Search (1565 results, page 79 of 79)

0.0013616894 = product of:
  0.0068084467 = sum of:
    0.0068084467 = product of:
      0.013616893 = sum of:
        0.013616893 = weight(_text_:web in 3179) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.013616893 = score(doc=3179,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15105948 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04628742 = queryNorm
            0.09014259 = fieldWeight in 3179, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
              0.01953125 = fieldNorm(doc=3179)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Content

Den Vereinigten Staaten gebührt unser Dank dafür, dass sie das Internet entwickelt und es der Welt verfügbar gemacht haben. Aus historischen Gründen besitzen die Vereinten Nationen die höchste Autorität über einige der wichtigsten Web-Ressourcen und viele sagen, dass diese Autorität künftig mit der internationalen Gemeinschaft geteilt werden sollte. Die USA, die ihre Kontrollaufgaben bisher fair und ehrenhaft unternommen haben, erkennen selbst an, dass andere. Regierungen legitime Bedenken haben. Es wird auch anerkannt, dass in diesem Bereich mehr internationale Aufgabenteilung nötig ist. Es geht dabei um die Zukunft, wenn das Wachstum des Internets vor allem in den Entwicklungsländern dramatisch zunehmen wird. Zurzeit erleben wir den Beginn eines Dialogs zwischen zwei verschiedenen Kulturen: die Gemeinschaft der Internetnutzer mit ihren informellen und basisorientierten Entscheidungsprozessen und die formalere, strukturiertere Welt der Regierungen und internationalen Organisationen. Das Internet ist für alle Volkswirtschaften und Verwaltun- gen von so großer Bedeutung, dass es sehr naiv wäre zu glauben, dass Regierungen damit nicht irgendein Interesse verfolgen würden. Sie müssen in der Lage sein, ihre Internetpolitik richtig gestalten und sie mit der Gemeinschaft der Nutzer koordinieren zu können. Aber Regierungen alleine können diese Regeln nicht setzen. Sie müssen lernen, mit nichtstaatlichen Partnern zusamenzuarbeiten. Sie sind es, die das Internet aufgebaut und zudem gemacht haben, was es heute ist. Sie werden auch treibende Kraft sein, wenn es um die künftige Expansion und Innovation geht.

0.0013616894 = product of:
  0.0068084467 = sum of:
    0.0068084467 = product of:
      0.013616893 = sum of:
        0.013616893 = weight(_text_:web in 423) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.013616893 = score(doc=423,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15105948 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04628742 = queryNorm
            0.09014259 = fieldWeight in 423, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
              0.01953125 = fieldNorm(doc=423)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Abstract

Lena Forsén, the real human behind the Lenna image, was first published in Playboy in 1972. Soon after, USC engineers searching for a suitable test image for their image processing research sought inspiration from the magazine. They deemed Lenna the right fit and scanned the image into digital, RGB existence. From here, the story of the image follows the story of the internet. Lenna was one of the first inhabitants of ARPANet, the internet's predecessor, and then the world wide web. While the image's reach was limited to a few research papers in the '70s and '80s, in 1991, Lenna was featured on the cover of an engineering journal alongside another popular test image, Peppers. This caught the attention of Playboy, which threatened a copyright infringement lawsuit. Engineers who had grown attached to Lenna fought back. Ultimately, they prevailed, and as a Playboy VP reflected on the drama: "We decided we should exploit this because it is a phenomenon." The Playboy controversy canonized Lenna in engineering folklore and prompted an explosion of conversation about the image. Image hits on the internet rose to a peak number in 1995.

0.0012542614 = product of:
  0.0062713064 = sum of:
    0.0062713064 = product of:
      0.012542613 = sum of:
        0.012542613 = weight(_text_:22 in 3125) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.012542613 = score(doc=3125,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16209066 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04628742 = queryNorm
            0.07738023 = fieldWeight in 3125, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.015625 = fieldNorm(doc=3125)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Date

22. 1.2005 19:05:37

0.0010893515 = product of:
  0.005446757 = sum of:
    0.005446757 = product of:
      0.010893514 = sum of:
        0.010893514 = weight(_text_:web in 1738) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.010893514 = score(doc=1738,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15105948 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04628742 = queryNorm
            0.07211407 = fieldWeight in 1738, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
              0.015625 = fieldNorm(doc=1738)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

0.0010893515 = product of:
  0.005446757 = sum of:
    0.005446757 = product of:
      0.010893514 = sum of:
        0.010893514 = weight(_text_:web in 1795) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.010893514 = score(doc=1795,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15105948 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04628742 = queryNorm
            0.07211407 = fieldWeight in 1795, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
              0.015625 = fieldNorm(doc=1795)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Footnote

The economic opportunity divide is predicated an the hypothesis that there has, indeed, been a major shift in opportunities driven by changes in the information environment. The authors document this paradigm shift well with arguments from the political and economic right and left. This chapter might be described as an "attitudinal" chapter. The authors are concerned here with the perceptions of their respondents of their information skills and skill levels with their economic outlook and opportunities. Technological skills and economic opportunities are correlated, one finds, in the minds of all across all ages, genders, races, ethnicities, and income levels. African Americans in particular are ". . attuned to the use of technology for economic opportunity" (p. 80). The fourth divide is the democratic divide. The Internet may increase political participation, the authors posit, but only among groups predisposed to participate and perhaps among those with the skills necessary to take advantage of the electronic environment (p. 86). Certainly the Web has played an important role in disseminating and distributing political messages and in some cases in political fund raising. But by the analysis here, we must conclude that the message does not reach everyone equally. Thus, the Internet may widen the political participation gap rather than narrow it. The book has one major, perhaps fatal, flaw: its methodology and statistical application. The book draws upon a survey performed for the authors in June and July 2001 by the Kent State University's Computer Assisted Telephone Interviewing (CATI) lab (pp. 7-9). CATI employed a survey protocol provided to the reader as Appendix 2. An examination of the questionnaire reveals that all questions yield either nominal or ordinal responses, including the income variable (pp. 9-10). Nevertheless, Mossberger, Tolbert, and Stansbury performed a series of multiple regression analyses (reported in a series of tables in Appendix 1) utilizing these data. Regression analysis requires interval/ratio data in order to be valid although nominal and ordinal data can be incorporated by building dichotomous dummy variables. Perhaps Mossberger, Tolbert, and Stansbury utilized dummy variables; but 1 do not find that discussed. Moreover, 1 would question a multiple regression made up completely of dichotomous dummy variables. I come away from Virtual Inequality with mixed feelings. It is useful to think of the digital divide as more than one phenomenon. The four divides that Mossberger, Tolbert, and Stansbury offeraccess, skills, economic opportunity, and democratic-are useful as a point of departure and debate. No doubt, other divides will be identified and documented. This book will lead the way. Second, without question, Mossberger, Tolbert, and Stansbury provide us with an extremely well-documented, -written, and -argued work. Third, the authors are to be commended for the multidisciplinarity of their work. Would that we could see more like it. My reservations about their methodological approach, however, hang over this review like a shroud."