Slashdot Mirror
Pew Internet Project Study on Internet Non-Users
cheezitmike writes "The Pew Internet and American Life Project released a new study on the digital divide and the declining growth of the Internet: "Pew Internet Project tracking data show a flattening of the overall growth of the Internet population since late 2001. Internet penetration rates have hovered between 57% and 61% since October 2001, rather than pursuing the steady climb that they had showed in prior years." You can also just read their short summary of findings or stories about the study in The Washington Post and The New York Times (free reg.)."
...there is a finite amount of pr0n out there, after all.
CAn'T CompreHend SARcaSm?
You mean there are people who don't strive to be geeks?
This is indeed confusing.
Why slashdot? Why not?
That's still a pretty good climb... the Internet is maturing. Non-users will be assimilated.
Laws are for people with no friends.
that show the guy reaching the end of the internet are true after all?!?!
I live to gib...
"Well-to-do families are more likely to have access than less well-off families." Who would have guessed....
So thats 42% of Americans who will not be /. readers.
SCO to Hell
CAn'T CompreHend SARcaSm?
I could have told them this. The bubble burst. Because of that, marketing budgets have plummeted. Hence, less companies are running less ads about stuff online. Therefore, people who aren't already online aren't seeing as many commercials for online services, and don't feel 'left out' of the fad. And most people who aren't already online, probably won't have their lives enriched all that much by going online (blasphemous words around here, I know).
I'm out of my mind right now, but feel free to leave a message.....
I find it interesting that this rate directly coincides with the American Economy decicing to take a nice little plunge in the toilet from around the same time.
Most people view the internet, or even a computer, as a luxury item, and therefore, the monthly access fee will be one of the first things cut when times get tight.
As for lack of new growth, for most people, a PC is still a multi hundred dollar investment, and if you are not sure you are not going to have a job next week, most people will not make the investment.
You say you want a revolution....
I thought it was interesting that some of the people who stated their reasons for not going online said that it was because their systems were being monopolized by someone else in their household. Kinda reminds me of when I was a teenager and when I was hogging up the machine.
...And then there's that guy who said his wife would talk to other guys.
Kinda reminds me of some other things too...
I remember in the early days how there were all kinds of news shows about all the shady characters on the internet, and how they were trying to scare the masses. There were even a few "end of the world" type programs that connected the Internet to general decadence. God, according to Christian media, didn't approve of internet pr0n.
That's a good one.
bun-fhuinneog agam!
At the rate of growth that existed in the late '90s, I expected 2,718,281% of the population of the United States to be Internet users by now. What happened?
"And this is my boy, Sherman. Speak, Sherman." "Hello." "Good boy."
Although fixed wireless solutions are stepping in to add competition to the telco/cableco monopolies, computer usefulness and internet usefulness are being stymied by the lack of cheap, permanenet, and reasonably fast internet connectivity. Not everyone is willing to pay $50/mo for a good net connection. Dialup doesn't cut it.
:) Not 802.11x FYI. I'd tip my hand, but I don't want more competition...yet. ;)
That's why I've worked my tail off the last year to deploy a good wireless solution.
Karma: Chameleon (mostly due to the fact that you come and go).
I thought the number of people on the internet doubled every 2 years. In 2020 ther will be the equivalent of 1,024 China's on the internet...
Not all of them, because I run into those on the net every day.
Three words: Peter Pan boy Normally I'm the last one that can make a decision on someone's right to life, as I've abused and gambled with mine on several occasions, but I've got a gut feelig about this one...
You think that I'm crazy, you should see this guy!
For no reg, move every sed!
y /c ircuits/17shun.html
sed -e "s/www/archive/"
http://archive.nytimes.com/2003/04/17/technolog
Bah weep granah, weep ninny bong!
Wait a minute, sometimes they say "have access to the internet" and other times they say "use the internet". With libraries offering free internet _access_, pretty much anyone who is willing to get off their butts and head over to a public library can have the access. Also, how about 18 and under? A poor kid from the ghetto may not have the latest PowerMac at home, but their school probably has access, and therefore the kid. I think they need to be a bit more clear here.
Plus there is the obvious breakdown by occupation. Since blacks represent a very small percentage of IT workers (IT in the broader sense) vs population, but IT workers obviously comprise a very high percentage of those with "internet access", the numbers are going to be skewed.
You can get a serviceable PC system for $300 and online for $10/month. Any family that doesn't have Internet access either has no interest in it, or is in such dire straits that they have far greater problems than being on the wrong side of the "digital divide".
"Unlike you, Dirty Lunis Hippie."
You don't seem like the type who knows any philosophy. Let me share this:
I stink, therefore I am.
Why slashdot? Why not?
Stop replying. I'm afraid you might get some of your ghey on me.
http://www.pixyland.org/peterpan/
:)
That guy?
I've had enough abrasive sigs. Kittens are cute and fuzzy.
Interesting how this seems to have topped out at very nearly the same penetration rates as cable television.
In cable, everyone thought that penetration was highly dependent on homes passed, that it would be a fixed percentage of how many homes could actually get wired. But although the homes passed numbers are quite high now, ultimately cable's speediest growth seems to have topped out at about 60 percent.
Same with Internet - some form of access is fairly ubiqitous now, but actual usage is topping out.
I wonder if this points to a class of telecommunications non-consumers - a certain group that simply doesn't consume or appreciate communications media enough to spend additional disposable income beyond what is freely available.
---
Believe me, I'm as surprised by my comment as you are.
Technofobes and old people are killing the internet!
Do what you can today! Donate your old pile of crap computer that you would have killed for 5 years before you got it to an old couple down the street.
Light up there lives!
Teach them to sell crap on ebay.
Why is it that so many of these studies only point to blacks, whites, and hispanics? Just where exactly do all the East Asians and South Asians fit?
Oh wait. We're all math robots and are always online.
Net Evaders: 20% of non-Internet users live with someone who uses the Internet from home. Some of these self-described non-users exploit workarounds that allow them to "use" the Internet by having email sent and received by online family members and by having others in their home do online searches for information they want.
Sounds like my old man... every so often, someone sends him an email, and I have to print out a copy and fax it to him from my office. I've tried to convince him to buy a computer but nothing short of psychiatric intervention will get him over his bizarre mental aversion to using one. Lazy old bastard.
There's a whole number of reasons why I decided to be a Net Evader, some of them mentioned in the articles:
This is hardley astounding. I hope it comes as no shock to anyone that not everyone can afford a computer and a monthly ISP charge. It should also come as no shock that this appears to have plataued at the same time as home computer sales. Amazingly, there was a limit to the number of households that could afford a computer and the fact that the computer makers and the ISPs did not anticipate it seems to be a great shock to everyone. The reason that the Internet penentration and computer sales have slowed is because there is a limit to the market. Big deal.
THIS SPACE FOR RENT
Well, once people figured out they can go to thier friends house to downlaod pr0n, there was no need to get thier own service.
-Valiss
In case you haven't heard the news, a recently released Netcraft study shows the Internet is DYING! The writing is already on the wall for this one folks...
Join Tor today!
That's ridiculous! Most people are not too stupid to use the internet, it doesn't take a whole lot of intelligence. Many non-user's (internet or computer, most probably both) are simply held back by fear of learning new things. Get them to overcome that fear and they would surf away!
The problem with people that think like you is this, you see movies like Minority Report that depict life in the future and you think, "I would never be uncomfortable learning those new things", but you don't realize that the great advances in technology that will be made in any one lifetime will still pale in comparison to the massive amount of change that happened as this modern technology was first developed.
You or I might be like them...
I'm afraid that once I get on, I will come up only to eat," she said. "I read these scare stories about people who once they get on can't get off."
And we're cutting funding for public education??
"I only speak the truth"
Karma: null(Mostly affected by an unassigned variable)
There have always been people who have said they don't have a TV. Well, those people are now saying that they don't have 'net access.
While I respect their freedom to make those choices, I never understood it. There is good TV and bad TV. There is good stuff on the 'net and bad stuff on the net. I think I would be very ignorant of the world beyond my horizons if I didn't have a TV or 'Net access.
Both a computer and a TV have off switches and one can use them as much or as little one wishes. They don't control you, forcing you to watch reality TV or the Hampster Dance 24/7.
The study shows:
Not the bubble burst per se. Apparently, lots of social factors come into play, which I think were not into the equation on the prediction years ago.
--
Error 500: Internal sig error
The rest are using AOL
Not noteable, IMO a rubbish article.
This is not about a weak economy.
This is about saturation, pure and simple.
The people out there with a predisposition for getting online have, for the most part, already done so. They've had the better part of a decade to do so.
In order to appeal to that last 40% or so, the internet will simply have to continue growing. Not in users, but in uses. Especially uses that are accesible by neophytes (and, more importantly, easily explainable to neophytes).
"I'm afraid you might get some of your ghey on me."
Perhaps it is people like you that are driving away the people not yet on the Internet?
Why slashdot? Why not?
Expect a visit from the DMCA police!
Any Non-Internet users on /.? How do you feel about the new Pew study? Post your responses below.
You are not the customer.
Reading through the survey results, I see nothing surprising about why people aren't on the internet. The population of people who have the computer skills and the financial resources to access the internet is saturating, and those who are left have the computer barrier to cross.
My mom would probably not be on the internet today if I hadn't set up her computer for her. Originally she had a MS Windows based PC, and knew just enough to open the browser and email applications. Anything else was way to difficult for her. She later switched to a new iMac which is a little easier for her to use, but it's still complex enough to baffle her. My sister, who is otherwise quite intelligent, has problems using a computer, and currently is not on the internet at all. Partly it is the financial barrier of buying a computer, and partly it is the lack of knowledge on how to set up a cheaper used computer.
Simpler 'appliances' like WebTV and Audrey attempt to make the barrier lower through lower prices and better ease of use, but they have not really been well accepted. I think the appliance concept could be the solution for more people accessing the internet, but I've been underwhelmed with the implementations and service costs so far.
If they had written the paper correctly, there would be no need to right it.
"If, therefore, any be unhappy, let him remember that he is unhappy by reason of himself alone."
~Epictetus
I found the above portion of the article to be a little disturbing. It implies that everyone should be using the internet, yet some people resist it because of unfounded reasoning.
How about the fact that it's OK if you don't want to use the internet? If over half of the people not on the net now don't want it, I don't see what the big deal is. It isn't for everyone, and maybe shouldn't be. TV isn't for everyone, cellphones aren't for everyone. So what?
My beliefs do not require that you agree with them.
It's interesting to note that these people were literate, but classified in the lowest ranking on the scale.
Get the facts:
Illiteracy rates. By 1979, it was down to .6%
US 4th Graders outscore most other countries.
Executive summary of the 1995 National Adult Literacy Survey (the most recent one; also linked to above).
Does this mean there's no room for improvement? Of course not. But does it mean we should publish false statistics, proclaim ourselves as failures, and give a poor impression of ourselves to the rest of the world? The US is not in as bad a shape as so many seem to believe, and things are improving, not worsening (see the illiteracy trends page above).
How do they troll slashdot?!!
That trick doesn't work any more. It started a couple of days ago. I think New York Times finally noticed this. :P
Ant(Dude) @ Quality Foraged Links (AQFL.net) & The Ant Farm (antfarm.ma.cx / antfarm.home.dhs.org).
"The Internet? Is that thing still around?" /Homer
Net avoiders are:
20% moochers who make friends and family use the net for them. Reminds me of my friend's jewish roommate who made us open the door for him on Yom Kippur.
17% idiots who gave up on complicated concepts like "back arrows" and "typing." Also people who balked at the expense of fixing computers and dealing with ISP bullshit (heh they should have gone webslum)
24% true luddites, or people who have better stuff to do, depending on how you look at it.
It also says that the majority of these folks (56%) don't plan on going online, that they don't have the social or technical skills to do so, and so I say good riddance. Doesn't look like our community is missing out on anything.
One thing that bothers me is their "special look" at disabled users. They never define "diabled," and I think they are defining a disabled person on the internet as somebody whose disability directly effects internet use (basically, the blind and those with difficulty using the mouse). Therefore, it's kind of self fulfilling...if it's hard and expensive to do something, you're not going to do it. I think if you look at the numbers of people with learning diabilities, physical impairments and debilitating illnesses who go online, you might discover the exact opposite -- that the buffering effect of online chat makes it easier to communicate, that the ability to move at one's own pace makes it easier to concentrate and comprehend. Shit, my first CS teacher was wheelchair bound with Lou Gherig's disease. Computers turned a crippling illness into a chance for him to make good money and a real impact on kids.
Hey freaks: now you're ju
The statistics just don't support your conclusion. Most people who aren't online either have no interest in it at all or just can't afford it. Nowhere in the statistics does it say that people don't go online because they can't get a fast, permanent connection. Actually, what you are saying doesn't even make much sense. How can someone who has never been online know that the connection is too slow? The people who don't have computers in there home probably only experience high speed connections anyway (school, work, etc.)
I think you are projecting your own problems with the internet on the rest of the world which is never a good thing for a slashdotter to do.
It should be noted that this study only polled American internet users. The internet presence of many other countries is small, but rising. Furthermore, there do not seem to be any empiricle measurements of the kind network traffic analisis could provide. The study also does not take into account non-personal uses of the internet. Things like spiders and robots, mirroring software, etc. This study should not be taken to mean that the internet usage in general is leveling off. Just direct usage of it by the general public in America.
...and 27% (of American non-interenet users) say they believe the Internet is too complicated and hard to understand. What with 23% of Americans functionally illiterate, this only to be expected. Although I would have expected expected the number to be somewhat higher, I guess there are quite a few things people of limited literacy skills could accomplish on the internet. Playing games and checking sports scores come to mind.
Even their conclusions may not be entirely accurate. Although we may be reaching a certain saturation point, as the article suggests, that saturation point is actually a moving target. Saturation levels are determined by many things, including access to the technology, the current state of the art, and basic literacy rates. Improvements in any of these could drive the theoretical saturation point higher, allowing for more growth in usage levels.
However, the study is a good one on it's merits and has many interesting things to say within it's limitations. For instance, the summary states:
(Score: -1, Stupid)
What is it about the Internet that is so different from other activities? Does the brain have some sort of internet receptors that would make it especially dangerous?
I totally agree that with your desire to have a balanced life, but why do you feel the internet is more tempting than the other activities you describe? Why don't you feel cooking a big lunch on Saturdays or hiking or reading in front of fireplace is 'too tempting' but the internet is?
Yep, that's the one. In the poker game of life, I might be holding a pair of 2's, but I still got him beat.
You think that I'm crazy, you should see this guy!
However, this is what struck me most: " The National Adult Literacy Survey by the U.S. Department of Education estimates that up to 23% of the U.S. population struggles enough with literacy that they have difficulty completing everyday tasks ". Yes, that is not about the internet (and might be offtopic), it's about *literacy*. That's nearly one quarter of the population! That means if I meet 20 people, 5 of them will not be able to read or write correctly.
I find that absolutely scary for a civilised nation.
Ahhh...the great dumpster continuum. Many a free computer will be found there. -- sowth (748135)
Anyone have data on the growth of TV over the years? Did it boom, then flatten out, or what?
I'd be curious to see how the TV versus Internet acceptance rates look.
It makes sense that things flatten out. Prices for Internet access are about the same as they were 5+ years ago. The people who can afford it will be more likely to get it. Just like TV's were expensive for a long time, but have now gotten cheap enough that almost everyone has one in their home (even the poor). If Internet and computer hardware rates were much less then I think we'd see more market penetration.
The ratio of people to cake is too big
While there are many people that fall into the category you mentioned, not all do. For example, I have a hi-speed internet connection. I love the net. However, a couple of years ago, our TV broke. I tried to convince my significant other that we didn't need a replacement. We got one, but if it had been up to me we wouldn't have. Sure we could easily afford a new TV, I just didn't see the point. From the cost-benefit analysis - I have to drive to the store vs. the pleasure I receive - it didn't make any sense to me. I'd rather have spent the time doing something else. From reading Slashdot posting over the years, I'm not alone.
There are many free C compilers. GNU makes C compilers for pretty much any OS. If you're talking microcontrollers, SDCC does a nice job with the 8051. There's a port in progress for the PIC series as well.
- "That's just the kind of fuzzy-headed liberal thinking that leads to being eaten."
screwed the stats. So any internet useage stats of the 'boom' period is suspect, since the boom actually didn't happen and was a slow and steady growth, not an explosion as claimed by the Worldcom and other con artists.
When the singularity comes these non-adopters will be swept away like so much chaff, the "poor unwashed masses" upon whose backs we shall stride...
am i the only one here who went to both an elementary AND a highschool where they would not allow students on the computer unless you were with a class and a teacher at the time? my highschool bought a multi-million dollar lab, and then just let it collect dust
:/]
speaking of labs that collect dust, the University of Regina media lab [a collection of very, very nice mac's]is 80-90% unused at least...they just sort of sit behind a glass wall and collect dust.
and of course, that and isp's i've found charge way too much for the service they give...28.8 does not cost 60$/month to host[specially when i troubleshoot all software/my end user end stuff myself
...and of course this insane [mostly microsoft driven, partially isp driven] idealogy that if you don't have THE newest hardware you won't be able to connect to the internet...this is insane. I connect to highspeed cable using a pentium I 133mhz running windows 3.1 and linux appears much much easier to work with. you don't need a 5 GHz AMD with 8GB RAM to check your email...mabye if you turned off some hotmail advertisements and found a descent text email, you could reasonably connect with 300 BAUD or so...[and email i would suggest is the main use from what i've seen of the net...]...as for other uses? what of a text based icq? irc? www[*cough"Elinx"*] EVERYONE should be on the internet and have access by now, but due to people just junking hardware, being afraid of being out of date[when in reality ALL OF YOU are out of date...unless you have military/industrial grade equipment]...and just letting existing technology sit...arg it makes me sick!
GENERATION 26: The first time you see this, copy it into your sig on any forum and add 1 to the generation.
who cares? There's more to life than the Internet and computers. There will always be people who don't bother. Just like there are people who don't bother to watch TV...
--Drunk as in Beer
... because there is a sizeable chunk of older folks who will never, ever use the interent. My 62 yr. old mom is among them: she gets news from TV, communicates by phone and gets music from her Bose Acoustic Wave. Mention the internet and she (unintentionally) quotes Homer Simpson: "Is that thing still around?"
She is the quintessential non-internet person.
sig has been sent away for a few small repairs...
monthly isp charges are sick. if they started offering a free 300 BAUD service, they would have a lot of subscribers
in the meanwhile, computers, are cheap. you should be albe to pick a free one up...large corporations throw away anything less than around 200Mhz -and this is good enough to connect to the internet with. take it from me : looks like the grand total is coming to 11 computers 4 printers 3 monitors at 195$, although my isp charges have been $375 [but i'm getting looped here...]. cheap used and free computers, are out there.
GENERATION 26: The first time you see this, copy it into your sig on any forum and add 1 to the generation.
There is a Digital divide but it is not related to those people who do not want to be on the net, but to those who cannot afford to be online.
The worrisome digital divide is the one that affects young people and children from poor areas. Those are very likely to be in a disadvantageous position when looking for jobs in the future.
On the other hand, there are people who make a choice to stay off line, well, it's their choice...
While I have not read the entire article, I am reading the "Summary of Findings" and it has brought to my attention some "confusing" numbers.
Note the 42% figure which represents the percentage of Americans who say they do not use the internet.
Note the 20% figure. Their claim of internet non-use is dubious at best as they clearly have an indirect experience with obtaining internet data.
This 17% figure for the number of people who have quit using the internet, when coupled with the previous 20% figure for "Net Evaders" yields 37%.
Apparently 24% of Americans are truly offline. If there are 24% of Americans "...who have no direct or indirect experience with the internet", that only leaves 18% (42% - 24% = 18%) to be distributed between the Net Evaders and Net Dropouts. However, we clearly know from the article, that the combined total of Net Evaders and Net Dropouts is 37%. The three percentages that the article references (as a part of the 42% whole) do not add up to 42%. Instead they add up to 61%. Am I mis-reading the article? Does the 24% not belong to the 42%? If it doesn't then the total percentage of Americans who either; say they don't use the internet, or are genuinely disconnected is actually 66%. That leaves 34% of Americans to be connected and acknowledge their connection.
To know is to have knowledge....to understand is to be enlightened.
"First of all, segregating the population in any way by age is discriminatory, and therefore ignorant"
Don't be a dumbass. Its TRUE that internet usage varies by age. Here's another shocker.... old people die more frequently than young people. Whoo hooo....I'm so ignorant. Oh yea....older people are much more likely to be grandparents. Yaaaaooo! I'm a rebel. Old people aren't as comfortable with computers and don't use them as much. SHOCKER!!!!!
And just saying "my 75 year old grandmother" doesn't mean anything. Have you heard of statistics? Do you get things like mean, mode, standard deviation? Do you *get* that your grandmother may be an anomoly? That doesn't *change* anything.
Honestly, I hope you didn't pay too much for that education because it has completely failed you.
Many libraries make a brower the default app on the screen (even after powerup). So all you basically need to know is how to browse.
I refuse to use the internet! You can't make me!
Wonder what the 12% that answered "Other", to what non-users would use the internet for, were thinking of?
There are no non-Internet users.
I took an online poll and everybody indicated that they have varying levels of use of the Internet.
Thus the Pew study must be wrong.
Not only that, but everybody indicated that they did not eat carrots during 1812. It is well known that everyone who ate carrots in that year is now dead. My study is obviously accurate in this result, thus the other result is also valid.
and very much a part of the Internet.
I think there are two issues here - the ability to read and along with it people's attitudes about reading. Most Americans don't subscribe to a daily newspaper. Many don't even buy a non-fiction book once a year. If getting information from books and periodicals isn't your cup of tea, it's hard to imagine that the internet would be any more appealing.
Of course, there are always online casinos...
It's not fundamental that the Internet has to require reading. The Web does, but that's an application layer. There are other application layers. Multiplayer games with voice chat could be constructed with no text whatsoever. These would have to be based on a game console like device with a network connection. Like the XBox.
She don't need no stinking eBay to sell her antiques!
"Don't worry, it's not loaded." --Terry Kath
estimates seem too low. I'd say at least 90% of all internet traffic is related to penetration be it anal, oral or vaginal.
C sucks for any task where you have less than a few K of data memory.
Am I the only one that feels the decline in growth is a direct result of the commericalization of the net?
-=[ Who Is John Galt? ]=-
I think the biggest reason my mom hasn't gone online is that she never learned to type. She grew up at a time when some women intentionally didn't learn to type because they thought they would be stuck in secretarial jobs. She is a college graduate and could certainly take a typing class if she wanted to, but she is also kind of a Luddite. I wonder if the definition of illiteracy has expanded to include not being able to type.
'Course, some people today have gotten too spoiled and impatient to be able to wait 3-30 seconds for a webpage, or an hour or two to download system updates. Yeah, it'd be nice to have a faster connection, but a fast connection is not neccessary for the 'net to be useful.
Tim
I've NEVER been online and your encouraging and well though out words have helped me to decide that the internet has nothing to offer. If only there were some way to get your opinions out to the masses by means of some cheap, wide reaching web (if you will) that could encircle the world...
You start reading and their data seem robust, but you get into it and you see charts with low samples and noted sampling errors and margins of error like 5%. Hello?
You are left with their opinions, weird biases, some obvious observations and some numbers to hang it on. Most of their conclusions are not driven by data, but prejudice.
Bah. Why do so many journalists repeat numbers like this as if they were facts? Bah some more. Fie on it.
Some people have been there and done that, and got the shits of it all. When my T contract expires, I'm going to chuck all the computers, go make candles and do the craft-fair circuit. Screw technology. When the big economic collapse comes, it'll all be useless anyway.
that lack of internet connectivity (or other "tech" invention) is simply because the people are either ignorant, afraid, or can't afford it. I see another option, willingly opting out of the rat race perhaps. I don't know about you but the majority of the time i spend on the internet is spent nonproductively and ultimately its a fruitless and non rewarding thing. Of course there are times i am glad to have it (such as when i want to look something up, frequently) but to some people this might be outweighed by the fact that it is a timesink. Just like i refuse (ironically enough) to sit down and plug into the television. To me, its a waste of time, maybe a movie here or there, but i won't be caught dead vegging out to cable/satellite television.
60% market penetration is still very very good. I would suspect poverty/ignoraance plays a *much* greater role in the world market then in america (though it certainly exists here)..
I actually do this with old P133s and up loaded with Win98. It works, and after they play with it a bit they buy newer machines. :)
Ah, confused philosopher!
I believe you meant to say:
"I'm pink, therefore I'm spam".
Most people have free access to the internet through their local public library. The exceptions are some people in very rural areas, but they make up quite a small percentage of the total US population (certainly far less than the 40% non-internet users quoted here). It seems a lot of people simply aren't interested in using the internet, despite free access.
And even if it weren't for that, count the number of people who "can't afford" a computer, but someone "can afford" to pay over $400/yr for cable television.
10 PRINT CHR$(205.5+RND(1)); : GOTO 10
1. There's free access available in many many areas at public libraries and schools, and much of it is not taken advantage of.
2. The same people who "can't afford" a computer can somehow afford all sorts of other equally or more expensive things. Cable TV ($40/mo * 12 mo = $480/yr) is one that comes to mind. Expensive car modifications (stereo systems, etc.) are another.
10 PRINT CHR$(205.5+RND(1)); : GOTO 10
I bought a house in a questionable neighbourhood in Houston, Texas and have since been privileged to see another slice of American society that doesn't get much attention.
:) ).. for them it's just a matter of education. On the other hand, the second and third generational people living in the de-evolved urban landscape are definitely below average. Someone writing about the dramatically lower IQ tests in these areas called these folks the 'societal residue' left behind when everyone else has moved out and paid up to live in nicer neighbourhoods to get away from them. As a leftist it's hard for me to come to this conclusion, but observation dictates to me that it is pretty accurate.
Sadly, I'm afraid that a frighteningly large bit of the US population simply does not have the mental equipment to make good use of the internet. For starters, mostof the people I speak to in my neighbourhooddo not even know what the internet is. I repeat, they don't even understand what it does. Most of them get their idea of it from movies, with predictable results. When I tell them I work with computers, they ask me if I will (not if I can) fake their criminal records and stuff.
One woman threw a holy fit when I was talking with her one day (listening really, since she basically talks to herself all of the time) about how the government routinely spends big bucks 'sending mice into cyberspace' instead of public housing and basic services. While I can partially see her point, this and her further harangue represents an amazing entanglement of ideas. She genuinely thought people used live mice when working on computers and that all computers are somehow tied into NASA.
Even if these people could get online, they wouldn't be able to do much because they can't comprehend the written word as has been mentioned here by others. Many of those in my neck of the woods primarily speak a texan form of spanish and are unable to read and write standard spanish. I've spoken with a few older people who were born in texas but grew up speaking tejano spanish who have told me they don't watch Telemundo or other national spanish stations because they can't understand the spanish. This represents another bubble of society separate from the literate, internet surfing world.
Among the immigrant community I have to say that the intelligence level is comparable to any IT department I've worked in. (and no that's not a backhanded compliment
So the 'societal residue' don't get on the internet because it's beyond their sad, run down world... and all the folks who could show them a little peephole into a better world have segregated themselves into safer, insulated places where they don't get robbed all the time. I can't say I blame them.
The truly unfortunate subpart of the story is that these 'peeps' have tons of kids. Try this exercise- really get to know one of the top 10 metro regions in the united states. Now take a map of the city and a crayon and start shading in all the areas that are dangerous, filled with substandard housing, and mainly ignorant people. The apparition that appears is frightening. In Houston if you account for population density you come up with somewhere between a quarter and half of the city falling into this category. Granted, this is part of why Houston sucks so badly, but I'd wager many, many other cities aren't far behind.
The digital divide is just a sign of the far deeper stratification of our society.
am i being incoherant or unreasonable in some way?
... is NOTHING...and yet look what happened as the price came down abit.
:) ]. and of course...anyone who thinks they can go to university, here at least, without a connection to the internet is fooling themselves.
everyone should be connected by now. i don't mean everyone should be connected with the latest-Raedon-wearing-pentiumV... i mean... everyoen should have access. public library terminals, and the like are great [except that i'm not allowd in the public library local - they wouldn't give me a card at the time because i had no house/livingspace. go figure. ]
375$ in a Lifetime so far.[ or around 100$ a year... ] mostly due to dialup.
there are *not* cheap ISP's local. at least that i've found. while i do agree with Supply&Demand and the Drive-For-Profit-above-all-else that is the current markets... there is a lot you could do with free internet. i mean, think of how much getting connected to the net costed in the past, long distance charges, on top of whatever the ISP charged... 60$ a month [standard ?DSL] or what i'm paying now [25$ a month/Cable"Lite"]
people acctually connected.
interesting point about the 'and you don't have time'. i'm not really sure what to say about that
...i suppose i just like being able to email peers elsewhere in the world [at roughly the cost of postage mail]...and being able to google for uknown things wheras before i got to be just ignorant. and one day
one day
i won't be on win3.1 any more...[nevermind the entire reason i'm past DOSSHELL5.0 at all is because of someone i know online
GENERATION 26: The first time you see this, copy it into your sig on any forum and add 1 to the generation.
oh no
i, for one, don't think that there's a very clear relationship between these different flavors of 'media_x avoiders.' Not that i'm at all average, but to point out the fact that i do NOT have a telivision (and therefore obviously neither cable nor dish), i do NOT read the newspaper, i currently do NOT have a phone (i will never own a land-line, and am in between mobile carriers at the moment), and i am VERY picky about which magazines i will read (mostly just 'scientific american,' 'the economist,' and 'CAR' (the British one) and very few others), i do NOT own a PDA, etc, etc. But i DO have and use internet access avidly.
i think that there is often a propensity here on slashdot to assume that using a certain service or good necessitates that said service or good is used in a manner consistent with how a slashdot user would use it. This, however disheartening, is simply a falicial idea. It is reasonable to assume that many people will abstain from using the 'net for the same reasons justifying shying away from other similar goods/services, but much of the time this simply isn't the case; especially in terms of the internet. As Beebos pointed out there are both positive and negative facets of using the internet, telivision et al, and when comparing such multifaceted services it's not a question of what kind of service to which one subscribes, but rather what one ultimately uses his/her services for. This is very similar to this servey lumping people who use the internet solely for the purposes of e mail into a broad group of 'internet users.' Sure, they use the internet, but to such a limited degree that they should, by reasonable accounts, be considered non-users (analogous to having a mobile phone just to have the time of the day beamed to your pocket, or getting a newspaper just to remember what day it is, or just to get the coupons)... but i digress
But to return to my original point, to say that people who use the internet are stereotypically people who necessarily watch TV (for example), is misinterpreting and/or confusing correlation with causation, for which the logical conclusion would be: if we give people free internet, then they'll watch more TV (in a purist sense anyway, i realize that one can get "free" cable from many cable ISPs), which is probably an incorrect thing to assume. And on a personal note whether i use the internet 6o or 1o hours in a week, it makes absolutely no difference to the fact that i watch zero telivision hours...
If one were to view the market penetrations more objectively one might simply say that: "the market penetration of most devices that may provide some useful utility to the majority of people will stabolize at around 1 standard deviation above an 'average' uptake of the population." By statistical logic most technologies probably will not be overly useful in the lives of more than 1 or 2 standard deviations above the mean, especially in the first decade or so of the product/service's lifetime. So it shouldn't be hugely suprising that many ubiqutious technologies will achieve a similar market presence, while the reasons for uptake and the populations utilizing each technology may not necessarily be the same.
anyway, just my worthless $2*10^(-2)...
-tid242
With a few exceptions, secrecy is deeply incompatible with democracy and with science. --Carl Sagan