Slashdot Mirror
Many Americans Still Don't Have Home Net Access
Weather Storm wrote in with a story about those who see no need for home net access. Surprisingly, it's not the cost that is a barrier to entry. Instead, most say they don't see the value of having a net connection at home. "A little under one-third of U.S. households have no Internet access and do not plan to get it, with most of the holdouts seeing little use for it in their lives, according to a new survey. Park Associates, a Dallas-based technology market research firm, said 29 percent of U.S. households, or 31 million homes, do not have Internet access and do not intend to subscribe to an Internet service over the next 12 months."
People using their neighbor's "free" wifi?
...that the majority of these people do not have children in middle or high school, or if they do, that they rely heavily upon libraries or school systems for work.
I forgot to mention one more group: bible thumpers. I've run into quite a few (mostly older) Christians who seem to think it's respectable NOT to be on the internet. Because, you know, that's where all the Bad Stuff is.
As I type on my computer hooked-up 42" TV, look over at my PDA which says I have new email and surf the local weather on my phone I dont get it.
What is this "No Internet" of which you speak?
Well I, for one, do NOT have internet access and I don't plan to get it! Who needs it? I can get all the spam I want at the grocery store for less money.
Whether we want to admit it or not, there are people who just don't care about the internet and what is on it. Most people here do care - in most cases we are heavily involved with it daily so it just seems foreign to us that "they just don't get it!"
I don't see this as a bad thing, just different.
I am Ergo the magnificent. Short in power, tall in stature, narrow of vision and wide of purpose.
There was a time when almost nobody had internet access. Back then, the internet was a beautiful place. It wasn't built around what's best for Amazon and Citibank. It wasn't built around think of the children or delivering stupid flash games to mentally retarded adults. You didn't have banner ads and commoditization of every single website on the net (in fact, it was a lot like back in the BBS days when it was all about offering services to people because you enjoyed it - and you didn't care that you spent more money on it than you would ever earn back.. and you didn't even attempt to).
Besides, a huge amount of Americans believe in creationism, alien abductions, that the moon landing was faked and that global warming is a scam, though lesbians cause hurricanes. The fewer of those that we push to the internet, the better.
The only people that want MORE of these idiots to join the net are corporations, so they have a greater pool to suck money from. It in no way benefits the actual internet as a means of communication or intellectual expression.
Did it ever occur to you that this is no one thing everyone wants or likes? Does everyone watch TV, listen to the radio, read the newspaper, have a (cell)phone? No. Each person has there own preference to how they get information and communicate with others and the world.
Now, whether or not this survey is accurate, as some have already and vibrantly pointed out, is another issue.
Perhaps this is a sign that people are starting to realize that they need to control their own lives. Every individual should think (as opposed to feel) about where, when, how and the total cost of allowing technology into their lives. Properly used, technology can be very beneficial. Improperly used (or not consciously thought about), technology can be a very heavy burden or an actual menace (identity theft). Hopefully, the people that have made this choice have done due diligence and intelligently decided.
My cynical side thinks that most of these people are or approach being Luddites. I hope my cynical side is wrong.
It was also reported that about 23% of mature Americans cannot read a schedule! Further still, from one study, America's adults made no progress in their ability to read a newspaper, a book or any other prose arranged in sentences and paragraphs!
This is amazing because this nation has had "free" education for a long time - education that would have prevented these appalling figures.
With figures like these, why should anyone expect a different outcome when it comes to internet access? Populations like these cannot generate effective demand for services similar to those found on the internet.
Mod -1 RTFA.
Where is my LART when I need it.
In other news, it was reported today that a significant segment of the US population remains immune to an onslaught of spam, phishing attacks, and viruses, all by avoiding a connection to the dubiously beneficial "internet" everyone keeps squawking about.
. . . is about the only thing holding this back. Once you get decent broadband (I don't count anything less than a megabit downstream) you open up a whole slew of new possibilities that just aren't practical on dialup. Some will never get home internet access or even a home computer, but I'd bet money that a big chunk of that 1/3 without home Internet access has a land-line phone and probably cable/satelite TV. I have no doubt whatsoever that the Internet will eventually completely replace POTS and analog cable*. It's just way more flexible.
*I purposely left out digital cable since it's so similar to and in many cases *IS* IP TV.
Wouldn't the survey have then revealed that most folks who didn't plan on getting Internet access responded that way because they couldn't afford it, rather than because they don't see any need for it?
Oh, wait, that's right - such a conclusion wouldn't let you troll off-topic for left-wing karma.
You're absolutely right! This survey should be thrown out if it includes *any* "lonely/isolated/old/redneck people" because, as we all know, these people don't count - even in surveys. Only "with it" people are statistically significant.
In my immediate family, 1 out of 5 of our 'households' doesn't have internet access because he doesn't care, 'he can get stuff done at work'.
Nerd rage is the funniest rage.
Spelling mistakes, grammatical errors, and stupid comments are intentional.
You're posting on a Saturday, sir.
Weaselmancer
rediculous.
Yeah, that's it... it must be those Christians, thumping their bibles all the time. Who has time for those computers. Wonder who is going to all of those bible thumping websites that are all over the internet though. Of course then there are those wacky green types that are fearful that people wasting their time, consuming energy, sitting in front of their computers might be contributing to global warming.
They had internet access. First dial up, then a DLS line.
After a year or so, my siblings were the only ones using it, usually to download spyware and such while hitting myspace.
After walking my dad through reinstalling XP home on the computer to get rid of all of the crap, he gave up. The computer now sits in the corner of their home and is rarely used.
When they need internet access, they go to the library. It is not a major part of their life.
If I lived a bit closer, I would probably be able to put linux or lock down XP and make it a bit more secure on their system and set it up for them to use. Even then, the monthly cost of the dsl line was not worth it to them given the amount of use they would get out of it.
All of that said, I do see a market for something like a SunRay @ home for users like my parents. Small terminal that actually runs everything remotely. With higher speed internet connections (A sunray only needs about 1Mbps for very acceptable performance with a 1280x1024) and almost no power draw, it is perfect for things like this (yes, you can setup a similar setup with a linux terminal, but the sunray is actually simpler. I've done both in my life)
While such a setup would not be workable for most slashdoters, it would work fine for the rest of the world who dont care to become computer mechanics just to browse the web (think tivo users vs mythTV users)
Why do all of you blame young people who are illiterate or too poor or whatever your fake reasons are? How about the large number of 60+ people in this country. Do you all want to be tech supporting your grandparents? I know I don't... there's nothing wrong about not having internet even if a lot of the people they asked are between 20 and 40. Why is this even a story? Just because most of the people at /. think everything from the toaster to the bedspread should have an IP address (which if they connect everything to the internet I'm gonna because a hermit) doesn't mean everyone else has to agree with you or even give a shit.
-SaNo
Rock on with your priviledged self. You're kidding, right? The US really doesn't have much of a poverty problem. The number of truly poor people is actually quite low. What the US Government chooses to call poverty, in many third world countries would be considered the lap of luxury. Of course, their inflation of the numbers makes it that much harder to help the folks who really need it, as they're lost amidst a sea of "poor" people who can't afford to pay college tuition for their kids. Not being able to afford food or adequate housing, that's poverty. Not being able to afford an internet connection? Give me a fucking break. That's a fucking luxury.
If a job's not worth doing, it's not worth doing right.
I guess we can insult them with impunity. They're probably not going to be reading Slashdot comments, are they?
You mean 'organize their spending so poorly'. While I am sure there is a significant chunk of people who are actually unable to afford things like computers and internet access, I am also sure that they are very well outnumbered by the people who don't have money for computers and internet access because they piss it away on even stupider shit.
Nerd rage is the funniest rage.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
the grandparent has a point because:
Poor people don't want to admit being poor, especially to a stranger, so might lie. saying they don't want internet access rather than saying they want it but feel they can't afford it/spare the money for a computer and ISP fees.
In the US, many jobs require using a computer every day for 8 hours while at the office. In the opinion of many that I know and have worked with, they don't see why they would want to sit in front of a computer for a few more hours when they get off work. This isn't a US vs rest of the world thing, it's apathy! Why sit in front of the computer typing away every night when you do it all day at work? That's what it comes down to for most of the baby boomer generation. For younger generations, it is probably borrowing their neighbor's wifi connection. For the 22% who said that they can't afford a computer, they didn't ask them if they could afford smoking either. So it's my opinion that the survey is somewhat incomplete and skews results in a certain way to make it look like much of the US is a backwards society when that's really not case. Some people just don't care about technology. Having other priorities and interests is not a bad thing.
Agreed. Plus a lot of people work and don't have time for the playground that the internet has become. Lord knows when I worked I didn't have time for a great many things.
I wonder what the percentage of Americans have a TV? Many people have more than one TV, yet only have one computer. Cost may be a factor in that, but seeing as you can buy cheap computers from companies like Dell, I don't think that price is that big of an issue. Somehow people finding sitting infront of a computer for 2-3 hours bad, but sitting infront of the TV for an entire day fine. Is the general population afraid of computers? Or do they like to put their mind into coast mode and have content spoon fed to them.
x86, oh yes, I'm pro.
Personally, I'd have a hard time adjusting to not having broadband, but I could probably survive. Slashdot withdrawal is not generally considered to be fatal.
Your Servant, B. Baggins
I don't have access at home, and I don't really care. When I need access on a weekend, I'm usually at a coffee shop ( like now ) anyway, and at least where I am -- DC -- there's quite a few free WAPs.
I used to have DSL at my old apartment, and I spent too much time online. Frankly, I'd rather be writing code, or reading a book. I get "enough" internet access at work. If I know I'm going to need some offline documentation, I download it when I have access and keep it around.
What it comes down to is this: When my girlfriend and I moved in together, we discussed whether internet & cable tv were worth the expense, and we decided it wasn't. It's a lot of money to -- essentially -- veg out. We'd rather spend time together, or read, or go exercise, or do something worthwhile.
Now, that being said it's saturday and I'm on slashdot from a free WAP dowtown. So, I guess it's hard to take me seriously.
lorem ipsum, dolor sit amet
Over 70% penetration in a little more than a decade. That is unbelievably fast, and the best proof yet -- if you needed any -- that Internet access will become as much a commonplace utility as electricity, phone service or running water. Although it's obvious that it's the existing power, telephony and cable TV infrastructure that made the rapid adoption possible, it's still worth pointing out that that's more adoption, faster, than any other technology I can think of. Maybe VCRs became more common, faster? Not sure.
It's going to be very interesting to see what the net looks like when the average 40 year-old has never known life without it.
Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
You elected Democrats in both of your last two elections also? Sucks to be where we live.
29 percent of American households consist of "really old people".
But how do they? ... But what do they? ... What?!?
That's not funny! Global warming killed my father...and raped my mother!
"Never let your sense of morals prevent you from doing what is right" - Salvor Hardin
You haven't really addressed the issue, as far as others are concerned. All these new things that broadband brings may or may not change the numbers that the survey presents. One can have cable TV (even though DirectTV may be a better value) or VOIP (even though it has limitations, 'it's not a cellphone', or it's not a better value than what they have presently) without having internet access. So you're presenting things through a geek POV just like everyone else in this forum.
Seeing as my brain is completely bleached by stuff like goatse, lemonparty or 4chan /b/, I'd say they better be off not knowing.
In my opinion, we (internet users) just exaggerate how powerful the internet is. Don't get me wrong, the web IS great, but you actually CAN live without it. Or at least other people.
"We are the music makers, and we are the dreamers of dreams [...]."
This is about right. Cable TV hit about 60% market penetration by household in the US years ago, and has been stuck there since. That's probably about where Internet penetration will end up.
US broadband penetration is up to 80% of US Internet users. Some other countries are higher, but they're mostly countries which are either very crowded or very cold.
Rock on with your priviledged self. Or, it could be that most people in the survey reported lack of internet was not a monetary issue. Only 20% of those reporting no internet said it was because it was too expensive.
Rock on with your judgmental self.
28 million Americans live below the poverty level. That means they cannot meet their basic needs; food, clothing, shelter. THAT IS POVERTY. No, its not as bad as many places in the world, but IT IS BAD.
I actually know a lot of people in the hi-tech industry who do not want an internet connection at home. They don't: a)want their kids to use it (pr0n, etc.), b)they don't want their employers expecting them to bring their work home with them, c) they think it will erode "the family", d) they want absolute control over what comes in to their house, etc.
Agree with them or not, personalities like this transcend backwards bible thumping rednecks. You'll find people in all walks of life who will adopt unexpected positions on technology.
Do some research, you fucking idiot. Get outside your privileged little bubble and learn something about your fellow citizens. Poverty is indeed a real problem for a large subset of Americans.
The irony of this discussion is that most slashdotters can probably understand the choice to live sans internet about as well as they understand or can envision life as the opposite sex. This is a community of people who spend a significant portion of time on the 'net discussing the net.
I find it fascinating how many of the first comments immediately lump these non-internetters in categories such as "old", "red-neck", "bible-thumpers", and other not-so-flattering terms. Is this because these categories are more or less accurate? Or just what slashdotters envision as the opposite of themselves?
then they'll get on that whatsit, that "internets."
if this is supposed to be a new economy, how come they still want my old fashioned money?
Given the disgraceful state of the corporate-controlled television, radio and print media in this country, the fact that so many Americans don't have internet access is a threat to our democracy itself.
Surprisingly, it's not the cost that is a barrier to entry. Instead, most say they don't see the value of having a net connection at home.
At lower cost the value equasion changes. Most people don't see the value of having a fishing boat and RV at home. It would be nice to have but the cost is the limitation for many people. At $60/month it is difficult for many to justify the cost against the value. If I was single, I would still be on dial-up. With a family, I can justify the cost.
The truth shall set you free!
Now, if they were going to lie - couldn't they just say that they HAVE internet access? Maybe we need some extra questions on there to trip up the ones that only SAY they have access?
1) What search engine do you use?
- Chevy big block
- My lawn mower engine outta be enough for anybody
- Google
- Live Search
- The Army Corp of Search Engineers
- Goggle
- Yayhoo
- Yahoo
- AOL Search
If they answer AOL search, you'll know that they don't actually have that internet thing!
To start off, God I wish I didn't need the internet. I'd get rid of it so fast. I'd kill to get back all the time I coulda spent doing real work, or reading, or being outside spent instead spent on Slashdot. Honestly, I have some envy for people that actually don't need it. You can do what you really have to do at work or the library. So I don't think lack of the internet is any sign of poverty in america or whatever.
e wsid=32800
BUT
There is honest-to-god food insecurity in the US. Yeah I mean that all those poor people living in the lap of luxury don't know where their next meal is coming from, or have to choose between food and rent. And just cus you don't see them from the freeway on your commute from suburbia to office park doesn't mean they don't exist. What's all the more fucked up about it is that the problem is about 10 times worse here than in every other industrialized country, because American politicians are far more interested in invading foreign countries and pork for their districts than giving a f--- about starving people.
http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/medicalnews.php?n
http://www.ers.usda.gov/publications/err11/
An article that truly warrants the "thinkofthechildren" tag.
Cwm, fjord-bank glyphs vext quiz
Sorry, try reading the article.
Those "dont want the internet" folks in the survey said "money was not the issue". So poverty is OUT as a cause.
Secondly, the definition of "Poverty" you use is ridiculously malleable and political, thats why you have 28 million or more there. They define it as the bottom 10% more or less, so you will ALWAYS have millions "below the poverty line". But you apparentlyare ignorant about how they calculate it: "Poverty Line" calculations that you refer to do not count the significant charitable help most poor have (Habitat for Humanity, community shelters and halfway houses, food banks, soup kitchens, etc), as well as governmental programs like WIC, food stamps, Welfare, subsidised housing, Medicare/Medicaid, free school lunches, government food assistance, Social Security Disability, etc. That is why you have statistics like: you can be "Poor" according to the income based poverty line, and still have a phone, cell phone, car, 2 tvs, air conditioning, etc. And those items are quite common amongst the "poor".
You want to see *real* poverty go visit Mozambique (been there with the Red Cross - the suffering there is horrid), or some ghettos in central America (for example Nicaragua). Potable water, shelter and food are the issues there, not whether or not to trade the Government Cheese for cigarettes, or sell the food stamps to buy a Nintendo.
Get your head out of your ass - and get your ass out of the US political blinders and learn a bit about the world. Even better - go do something about it instead of preaching on slashdot. I have.
Buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo! http://goo.gl/J9bkO
What's in that for government? We have a business to run, and if the market doesn't exist, we create it.
Maybe it's because they don't want software phoning home all the time.
Seriously, a lot of people don't want "automatic updates", "automatic non-updates" (malware), and other software downloading things and sending information back to their makers (even if it's "not personally identifiable" information). You don't have to have an Internet connection to do work on your computer. This may change as applications start outsourcing components to the Internet, but traditional desktop software will never die. Although web applications like Google Docs and Spreadsheets make group collaboration easier, Microsoft Office shouldn't fear being replaced by it any time soon.
Hydraulic pizza oven!! Guided missile! Herring sandwich! Styrofoam! Jayne Mansfield! Aluminum siding! Borax!
The primary reason to fight poverty in a developed nation is not the discomfort of the people involved. Yes, they are poor. Yes, they are exploited and work 39.5 hours a week (or 79 hours, more often) merely to pay off their credit card bills. Yes, they stuff their faces with low-quality agricultural byproducts packaged up as convenience food and gain weight every year. It's uncomfortable, but as you say, every country has some uncomfortable people. Our poor are better off than Somalia's.
Unfortunately, our poor do not visit the doctor. That's dangerous. It's dangerous for them, but it's almost as dangerous for you and me. If you contracted TB or smallpox, you'd be at the doctor within the first day and a half. You'd have a competent doctor who'd listen to you or your family clearly describing your symptoms. He'd make the proper diagnosis, fill in the appropriate form to notify the CDC, and qurantine you.
If a poor person contracts a serious and uncommon disease, going to the doctor immediately isn't an option. He has to wait until the fever is serious enough that an emergency department will see him without his insurance. Even so, many of the better ERs will turn him away (or so he thinks) so he goes to the one with the best record of charity. His harried, exhausted doctor may think the disease is just the flu, like the dozen other cases of intense flu he's seen that day. Toss 'em out the door, tell 'em it'll get better. The poor person heads into work the next day because he's only got two sick days a year. He works at Appleby's bussing tables. Pretty soon you have a minor epidemic.
This is just one example of how having a huge population of people in our country who cannot afford the basic services most of us take for granted is a threat to all of us. Others include uninsured drivers, riots, the whole mess in New Orleans during the evacuation, the drug trade and public schoool violence. If you have a high standard of living, the best way to protect it is to ensure that nobody near you has a standard of living vastly lower than yours. Your ideas of meritocracy and your tax resentments are irrelevant in the face of problems like these.
One third of Americans are actually sensible...
Excuse me, but please get off my Pennisetum Clandestinum, eh!
who are not obese.
I am very small, utmostly microscopic.
Sorry, try reading my post. I was responding to a comment about how there is NO poverty in the USA. If one cannot put 2000 calories (on average) in one's belly every day that is poverty. I've met many such people. I can introduce you to them if you think they don't exist. There are 28 million such people in the USA. If you read my post I said that it is worse in MANY places. But to say there is NO poverty in the USA is just fucking stupid and heartless. And yes asshole I have personally witnessed worse poverty in Asia. And yes asshole I do something about it. I have personally donated nearly $100,000 to Oxfam and Doctors Without Borders. My will leaves everything to those two organizations, which I hope will be at least a two or three million dollars when I am done. I am an personal investor and my personal philosophy is to live simply so that I can give that amount of money to organizations that tend to the world's poorest. So go fuck yourself.
I don't have phone service. I don't need it. So what?
This is why Slashdot should advertise. What better lure to the wired life?
(psst.. don't tell them about the Anonymous Coward thing. Accounts for marketing FTW!)
I wonder how many don't want internet connections at home simply because they have access to the internet at work, and their employer has liberal usage policies. My employer is like this -- as long as you keep it legal and clean (no porn, no illegal downloads or p2p file sharing) they have no problems with personal usage. Some people might find it hard to justify spending $$$ per month when they don't need to.
...and I'll show you someone who isn't much interested in learning about the universe.
Here is a map showing the internet accessibility in the USA. Areas marked red do not have internet access. *ducks* ;)
Wow. You think you are the only person to ever *do* something or see some harshness in the world. You my friend, are a ignorant jerk.
My humor is probably your flamebait
they have Real Lives.
You can be "below the poverty line" and have a DVD recorder, digital cable, fast broadband and a reasonably new computer...how do I know?
Um, I have something called a mirror?
-uso.
What you hear in the ear, preach from the rooftop Matthew 10.27b
By the time IRC came into being (1988) the internet was already going downhill.
If you think there wasn't software trading going on back then, you are mistaken.
THAT IS POVERTY. No, its not as bad as many places in the world, but IT IS BAD. I didn't say no one lived in poverty, nor that it wasn't bad. I said that the way they calculate whether someone is poor is flawed and includes too many people who are merely "low-income".
If a job's not worth doing, it's not worth doing right.
Where did I claim any kind of uniqueness? I was responding to someone who made wild accusations about me without having any knowledge of me, kinda like you.
The oddest non-computer, non-internet user I know is a mechanical engineer friend who is extremely creative who refuses to use computers, and has refused to learn for 20 years, & yet would benefit so much from using it. It has hurt his work, but he trudges on with paper and pencil. His sons use computers all the time, and his oldest son is now at Annapolis.
These types of people see the downside of the hassles and frustrations as being insurmountable for their psyche. It is a total mental rejection of or lack of true understanding of what ultimate time savings there are in using computers.
I understand the pain of the hassles, but I never understood accepting the loss of not being able to communicate easily with peers & customers everywhere who are up with Internet use, plus engineering applications that speed up work tremendously.
Sorry, I was confused about who you were responding to. Nevermind.
There are quite a few people on my campus who don't even own a computer. They live in the computer lab checking out myspace and facebook so that other people can't print out things. But then turn around and spend their money on drugs.
hello
If one cannot put 2000 calories (on average) in one's belly every day that is poverty. I've met many such people. I can introduce you to them if you think they don't exist. Straw man, fallacy of proof by example. No one said they don't exist.
There are 28 million such people in the USA. Show me where the US Census Bureau measured caloric intake.
But to say there is NO poverty in the USA is just fucking stupid and heartless. To claim that anyone said there was no poverty when no one said any such thing is even fucking stupider.
And yes asshole I have personally witnessed worse poverty in Asia. And yes asshole I do something about it. I have personally donated nearly $100,000 to Oxfam and Doctors Without Borders. My will leaves everything to those two organizations, which I hope will be at least a two or three million dollars when I am done. I am an personal investor and my personal philosophy is to live simply so that I can give that amount of money to organizations that tend to the world's poorest. So go fuck yourself. Your saintly self-righteousness is quite impressive. You are obviously a better person than all the rest of us. Good job.
If a job's not worth doing, it's not worth doing right.
The availability of music, movies, and TV shows has been around as long as computers have been capable of displaying them, though the technologies used have changed many times. Software much longer.
The margin on computer gear isn't large enough to bear shipping costs. Non speciality gear can be had for much lower than online prices in any major city.
Online banking isn't much younger than the web, but that might be a Canadian/US difference. Usian banking technology has always lagged way, way behind.
Google was a university project. It would almost certainly still have happened, though it wouldn't have become a profitable corporation aiding Chinese government censorship.
Don't take this to mean that I don't think the September that never ended wasn't good overall. We'd almost certainly not have cheap broadband, or the beginning of universal wireless coverage, among other things. It was not, however, "a primitive, dark place" in any sense.
Having the internet available to everyone is great, but I don't think it's all that big of a deal that the last 1/3 aren't interested. If anything, it's encouraging that it's that low. These numbers would be more useful compared with others, such as the percentage who choose not to read.
That "buttons and make-up are evil, churning butter and barn raisings are kinda nifty", and concluded by asking "do you like my beard?"
It's true no man is an island, but if you take a bunch of dead guys and tie 'em together, they make a good raft.
If a job's not worth doing, it's not worth doing right.
Cell phones can be turned off, you know.
for your interpretation of the law?
+++ATH0
I'm with you on that. I'm not sure about the US, but in Canada, while I do know some "poor" people, most of them have a computer and internet access. Granted it's not Africa poor, just North America Poor, which is still much richer than most of the people in the world. A computer only costs $300. A net connection is $10 a month for dial-up, or $25 a month for low-speed-high-speed. Most people I know who are hard up for cash have no problem buying a case of beer every month ($24 for the cheapest of cases) or buying cigarettes ($10 a pack now), or ordering dinner twice a week, or ..... There are some truly poor people, but I know a lot of people who never have money, yet piss it away on cellphones, cars, alcohol, eating out, cigarettes, and a lot of other things they probably don't need to be spending their money on.
Anthropic principle: We see the universe the way it is because if it were different we would not be here to see it.
Is there any requirement in your state that an ISP "register?" There certainly isn't in mine. We provide free wifi access and everyone knows it - that makes us an isp. Period.
"...crime, mother-stabbin', father-rapin', and all kinds of GROOVY things..."
Honestly name the source without looking it up.
You are right, you didn't say there was NO poverty in the US. You said,
"You're kidding, right? The US really doesn't have much of a poverty problem." Which is a hair's breadth from saying there is none. Forgive me for ever so slightly exagerating what you said. Apply this to your point #2 and #4.
"Show me where the US Census Bureau measured caloric intake.
I can't point to census data, nor did I say that was what I was quoting. The 28 million figure is the figure routinely quoted by most major charity organizations that serve the USA that I am familiar with.
"Your saintly self-righteousness is quite impressive. You are obviously a better person than all the rest of us. "
My "self-rightiousness" was merely a response to an attack on me that implied I had no personal knowledge of world poverty and that I didn't do anything about it. Where did I imply any superiority to anyone, save maybe the commentor I was refering to?
Sorry, try reading my post. I was responding to a comment about how there is NO poverty in the USA. If one cannot put 2000 calories (on average) in one's belly every day that is poverty. I've met many such people.
This guy has a point, a big one. The problem about thinking of poverty in the USA vs other places is you have to take the cost of groceries into account. Take milk for example. On a good day I pay $3.00/gal for milk or 37.5c/pint. This would be about $137 if one drank a pint a day, about $274 if at two pints, or 4 pints about $548. To a single person, this is not such a big deal. If making $10 / hour full timeand drinking 4 pints/day which isn't unusual for a family with 2 kids, that's about 2.6% of one's income to milk, about 5% at $5.00. At income levels below this, you can easily see where 1 pint a day of milk, per person in a given family can easily represent a large percent of one's income, without even taking into account other food and, clothing, and shelter, not to speak of electricity to keep the milk, where the cost of milk would double or tripple.
1 pint of milk represents 200 to 300 calories depending on fat content, it can represent about 10% to 15% of a minimal diet in terms of raw calories. And a diet requires more than milk. A family of four making $18,850/year was considered to be the poverty in 2004 according to the HHS were 4 pints a day where a basic staple would be about 3% of that income, not taking into account electristy and taxes.
There is no sanctuary. There is no sanctuary. SHUT UP! There is no shut up. There is no shut up.
NO Internet only $9.99 a month.
The other oddball thing is that I don't have cable TV, and I live in an area that gets no over the air signal. I decided that I would rather pay for my wi-fi anywhere connection, which costs about the same as a month's subscription to cable TV. It was a lifestyle choice. I'm insanely in love with my handheld PC and my wi-fi anywhere service. Now that I no longer have a TV signal, I have found out what kind of life goes on around TV shows. People talk about TV all the time, and yes I feel left out because after nine months without a TV signal, I have no idea what in the hell my friends are talking about.
But I was the first one to have a cell phone, a decade before anyone else I know. None of my friends have wireless enabled PDAs, and I was part of the online BBS community long before Al Gore invented the internet.
Q: "What if you need 911?"
A: I live in a condo with 150 neighbors and on-site security, if I can't get 911 on my cell I'll yell
Q: "How will you get on the internet?"
A: Cable broadband
Q: "What if you need to send a fax?"
A: I've never had a fax machine in my home. My office is a ten-minute walk so I fax from there.
Q: "What if your cell phone batteries die?"
A: Every land line phone I have is cordless and uses batteries so that was already an issue.
Plus there was the whole "what if you drop and break your cell phone" or "what if you lose your cell phone" or "what if your cell phone is stolen" and on. As though I couldn't walk into a store within 12 hours and get a new one. Here's one of the funnier things... the person most concerned about the whole dead-battery thing doesn't have internet in their home (they do have computers though, and a vacation home and two boats so it's not a poverty thing like some others have implied) because they are religious and their church has convinced them that the internet is just about porn and having the internet in your home is inviting satan into your family or whatever.
So like you said... "To each their own"
Run and catch, run and catch, the lamb is caught in the blackberry patch.
and not having f@#$@ internet is a large part of it. suddenly, i have time to walk 1 mile to the grocery store and back, or the movie theatre, or... da da da da ... the wifi coffee shop that is 0.5 miles away from my net-less bachelor pad.
funny thing though, the main reason i dont have it is because id just be spending all day looking at pr0n.... the weight thing is just a side effect i guess.
$14/mo for DSL certainly isn't breaking my bank, but for the most part, I don't do anything on the net (says the man in a slashdot posting) that I couldn't live without. I have it at home because my wife needs it for grad school, and I do my time sheets for work. The net is what you make of it, but for many it seems too much like watching tv, twiddling away the hours until death.
People who think they know everything really piss off those of us that actually do.
Quoting from this article ->http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature. html?id=110005242
"
But what about equality? Well, the percentage of Americans living below the poverty line has dropped to 12% from 22% since 1959. In 1999, 25% of American households were considered "low income," meaning they had an annual income of less than $25,000. If Sweden--the very model of a modern welfare state--were judged by the same standard, about 40% of its households would be considered low-income."
I, too, think that the poverty problem in the USA is greatly exaggerated. I've lived enough in the USA and one of post-Soviet countries for a while and I can tell the difference.
you have to take the cost of groceries into account
I spend no more than $15/week on my groceries. Some people who think that groceries cost too much need to buy less food that is not necessary (soft drinks, cookies, pizzas, etc) and learn how to cook. Also, they should shop in economical food stores instead of the nearest ones. Damn, I spend much more money on gas for my car to go to work than on food.
A family of four making $18,850/year
Oh yeah? Maybe you shouldn't make a family of four in the first place if you can't get a decent job to afford kids?
I see "poor" beggars standing on the side of freeway exit ramps with signs asking for money every day I return from work. They are middle-aged men and women who don't have any visible physical disabilities. I have only one thought about them - "GO FIND A JOB AND WORK". Here are SO much more low-skilled job opportunities than in other countries. They can work in my father-in-law's local manufacturing plant and make nice $13/hr (he always works overtime because there are not enough people and they're always hiring). Oh, wait, they will need to actually work hard instead of sitting on their asses and begging for money? Really, I would understand it if there were no jobs in the area, but it is not the case.
Having worked in the "web industry" for years, and viewed access reports of several major websites, I can tell you that the majority of surfing, even of the 2/3 that do have Internet access, does occur at work.
Unless most people are somewhere other than work from 8-6, Monday through Friday.
Man, I never thought I'd see a kook who could rival Archimedes (nee Ludwig) Plutonium for volume and sheer *density*, and I'm damned if I know how I missed out on timecube/Gene Ray all this time, but I just blew half an afternoon off trying to follow his shtick through, and hey, this is some King Kook Shit, Willis!
My favourite line culled from this afternoon's readings: In the Scientific Proof from Cubic Awareness Online,
From empirical inference, there exists chaos.Man, I'll say. And I started off intending to argue the 'more entertaining' assertion, but am rendered speechless and definitely consider myself heartily entertained.
Uncle![17] Leary, T., White, C., Wood, P. R., Bhabha, W. D., and Wirth, N. Lambda calculus considered harmful. In Proceedings
1. E-mail? Hi, people have these things called phones.
2. IM? Hi, if you're not a teenage girl..
3. MySpace? Hi, if you're not a teenage girl..
4. Paying bills? Hi omgstampsandpostoffices.
5. Porn? Okay, I don't have an answer there.
Seriously, unless you like online games, require it for your job, or really like porn, you really don't need the internet.
Actually, THIS is definition of poverty in the United States. No mention of caloric intake is provided, although the income thresholds are based on the food budget of the average American family. Since you mention hunger, this link provides some analysis of poverty with respect to hunger.
That's approximately 4.7 million who experienced hunger and 718,000 who experienced it frequently. Both those numbers are significantly lower than your claim of 28 million. It is regrettable that people go without adequate food in the United States, but in a population of 300 million, it is impossible to eliminate completely.
There are two types of people: those prepared for the zombie apocalypse and those who will be eaten.
I don't see why people are opposed to internet connectivity. I think that, even accounting for the negative aspects, having an internet connection can easily enrich anyone's life. It's not just about crappy flash games or MySpace.
Earlier this week, I was spending some time at a relative's house and their internet connection went down for two days. Being a college student, I am used to 24/7 high-speed access. I realized that I have these natural impulses to search for things on the net when I think of them. Just finished watching The Prestige? Check out Rotten Tomatoes and IMDB to see what other people thought of it and possibly to discuss it. Looking for an obscure item? Instead of hunting for hours or days driving around, give it a quick search. Want to find a place to eat? Look up locations of restaurants, reviews, etc., all in just a few seconds. Surely even people who don't see the value in the more "nerdy" aspects of the internet could see the value in these services, which are just few among many.
I don't know if it's good or bad, but when I don't have the net access to act on these information gathering impulses, it feels like I'm stuck on a remote island. While I'm sure some prefer this remoteness, I certainly don't. It's not that the Internet has taken over part of my life, but it is a relatively reliable tool to make life easier and more enjoyable in so many ways and I feel like something important is missing without it.
I spend no more than $15/week on my groceries.
That's amazing. Could you please outline for us your grocery list? Please also include all meals and drinks you eat out too, since that counts towards the OP's reference to the 2000 calorie minimum.
"Idiots exist".
But they're already on the Internet. This was a survey of the other 1/3 of the the US population.
I'm not going to change your sheets again, Mr. Hastings.
Well all that very well may be true. However what all the geeks here forget is that the US is a BIG place with a comparable population. It will be a LONG time before we're so addicted to the Internet that it becomes a requirement. There's a lot of things that are going to have to come together to make that true. "Sonner or later" really isn't saying anything. Sonner or later the sun will burn out too. However for all intents and purposes it's a meaningless thing to bring up. Right now most are looking a few generations ahead, and that's were this survey fits in.
The interenet IS useful, and were the needs or wants of the individual match what the internet provides, then there is acceptance. But as others have pointed out there are also many more times that it doesn't and one shouldn't feel sorry for those people, any more than if they didn't have a car.
incorrectly quoted Alice's Restaraunt
"I do all my e-commerce shopping and YouTube-watching at work" was cited by 14 percent of Internet-access refuseniks. So, many people don't have home internet because they are unemployed/underemployed. And almost as many people don't need home internet because they have jobs where they spend all day on the internet instead of working.
Well, all this reading makes me feel like going outside for a walk. Bye
Does this study include dial-up? My friend in Louisiana has been using a 56k for the last 10+years since there is no DSL line in his neighborhood and he can't afford satellite wireless.
Ginga no Rekshiya Mata Each page.
That's bullshit, you're telling me that one in ten Americans are homeless and starving?
Anyone who heads to the polls and participates in an election has a solemn duty to be informed. That means either four figures worth of periodical subscriptions or an Internet connection. I suspect most of these people are getting their ideas from TV and not from the Atlantic and the Economist.
I am telling you that 1 in ten Americans are poor. They are unable to meet all of their basic needs. Is that so hard to believe?
I didn't say no one lived in poverty, nor that it wasn't bad. I said that the way they calculate whether someone is poor is flawed and includes too many people who are merely "low-income".
It also includes too few who are high-debt, in that their annual net income, after you deduct debt payments, is below the poverty level.
in the majority of cases 'high-dept' situations are self induced and therefor are a form of seld-induced poverty. Basically, no ones problem but the perpetrators.
Think about it. Most people cannot do simple arithmetic without a calculator or find a destination without a GPS direction finder. Of course they have no interest in Geography. A whole generation of kids has grown up dependent on a TV Tube and a game console for fun. I drive through my old neighborhood. The kids when I grew up formed gangs of bikers. Where did the bikers go? Think about all of the experimenting people did outside trying to entertain themselves as kids. Digging to China. Playing with model rockets. Firing them at each other. Blowing stuff up. Building go-carts and working with small engines. Playing basketball, football, baseball with our own rules and no supervision. Just horsing around.
I think you shouldn't even touch a computer until you are 14. People would be much better off. Maybe I have watched Terminator II too many times; but I am really starting to think about how the information age may not be 100% beneficial.
That's what I think.
I usually don't buy anything major for daily meals except milk, cereal, potatoes/spaghetti/rice(not instant) and hot-dog sausages ($0.79/8 pieces). And I don't eat out at all, as I consider it a waste of money. Also, I drink tea for $2.50/100 bags. If you choose right economical grocery stores, you can make it, too. Also, it helps if you consider food as means to supply yourself with necessary energy, nothing more, just like I do. Back on topic: I also fail to see how Internet connection can be expensive. I subscribed for VTISP dial-up for my parents-in-law for $3.95/month for 150 hrs per month, and it works great for online banking, paying bills, and finding information on the Internet (it can even be as low as $3.33/mo if you sign up for a year). As for a computer, I bought my first little home server at a garage sale for $3. I'm sure you can buy a decent computer at garage sales or goodwill-like stores or from a local college/university for no more than $20.
"These numbers would be more useful compared with others, such as the percentage who choose not to read." ...RTFA, RTFS or even RTFP. Oh wait, you mean non-geeks, don't you?
"You know why? Because young Americans are still geographically illiterate according to this article. http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2006/05/05 02_060502_geography.html.
It was also reported that about 23% of mature Americans cannot read a schedule! Further still, from one study, America's adults made no progress in their ability to read a newspaper, a book or any other prose arranged in sentences and paragraphs!"
Uh, huh. So in keeping with the posted story, by implication the people already on the internet can do all the above. So what does slashdot's grammer, spelling, and even math errors say? Maybe people don't want the internet because of all the arrogent SOB's they'd have to deal with, telling them they're too stupid to even own a computer let alone an internet connection.
I haven't used the Internet in years and I don't miss it. The last time I was on the Internet was back in 1995. I don't even use computers anymore. You make more money giving seminars about stuff you read in trade magazines.
Many technologies follow a saturation curve--slow take-off, sudden surge, then leveling off. I'll never forget the story about the town that didn't have TV until the 1970s. Then of course, there are those who just don't want something, or weren't raised with it. The Amish don't have cars. Your grandparents may have no desire for a net connection either. Once the older generation passes on, we should be close to having filled up the natural market for this technology. It may never penetrate as much as some other innovations, such as electrity which can light the night, or the phone which can summon emergency help. Compared to that, the ability to send an e-mail or download videos of rednecks blowing up home-made firecrackers just isn't compelling enough for many people. If they can find a social circle that feels the same way, 'net penetration may not reach the high 90 percent that some of these other techs have.
For all intensive purposes, "whom" is no longer a word. That begs the question, "who cares"?
Yes, that is a ridiculous suggestions. I'd bet that far more than 9/10 Americans have electricity, running water, regular meals and a roof over their heads.
I live 20 minutes drive from a small city in Canada (pop. ~110000), the best internet connection available is 28.8 kbps dialup, broadband access is not available and I doubt it ever will be. Satellite (latency) and wireless (stability) are not viable options. It will probably never be economical for a cable provider to lay the coax or the phone company to install DSL equipment here.
The internet grows less and less usable each day on dial-up. I have to resort to using Lynx more and more often to get the text I want from pages. I don't (can't) use YouTube and lots of other content on the web. What is most frustrating is that the majority of sites don't need all this high bandwidth crap, yet still do not provide lo-fi versions of their sites. (Thus the more and more frequent need to use Lynx or turning off css and images in firefox). Don't get me started on Flash... Flashblock for Firefox has enabled me to browse the web with a full browser where otherwise I could not. If I see a page that is flash only, I close it right away, there is just no point. Were it not for flashblock flash would make many more pages unviewable for me.
I'm betting I'm not the only one who has these experiences, eventually I may just cancel the dialup account, as internet and mail content continues to bloat with huge amounts of crap that contains very little information.
So, for all you page designers out there, flash is evil, NEVER place text in images (save logos), the "alt" attribute is your friend, thumbnails are good (for the love of god, don't just resize the full image), OPTIMIZE any images you do use (I recommend something like Adobe ImageReady), thankfully hardly anyone uses java applets anymore, but that is only because flash is so popular now... in summary - thinkofthebandwidthhandicapped!
So part of this statistic may be many dial-up users like me just getting frustrated and giving up.
P.S. and when mass mailing the latest "funny" video to all your friends, please leave the dialup users off your list, thanks.
Many Americans Still Don't Have Home... but they use internet from the libraries...
I do not believe in karma. "Funny"=-6. Do good and forbid evil. Yours, Oft-Offtopic Flamebaiting Troll.
In Australia last week we had a Politician promising to spend billions of dollars to get a high speed internet connection into every home. Why does every home need faster internet?
I can understand it for business in many cases (by by no means even most businesses), but for home?
The best explanation that came up was to download Movies faster. Hrrm.
It is NOT a high priority of the nation to be able to download movies fast.
That is a triviality.
Similarly, while there is occasional use for Internet in a home.... some businesses rudely insist that they be contacted and bills paid through it.... it really isn't critically useful. My wife pops on once a week to read emails, but she could easily, happily do with out that. My kids would go play physical, non-computer games without it, which would be a good thing.
I never ever push people into getting internet. It doesn't make their lives "better".
Could you still get pr0n back then? If yes, I think we could safely say that a large contingent of /. would not mind the 'old internet'.
Commodore64_love: I don't comprehend people who're so frightened of death that they'll bankrupt themselves to stay alive
My website traffic peaks Tuesday afternoons through Friday midday, drops dramatically on Sat and Sun. Gives me a warm feeling to be doing my part against the pointy-haired bosses..
Sent from the iPad I found in your car.
I usually don't buy anything major for daily meals except milk, cereal, potatoes/spaghetti/rice(not instant) and hot-dog sausages ($0.79/8 pieces). And I don't eat out at all, as I consider it a waste of money.
I looked at my eating habbits...
Up until september of last year, I was drinking 1/2 gal of cow's milk a day. Part of this was not wanting to waste money, and the simple fact that I can not drink old milk. I could be lactose intolerant, but regardless it would have not been cost effective for me to buy smaller bottles of milk in most cases, except when 1/2 gals were on sale. I did switch to soy milk, which does in all fairness have a longer shelf life, and I have to say it works out better for me, but that costs no less than $1.50 a quart on most days, where switching to green tea over coffee, I don't consume less than 5 quarts / week. So there's $7.50, almost 1/2 of your monthly alotment.
Green tea I consume no less than 4 bags/day, in fact 8 bags/day is typical. The best I can find is $1.50/20 bag box. I could buy the cheeper stuff, but I question it's health value, so that's easily $2.00/week, brining this figure up to 9.50.
Stirfried Hijiki seaweed again is another staple in my diet as of late. Again doctor's orders and it has a great shelf life. A box costs about $2.00 for what works out to be 1 liter of seaweed, which brings us up to 11.50. This does not include fancy extras, like a broth. For me this includes Vegitable broth and AnSung KukMul soup mix. Vegi broth is like 2ish/liter where the KukMul IIRC is like $3.00/10 pack, where two are used in my mix, so let's just aproximate $2.50. Added to the mix, Kimchi radishes which have a great shelf life, or I could go regular radishes, neglable cost. A hand full of snowpeas, again neglagable cost. I can go with either a thin sliced baked tofu, a deep fried tofu, or just plain old tofu microwaved a moment to make extra firm. The best I can hope for in terms of cost is $2.00/pack, though $4.00 for the baked seasoned stuff makes great snack food. Either way, i'm already above your $15/month budget, and i've not even added the kelp, dried squid/cuttlefish.
I broke your monthly allowance without even touching other staples like eggs, meat/fish, rice, noodles, bread, cheese/yogurt, vegitables/fruits and other things one could consider part of a well balanced diet.
Joy should be part of a well balanced diet. Something which might not be the best in terms of diet, might have a great emotional value. I am a frugle person, but I have to say I could not depend on hotdogs for my meat.
A key difference is at present, to cook for my self, a real meal, I need Vicoden. Weight of my groceries outweighs raw cost, and it just so happens that much in the way of asian food is excelent in terms of weight/nutritional value. Others might live in a big city like L.A. where time outweighs raw cost and delivery food such as thai, indian, chinese, floats at $4.00 to $6.50/plate.
I do eat out a bit, I just so happen to have decent indian food with an all you can eat lunch special of $5.00.
My target caloric intake is 4000 presently.
There is no sanctuary. There is no sanctuary. SHUT UP! There is no shut up. There is no shut up.
Man... We don't 28 million people eating less than 2000 calories a day even in Brazil. (which has a population that is roughly two thirds of the usa)
4000?
Man, are you a heavy lifter, or are you just planning to die earlier and with a belly the size of a 21" CRT?
The people who don't have cable modems will be called Morlocks.
Fascism trolls keeping me up every night. When I starts a preachin', he HITS ME WITH HIS REICH!
Back at Intel in 1999 - 2001 we were working on a lot of Ease-of-Use issues (with Microsoft and the top OEMs) to fix the most common reasons "normal people" struggled with or caused returns of perfectly functional PCs. A large study by this group asked people a number of questions about usage - problems and .... interest in using a PC if it was easier to use .......... this study yielded the same results ---- about 30% of people see no use for a computer in their daily home life -- no interest -- no desire to have connectivity.
Its not the years, its the mileage
4000?
Man, are you a heavy lifter, or are you just planning to die earlier and with a belly the size of a 21" CRT?
Actually... I lost weight last year. The funny thing about being underweight is you start burning fat, in your butt. You don't get your butt back. I'm "8 pounds" above the "ideal" weight listed in charts. However, I have reached my goal 180lbs, hince downgrading my caloric intake to 4000. I'd rather be 10 pounds over than any pounds under.
Good rule of thumb, a person who claims to put tofu and seaweed in their diet and has a goal of an above average caloric intake isn't likely to to have a belly the size of a crt.
There is no sanctuary. There is no sanctuary. SHUT UP! There is no shut up. There is no shut up.
You know, there is a reverse to that. Suppose you want to create the conditions where you could plausibly deny that something illegal that you're doing, stemmed from you? Your best bet would just be to leave the router opened up.
If you really don't break any laws when you go online, congratulations. But many people probably earn themselves 5-10 in federal prison (based on the maximum sentences) before breakfast.
A little plausible deniability might be a feature to many.
if you find out from your ISP that you're over bandwidth for the month because some wardriving pr0nsurfer grabbed a few G of kiddy pr0n through your wireless AP AND the Feds want a look at your HD, you've got a problem.
Tech Public Policy stuff
they simply don't have computers at home. IMO, the Baby Boomer generation is the last one this is going to be true of.
Tech Public Policy stuff
The poster above you doesn't take into account cost of living.
So while poor americans may seem living in luxury to chinese or indians,they are poor.
If you can't use money efficiently you're poor.
with most of the holdouts seeing little use for it in their lives,
These ..."lives" you are talking about are keeping them from participating in SL. But how can this be?
This site puts the US at a relatively high IP rate, so I'd gather that many users get their internet fix from work or school.
That is why you have statistics like: you can be "Poor" according to the income based poverty line, and still have a phone, cell phone, car, 2 tvs, air conditioning, etc. And those items are quite common amongst the "poor".
:)
Umm those are NECESSITIES!
Just because it CAN be done, doesn't mean it should!
"Your saintly self-righteousness is quite impressive. You are obviously a better person than all the rest of us. Good job."
While I agree with the bulk of your post, I think that was uncalled for. You told him to go do something about it; he was showing you that he has. How is what he said any more self-righteous that you when you said you'd been to Africa with the Red Cross?
...and I'll show you someone who's afraid of thinking.
What use is the World WIDE Web to the NARROW minded american?
.. because they didn't realise they live in America. They thought they live in Texas.
Engineering is the art of compromise.
and your sad attempts to tear down someone who couldn't care less about you, APK. You are less than nothing. Do you cry yourself to sleep at night knowing you have accomplished nothing of real value in your life? Do you occasionally get so angry at yourself that you scream in frustration and punch the walls, the pillows, anything you can find?
I know I've affected others' lives in a positive way. I am lucky enough to have many people who love me and to love them in return. But you? You have nothing and no one. When you die, your funeral will be short and witnessed by a few who will shake their heads sadly and say, "Pity he had to go before ever really growing up." Then they will move on, and you will be forgotten.
Forever.
+++ATH0
In other news....
President Bush's approval rating has sunk to a new low of 29 percent. Asked about his failing popularity, the president responded "The internets are controlled by an elite liberal agenda. I have a plan to provide open access to the internet. Fox News will take over the responsibilities of SDN czar. Err, uh, NDS car, ummm. Fool me once... DNS minister."
-- Having a Creationist Museum is like having an Atheist place of worship
Because you are such a sad, sad little boy who pretends to be an adult.
"lol!"
You sad little fool.
+++ATH0
Comment removed based on user account deletion