Vladimir Z. Nuri,vznuri@netcom.com writes:
what the flit concept does is introduce a *context* to a bit. a bit has no "context". where did a bit come from? the situation with information is that it always has a *context* and is tied with other information. (so in addition, I might like to suggest that "flits" can be "tied together" with each other).
To me, bits don't need context any more than atoms do. Their whole beauty (like atoms) is their simplicity. You can build incredibly complex structures (like jaguars) from the simplest of particles (or bits). Negroponte's analogy begs the question of the physics of cyberspace. They are clearly different from the physics of the real world. Imagine if you lived in a world where objects could be duplicated extremely quickly, cheaply, and perfectly. You could send things around at the speed of light. Nothing ever happens except by the action of a program. What would be valuable to you in this world (crypto-relevance)? Why would you care about "where" anything is? Why would you bother to "move" something? Putting aside the implementation problems with "flits", I don't think there is any need to make cyberspace behave like the real world. The best things about cyberspace are the differences with the real world. I agree we need to work on the interfaces between worlds, but that doesn't equate to making them the same. A major problem with your note is that it confuses the bit-atom level view of the world with the document-jaguar level. People don't have to interact with bits any more than they have to deal with atoms. The properties you are seeking are at a higher level than bits and are already in early development (OpenDoc and others). The "information assembly line" is at this higher level and does not require "flits". Thanks for a provocative note. --Jeff