1. I liked the way that Warschauer tied together the physical and social aspects which lend themselves to inequality (trying not to say divide). As much as I like this approach, I feel as though I'm left with too many answers. When there are so many barriers (economics, language, education, the list goes on), how can we begin to attack the problem? …especially when it seems to become so watered down and tied together with other factors that you can’t even really say "the problem" anymore.
2. Recasting the idea of the divide in terms of community building instead of terms of putting machines into people's hands seems to have great benefit (not the least of which is its deemphasis of the consumer impulses inherent in the divide), but I wonder if it is not too complicated idea for most to grasp. It is so easy to say that we need to give everyone a computer, yet so fuzzy of an ideal to propose to use technology to increase social interaction and enable community involvement. I guess I'm saying that I like the idea, but I’m not sure how practical it is.
3. If we no longer think of divides in a binary way, is the power of those on the less advantage side minimized?

-john