The net is at home or the office. The Library has hard copy and more
sources. Net is more motivating.
Library doesn't give us interaction like this. Scanners will become more
affordable to use like xerox machines so more and more library mat'l
becomes available daily. so does cheaper net access.
Lets continue to use the Net to promote LE research.
By the way, how much is your laboratory's budget annually? How much to
set up a new lab to study genetics? We need that info for
strategic approach to legislation for funding.
On Tue, 28 Mar 1995, Patrick O'Neil wrote:
>>> On 28 Mar 1995, Joseph Norton wrote:
>> > sort of like now, huh? i personally think it rather naive to think that
> > the myth of scarcity is anything but a myth.
> > i think that there is certainly enough for everyone (at least everyone
> > extant now) if we could wrest most of it away from the 'richest' 1 percent
> > or so.
>> The rich, though I certainly don't mind wresting things from them >;) are
> a rather insignificant number of the population...and they certainly
> don't eat all that much more than anyone else. Some of them DO take it
> upon themselves to consume endangered species and scarce resources simply
> because they think that having money puts them above and beyond the rules
> and mores of the "common" people. In any case, their numbers and their
> consumption, though often repugnant in it excess, is a drop in the bucket
> in relation to the materials used/consumed by the MUCH more numerous
> middle classes and poor. Food, arable land, and fresh water are all
> limited resources. For the most part, because their numbers ARE so
> great, it is the expanding population of poor who are hardest on the
> environment and resources. They are also the ones to be left out in any
> real medical/molecular biological drive to increase natural
> lifespan...and they will be the humongous hordes who would rebel against
> such inequity, while the rich would be the first to benefit from life
> extension (again, their idea that money makes them morally qualified to
> have such benefits even though there are consequences...).
>>> > > Look at the information economy that exists now, and imagine what the world
> > > will be like when the material economy takes the same form.
> > what do you mean, exactly?
>> I have recently been considering the whole internet-information
> "superhighway" idea and have decided that it is mostly crappola. For a
> one-time nominal fee I can go to a public library, get a card, and check
> out books by the boatload. On the internet on the other hand, in order to
> get access to "all that information" one has to dole out a minimum fee of
> $8 to $10 a month (Compuserve or equivalent), just for the most basic
> access. To TRULY get information (using CARL or ANY other method)
> requires MORE money for EACH particular episode - a particular boon for
> credit card companies. Overall, the cost of getting any information that
> is of the same caliber or extent as that one can get at a normal, decent,
> library costs about 100x as much. What a bargain...NOT.
> I have access now only because my university provides me with access as
> a matter of course - not free because the cost of service is passed on to
> all the students, whether they use the net or not, in the form of tuition
> and fee hikes and again, if I want an article I have to cough up about $6
> to $10 for a fax or mail delivery (CARL). The information superhighway
> and the "information economy/society" is strictly for those with the money
> to afford computers, software, and access fees. This ain't the poor and
> it isn't even much of the middle class - my parents are in this latter
> catagory and they cannot afford access services as provided by Compuserve,
> AOL, Prodigy, etc. My father only has a computer because eight of his
> children all pooled scarce monetary resources to buy him one. Oh no, the
> info society is itself somewhat elitist and disenfranchising.