Shirky, C. (2000) What is P2PÂ…And What isn't
See: http://www.openp2p.com/1pt/a/472
This text gives some remarks on how to watch p2p. Furthermore, it gives some examples on what can be seen as a p2p system. Regarding this text my question is:
What are the drivers for using a p2p system?
The text says p2p is a way of decentralizing not just features, but costs and administration as well. This would imply that the people who create a p2p system use it to minimize the control over the system, as well as the 'paperwork' like costs and administration. But are these all the drivers? Or are there other reasons to use p2p? I think it interesting to discuss this, in order to predict the future of p2p systems.
Rutherford, E. (2000) The P2P Report
See: http://www.cio/research/knowlegde/edit/p2p_content.html
Also this text sums up some aspects of p2p systems and gives examples of them. It is more focused on explaining p2p in relation to companies. In other words, if you own a company, this text will help you to decide if it is worth it to use a p2p system. My question is related to this:
What kind of companies use (or want to use) p2p systems?
The text names three divisions in p2p land, namely 'collaborative computing', 'instant messaging' and 'affinity communities'. It advises companies which form would best fit their enterprise. I wonder what kind of companies this are and, especially, how this is related to advertisement. I don't know if advertising companies already use p2p systems (the text implies that this isn't happening (yet/frequently)), but I think this could have large consequences in terms of the amount of people that is reached.
Wellman, B. & Boase, J. (2001) A Plague of Viruses: Biological, Computer and Marketing (Current Sociology, draft)
In this text biological, computer and marketing viruses are compared from the perspective of two networks, namely 'densely knit groups' and 'ramified networks'. I wonder:
What is the relevance of comparing biological viruses with computer/marketing viruses?
The text explains the similarities between the types of viruses well, in terms of how they are related to the networks. Furthermore, the authors state that the control of biological and computer viruses may be converging, since IBM and Symantec are jointly mounting an effort 'to create a full biology-inspired immune system for computer protection, so systems can deal with invaders as automatically as your body deals with microorganisms." (page 10). Although I don't know much about either types of viruses, I still think this comparison is a bit too simple. I think biological and computer viruses differ too much to compare them, with the goal to successfully control them. One aspect of difference in control is that biological viruses deal with human beings (so not just bodies, but also the human mind) and computer viruses deal with, obviously, computers. The complexity in controlling biological viruses thus involves not only controlling microorganisms, but also involves 'changes' in the human mind. The controlling of computers is simpler in my opinion. Here, the problem lies in controlling computer networks, which involve again human actors and thus human mind. In other words, the comparison of the types of viruses is more complex than explained in this text.