Slashdot Mirror


Hannu H. Kari Gives The Internet 2 More Years

erick99 writes "Dr. Hannu Kari says the Internet will will collapse in 2006 as reported in an article on ARS Technica. Yes, this is the same Dr. Kari who has predicted doom before, but it is still an entertaining read and there is more than a grain of truth in his reasoning." Reader Titney writes adds a couple of excerpts from an article on NewsRoom Finland: "The entire system will crumble to bits as the sheer bulk of rubbish circling around in the net exceeds the public pain threshold. ... When the internet is no longer operational for business purposes, one has to time warp back 10 to 20 years and make do without information networks"

34 of 465 comments (clear)

  1. If Hannu H. Kari dosn't work for... by stecoop · · Score: 5, Funny

    Until Netcraft confirms it I wont believe it. I'll back check in two years at http://www.netcraft.com to verify his findings.

    -- a 2006 web odyssey

    1. Re:If Hannu H. Kari dosn't work for... by nocomment · · Score: 4, Funny

      no kidding! hehe

      the public pain threshhold? WTF is this guy talking about? The internet allows you to sift through the crud pretty quickly to get to what you need. Maybe he meant Orkut will collapse in 2 years?

      --
      /* oops I accidentally made a comment, sorry */
      /* http://allyourbasearebelongto.us */
    2. Re:If Hannu H. Kari dosn't work for... by Cat_Byte · · Score: 4, Funny

      Time to start backing up the internet.

      --
      Two roads diverged in a wood, and I - I took the one the bus load of girls just went down.
    3. Re:If Hannu H. Kari dosn't work for... by guyjr · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Certainly the "public pain threshold" was reached long ago on T.V., and longer ago before that on radio, and still, we've got our boob tubes, and ear jocks every morning, afternoon, and night.

      The public doesn't really care about advertising, in whatever form it comes. Certainly not enough, anyway, to give up their lazy lifestyles of channel surfing and station tuning.

    4. Re:If Hannu H. Kari dosn't work for... by TFGeditor · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Comments like this make me embarrassed to be a geek (albeit an old one).

      Not everyone has the luxury of "hiding" their email address. For many of us, our work *requires* making our email address public--even to the point of posting it on a website. In my case, it also appears in a magazine each month.

      So, get off your high horse and take a peek at the real world. You will see things that utterly amaze.

      --
      Ignorance is curable, stupid is forever.
    5. Re:If Hannu H. Kari dosn't work for... by _KiTA_ · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I donno. It's already a pain in the ass to find anything generic on Google, Yahoo, what have you. Instead you get a thousand and one fake "Search Engine" sites, that have googlebombed their way up the rankings. It works for very, VERY specific querys still, but even then, you'll get at least 1 page in the top 10 that's like www.findsearchmonkey-hotwomansex-freetvfreesatteli tefreecabletv-makemoneynow.com/.html

      Email is slowly going the way of Usenet -- there's discussion going on, but there's a lot more junk than discussion. Eventually Email will be that crazy thing those old time geeks use, while everyone else uses, well, something else.

      So if you can't communicate because of spam, and you can't find anything because of spam, then it becomes a pain in the ass to use the Internet, and that's what he means by Public Pain Threshold. When the general public decides that it's too big of a pain in the ass to do anything on the Internet, the Internet will start to shrink.

    6. Re:If Hannu H. Kari dosn't work for... by Cylix · · Score: 5, Informative

      Yeah,

      They wanted to do that at work. I simply refused to publicly display any of our email addresses. The last account/address they had was a spam fest because of this.

      So, I coded a simple web form for placing comments. The webform message allows someone to supply a reply to address and then its sent off to everyone who needs to respond to it.

      What's really funny... one day.. someone actually cut and pasted their spam into the webform. (I went to the persons website... they were not remotely technically inclined)

      It's very easy to get in touch with us via email and this technique really impairs harvesting.

      --
      "You should always go to other people's funerals; otherwise, they won't come to yours." -- Yogi Berra
    7. Re:If Hannu H. Kari dosn't work for... by Tony+Hoyle · · Score: 4, Insightful

      In the real world people filter.

      I've never had any problems giving out my email address. Junk goes in the spam filter, which I clean out once a month (when I admined for a company we had someone check every 2-3 days but never had any FPs to my knowledge).

      I get maybe 1 spam gets through the filters in a week. Easy to handle.

    8. Re:If Hannu H. Kari dosn't work for... by dubl-u · · Score: 4, Insightful

      the public pain threshhold? WTF is this guy talking about?

      Yeah, if that were all it took, television would be as extinct as travel by zeppelin.

    9. Re:If Hannu H. Kari dosn't work for... by Brandybuck · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Usenet didn't go away. For a time it exceeded the public pain threshold and almost died. But then something amazing happened. All the spammers and trolls noticed that everyone left, so they left too. Today I can actually peruse newsgroups that have less than a 1% troll/spam ratio.

      p.s. Don't tell anyone about this though! I don't want the bastards coming back!

      --
      Don't blame me, I didn't vote for either of them!
  2. Lets do that timewarp! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Funny

    The entire system will crumble to bits as the sheer bulk of rubbish circling around in the net exceeds the public pain threshold. ...

    Yeah, but when that happens we'll more likely timewarp back fifty or one hundred years. Spammers, virus copiers and script kiddies will simply be hunted down for sport and tortured on live TV. The penalty for being an idiot on the internet will be public beheading.

    I'm begining to look forward to 2006 now.

  3. Recursive Linking by jolyonr · · Score: 5, Funny

    I've always wondered whether a story that mentions Slashdot in the subject would bring on a recurisve slashdotting that would result in the ultimate destruction of the internet.

    Well, it's worth a try anyway

    --


    Please read my Canon EOS tech blog at http://www.everyothershot.com
  4. He's not too terribly inconsistent though... by BaldGhoti · · Score: 5, Informative

    For those who didn't RTFA (like the editor), he was indeed predicting the end of the internet back in 2001. However, he was predicting that there were five years left. So he's been consistent on 2006.

    Not that he's, yanno, sane or anything, but at least he's consistent.

    --
    [insert witty sig here]
    1. Re:He's not too terribly inconsistent though... by OwlofCreamCheese · · Score: 4, Insightful

      why not just make your own network now and only let people you deem worthy on it now. what? no one wants to be on your elitist network? pity....

      --
      -You're wasting your time. Alfador only likes me.
  5. But after the internet rapture... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    ...we all get fiber in heaven with no caps.

  6. Just me? by Strange_Attractor · · Score: 4, Funny
    When I read the title of this post, I thought it was referring to someone who'd taken as his alias the John Lovitz character from SNL:
    On Hershel, on Moishe, on Schlomo...

    Says Hannu K. Hari, eight days a year

    --

    ----
    WWJD...For a Klondike Bar?
  7. Re:All together now... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

    Here's a citation for that quote. The Internet. On the edge of collapse since 1981.

  8. Already happened on a limited scale. by etymxris · · Score: 5, Insightful

    For example, I used to enjoy debates on newsgroups, but last I checked (several years ago), they were just full of trash. The topics I was interested in had been largely abandoned by those that were actually knowledgable in the fields due in great part to this.

    Another example is Yahoo message boards. Here we see what the lack of pretty much any moderation entails. Spam infested, crapflood infested, it's pretty difficult to get any meaningful discussion there.

    I think what will happen is that there will be heavier moderation and more stringent entrance requirements for various online forums. The Internet will still function, it just won't be as open as it once was.

    1. Re:Already happened on a limited scale. by Benwick · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Exactly. Newsgroups have been trashed. Once back around 1992 they were practically a gathering of experts all around the world (and the occasional fringe wacko); now they're nothing but spam and all discussion is by fringe wackos (who don't know how to tell spam, trolling, and flaming from real responses). So the *interpersonal* aspects of the Internet may be doomed. E-mail spam, IM spam, etc. threaten those technologies.

      But the Internet is a lot of different things. The use of the Internet as, effectively, a billboard, with controlled content (moderation, web editing, etc), is not really at risk. BBC News is not at risk, nor are most generally non-interactive websites.

      So much for the electronic frontier. Anarchy is always good until you have actual people involved.

    2. Re:Already happened on a limited scale. by jfengel · · Score: 4, Interesting

      While I lament the death of Usenet as a tool, many of its purposes have been subsumed by the Web. Slashdot itself is a key example. For various software products company web boards have replaced the Usenet group.

      That's not just due to the the flamers there are also technological reasons. Usenet is a store-and-forward system; it's replicated all over the place (usually at your ISP). That was crucial when even the high-speed lines between service providers were 56kbps, but today you can go to a single site from anywhere and get decent response time. The distributed system made it slow and unreliable.

      Web sites also have the advantage over Usenet in that you can use a single tool that you already have to access it. You don't need to install special software. It's true that most Windows users already have Outlook, but wouldn't know how to configure it.

      I do lament the death of Usenet. There are many things it does better than the web sites do. Back in the day I could go to comp.lang.apl and confer with reliable experts on APL. And actually that's still true for some newsgroups, the obscurer the better. But at this point the death of Usenet is recursive: I don't go there because nobody else goes there. I'll sometimes use Google Groups to search it for answers to a question, but since I'm not posting to it nobody else gets to converse with me, and so they too gradually drop out.

      And it's too bad that I have to learn hundreds of different web-based message systems (with the corresponding array of logins to maintain) rather than the single point of entry to Usenet.

      Slashdot, and most other bulletin-board type systems, doesn't do the sort of long-term conversations that Usenet was good for. But people now go to other places for entertainment; conversation is out. It's much more passive and that's too bad. So it makes me sad that I don't even have a newsreader any more.

  9. has this guy never heard of adapting? by spacerodent · · Score: 5, Insightful

    does this guy seriously think people will just sit by and let this happen, even assumning it's possible? I think it's safe to say at the first sign of problems around 6 gillion nerds world wide would start working on fixes and sending them to anyone who might possibly give a damn. Given the number of users, even IF this is a problem, it could be solved quickly.

  10. Re:And for anyone who believes this... by garcia · · Score: 4, Interesting

    ...I have a bridge for sale.

    Well it may not die as in coffin dead but it may certainly morph into something completely different.

    With the onset of so many worms, trojans, and other miscellaneous exploits people are finally going to get fed up. They aren't going to switch away from Microsoft products to eliviate their problems though. Nope... What they're going to do is they're going to switch to Bill's latest and greatest achievement...

    Trusted Computing. This will be a BIOS, OS, and network interface that will be 100% secure. It will be running only "trusted" applications because Bill has certified them all. Remember those cute Windows on the corner of all pieces of hardware and software? Designed for MS Windows98? Well, this is going to be the same thing only not even the worms can run!

    See, safe, right? Well, you won't be able to be on the same Internet we have now because that's not trusted. Soon you'll be connecting to port 3128 of the trusted.proxy.microsoft.com to get your Internet.

    The "other Internet" (the one that the rest of us will be using) won't be protected, won't be trusted, and won't be supported by the Windows people.

    You draw your own conclusions as to what that will mean.

  11. Predictions by AKAImBatman · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Is this like the predication that we'd run out of IP addresses in the late 1990's. We all know that happened. Wait, no it didn't. Humans fixed the problem with private networks and NATing. In the process, they improved security and sanctity of their networks.

    It's a funny thing, networks. You see, since humans control them, they make changes and adjustments in response to the needs of the network. Thus the network grows, adapts, and becomes a more powerful entity.

    That being said, there are two things I wish I could exorcise from the net: Spam and viruses. These two creatures are responsible for more useless traffic than just about anything else. It would also be nice if protocols like GNUTella died or were fixed. The number of useless packets generated by such protocols is amazing.

  12. Re:And for anyone who believes this... by david+duncan+scott · · Score: 4, Funny

    The "other Internet" (the one that the rest of us will be using) won't be protected, won't be trusted, and won't be supported by the Windows people.

    You draw your own conclusions as to what that will mean.

    That September will finally end?
    --

    This next song is very sad. Please clap along. -- Robin Zander

  13. Signal/Noise Ratio by 4of12 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Well, the public telephone network suffered from the problem of unsolicited bulk marketers calling people during dinner.

    It still survives. But it did have a few adjustments made to it.

    1. CallerIDs to screen calls.
    2. Answering machines to screen calls. Turning off the ringers to remove the sense of urgency that used to be ascribed to incoming phone calls.
    3. Legislation for donotcall.gov.
    4. Paying the telephone company more for unlisted landlines.
    5. Not giving out phone numbers to any entry point to the direct marketing industry databases.
    6. Moving to cell phones that are automatically unlisted.
    I guess I see the internet just evolving around the problems in multiple ways.

    I hate to say goodbye to anonymity in email that is abused by spammers because it has a special place for whistleblowers. But perhaps blog postings can still serve that purpose.

    --
    "Provided by the management for your protection."
  14. Coming of age by Doc+Ruby · · Score: 4, Insightful

    When people and programs automatically accept incoming messages only from signed correspondants who match their contact database, all the rest of the messages will be treated as spam. The Net will lose its youthful trust, and much of its optimism and openness to change, which will inhibit innovation and social growth. But it won't die. It will grow old, bitter and rich.

    --

    --
    make install -not war

  15. Cassandra Syndrome folks have been wrong before by Golias · · Score: 4, Insightful

    *cough*Mathus*cough*

    Just as a broken clock is right twice a day, eventually some doomsayer is going to be right, but I'm going to go out on a limb and say it won't be Dr. Kari, and it will not be in 2006.

    --

    Information wants to be anthropomorphized.

  16. internet survived major san francisco earthquake by peter303 · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Some of us were remembering the the M7 Loma Prieta quake exactly 15 years ago Monday. 10% of Stanford buildings were condemned, several freeways collapsed, but the InterNet went humming along. People used it send email when the phones were dead and exchange earthquake data. At that time the net was more concentrated in the US with root servers in D.C. and Silicon Valley.

  17. Internet nirvana was never a given by scotay · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Only the people who believed the internet was some kind of nirvana, where all the sins of mankind were going to be washed away by technology, are disappointed with the way things are going. The rest of us deal with the quirks and it still proves most useful. And businesses are the most locked in. Are we going to go back to modems and BBSs? Not if we want to stay in business. We will deal. The internet will deal. And mankind will remain unchanged in the face of technology.

  18. The Internet is a Playground Without Supervision by cyngus · · Score: 4, Insightful

    The Internet is a playground with no dried up old teachers to tell us not to hang upside down on the monkey bars. But groups and structures based on groups mature just like individuals, only slower. As the Internet evolves it will become self-policing. As we can see already with moderated forums, the relevant information can be made to bubble to the top with some small effort of users of said information. It is in the self interest of all Internet users to make it a viable place to find and exchange information. We are all selfish, and I think we'll get what we want. The other advantage the Internet has is that there are a lot of smart people using it and smart people are even better at figuring out how to get what they want than the average Joe. Perhaps the Internet would have already "collapsed" in a useful sense were it not for Google and others. Where there's a will there's a way.

  19. Re:And for anyone who believes this... by That's+Unpossible! · · Score: 5, Insightful

    It means the internet, our internet, can go back to what it was before the companies started fucking it up; a medium for free information exchange.

    Back when it was "our internet" (as you put it), there was nowhere near the amount of free information exchange as there is today, in large part DUE to contributions by companies across the world.

    Companies haven't fucked up the internet, they've given us more things we can do over the internet. The things that actually trash the internet are: script kiddies, virus writers, spammers, and evil countries.

    --
    Ironically, the word ironically is often used incorrectly.
  20. Kari's prediction on Television in the 60's by mekkab · · Score: 5, Funny

    "Television programming will become so bogged down with advertisements and pandering to the lowest common denominator that it will collapse under its own weight in bloat, and we will go back to the telegrammophone."

    --
    In the future, I would want to not be isolated from my friends in the Space Station.
  21. Re:And for anyone who believes this... by frisket · · Score: 4, Insightful
    Almost. It wasn't letting companies onto the network that fouled it up (nor indeed letting untrained individuals on), but letting companies take over control of the key infrastructure. Participation pro bono publico is fine, but letting for-profit entities decide what happens is a recipe for disaster.

    If Canter and Siegel had been punished properly for their crime (been barred for ever from a connection) we wouldn't be in the position we are now. If upstream and backbone sites actually enforced non-spam, non-open-relay, etc rules, we'd be closer to a fully functioning network.

    My good friend and colleague Dr Jennings was wont to say "the network is too important to be left to the networkers" -- and I still say he was wrong, dead wrong. The network is too important to be taken out of the hands of the networkers.

    And what's all this crap about back 10 to 20 years "before we had an information network"? Excuse me, but 20 years ago I was happily using BITNET, the X.25 networks, and the IP networks (hell, UUCP too if it comes to that). Slow, primitive, but it sure looked like an information network to me.

    Maybe the good doctor is confusing the Internet with the Web?

  22. Re:And for anyone who believes this... by dubl-u · · Score: 4, Informative

    That September will finally end?

    Wow, for just a moment that gave me hope. You cruel, cruel bastard.

    (For those saying, "WTF?", see this.)