Slashdot Mirror
Is the Internet Your Source of Knowledge?
serutan asks: "How much do you rely on the Internet for information? Since getting online 7 or 8 years ago, I have gradually abandoned almost all other sources of news and information, to the point where they've pretty much disappeared from my life. I'm a geek, but at age 49 not exactly a child of the Information Age. I've been surrounded by dictionaries, encyclopedias and similar books for most of my life. I still read fiction in book form, but if I'm trying to look up something and can't find it online in a couple minutes I generally just blow it off, as if there's no other place to look. This realization seems sort of stunning. I'm very curious if other Slashdot readers have become dependent on the Internet to that level, and what their thoughts are on the subject."
how many of us could replace the word "Internet" in this posting with "Google"?
I can certainly agree with the parent poster's opinion. Dead trees for in-depth knowledge.
However, I like to take it a step further. I use the Internet to choose which books to read!
An example, recently I decided to participate in the 'Employee Stock Purchasing' program where I work. After a few years of business courses, I still feel like a n00b when it comes to trading stocks, so I decided to buy some books on the basics of stock trading.
Rather than go straight to Barnes and Noble, I went to Amazon.com and read up on the customer reviews of different choices. I knew Amazon reviews can easily be skewed, but rather than just look at the overall rating, I actually read the reviews to see what people are saying. By taking the step to read the reviews, usually you can pick out the bull shiite canned reviews.
I ended up with a couple of books I decided to buy. I then headed to the book store with a list so that I could get one last look/see before plunking down my cash.
When I got home last night, I was very happy with my purchases. I usually perform the same process when picking books on just about any topic, especially development (my trade).
Online, I can get the news quicker than waiting for the news or the morning paper -- and better yet, I can compare it from several different sources (thanks, Google News). I can find discussions which sometimes point me to additional sources. I can search for terms that I'm not familiar with. Plus, I'm on the computer eight hours every weekday, and the latest news is just a few keystrokes away.
On the other hand, the Internet is not so good at covering local news; I get that in my morning paper, which is actually easier to read than that same paper's website. (I live in Peoria, Illinois -- a city, but not a metropolis -- so the online news is only updated when the morning edition comes out.) It's also a little lacking when you're looking for non-contemporary topics -- the kind of thing that a good paper encyclopedia or the shelf at your local library gives you more thoroughly, because that kind of research costs money and most of the Internet is still free. More importantly, information online is often generalized and condensed, so if you're looking for in-depth facts on a particular topic, you usually need a book on just that one topic.
In short, information on the Internet is quick and broad, but rarely very deep or complete. A good trade-off in many cases, but certainly not all of them.
Back in the day, at least.
The rumors of a thousand ill-informed people do not add up to the knowledge of a single well-informed person. So be careful to verify what you read before accepting it as Truth.
And never, never trust MapQuest.
Jon Acheson
All opinions expressed herein are my own, and not those of my employers, who are appalled.
Well... isn't that really what the internet was made for? To be a network of information? Then when it was put into the public... it was made to be a place where anyone could post anything about anything. The fact that it is now such a huge source of information (and bullsh*t) is a sign of its success. I mean.. who cares who makes money on the 'net. Although I wouldn't mind if I did. ;-) But it is the fact that you can get all the legitimate information you want AND get all the crap you could ever want that makes the 'net such a good place.
Yay.
Are you talking about the Web?
The Web cannot be beat for current events. It's also a great source for directory information: phone numbers, locations, maps, and the like. But it falls flat on its face for in-depth information, unless you're looking for computer and related geekery in all 31 flavors.
Are you talking about USENET?
Great place to find an expert. On anything. This expert may even take the time to talk to you. Since the advent of Google archiving, it's become easier to search newsgroups for back posts--and there is a *lot* of good data passing through USENET.
Are you talking about P2P?
Right now, it's all pr0n and thr33z. I'm not sure this is what you're talking about when you say "information."
Are you talking about subscription-based database and index services, like LEXIS-NEXIS, CompendexWeb, PUBMED, and WorldCat?
These are where the professional and research quality information is on the Internet. They are useful, but expensive, and chances are you don't have access unless you are at a university or a company that pays for a subscription.
Are you talking about intranets?
These can be a source of good information in large companies and organizations. NASA has an excellent one, some of which they mirror to the Web where it's available to all, but the really spiffy stuff is only available to employees.
So to answer your question, I use the Web to follow the news, USENET for hobby interests, P2P for pretty much nothing, databases and intranets for some professional work.
But nothing beats dead trees for in-depth information--if you can find where it's been published. I went to my thesis advisor to tell him I couldn't find a paper that had been published only in conference proceedings from the 80's (it's notoriously hard to get your hands on conference proceedings), only to have him root through a file cabinet and hand them to me. This was in 2002. Professors are scary.
-Carolyn
Like Daddy always said: if you can't dazzle 'em with brilliance, baffle 'em with bullshit.
The evening "News" is so corporate owned and supported that I don't really consider it a reliable source for information.
Agreed. Here is an interesting experiment to try. Find a major news story, preferably on Iraq or Afganistan. (It can be something else, but Iraq and Afganistan will yield more results.)
Check the story first on CNN
Then check the subtle changes in perception on the same story from these sites:
BBC NEWS
Globe and Mail
Then note the radically different opinions on:
Aljazeera
Antiwar
Note, I am not asking you to agree with any of the above opinions, or websites. Just begin to notice the different perceptions you can gain insight to on news stories on the net. This kind of insight cannot be gathered by watching local news, like NBC, CBS, or even the "most trusted" views of CNN.
Try to hack my 31337 firewall!
With around 425 replies so far (including trolls and flaimbait) I don't expect anyone to reade this, but I'm bored, so I'm going to write it anyway:
:)
I've become *almost* entierly dependent on the internet for news and information. Everyday, there are about a dozen sites that I load up (including slashdot, google news, and my local news paper's site) to get my news. When I want to look up information, I always spend time wading through the internet, looking for it there.
I do, however, use real books for programming (O'Reilly mostly) and physics (my text books from college). I also tune into BBC World News every evening to get my overview of world news (and it doesn't hurt that anchor girl Mishal Husain is rather attractive).
Okay. I'm gonna go do something else now.
I agree that healthcare is astronomically expensive, but these days, it's not doctors making it that way.
A BIG part of the problem is actually the legal system. The doctor charges a lot because he has to pay more than many people make a year in malpractice insurance.
Then there's the way that every single thing costs 5 to 10 times as much as it should because it is a 'medical supply' and so possibly the target of litigation. The doctor has to use those (and pass the high cost on) since otherwise, some lawyer will pounce on that, even if it couldn't possibly be related to a bad patient outcome.
Then, of course, there's the medications themselves, and the hospital (which, in turn costs so much because it also has to carry a heavy insurance policy) and because it has to treat patients who can't pay. The latter should be handled by a national healthcare system, but instead the polititians choose to hide the cost through unfunded mandates.
Finally, there's the need to run every test in the book just to make sure there's no way for a lawyer to claim negligence.
In turn, the insurance is outrageously expensive because of the considerable risks and the staggering payouts.
The net result is that some people get really over the top medical care, and the rest get none at all. There is no middle ground, and there can't be as long as the current legal climate prevails.
One thing that might help would be if the doctor didn't have to hire a small army of administrators just to handle the insurance claim forms.
Eliminating the doctor won't help. Much of the doctor's fee savings will be absorbed elsewhere in the system to pay for the extra insurance coverage needed now that the doctor's policy isn't there to pay out.
"Now if only technology could some how re-direct pharmaceutical r&d into actually curing diseases (when was the last time that happened, like 50 years ago?)"
That's a load of crap, troll. Think for just a second and you'll realize this statement is horribly wrong, and so are all the comedians and political pundits that like to spout if off. The reason few diseases are "cured" is because the vast majority of diseases without a cure already are viruses. A massive number of diseases were cured when antibiotics were developed, but that doesnt help against viruses. Killing a virus is an order of magnitude harder. Furthermore prescription drugs can only be patented for a relatively short time (why we have generic drugs). The first company to come up with a way to reliably cure viruses stands to make millions more then they could ever hope in treatment drugs. Treatments which cost millions to develop are often replaced by new more effective treatments in short order. If they released a safe, effective cure, the market for it would be huge, and more benefitial then blowing billions to be one of a hundred potential treatments. As for vaccines, imagine how much money would be made from holding the patent for the HIV vaccine? It'd be like a license to print money. The real reason drugs cost so much is the massive R+D costs, plus the massive FDA certification costs, plus the often large production costs (Many new drugs are extremely volatile and difficult to produce in mass), plus the need to recoup all those costs in the short period in which they are the preferred treatment. Drug companies aren't saints by any means, but it is just good business sense for them to develop and release the best medicines within reach of our technology.