Time To Take the Internet Seriously

santosh maharshi passes along an article on Edge by David Gelernter, the man who (according to the introduction) predicted the Web and first described cloud computing; he's also a Unabomber survivor. Gelernter makes 35 predictions and assertions, some brilliant, some dubious. "6. We know that the Internet creates 'information overload,' a problem with two parts: increasing number of information sources and increasing information flow per source. The first part is harder: it's more difficult to understand five people speaking simultaneously than one person talking fast — especially if you can tell the one person to stop temporarily, or go back and repeat. Integrating multiple information sources is crucial to solving information overload. Blogs and other anthology-sites integrate information from many sources. But we won't be able to solve the overload problem until each Internet user can choose for himself what sources to integrate, and can add to this mix the most important source of all: his own personal information — his email and other messages, reminders and documents of all sorts. To accomplish this, we merely need to turn the whole Cybersphere on its side, so that time instead of space is the main axis. ... 14. The structure called a cyberstream or lifestream is better suited to the Internet than a conventional website because it shows information-in-motion, a rushing flow of fresh information instead of a stagnant pool."

Comments

Re:The question is how accurate are the prediction

[Anonymous Coward]

Ghor kaliyug!!!

Your bigotry is costing you much

[SuperKendall]

I thought it might help to explain the kind of filters Mr. Gelerter views the world through and thus help one decide whether his little treatise on the Internet is worth anything.

Ironically, Gelernter has a message anticipating your response in point 34:

The Internet today is, after all, a machine for reinforcing our prejudices. The wider the selection of information, the more finicky we can be about choosing just what we like and ignoring the rest. On the Net we have the satisfaction of reading only opinions we already agree with, only facts (or alleged facts) we already know.

You are prejudiced that anyone that makes points that agree with Rush, must be some kind of idiot. After all he does not agree with you philosophically, no matter the domain is not politics but technology. Therefore, his opinion is worthless.

Right. So Gelernter is passing judgment on the great social commons known as the Internet, is he?

No, that's not what he is doing at all. The sad thing is you will never know what he was doing while at the same time congratulating yourself for keeping the purity of your worldview intact.

And that is the real shame, that you would willingly ossify your beliefs instead of exposing yourself to new ideas when possible.