Slashdot Mirror
A Quarter of the EU Has Never Used the Web
smitty777 writes "Reuters reports that a quarter of the EU has yet to use the internet. Further, half of those in some of the southern and western states do not even have internet access at home. From the article: 'As well as highlighting geographic disparities across one of the world's most-developed regions, the figures underline the lack of opportunity people in poorer communities have to take part in advances such as the Internet that have delivered lower cost goods and service to millions of people.' The full report created by Eurostat can be found here."
That sentence really does sound a bit misleading, but I think they mean that half the people in southern and western states don't have internet at home. Besides, you can have the situation of the house having Internet, but only the kids using it.
I don't see how that's a problem. In Asia lots of people just go to internet cafe, if they want to access internet. Likewise, they do so for everything. It's a cultural thing. You want to do something? You go to place that offers that service. And they aren't pricey either, it's damn cheap. I kind of like that style too, it makes it social.
The summory sais 'West' but that's supposed to be 'East' - the former communist countries. Poverty and bad infrastructure are known problems there.. Lack of internet probably the least of their problems.
As for southern europe goes - yes, they have more internet cafe's. I assume the climate helps on that culture, same as for coffee etc.
States?
Everyone should have access to the internet. Those at the poorest end of society need it the most because all the best utility deals are online, as is a lot of government information.
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
A state is any politically-distinct entity, which can be as small as a single town, or as large as the whole EU. The word is much more versatile than the particular usage in the name "United States of America".
The State of the Union address states the state of the state of states.
You do not have a moral or legal right to do absolutely anything you want.
The article (and report) conclude that "24 percent of 16-74 year olds across the 27 countries in the European Union have never accessed the Internet". Meanwhile in the parts of the EU with the highest Internet use (such as in the Scandinavian countries) the rate of Internet access (ie people who actively use the Internet, not people who've used it only once) is in the 90%.
I would assume part of the reason for the statistic is that 16-74 is a pretty big age span. Particularly when it comes to new technology. It wouldn't surprise me if the "never used internet" population is almost entirely in the 50+ age bracket. Unfortunately the article, and report, doesn't give that information.
Not all the world is the USA, and you do not have a monopoly on enforcing the meaning of words.
From scarped cliff or quarried stone she cries "A thousand types are gone, I care for nothing, no not one."
So, interestingly, your argument (which I completely agree with) seems to have been taken on board by the poorer EU States.
From scarped cliff or quarried stone she cries "A thousand types are gone, I care for nothing, no not one."
As a Spaniard (South and West of EU) I have to say the summary is wrong. The fine article says the South and EAST!
Anyway, Spain is a country with large rural areas, but the broadband is nearly ubiquitous.
The term is not employed in the article linked to - only the submission. The common use of the term "states" in reference to the EU, without a modifier such as "Sovereign" or "Member" is in arguments about the precise political relationship of the 27 members to each other. To refer to them as "states" is to take a position in that political discussion.
Find Japanese addresses in English on Google Maps Japan: http://diddlefinger.com/
"Sovereign State" was not the concept employed.
Okay, fine:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State
As another poster in this sub-thread pointed out, you're not just wrong, you're stupid wrong. I just knew as soon as I saw the summary that there'd be someone making a fool of himself by complaining about the use of the word "state" in this context, and congratulations, you didn't disappoint.
The correlation between ignorance of statistics and using "correlation is not causation" as an argument is close to 1.
I'm always amazed when I see the number of articles on Wikipedia in different languages. The German Wikipedia for example has about 1.3 million articles, while the number of German-speaking people is about 100 million. There are *a lot* more people speaking Spanish around the world (Mexico alone has more than 100 million citizens), yet there are only about 850.000 articles in Spanish on Wikipedia.
I think the number of articles says a lot about internet penetration in European countries, because most of them have their own language. The Dutch Wikipedia for example has almost a million articles, while only about 30 million or so people actually speak the language. You see the same sort of ratio between articles to speakers in other nordic and western European countries. This ratio drops sharply as you move towards the east and south of Europe. People seem to be a lot less interested to add content to the internet in those countries. You could argue a poor country has other more important preoccupations, but people in countries such as Spain or Italy aren't all that poor, yet they don't seem to be adding a lot of articles to Wikipedia either.
Pretty good is actually pretty bad.
>Declarative statements about the intent of the summary's author are necessarily outrageous fabrications when made by anyone but the original author.
Nonsense! We can state categorically, for example, that the summary did not intend to refer to green cheese.
Find Japanese addresses in English on Google Maps Japan: http://diddlefinger.com/
Just like with all things, time and a compelling reason is needed to adopt new practices. My mother disliked it when computers were introduced in her job and after retirement was not interested in using the home PC for leisure purposes. When the nest became empty, Skype became a necessity. Last time I visited, she was looking at the camera and saying "hmmm, this photo is too dark but I'll adjust the brightness when I get home"...once at home she was complaining the computer was "too damn slow!" to get anything done...
I've met more than a few elderly people with, well not an Internet aversion but I guess just Internet ambivalence. They didn't have it growing up, they can't see why they need it now and don't wish to learn something new.
Also they are part of the case of dialup stats. You find an amazing number of people still on dialup. Geeks tend to say "Oh that's because broadband distribution sucks, so many people can't get it!" While it is true that broadband penetration isn't 100%, turns out that where most people live it is available. Most people live in more concentrated areas (hence why they are concentrated) and broadband is there.
Looking in to it you find there are people who just don't care. My grandma was one of those. Had a modem until like 2007. The only reason she got broadband was my uncle got fed up with not having broadband when he visited and just ordered it for her. She liked it once she had it, but couldn't be talked in to ordering it herself.
I've been on the Internet since mid 80-ies. With the authority of experience -for what it's really worth- I can classify these 25% as the happy few.
There still are ample media available for you to live an informed life without using the Internet.
Personally I find the Internet an invaluable source of CS related information and a nifty tool to obtain good deals on purchases. I actually speak face to face with people I care about. Anything skin deep I ignore completely.
I'm most likely not interested in your life story. The best times I have with actual people. CS is merely a hobby that happens to earn me a living. It took me a few mental leaps in the early stages to realise that graphical representations of bytes will never govern my life.
I hadn't the slightest objection to his spending his time planning massacres for the bourgeoisie... (P.G. Wodehouse)
The EU has a wide spread of countries, and development levels. Rural Romania has a different level of wealth and technology infrastructure than urban Finland, for example.
You make a good point about trust as an issue why some people might not take up internet use. My 77 year old father here in the UK does not go shopping online. I think part of this is lack of trust with the novel (to him) environment. Also, he doesn't need to go online. All his local services are within a few kilometres and he likes doing business in person. He is retired, so he can go to the bank and shops during quiet times of the day. Some people don't need the internet, or if they have access to it, choose not to use it.
For some people in Europe it is technical infrastructure. Check out a map of Europe and you will find that there are large areas where there is low speed or little access to the internet - modem speed access or maybe no access to fixed line telephones or mobile coverage. In Scotland, there is better coverage for 3G phones in the seas around the country than on the surface area of the land (internet is usually ok up to 2Mbs via land line in this country).
For quite a number of people in Europe, they cannot afford the cost of an internet connection. Check out prices in some of the lower developed European countries compared to state pension levels for example. For the young, employed, urban Europeans in highly developed countries internet costs are low compared to income, but for many others this is not the case.
It doesn't say half the population. It clearly states half of "some southern and western states".
Lack comprehension much?
The term is not employed in the article linked to - only the submission. The common use of the term "states" in reference to the EU, without a modifier such as "Sovereign" or "Member" is in arguments about the precise political relationship of the 27 members to each other. To refer to them as "states" is to take a position in that political discussion.
Please, just give up, you are making yourself look more and more ignorant. You are fixated on the US usage of the word "State" and think this implies that an EU country must be part of a greater "United States of Europe". It simply does not mean that in this context
To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
I don't get it. Why is everybody so pissed off of him? If he doesn't like the world outside, he doesn't like it. Valid attitude. Not mine, but also not my problem. What do you want anyway? Force anyone to like you - by offending them? Great idea. .
Oh, the beautiful gloss of greality!
(1) "the EU" vs "those in some southern and western states";
(2) "quarter of the EU" referring to individuals vs "at home" referring to households - most households comprise more than one person.
This is the sort of reading comprehension exercise an average ten year old should have mastered.
some hillbilly christian types that have no internet, no cable TV, no landline telephone, they live way out of town, they believe the US Government is the "Beast" of Revelation (chapter 13) and the end of the world is going to happen before the end of this decade
Politics is Treachery, Religion is Brainwashing
Not the Internet per se but mobile phones have been used by yak herders to decide the best time to take their yaks to the valley to sell, and by fishermen to decide where to take their catch.
Economics 101 tells you that power st6ems from asymmetric information. The Internet is a leveler of playing fields.
A friend of ours is in Nepal at the moment and using the Internet to relay back exactly what can be done most effectively to support the charity she's working with. The result is that they get aid months earlier than they would have done. I'm afraid that your argument is about Western media consumers, not real poor people.
From scarped cliff or quarried stone she cries "A thousand types are gone, I care for nothing, no not one."
The lack of Internet at home does not mean those people are disconnected. There are many people who only use the Internet at work, or go to a netcafe etc.
As hard as it would be to imagine in the United States, there are still places on earth where people actually know each other and interact with each other in person. If some farming village in the middle of nowhere doesn't have internet access, then I wouldn't wish it upon them. For the most part the internet is a scourge. I would be more interested to know how people without the internet in their lives survive. In america you can't even get a job without going online, which is ridiculous. Poor people are not helped by technology. Rich people force poor people to use technology as a way of generating revenue from otherwise lost causes.
if your life is such a big joke then why should I care?
"but on paper we are still different countries"
Hmm , not really. A true country has control of its own foreign policy and defense. The US States don't. A federal system is not the same ad a coalition which is what the EU is.
I'm really getting rather sick of listening to patronising Generation Y'ers that the net is the solution to all day to day transactions and that anyone who doesn't agree is some sort of reactionary luddite.
You know what? If those people want to live their lives online then thats their lookout.
But I actually LIKE going to shops to check out stuff physically before I buy in IT THE SHOP so I have somewhere to take it back to if it fails instead of having to parcel it up and go down the post office and pay money to send it back and then find out it got lost in the post and they never received it.
I LIKE sending cheques instead of using direct debit so *I* can choose on what day I pay, not have the money taken out regardless of how much is left in my account.
I LIKE speaking to a human on the end of a phone, not having to navigate through some feckin useless website which doesn't solve my problem anyway.
I LIKE using cash because I don't want my bank/CC company knowing about every single goddamn transaction I make.
And to sum up , I LIKE not having to be reliant on a sometimes unreliable piece of kit called a computer to run my entire feckin life.
Actually.. and i experienced this myself, if you are as a tourist in a area where everyone has internet in their home, it might be very hard to go on the internet.
There are no internet cafe's since there is no business model for it. Everyone has it at home.
There might be free wifi, but that requires a laptop. As a tourist i Do not carry a laptop.
Roaming via 3g is VERY expensive, and i only recent have a phone capable of wifi. That is not mainstream yet.
The effect is that the gap between have and havenot internet people only becomes greater. You can expierence it yourself as a tourist, but for some people this migh be the reality every day. If you have problems getting your daily needs (food, shelter), a computer for internet and a isp connection might be too expensive for you.
No, it means that half those without Internet access have never used it.
This sig under construction. Please check back later.
Thats why they still think French is the language of the future and that they're still a world power and the most important nation in the EU.
You should go drink some coffe.
50% of the population has access to the Internet at home. All of those accessed the Internet at least once, they are not on the headline.
50% of the population doesn't have access to the Internet at home. Half of those (25% of the total) have already accessed the net by other means. The other half (the remaining 25% of the total) have never accessed the net.
Rethinking email
should not eve bother to give up :)
Eurostat is full of garbage: they mix data that was collected according to different rules, does not make sense to debate anything they publish.
Most of their data is crap. For example, a few years ago Eurostat put the percentage of internet users in Iceland at 97%, which would have included some 4000 toddlers. The data sent by Iceland to Eurostat probably meant that 97% of the population live in an area with internet access, which does make sense. Another examples: urban/rural are defined differently in each country but reported as being the same (most UK towns under 10k would be counted as villages in Rumania, for example), broadband is reported differently, infant mortality is reported by each country differently (for example, US and a few of EU countries report a live birth if the child has a pulse _or_ moves independently, while most of the EU reports preemies under a certain weight or height or age as "lost pregnancy", no matter how long do the children live after birth so those children don't get into the "infant mortality" numbers) etc. etc. etc.
They are probably better off...the way Comcast and Verizon (the only 2 real choices in our area) charge ridiculous prices and, frankly, price fix everything the cost would be too high for most and I am NOT going to subsidize someone else just because I can afford my connection right now....no way. If Obama had his way he would make those of us who can afford it pay for everyone who cannot...last I checked, having internet access wasn't a God-given right....although Liberals would have you believe that...
"those" in this case refers to the population at large, not the population who hasn't ever accessed the Internet.
I know the English language can be difficult, but context can help you figure out a lot if you find it confusing.
You may want to go back to English grammar class, and pay a little more attention. :)
1. about 25% of the European Union population has never accessed the Internet.
2. about 50% of the European Union population that lives in southern/western states does not have access to the Internet at home.
The two statements are distinct, and not related. TFS/TFA are stating two separate statistics... while they're using a grammar structure that's more logical to somebody who speaks a romance language natively (French or Italian, most likely), it is perfectly grammatical in English to put it that way. "those" refers to the EU population, not the EU population that hasn't ever accessed the Internet.
Most first-world countries.
That being said, your *hotel* probably has free wifi, or at the very least, is wired for Ethernet to every room. I've never had trouble finding access to the Internet when I travel, despite having travelled to some extremely unwired countries. Access may be limited to when you're at the hotel, but you will usually be able to find at least some access to the Internet. It may not be 24/7 access to the Internet, but you will be able to keep up on your e-mail. In passing, if you're worried about checking your e-mail while you're being a tourist, then something's wrong with your priorities. And if you're worried about getting lost, I weep for the future: that's what maps are for.
As for 3G roaming... if you're paying for 3G roaming (even voice) you're nuts. At worst, it costs about $15 USD to unlock your cell phone. Just buy a prepaid SIM when you get to your destination, and put it in your phone. They're available in just about every country on the planet. And *gasp* if you have a smartphone? You'll have 3G data at the rates a local would pay, rather than roaming. And failing that, buy a cheap burn phone. You'd be surprised how cheap they are outside of the US (in the UK, for example, you can buy a £10 phone from O2, and they'll throw in a £10 prepaid SIM for free).