41–50 of 52 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Je pense que c'est ici http://www.mixart-myrys.org // http://maps.google.com/maps?q=Mixart-Myrys+toulouse&hl=f... :)
See, if you guys had made an english version, it would be a household name by now. downvote.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Except the cases where central planning works, like (DUH!) Minitel (until the internet came, it didn't fail, it just got upgraded, duh), going to the Moon (distributed attempt at reaching the moon, also known as the living pyramid), justice system (as soon as you introduce the ability for appeal), the Internet, DNS system (it may be not centralized, but it is centrally planned), Google, Apple, and your own consciousn…
The problem is not that central planning fails to build a certain thing (like a bridge or a road), but that it diverts resources from more productive uses. Things that are built or created are visible, but they obscure the things that might have been created otherwise. We never actually get to know the ways resources might have been allocated otherwise; and indeed these other things may be mundane and boring, yet the…
In central planning, the dynamics are different. Whomever influences the planners ultimately makes the decisions. The quality of those decisions depends on your perspective and the motivation of the influencers.
In a pure capitalist model, you follow the money. Whomever has money influences the decisions.
There's no right or wrong answer. Oftentimes valuable things appear as unintended consequences of government or commercial projects.
It's hard to declare the internet to not be an example of central planning -- it was built to connect Federally funded labs at universities with Federal dollars. The labs existed to provide (indirectly or directly) research to serve defense and space (which i consider to be a subset of defense) interests.
The difference between the French thing and the Internet is that key stakeholders in the government and academia saw the potential of computer networks as a driver of commerce at an opportune time. If that conclusion was made in 1978, we'd have the French thing on a terminal leased from AT&T or a baby bell.
Equating a telecom system to a railroad, bridge, road, etc from a government POV was a big leap -- but the timing was probably more important and less obvious.
Everyone hailed Minitel in the 1980s. It was touted as an example of what gov't should do (these were also the days of Japan, Inc. kicking everyone's ass, also showing what gov't "should" do for industry). Yet along came the Black Swan of the Internet to slay it. Central planning never works.
Central planning probably gets harder the more humans want to cooperate and market mechanisms are very likely superior in those situations but that doesn’t mean that central planning doesn’t work.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Except the cases where central planning works, like (DUH!) Minitel (until the internet came, it didn't fail, it just got upgraded, duh), going to the Moon (distributed attempt at reaching the moon, also known as the living pyramid), justice system (as soon as you introduce the ability for appeal), the Internet, DNS system (it may be not centralized, but it is centrally planned), Google, Apple, and your own consciousn…
The problem is not that central planning fails to build a certain thing (like a bridge or a road), but that it diverts resources from more productive uses. Things that are built or created are visible, but they obscure the things that might have been created otherwise. We never actually get to know the ways resources might have been allocated otherwise; and indeed these other things may be mundane and boring, yet the…
Also "central planning" is too broad a stroke. Are we talking about national central planning, i.e. government programs or are we also going to include central planning in corporate hierarchies, household hierarchies, software design or even things like activities directors in retirement facilities. All valid ways of describing centralized planning. Centralized planning is neither big nor small, you can have it at almost any level & it's success depends on the people involved. Which is why the vague statement made by the OP is somewhat confusing.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Firstly, suggesting dial-up ISPs failed because they had a centralized business structure makes no sense. That's like saying horse & buggy manufacturers went out of business due to their centralized business structure rather than the introduction of the car. Also for the record AOL is still around & those companies were successful for their time. Second, I was speaking about things like ICANN, root DNS servers, Tier…
I think we are talking at cross-purposes here, in different perspectives, so let's stop.
That doesn't really have anything to do with the Internet being centrally planned or not. It was just planned to be more open than those other services.
It makes me a bit sad to realize that even I remember minitel, though I grew up with the internet, and not in France -- not because I'm into tech history, but because in 2002, that's how old my high-school French textbook and its helpful cultural asides were.
We actually had a Minitel service in Houston which in its way was a successful gaming platform. The social aspect never really took off.
I know the US also had some trials of teletext (text pages over broadcast TV) too, but I think that was even less successful than videotel.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think we are talking at cross-purposes here, in different perspectives, so let's stop.
Well perhaps your point was that those services were walled gardens & incompatible with each other before the Internet took off. The Internet opening up with it's low cost ISPs & flexibility was the end of those walled garden services & many BBSs, true. That doesn't really have anything to do with the Internet being centrally planned or not. It was just planned to be more open than those other services.