|
|
| GeoCommunity Mailing List |
| |
| Mailing List Archives |
| Subject: | Re: [gislist] google maps |
| Date: |
02/28/2005 11:15:04 AM |
| From: |
Carl Reed |
|
|
You are still confusing implementation of an application or appliance that
uses standards versus the actual standards themselves.
Carl
----- Original Message -----
From: "Anthony Quartararo" <ajq3@spatialnetworks.com>
To: <gislist@lists.thinkburst.com>
Sent: Sunday, February 27, 2005 9:05 PM
Subject: RE: [gislist] google maps
> Carl,
>
> Does the internet really work all that well ? The original IP protocols,
> in
> fact, the entire internet as we know it today was never ever meant to be
> used in the way it is today. That's the basic reason why so much is wrong
> with the internet, and no matter how many new IP protocols are written
> (standards), it will not erase the fundamental fatal flaws in the original
> intent and the co-opted de-facto use of the internet today. Meanwhile,
> the
> internet community and all the international organizations you mention
> below
> continue to press on, as if by virtue of effort and propaganda, the
> fundamental problems will disappear altogether. The only way to truly
> solve
> the problem is to start from scratch based on what we know now as the most
> common global use of what we know as the internet.
>
> performance metrics - I can go to any number of FREE websites where I can
> verify and validate what my cable modem's download speed, FTP speed, and
> other connection metrics. Is this not performance metrics that can be
> easily compared against what I am being charged for, or perhaps for
> shopping
> for other ISPs ? You avoid the issue by masking the request as improbable
> because all these other internet standards organizations don't produce
> metrics. Simply because they do not, does that mean they should not ?
> Since OGC makes a lot of noise about itself, why is it not realistic to
> expect public scrutiny of the purported benefits of implementing or
> "consuming" services provided by OGC-sponsored technology, particularly
> if/when those services and technological components may be required by
> some
> over-the-top government contracting officer ? We all get performance
> metrics
> on computers (GHz, RAM, HDD space, price, consumer digest ratings),
> copiers
> (ppm? ), fax machines (ppm), cars (mph, 0-60, hp? ), appliances (minutes
> to
> wash a load of clothes, dry them, etc., how much electricity per year to
> run
> the appliance? ) What gets me is that the basic premise of your argument
> AGAINST making performance metrics available to the list is that it is so
> counter-intuitive and counter-productive to OGCs mission, isnt it ? I
> mean,
> IF all that OGC technology really works so groovy together or even a
> single
> component on its own, in a vacuum, why not tell the world about it and
> allow
> others the opportunity to conduct identical, independent tests on their
> own.
> In the absence of such transparency, I think that OGC efforts will largely
> be viewed as suspect, if not thinly-veiled propaganda for the member
> organizations.
>
> My cell phone ? That proves my point. Ask anyone who has ever travelled
> from the US to virtually anywhere else in the world and see if their phone
> works. My Motorola MPX200 AT&T multi-band GSM phone was marketed as being
> an international phone, so I bought one, brought it to China and bought a
> local SIM card before I even got through passport control in Beijing. For
> 2
> weeks my partners and I hammered the local carrier asking why my SIM card
> which was fully paid for, would not work with the phone. Not until I
> returned to the US did a call to AT&T resolve the issue: a) there was a
> phone lock installed by the OEM to prevent this "interoperability" and b)
> the "multiband" just didn't have enough multiples to it, so I was [and am]
> SOL. I realize that "a" is more a political move than technological, but
> lets not think that OGC and any other organizations are not fraught with
> these same types of political shenanigans.
>
> Honestly now, I have no hidden agenda, have no stake in anything that OGC
> does or doesn't do, and certainly not so "well-off" that I sit idly by my
> PC
> waiting for the opportunity to "stir the pot" as you have said regarding
> OGC. It is something of considerable concern to me regarding the future
> of
> this industry and fact that there seems to be so many lemmings running
> around. I wish I could articulate my points of view with the same force
> and
> simplicity as Dimitri can, and in case you missed it, the recent GIS
> Monitor
> issue, he hits a few out of the park on OGC as well. Cheers.
>
> Anthony
>
> -----Original M
|
|
Sponsored by:
For information
regarding
advertising rates
Click Here!
|
