A lot of us measure freedom to access the Internet as a leading indicator, yet factors inhibiting such access differ a lot in character.
The sheer physical challenges in terms of location and equipment, are easier to reason about than Nanny State policies, which try to keep populations innocent (virgin) in some desired way.
Those of us who've grown up in the conference organizing business, which I did somewhat vicariously under the tutelage of Steve Holden and crew, understand the expectations of conference goers, which often includes unfettered Internet access. That means convenient access to all the sites and sounds one might be used to from browsing at home.
In 2017, this expectation is often frustrated, both for physical reasons, and for metaphysical reasons. The Nanny States keep a list of problematic IP numbers based on nation of origin, and routinely surveil and/or block access from such addresses. Lets remember the origins of the Internet in ARPA, later DARPA.
Remember also, though, the NIMBY syndrome ("not invented in my backyard"). Some subcultures may wish to reinvent the wheel rather than adopt the wheels of others.
How much one:
(a) needs to feel in control and
(b) needs others to perceive one as controlling
feeds the calculation.
Those operating within a contextualizing religion or wisdom tradition that allows surrendering control, even as a means to regaining it, may have an edge.
Master IPv6 and recreate it with your own features if you must. But why throw out the whole transport protocol, which is working so well?
I think most of us take for granted that Cuba will see fit to adopt the same RFPs and other standards (http, ftp, smtp), that have provided a backbone for globalization thus far.
The true opposite of globalization, in the sense of organic counter-trend, is localization, not nationalism. That nation-state system was already a game of the globalizers, known as the Great Game or later World Game.
By the time one gets to the level of nations, it's already too late, as the formal infrastructure of diplomatic relations is already in place. True locales actually provide refuge from anonymous globalism. Ordinary people (true characters, some of them) get to play.
What corresponds to the global versus local tension in everyday memetics? Branding and advertising.
In B2C we focus on locale, customization, meeting the customer where she or he lives.
In B2B, we tend to focus on longer-term stability, in which case a satisfying accommodation of the global ecosystem is what to look for in a company or organization.
The "standard model" is therefore one of Big Company back ends (server side) and Small Company front ends (neighborhood grocery store).
This doubling of identity is accomplished through branding and parentage. The local store is quietly owned by some more global conglomerate. Getting the mix just right is the job of your marketing alchemist.
In the case of Cuba we've had Proctor & Gamble versus Unilever.
The Ben & Jerry's factory on Cuba fantasy more belongs to the latter, of which it is a subsidiary, Vermont factory notwithstanding.
The EU has discovered it has the freedom to define trade relationships independently of either the US or the UK, which often stick together where BDS is concerned (state sanctions etc.).
The EU is free to amp up Cuban Wifi, for example, whereas Microsoft and any company based in Delaware, may feel obligated to consider itself within the US nanny state jurisdiction. That's called giving the competition an edge.
We've seen more expressions of EU independence recently, when BDS against Russia, unilaterally imposed by the US Congress, nudged NATO towards looking more and more like its own brain children, Aleppo and Mosul.
The sheer physical challenges in terms of location and equipment, are easier to reason about than Nanny State policies, which try to keep populations innocent (virgin) in some desired way.
Those of us who've grown up in the conference organizing business, which I did somewhat vicariously under the tutelage of Steve Holden and crew, understand the expectations of conference goers, which often includes unfettered Internet access. That means convenient access to all the sites and sounds one might be used to from browsing at home.
In 2017, this expectation is often frustrated, both for physical reasons, and for metaphysical reasons. The Nanny States keep a list of problematic IP numbers based on nation of origin, and routinely surveil and/or block access from such addresses. Lets remember the origins of the Internet in ARPA, later DARPA.
Remember also, though, the NIMBY syndrome ("not invented in my backyard"). Some subcultures may wish to reinvent the wheel rather than adopt the wheels of others.
How much one:
(a) needs to feel in control and
(b) needs others to perceive one as controlling
feeds the calculation.
Those operating within a contextualizing religion or wisdom tradition that allows surrendering control, even as a means to regaining it, may have an edge.
Master IPv6 and recreate it with your own features if you must. But why throw out the whole transport protocol, which is working so well?
I think most of us take for granted that Cuba will see fit to adopt the same RFPs and other standards (http, ftp, smtp), that have provided a backbone for globalization thus far.
The true opposite of globalization, in the sense of organic counter-trend, is localization, not nationalism. That nation-state system was already a game of the globalizers, known as the Great Game or later World Game.
By the time one gets to the level of nations, it's already too late, as the formal infrastructure of diplomatic relations is already in place. True locales actually provide refuge from anonymous globalism. Ordinary people (true characters, some of them) get to play.
What corresponds to the global versus local tension in everyday memetics? Branding and advertising.
In B2C we focus on locale, customization, meeting the customer where she or he lives.
In B2B, we tend to focus on longer-term stability, in which case a satisfying accommodation of the global ecosystem is what to look for in a company or organization.
The "standard model" is therefore one of Big Company back ends (server side) and Small Company front ends (neighborhood grocery store).
This doubling of identity is accomplished through branding and parentage. The local store is quietly owned by some more global conglomerate. Getting the mix just right is the job of your marketing alchemist.
In the case of Cuba we've had Proctor & Gamble versus Unilever.
The Ben & Jerry's factory on Cuba fantasy more belongs to the latter, of which it is a subsidiary, Vermont factory notwithstanding.
The EU has discovered it has the freedom to define trade relationships independently of either the US or the UK, which often stick together where BDS is concerned (state sanctions etc.).
The EU is free to amp up Cuban Wifi, for example, whereas Microsoft and any company based in Delaware, may feel obligated to consider itself within the US nanny state jurisdiction. That's called giving the competition an edge.
We've seen more expressions of EU independence recently, when BDS against Russia, unilaterally imposed by the US Congress, nudged NATO towards looking more and more like its own brain children, Aleppo and Mosul.
