficiency.
The argument that Internet infrastructure is in need of upgrading or repair is irrefutable and should be declared over. Those defending the simple truth of flawed design suggest we begin "in earnest" the argument over what repairs should be made. |
|