Ah yes, Network Laws. Though they are all in the same general family, they are quite different with how they interpret connections through the internet.
>Sarnoff's Law states that the value of a network increases in a linear fashion as the number of people on it increases.
>Metcalfe's Law, using the formula n(n-1)/2 (where n equals the number of members), states that a network increases by roughly n^2.
>Reed's Law, states that the value of a network increases exponentially, or by 2^n.
When trying to figure out which one I agreed with the most, I looked for which one seemed to encapsulate the essence of the internet the best through its interpretation of network communication. I was not on board with Sarnoff right off the bat; Sarnoff's Law does not consider connections amongst multiple people, instead relying on one central person to communicate an idea. This does not allow for multiple contributions and interactions amongst everyone else, going against the ideals that communications in general have. That leaves two: Reed's Law and Metcalfe's Law. Reed's Law, which deals with exponential communication amongst people (even people you do not know), compared to Metcalfe's Law, which deals with one person connecting directly with other people who then connect with others. Reed's Law, to me, goes past the purpose of communicating through the internet, expanding to other pools of people that they might not actually try to communicate with, like with how social media connects the user to others they may or may not know. Metcalfe's Law, on the other hand, connects everyone on the network together in a way that they can interact in a more personal manner, and that's why I prefer Metcalfe's Law the most.
When it comes to information sharing five years from now, I do not know what to expect. Technology is getting better and more proficient at an extremely fast rate to where even five years is a long time for technological innovation. One of the things I heard recently about information sharing and receiving is this idea about technological tattoos that can send out NFC waves to receive information from someone through a handshake, open doors by just being near them, and monitoring heart rate. In five years this idea could easily be improved enough to where we do not even need cell phones anymore because they are right under our skin. I am not sure about the popularity of the idea due to having to get the device implemented under your skin, but who knows, maybe in five years it will simply be a patch we wear on us somewhere.
I like how you made a point of emphasis to discuss how Metcalfe's Law allows people the opportunity to connect in a more personal manner. Rather than connecting with random people that you may or may not know with Reed's Law, Metcalfe's Law allows you the opportunity to really interact with people in a more traditional setting.
ReplyDeleteI was actually curious about your thoughts on technological tattoos/patches in the next five years. Do you think this is a realistic possibility and do you think it would take longer than five years to make something like this happen?
Sorry it took me 20 days to respond to your question! While I believe it's possible for the technology to be well-developed within the next 5 years, I think it's getting the public on board with the idea that will take some time. Getting an electronic tattoo in your skin is kind of a big deal, and unless it becomes a huge and popular deal I don't see it happening any time soon.
DeleteWow! I always thought that was just people being silly whenever they talked about having technology under their skin. I wasn't aware that it was an actual thing! That is wild. And of course, I fear for those times! However, I am sure people 20 years ago did not realize how fast technology would move and pick up to be where it is today. Maybe if that happens, we will be so used to it that it will not even be considered strange!
ReplyDelete