Beware the Internet

Washington Post by Error27 · 2013-07-01 21:05 · Score: 4, Insightful

In all fairness, Washington Post opinion pages are normally very stupid so this is not out of line with what's expected.

Re:Washington Post by arbiter1 · 2013-07-01 21:08 · Score: 3, Insightful

It lets everyone see the truth instead of what governments try to filter from the rest the world.
Re:Washington Post by Anonymous Coward · 2013-07-01 21:13 · Score: 5, Insightful

Yes, we would repeal the Internet because we want a return to the halcyon days of high profit margins for newspaper ads and classifieds.
We used to have a monopoly on the distribution of information. People used to do our bidding. Now, we're irrelevant and it really hurts our feelings.
Re:Washington Post by FriendlyLurker · 2013-07-01 21:19 · Score: 4, Insightful

Agreed. Since when did some old guys ignorant opinion become news for nerds, especially when such opinions flow almost 24/7 in all major newspaper opinion sections... old guys or indoctrinated young-uns lamenting the loss of hierarchical information flow?
Oh silly me, it is news for nerds since Washington Post stepped out of line. All part of the discredit the messenger(s) campaign. Carry on then...
Re:Washington Post by mythix · 2013-07-01 21:23 · Score: 5, Funny

I which he got his way, then I wouldn't be able to read his stupid opinion...
Re:Washington Post by Anonymous Coward · 2013-07-01 21:25 · Score: 4, Funny

uid 50431 calling people old... lol
Re:Washington Post by Anonymous Coward · 2013-07-01 21:33 · Score: 4, Insightful

"Truth" being defined, of course, as:
- opposite of whatever the government says
- whatever I feel the government is trying to hide from me
and
- whatever that ranting guy was shouting about the government yesterday at the bar, which was truth because he was too drunk to lie. I know because I was just as drunk.
Sigh.
Re:Washington Post by Yetihehe · 2013-07-01 21:34 · Score: 2

Agreed. Since when did some old guys ignorant opinion become news for nerds, especially when such opinions flow almost 24/7 in all major newspaper opinion sections...
It's good to know your enemy. I WANT to know when someone wants to take my series of tubes away.

--
Extreme Programming - Redundant Array of Inexpensive Developers
Re:Washington Post by Z00L00K · 2013-07-01 21:42 · Score: 4, Insightful

The internet today is what was the motorway system in the later half of the 20th century, the propagation of telephone net in the early half and the railroad in the 19th century.
Or if we go back further - the invention of the printing press was a revolution where the hand-copying of books suddenly became obsolete.
Either you adapt or you will be another victim of the steamroller of progress.

--
If builders built buildings the way programmers wrote programs, then the first woodpecker would destroy civilization.
Re:Washington Post by squiggleslash · 2013-07-01 21:44 · Score: 5, Insightful

Oh FFS people! Just because it's a newspaper doesn't mean it's not a troll. Newspapers were trolling long, long, long, before the Internet was invented.
The scary stuff isn't articles like this one, it's what they write when they're being serious.

--
You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
Re:Washington Post by Anonymous Coward · 2013-07-01 21:52 · Score: 1

are we confusing truth with truthiness again?
Re:Washington Post by OolimPhon · 2013-07-01 22:02 · Score: 5, Insightful

There are four versions of any event: my version, your version, the truth and what really happened.
Re:Washington Post by hairyfeet · 2013-07-01 22:09 · Score: 1

Not gonna happen, too many major corps making mad money on the net to allow it to get turned off. Sadly we have a country run by whores and corps like Google can just whip out their checkbook and having them dropping to their knees faster than you can say campaign contributions.

--
ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
Re:Washington Post by geirlk · 2013-07-01 22:21 · Score: 5, Funny

In all truthiness, what's socialists got to do with tinfoil hats? It's the right wing teabaggers that wears tinfoil hats.
Socialists wear organic copper threaded wool hats.
Re:Washington Post by geirlk · 2013-07-01 22:25 · Score: 0

newfag anon calling oldfag out... lol
Re:Washington Post by Dog-Cow · 2013-07-01 22:34 · Score: 1

That's not old.
Re:Washington Post by K.+S.+Kyosuke · 2013-07-01 23:09 · Score: 4, Funny

After all, as post-modernists tell us, there really is no "truth" anyway, it's whatever you choose to believe anyway.
A long time ago, I've chosen to believe that post-modernists are a figment of my imagination.

--
Ezekiel 23:20
Re:Washington Post by Evtim · 2013-07-01 23:12 · Score: 3, Interesting

Indeed! Best illustrated by the movie that opened the western audience to Akira Kurosawa - "Rashomon"
Check it out, it's worth it! The whole plot is people giving account to some events (even the dead one testifies via a medium) and at the end we see what really happened..
Re:Washington Post by Mashiki · 2013-07-01 23:48 · Score: 1

Quite true. Of course in order to maintain relevance they have no problems with ripping stories from bloggers and citizen journalists without attribution.

--
Om, nomnomnom...
Re:Washington Post by cold+fjord · 2013-07-01 23:51 · Score: 1

Don't forget the witnesses, and the video recording (in which the other guy and the exculpatory evidence will be just out of frame).

--
much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don't even know that fire is hot - George Orwell
Re:Washington Post by Anonymous Coward · 2013-07-01 23:53 · Score: 1

There are four versions of any event: my version, your version, the truth and what really happened.
Five. The version the spin doctors push to try and reduce the importance of the actual truth. But you knew that anyway (so the truth is not important).
When you can't hide it, call meh and point at something shiny.... ooh look at that, it goes 500mph!
Re:Washington Post by Anonymous Coward · 2013-07-01 23:57 · Score: 0

It's like if Andy Rooney joined FOX News.
Re:Washington Post by cold+fjord · 2013-07-02 00:10 · Score: 1

Socialists wear organic copper threaded wool hats.
The copper hats come in his and hers.
The tin foil hat.

--
much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don't even know that fire is hot - George Orwell
Re:Washington Post by Anonymous Coward · 2013-07-02 00:18 · Score: 0

That movie wasn't illustrated. Hoodwinked was illustrated!
/ducks..
Re:Washington Post by Anonymous Coward · 2013-07-02 00:19 · Score: 1, Insightful

"Either you adapt or you will be another victim of the steamroller of progress"
Or don't adapt (otherwise translated as "conform") and just get out of the way of the steamroller. I know many people who live just fine without the Internet at all. Last I checked my biology text book, the Internet was not one of the requirements for life.
Re:Washington Post by Anonymous Coward · 2013-07-02 00:22 · Score: 0

But... But... The terrorists!
Re:Washington Post by Mr+Foobar · 2013-07-02 00:28 · Score: 1

That's not old.
I know, right?!
UID =/= Age

--
-> I dislike sigs...
Re:Washington Post by wagnerrp · 2013-07-02 00:32 · Score: 3, Interesting

We're not talking about individual people, we're talking about industries. Specifically, we're talking about a writer at the Washington Post lamenting the technology that will be the downfall of the printed newspaper. His industry is changing, and rather than adapt to the new medium, he's throwing up FUD that the new technology is dangerous, and should have never been invented.
Re:Washington Post by Anonymous Coward · 2013-07-02 00:34 · Score: 0

Any good liberal would ban the internet.
Re:Washington Post by Anonymous Coward · 2013-07-02 00:35 · Score: 0

Point taken, but... Do I have to list the examples of at least the US government being exposed as doing the opposite of what they say they are doing. I mean really?
Re:Washington Post by Anonymous Coward · 2013-07-02 00:36 · Score: 0

Uh, the "what really happened" is the actual truth of the matter- because what happened is a FACT . Now, whether the truth matches one or the other versions of the event remains to be seen- sometimes one, the other, or both versions closely match.
Anyone that modded this "insightful" doesn't get that truth is equivalent to "what is" or "what happened" and it's a sign of part of what's wrong in this country.
Re:Washington Post by bluefoxlucid · 2013-07-02 00:38 · Score: 4, Insightful

Child pornography--which is not dangerous, but rather a symptom of a pre-existing form of child abuse which is considered dangerous and which cannot be called a symptom or byproduct of another physical, harmful action (it's a symptom of a psychological condition, which is internal to a person and harmful to no one else until an action is taken).
Grooming and enticement of children--the real danger that precedes (and, often, doesn't precede) the above. Easier and safer in real life, since you tend to know a lot of children and you know they're not FBI agents and it's harder to monitor everyone arbitrarily in real life. Proliferated with the Internet to greater incidence anyway.
Identity theft--which occurs in the real world easily enough, but is much easier to profit from and has a greater market with the Internet.
Stupid people--getting stupider all the time, now twice as stupid with Internet, going out to vote based on their stupidity. Stupid enough to threaten their own privacy and post pictures of their friends everywhere and talk about shit openly about their friends, so they threaten everyone else's privacy.
People selling you shit.
The list goes on and yet the biggest threat of the internet is CYBERWARFARE?!

--
Support my political activism on Patreon.
Re:Washington Post by Anonymous Coward · 2013-07-02 00:40 · Score: 1

Connecting everyone with point-to-point digital transmission capability is great. But please don't tell me you can't imagine that the hodgepodge of html, css, javascript, and other horrid sloppy standards we use to build web apps couldn't be improved.
If you define the internet as "connecting everybody", then yes, it's wonderful. If you define the internet as the web ... blech. We really deserve better.
Re:Washington Post by bluefoxlucid · 2013-07-02 00:46 · Score: 1

The Gap Cycle - The Real Story explains on the back cover in one paragraph what happened. The inside of the book explains in a short run what happened, expanding on the summary to explain the REAL story. Then it goes back and explains what REALLY happened. Then finally he goes all the way back and tells the whole story, the REAL story, from beginning to end, with the rest of the 3/4 of the (short) book. And THAT ... is the REAL story.
Fridge logic: The plot twists and deepens and thickens as you read, which is normal. If you think about it when you're done, though, the natural progression of the plot essentially unseats a whole lot of shit repeatedly throughout the series--when you get near the end, what you understand as the sequence of events that were explained in the beginning is something wholly different. It takes the entire fucking 2500 page series to actually get the REAL story.

--
Support my political activism on Patreon.
Re:Washington Post by IndustrialComplex · 2013-07-02 01:04 · Score: 4, Funny

Last I checked my biology text book, the Internet was not one of the requirements for life.
Last I checked my biology text book, it gave me a one time code and directed me to the publisher's website. Unfortunately, the code was used so I can't confirm your claim.

--
Out of modpoints but really liked a post? 1BDkF6TtmmeZ3yqXbz9yhdYVqRYnwFoXDj
Re:Washington Post by Anonymous Coward · 2013-07-02 01:07 · Score: 0

YOU CAN'T HANDLE THE TRUTH!
Re:Washington Post by Somebody+Is+Using+My · 2013-07-02 01:16 · Score: 1

is industry is changing, and rather than adapt to the new medium, he's throwing up FUD that the new technology is dangerous, and should have never been invented.
To be fair, this new technology /is/ dangerous. It can be used by malefactors to lie, steal or even - given the perfect set of circumstances - even kill others.
Not unlike any other technology, of course.
Whether the risks outweigh the benefits of a new technology is something every society has to determine for itself. Obviously, those whose livelihoods depend on the "old way" are more likely to stress the threats as they themselves reap less benefit. On the other hand, those that benefit directly from the new technology are less likely to focus on the threats. In either case, it doesn't mean that threat doesn't exist nor that the opposing sides are unable to recognize the advantages or disadvantages; they just weigh them differently.
Fortunately, I think most people recognize that the advantages the Internet brings to a society greatly outweigh the disadvantages, and that most of the dangers can be mitigated given proper concern and money (e.g., companies need to stop treat internet and computer security like a red-headed step-child and actually invest in securing their cybernetic holdings). There is a gradual movement in this direction, thanks to a number of large hacks getting hit by the media spotlight. Hopefully this trend continues before there is a serious breach where people actually get hurt.
So, yeah, Samuelson's article should be taken with a grain of salt but at the same time we shouldn't ignore it completely. There is some truth to his words and - as those most familiar with the new technology - we should not completely ignore him but heed his warnings to ensure his prophecies do not come to term.
Re:Washington Post by Anonymous Coward · 2013-07-02 01:18 · Score: 0

Is that Terry Pratchett?
Re:Washington Post by niftydude · 2013-07-02 01:41 · Score: 1

Man, The Gap Cycle is my favorite sci-fi series ever. It is the most brilliant, well-plotted and self-consistent story I've ever read. The writing style is also incredibly powerful. I never really liked Donaldson's writing style for the Thomas Covenant series, but The Gap Cycle is amazing.

Anyone have suggestions of anything that comes close?

--
You can never know everything, and part of what you do know will always be wrong. Perhaps even the most important part.
Re:Washington Post by Spuds · 2013-07-02 01:54 · Score: 1

Seriously. Silly kids these days.
Re:Washington Post by bluefoxlucid · 2013-07-02 02:03 · Score: 1

I can't find anything, but i can recommend Sanderson. The Way of Kings is a masterpiece, as is Mistborn.

--
Support my political activism on Patreon.
Re:Washington Post by Politburo · 2013-07-02 02:07 · Score: 1

Actually it is never definitively shown what really happened.
Re:Washington Post by niftydude · 2013-07-02 02:08 · Score: 1

Thanks, I'll take a look - I thought Sanderson did pretty well finishing off Wheel of Time, but I've never read any of his other stuff.

--
You can never know everything, and part of what you do know will always be wrong. Perhaps even the most important part.
Re: Washington Post by Anonymous Coward · 2013-07-02 02:21 · Score: 0

Parhaps you shouodl use the correct field of expertise.... Its not a requirement to have a beating heart, but it is a requirement to live in society and survive above living in the street. Paper isn't a requirement for life and niether is math, but without them we are less off.
Its nearly impossible to get a job without the internet, nearly impossible to interact with people from the other side of the world to do business in a timely manner. If you want to live in society you must have access to the Internet.
Re: Washington Post by Anonymous Coward · 2013-07-02 02:22 · Score: 0

if you define the internet as the web then you don't know wtf you are talking about.
Re:Washington Post by kilfarsnar · 2013-07-02 02:23 · Score: 1

I suppose, if by "truth" you mean the kind of ideas tinfoil-hat wearing socialists believe in. After all, as post-modernists tell us, there really is no "truth" anyway, it's whatever you choose to believe anyway.
This is the case, although it makes some people uncomfortable. There is only perception. Some things we all agree on and these become facts and "truth". Scientific experiments are a good example; they are repeatable and we can all agree on the outcome. But the only way we know anything is through our individual perception. So while there may be an objective reality, it is unknowable.

--
"What the American public doesn't know is what makes them the American public." -Ray Zalinsky (Tommy Boy)
Re:Washington Post by gnick · 2013-07-02 02:37 · Score: 2

ooh look at that, it goes 500mph!
Agreed. Oh look! "It is his belief that the dangers of the Internet outweigh its benefits." Let's ban progress. Who the hell was reckless enough to invent gunpowder??

--
He's getting rather old, but he's a good mouse.
Re:Washington Post by interkin3tic · 2013-07-02 02:54 · Score: 1

"Either you adapt or you will be another victim of the steamroller of progress"
Or don't adapt (otherwise translated as "conform") and just get out of the way of the steamroller. I know many people who live just fine without the Internet at all. Last I checked my biology text book, the Internet was not one of the requirements for life.
GP was obviously talking about businesses. That was the context there, in case you missed it. So if you're reading a biology text book to understand what is going to happen to journalism or other industries, then a few things about your post start to make sense.
Re:Washington Post by Anonymous Coward · 2013-07-02 03:18 · Score: 0

For anything beyond very basic facts, there is no objective truth; all events are filtered through our experience and viewpoint. An Al Queda terrorist blows up a cafe; the only truth is that the bomb exploded, people died. Everything else is interpretation. Was he in Al Queda, and is that why he did it? Was it an act of terrorism, war, or self-defense? Was it a cafe or an enemy observation post? Was the guy a hero or a terrorist? Were the people killed innocents or combatants? You can't tell the full story without at least some of those answers, but there is no objective truth for any of them.
Re:Washington Post by keneng · 2013-07-02 03:20 · Score: 1

Where can I buy one of those "Organic copper threaded wool hats"?
Re:Washington Post by Anonymous Coward · 2013-07-02 03:25 · Score: 0

'really happened' and the truth should be definitionally one and the same..
Re:Washington Post by riT-k0MA · 2013-07-02 03:27 · Score: 2

Wait! No! Stop!
Whatever you do DO NOT read The Way Of Kings.
The ending will leave you angry and spluttering because the next book isn't out yet and you want more immediately. It's THAT good.
Re: Washington Post by Anonymous Coward · 2013-07-02 03:38 · Score: 0

Society determines dictionary definitions. It doesn't matter if you like it or not, for many, yes, the web is the internet.
Re:Washington Post by Anonymous Coward · 2013-07-02 04:22 · Score: 0

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life
Re:Washington Post by LifesABeach · 2013-07-02 04:28 · Score: 1

The Internet has made our planet smaller. People can talk, and easily ship stuff from one place to another. Ship stuff? Ya, all by the Internet. If Robert J. Samuelson wants a cold sweat, then she should start looking into the open source establishment of Asimov's Laws,(I would hope they become tensors), of Robotics. Gifting any machine the ability to hunt and kill, for any reason, is truly disturbing.
Re:Washington Post by Runaway1956 · 2013-07-02 04:31 · Score: 1

The Chinese did that. The same crowd (a few generations removed, of course) that is so busy taking over the world's finances today.

--
"Windows is like the faint smell of piss in a subway: it's there, and there's nothing you can do about it." - Charlie Br
Re:Washington Post by bluefoxlucid · 2013-07-02 04:35 · Score: 1

Yeah if you can finish it by the end of the year.

--
Support my political activism on Patreon.
Re:Washington Post by Rob+Bos · 2013-07-02 04:36 · Score: 1

I know, right?
Re:Washington Post by gnick · 2013-07-02 04:40 · Score: 1

It was just an example. And it's hardly the most dangerous invention in history and not by the most aggressive civilization - even in their region. Should we go with "Who invented nuclear weapons?"

--
He's getting rather old, but he's a good mouse.
Re:Washington Post by gnick · 2013-07-02 04:43 · Score: 1

Heck, the Nobel prize has been contributed to the inventor of dynamite (whatever his name was...)

--
He's getting rather old, but he's a good mouse.
Re:Washington Post by makapuf · 2013-07-02 05:22 · Score: 1

No, the inventor *of* dynamite as a weapon was Alfred Nobel. He had remorse about it and created a peace prize.
Re:Washington Post by BeansBaxter · 2013-07-02 05:32 · Score: 1

Hoodwinked rocked!
Re:Washington Post by Anonymous Coward · 2013-07-02 05:34 · Score: 0

Was that a WHOOSH I just heard?
Re:Washington Post by Anonymous Coward · 2013-07-02 06:08 · Score: 0

Neh. We'd be better off without the Internet. It's a mirror of civilization and we're not very civilized as it turns out.
Re:Washington Post by bdwebb · 2013-07-02 06:36 · Score: 1

I think you're fairly accurate...at least going off of recent revelations where the government is concerned.

- There hasn't been much truth in anything that has been said,
- the government has obviously been hiding info (that's without question, it has just become more public how deep the iceberg could possibly go recently),
- and that guy at the bar was me!!

Okay it wasn't really me, but I don't think there is any reason to be *sighing* about this as though you just pointed out how silly the previous poster's statement was. I don't really see much that is incorrect about the statement. Of course it is along the lines of the "Damn Gubmint ruinin' jobs and screwin' people over! Nothin' but liars and crooks!" attitude that makes all of us want to roll our eyes, but I'm having more and more of a difficult time not being that guy myself anymore and I'm not really sure how you can sigh and pretend that the ranting guy isn't at least partially right.

All I'm saying is the American Revolution was conceived of and organized in bars by angry ranting people...maybe not all those guys are jackasses.

PS: I'm not advocating a revolt here - fuck off to anyone from the NSA :)
Re:Washington Post by Darinbob · 2013-07-02 06:37 · Score: 1

And the Hollywood adapation makes five.
Re:Washington Post by Darinbob · 2013-07-02 06:45 · Score: 1

Can I get a copper threaded wool hat in the Jayne style?
Re:Washington Post by Bob+the+Super+Hamste · 2013-07-02 06:54 · Score: 1

Serious question how do you measure how dangerous something is?

If going by body count then I believe the Kalashnikov line of firearms is probably the leader (I remember reading that it had killed more people than every other firearm) for weapons. Now when you get to silly arguments like the number of possible people that could be harmed or killed (everyone could be harmed or killed by just about anything) then everything is about equal.

--
Time to offend someone
Re:Washington Post by Anonymous Coward · 2013-07-02 07:09 · Score: 0

[2017] I just found on the Internet that one Mr. Robert J. Samuelson was the first person to receive a worthy head transplant -- of an ass!
Re:Washington Post by gnick · 2013-07-02 07:27 · Score: 1

I agree. I could be fired for bringing something as innocent as a pocket knife into work, but if I saw somebody get busted for one it would really make me want to smack security with my keyboard.

--
He's getting rather old, but he's a good mouse.
Re:Washington Post by BitZtream · 2013-07-02 07:38 · Score: 1

God you're an idiot.
Are you so silly as to think the government runs massive coverup conspiracies ... but wouldn't bother to load the news media with agents who would help it cover its ass?
If the USG wants to filter shit like that, they will, because the guy in charge will be a government agent, not some random normal citizen.
Jesus christ, you guys and your retarded half assed conspiracy theory. You come up with some outrageous crap that the government is capable of, and then think they'd fuck it up on some mundane detail that YOU figured out?
They pay people millions of dollars every year to sit around and figure out how to do spy shit ... and your random 17 year old slashdotter thinks he figured it all out while working on his term paper.

--
Persistent Volume manager for Kubernetes - https://github.com/dwimsey/openshift-pvmanager
Re:Washington Post by lgw · 2013-07-02 07:53 · Score: 1

Dammit, why do you have to have such a good imagination?

--
Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
Re:Washington Post by TeknoHog · 2013-07-02 08:35 · Score: 1

After all, as post-modernists tell us, there really is no "truth" anyway, it's whatever you choose to believe anyway.
Well, that's just, like, your opinion, man.

--
Escher was the first MC and Giger invented the HR department.
Re:Washington Post by Anonymous Coward · 2013-07-02 09:03 · Score: 0

I agree, its sour grapes from a leading member of last generations informations systems crying out at his obsoscence.
Like most, he harkens back to a golden age that never really happened.
Re:Washington Post by Anonymous Coward · 2013-07-02 11:13 · Score: 0

Agreed. Since when did some old guys ignorant opinion become news for nerds, especially when such opinions flow almost 24/7 in all major newspaper opinion sections... old guys or indoctrinated young-uns lamenting the loss of hierarchical information flow?
Oh silly me, it is news for nerds since Washington Post stepped out of line. All part of the discredit the messenger(s) campaign. Carry on then...
Slashdot's format is basically that of a call-in talk show. It's all about getting you stirred up to post comments, which is what people actually come here to read.
Sort of like a talk show, some of the content is whatever the host digs up, add opinion for spice, and the rest is ranting callers.
I mean.. does one listen to Rush for the "news" or to listen to all the crazies out there?
Re:Washington Post by lennier · 2013-07-02 11:38 · Score: 1

He had remorse about it and created a peace prize.
No no, Morse invented the telegraph. Try to keep up.
Who's on first?

--
You are not a brain: http://books.google.com/books?id=2oV61CeDx-YC
Re:Washington Post by lennier · 2013-07-02 11:46 · Score: 2

For anything beyond very basic facts, there is no objective truth; all events are filtered through our experience and viewpoint.
No, they really aren't. All events are actually filtered through physical reality, which is (as best as we can tell) a bunch of quantum wavefunctions coalescing as atoms moving with relative speed no faster than 186,000 miles per hour in a four-dimensional (or possibly 11-dimensional) spacetime continuum. But however we choose to conceptualise it, it actually exists. Our theories don't.
Objective reality packs a heck of a punch, isn't at all the same thing as our various contradictory and incorrect ideas about it, and frankly simply doesn't care what lies we choose to believe about it. But get in its way and it will hurt you.

--
You are not a brain: http://books.google.com/books?id=2oV61CeDx-YC
Re:Washington Post by lennier · 2013-07-02 11:56 · Score: 1

So while there may be an objective reality, it is unknowable.
And you know this how?
Of course objective reality exists and is at least partially knowable, or we wouldn't even be able to have this conversation.
Honestly, I don't understand how postmodernists get out of bed in the morning. The bed might be a cabbage! They might accidentally walk through a doorway into ancient Egypt! The sun might really be a giant octopus!
But, you know, it actually isn't.

--
You are not a brain: http://books.google.com/books?id=2oV61CeDx-YC
Re:Washington Post by riT-k0MA · 2013-07-02 19:04 · Score: 1

Took me 3 days to read. Was stuck in bed and freshly missing 4 wisdom teeth at the time, but still...
Re: Washington Post by Rational · 2013-07-02 21:48 · Score: 2

Alternatively, we can just treat his agenda-driven scaremongering with the scorn and derision it deserves.

--
"Be nice, veer left, and never stop thinking" Iain Banks - Walking On Glass
Re:Washington Post by geirlk · 2013-07-03 02:14 · Score: 1

You'll have to craft them yourself.
It's either that, or buy them here: http://www.eforchina.com/view/127946/Fashionable-Outdoor-Anti-radiation-Hat-for-Blocking-UV--Mosquito--Grey-.htm
Organic: As in partially assembled by human worker droids.
Sosialistic: Because made in China.
Re:Washington Post by Anonymous Coward · 2013-07-03 04:44 · Score: 0

"rather than adapt to the new medium"
Harrumph! That may be superficially logical, but the reality is sometimes the only adaptation is to disappear, or to become something wholly new -- which still a kind of disappearance. Newsweek has not "adapted," it's dead, even if something less useful carries on its name.
Smugness about one's ability to accept change in the name of "progress" should not blind us to the reality that the loss of the print newspaper actually is a loss -- even if inevitable, and even if one believes the advantages of the new order justify the change. Newspapers at their best have powers of editing and research and wide audiences that a million self-opinionated no-resource micro-bloggers do not replace.
Re:Washington Post by peawormsworth · 2013-07-03 05:03 · Score: 1

Inflamitory remarks get more readers. I cant imagine many people feel this way, so people will tend to read articles like this simply to understand where such remote opinions come from. Im not going to bother reading it, so I can not debate the issues around it. I will simply say that I believe the Internet provides massive educational potential for the majority of people living in poor countries. That alone makes me feel that those who do not like the Internet come from a priveledge society and may not have empathy for the majority of citizens on this earth.
Re:Washington Post by athenaprime · 2013-07-03 05:11 · Score: 1

Man walks around wearin' a hat like that, you know he ain't afraid of nothin'. Not even gubmint conspiracies.
Re:Washington Post by geirlk · 2013-07-03 20:55 · Score: 1

From your choice in hats, I am guessing you are in the market for butt ugly, so how's this for ugly?
http://www.baldron.eu/radiation/skjerming-emf/klaer/baldron-hat-for-woman-wool-b-damelue.html
No worries, they also carry vests and similar:
http://www.baldron.eu/radiation/skjerming-emf/klaer/baldron-designer-vest-in-peat-for-men-b-torv-vest.html
Or are you more of a premium nut case? Then this might be for you:
http://www.baldron.eu/radiation/skjerming-emf/klaer/headnet-veil-of-translucent-silver-fabric-st-headnet.html

Got that finger pointed the wrong way... by meta-monkey · 2013-07-01 21:06 · Score: 5, Insightful

Me? I'd repeal the Baby Boomer generation. The Internet's only scary when you're still dealing with a scarcity-based mindset. Otherwise, you're trying to figure out how to make the real world more like the Internet (minus goatse, natch).

--
We don't have a state-run media we have a media-run state.

Re:Got that finger pointed the wrong way... by Anonymous Coward · 2013-07-01 21:15 · Score: 0

Scarcity of the tangible is still extremely relevant.
The Internet has made scarcity of the intangible and ephemeral unthinkable, and this has had the side effect of making liquidity much greater.
Just try transporting a copper pipe through the Internet.
Re:Got that finger pointed the wrong way... by Anonymous Coward · 2013-07-01 21:21 · Score: 1

Say what?
-- Amazon.com
Re:Got that finger pointed the wrong way... by Impy+the+Impiuos+Imp · 2013-07-01 21:36 · Score: 1

When people invent things, it's not suddenly scarce to you because there's something else you don't have.
All measurements show increasing quality and length of life. We live in ever-increasing plentitude.
What godawful meme got lodged in that brain of yours?

--
(-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
Re:Got that finger pointed the wrong way... by Anonymous Coward · 2013-07-01 21:38 · Score: 1

I'd repeal the Washington Post -- or at least its opinion page.
Re:Got that finger pointed the wrong way... by c · 2013-07-01 23:13 · Score: 4, Funny

Otherwise, you're trying to figure out how to make the real world more like the Internet (minus goatse, natch).
I was under the impression that it's the TSA's mandate to make the real world more like goatse, but otherwise I agree with your point.

--
Log in or piss off.
Re:Got that finger pointed the wrong way... by Anonymous Coward · 2013-07-01 23:35 · Score: 0

Every Internet startup and established company wants to create that uniquely valuable service with expanding demand even if that service would be completely redundant. Scarcity-based mindset is live and well in the youngsters among us.
Then there are the critical mass and competition of ideas aspects, which are somewhat more difficult to create without a sufficient amount of progress hungry people.
Re:Got that finger pointed the wrong way... by Anonymous Coward · 2013-07-01 23:47 · Score: 1

Considering they invented the internet, you can both get your wishes. Win! Win!
Re:Got that finger pointed the wrong way... by sjames · 2013-07-02 00:08 · Score: 1

You think that's hard, you should try ordering a book through a copper pipe.
Re:Got that finger pointed the wrong way... by khallow · 2013-07-02 00:14 · Score: 4, Insightful

I'd repeal the Baby Boomer generation.
Does anyone here aside from me see the profound stupidity in blaming a group of people because of when they lived. Who would have done better?
Re:Got that finger pointed the wrong way... by Anonymous Coward · 2013-07-02 00:58 · Score: 0

What goatse? Can I have a link?
Re: Got that finger pointed the wrong way... by Anonymous Coward · 2013-07-02 01:28 · Score: 0

I think the word you are looking for is tube.
Re: Got that finger pointed the wrong way... by sjames · 2013-07-02 01:54 · Score: 1

I have successfully ordered books through the intertubes though.
Re:Got that finger pointed the wrong way... by Anonymous Coward · 2013-07-02 02:14 · Score: 0

I'd repeal the Baby Boomer generation.
Who would have done better?
Neolithic man. Everything bad happened because of metal tools.
Re:Got that finger pointed the wrong way... by Anonymous Coward · 2013-07-02 02:46 · Score: 0

Nobody is blaming the baby boomer generation for when they lived, they are blaming them for using the excessively large amount of political clout that they have to make a long series of hideously bad decisions primarily negatively effecting the following generations while sparing their own.
Re:Got that finger pointed the wrong way... by Anonymous Coward · 2013-07-02 02:50 · Score: 0

blaming a group of people because of when they lived
You mean like nazi Germany ? If the majority of people in a generation behaved in a certain way, I think it's safe to generalize and call them on it, as long as you understand the limits of that generalization. Nobody is dismissing Bruce Schneier or RMS for beying baby boomers. Most Tea Party talking heads ? Fucking rich baby boomers making sure the system they created is perpetuated for their benefit.
Re:Got that finger pointed the wrong way... by PlusFiveTroll · 2013-07-02 03:14 · Score: 1

>All measurements show increasing quality and length of life
I wouldn't say 'All'
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/09/21/us/life-expectancy-for-less-educated-whites-in-us-is-shrinking.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0
Re:Got that finger pointed the wrong way... by SCPRedMage · 2013-07-02 04:09 · Score: 1

BAM, Godwin's Law.
We're done here folks, move along.

--
My sig can beat up your sig.
Re:Got that finger pointed the wrong way... by nukenerd · 2013-07-02 04:51 · Score: 1

All measurements show increasing quality and length of life. We live in ever-increasing plentitude.
I don't know where you are taking these measurements, but I look around (in the UK) and see seriously decreasing plentitude. While there are plentiful digital devices and other small gadgets (things that do not use much physical material), things that do use much physical material are less plentiful (or more costly, leaving less money for other things) because world resources are limited and there are now so many people to provide.

For a start, land area. New houses here are tiny, in tiny plots. My father in law, a basic manual worker with no savings, was allocated a house 50 years ago with three large bedrooms on a 1/4 acre plot. 10 years ago it was knocked down and 8 flats for "professional" people built in its place. As fuel is running short and its price goes up, there are more and more people in the UK in winter who have inadequate warmth. People here are also eating crappier food than 15-20 years ago (I have noticed it appearing openly on super-market shelves - not just the horsemeat affair).

The problem is compounded by the fashionable paranoia about things like nuclear power stations and supposed poisons. Eg creosote has been banned; I have 200 m of fence to maintain and I shall now be spending a greater proportion of my life maintaining it and repairing as a result - that is not a better quality of life. There are creosote alternatives but they cost much more - so less money for me to spend on other things.

I could go on, but you get the point.
Re:Got that finger pointed the wrong way... by Anonymous Coward · 2013-07-02 06:11 · Score: 0

Godwin's Law isn't a fallacy, if that's what you think. There is no reason to be done.
Re:Got that finger pointed the wrong way... by meta-monkey · 2013-07-02 06:42 · Score: 1

Not really. Sure, the individuals are basically victims of the 4-generational cycle, and I'm worried we're heading into the violent part of the 80 year upheaval (1776, 1861, 1938, 20....18?) but still, "those who do not learn from history..." And the boomers clearly slept through civics class.
The problem is a generational mindset of control and comfort (for themselves). They're the voters, the governmental leaders, and the business leaders. And they racked up massive generational debts to make themselves comfortable while squandering long-term prosperity and stability for short-term gains.
They turned the land of the free and the home of the brave into the land of the locked-up, tagged, watched and enslaved.
They're scared of young black people, so we gotta keep that drug war going so we've got a reason to lock 'em up.
They're scared of arabs, so we've gotta keep that war on terror going.
They're scared of having to take responsibility for not funding their own entitlements, so they'll scream and wail about any reform to social security and medicare. Just keep 'em limping along until we're dead!
They're scared of the gravy train running out from their mega-corps, so we've gotta have those rent-seeking copyright and patent laws super strict, and muck up immigration to keep wages low and profits high.
And now they're so scared of their kids and grandkids (and they should be...we're kinda pissed off) that they want us all tracked, tagged and monitored at all times.
Two things were basically the last straws for me. It's bad enough that they're doing these things...but that they just don't give a shit.
First, my son will have his entire life tracked and monitored by government and business (which are basically the same things). And when the fact that they're actually doing these things comes to light...boomers ain't care. "Just so long as they're not listening to me talk to my sister!" Which of course they are. But the boomers are either too ignorant of technology to understand why having your geolocation data, call history, and email scanned and stored forever is a bad thing, or they understand it's bad, but since it's aimed at their kids and grandkids more than they, they just don't care.
Second... My father is about one of the best men you could ever hope to know. Perfectly honest, a pillar of responsibility. I was complaining about how the H1-B visa program is a scam to force down wages for high-tech workers such as myself. That the STEM shortage is made up, and it's simply that the richest corporations in America don't want to pay American wages so they've re-invented indentured servitude. And he said to me, "well, as a stock holder, that's good news to me!" I just looked at him with a wide-eyed stare. Even my father, the best of the boomers...is completely fine with suppressing the wages of an entire generation so he can make a couple extra bucks off his stock holdings.
Holy shit. It's just a generational rot. They are really unable to think for a minute beyond their own immediate self-interest. They just want their kids slaving away for their stock values and their entitlements, and their grand kids carrying trays at Red Lobster, and just keep the system limping along enough until they finally expire.

--
We don't have a state-run media we have a media-run state.
Re:Got that finger pointed the wrong way... by khallow · 2013-07-03 00:08 · Score: 1

The thing I think you're missing here is that every generation before and after the Boomers does the same thing. For example, there's a huge accumulation of debt by current young adults. They have their own "wars" (such as the war on global warming or the war on military conscription, a peculiar US college-based hysteria). They happen to be just as profoundly ignorant (like not having a clue why the value of labor is going down today).

Let's look at a couple of comments you made to illustrate this point.

First, my son will have his entire life tracked and monitored by government and business (which are basically the same things). And when the fact that they're actually doing these things comes to light...boomers ain't care. "Just so long as they're not listening to me talk to my sister!" Which of course they are. But the boomers are either too ignorant of technology to understand why having your geolocation data, call history, and email scanned and stored forever is a bad thing, or they understand it's bad, but since it's aimed at their kids and grandkids more than they, they just don't care.
First, it's not true. Boomers aren't any more inclined to desire this than anyone else. Second, you conflate government and business. They are different. For example, you can start a business easily. There's low barrier to entry for businesses to the point that anyone can start one. Starting a government is much harder, especially, if it is to displace one or more current governments. They employ people which helps with that job thing you seem to care about. Businesses are also useful political counterweights to government. You know, the organizations that have the actual power and are actually doing very intrusive spying on their citizens?

Second... My father is about one of the best men you could ever hope to know. Perfectly honest, a pillar of responsibility. I was complaining about how the H1-B visa program is a scam to force down wages for high-tech workers such as myself. That the STEM shortage is made up, and it's simply that the richest corporations in America don't want to pay American wages so they've re-invented indentured servitude. And he said to me, "well, as a stock holder, that's good news to me!" I just looked at him with a wide-eyed stare. Even my father, the best of the boomers...is completely fine with suppressing the wages of an entire generation so he can make a couple extra bucks off his stock holdings.
The thing you should be asking here is how could it be different? "American wages" are going down and will continue to go down. That's because in a lot of industries there's not much more value to employing US workers over a large supply of far cheaper workers in other countries. Your father adapted to that reality by owning capital (which isn't affected by this decline in labor pricing) rather than merely working for less. You're just complaining without offering an alternative.
Re:Got that finger pointed the wrong way... by Anonymous Coward · 2013-07-03 03:14 · Score: 0

The thing I think you're missing here is that every generation before and after the Boomers does the same thing.
That's nice, but whether there are other criminals out there doesn't prove or disprove the charges laid against you. The GP's charge appears to be that it's the Boomers who are responsible for much (not all) of the problems today.

For example, there's a huge accumulation of debt by current young adults.
That's personal debt, not generational debt. Their debt screws mostly just themselves. As you pointed out yourself, GP's father invested in capital and won't be affected much by the problems GP or his son faces.

They have their own "wars" (such as the war on global warming or the war on military conscription, a peculiar US college-based hysteria).
Again, saying other people do it too doesn't absolve you of your own charges. You sound like Obama. Hey, everybody spies, right? That's what intelligence agencies do!

They happen to be just as profoundly ignorant (like not having a clue why the value of labor is going down today).
Actually, labor is still valuable, just not the same type of labor. People might not want assembly line workers so much any more, but people might want to hire a maid, or a gardener, or go to a masseuse, have their food delivered (maybe even personal chef), etc.

For example, you can start a business easily. There's low barrier to entry for businesses to the point that anyone can start one. Starting a government is much harder, especially, if it is to displace one or more current governments.
No, both are equally easy. You don't have to start a government that displaces one or more current governments, the same way you don't have to start a business with the requirement that you'll topple existing (big) businesses. Start small on the local level. That's what the Tea Party does. The requirements for a US citizen to enter politics is relatively low.
In my view, to say that starting a government is hard(er than starting a business) in the United States is the same as saying the US is no longer the US as intended by the Founding Fathers. Starting a government is supposed to be easy for citizens so they can retain control. If you really believe starting a government is hard today, I suggest you get off the soap box, ignore the ballot or jury box, and jump to the ammo box and take back your country. Pointing fingers at whether it's Boomers or young people screwing things up will do you little good.

You're just complaining without offering an alternative.
Actually, he did offer an alternative: "repeal the Boomer generation". It's not an alternative you may like, and depending on how literal you take the statement it is impractical, but he did offer an alternative.
I can see a not-so-literal interpretation of that possible though, simply because of attrition. It's a little thing called old age. Nature will "repeal" the Boomers in time.
Though if younger generations are just as ignorant as you said, you'll still be screwed. So again, I suggest you head to the ammo box sooner rather than later.
Re:Got that finger pointed the wrong way... by meta-monkey · 2013-07-03 04:17 · Score: 1

The thing I think you're missing here is that every generation before and after the Boomers does the same thing. For example, there's a huge accumulation of debt by current young adults. They have their own "wars" (such as the war on global warming or the war on military conscription, a peculiar US college-based hysteria). They happen to be just as profoundly ignorant (like not having a clue why the value of labor is going down today).
No. First, a large, large portion of the debt owed by young people is student loans. Government and banking policies (controlled by boomers) caused a 5-fold increase in the cost of college, and all the while 18 year old kids were told by their wise elder boomers that they must have a degree to get ahead. So now they've got $100k in debt and no jobs.
First, yes, they could have ignored their parents' advice. But I can hardly fault 18 year olds for heading the advice of 50 year olds. Second, their debts are personal, not generational. Taxpayers do not have to pay their student loans, whereas I will be paying for the boomers' wars and the boomers' entitlements for a long, long time.

First, it's not true. Boomers aren't any more inclined to desire this than anyone else. Second, you conflate government and business. They are different. For example, you can start a business easily. There's low barrier to entry for businesses to the point that anyone can start one. Starting a government is much harder, especially, if it is to displace one or more current governments. They employ people which helps with that job thing you seem to care about. Businesses are also useful political counterweights to government. You know, the organizations that have the actual power and are actually doing very intrusive spying on their citizens?
I'm not sure you understand how American politics and the economy work. I have started and succeeded in 3 businesses. I still own two, but one I closed to start taking tech contracting jobs instead (regular hours). The small businessman in America is not capital. He is still labor. You're still wearing 8 hats and cleaning toilets at your shop when the janitor decides not to show up that day. Massive corporations, though? The banks, the oil companies, the tech giants? They write the rules. It's called regulatory capture. Who writes the banking regulations? Bankers. Who writes the FCC regs? Telecoms. Guy quits his invesent banker job, goes to work for the SEC, writes some new regs to insulate them from oversight and suppress competition, then goes right back to work at BoA with a hefty bonus. And the NSA? Ummm...when the spying scandal broke, we saw both parties form a wall around the Agency, and ensure us our elected representatives had been "briefed." Which group sounds like they have the power there? You have a naive view of US government.

The thing you should be asking here is how could it be different? "American wages" are going down and will continue to go down. That's because in a lot of industries there's not much more value to employing US workers over a large supply of far cheaper workers in other countries. Your father adapted to that reality by owning capital (which isn't affected by this decline in labor pricing) rather than merely working for less. You're just complaining without offering an alternative.
Uh, I have a great solution. It's called "we stop letting the economic interests of wealthy corporations dictate immigration policy for their benefit." Let them compete for workers in a free market instead of legislating their profits. We have an economic system called "fascism" in which corporate entities work closely with the state to direct economic policy. That's not a Godwin hyperbole. That is the literal definition of the Italian Fascist economic system. The corporate entities want lower wages to increase profits, so they pay congress to enact "H1B visa reform" (because if they called it indentured servitude, the serfs might get suspiciou

--
We don't have a state-run media we have a media-run state.
Re:Got that finger pointed the wrong way... by khallow · 2013-07-03 14:07 · Score: 1

That's nice, but whether there are other criminals out there doesn't prove or disprove the charges laid against you.

Well, I don't hear you saying those others are criminals too. I just hear the same cliched and uninformed rant about Baby Boomers. When one group is a bunch of criminals and another nearly identical group which does the same thing under the same circumstances is not, then that indicates partiality or bias, a grievous flaw in any ideal of justice or law.

For example, there's a huge accumulation of debt by current young adults.
That's personal debt, not generational debt.

It isn't. There are two reasons why. First, much of that is educational debt which is heavily subsidized by the rest of society. Second, there's a very good chance that much of that debt can't be paid back. In which case, it becomes everyone else's problem.

No, both are equally easy. You don't have to start a government that displaces one or more current governments, the same way you don't have to start a business with the requirement that you'll topple existing (big) businesses. Start small on the local level. That's what the Tea Party does. The requirements for a US citizen to enter politics is relatively low.

In my view, to say that starting a government is hard(er than starting a business) in the United States is the same as saying the US is no longer the US as intended by the Founding Fathers. Starting a government is supposed to be easy for citizens so they can retain control. If you really believe starting a government is hard today, I suggest you get off the soap box, ignore the ballot or jury box, and jump to the ammo box and take back your country. Pointing fingers at whether it's Boomers or young people screwing things up will do you little good.
I'll just note that my statement remains correct no matter what "view" you choose to entertain. Getting elected is not starting a new government. Also, two party dynamics has been around since the first decade of the US under its current constitution. That's a huge obstacle to national level third parties.

Actually, he did offer an alternative: "repeal the Boomer generation". It's not an alternative you may like, and depending on how literal you take the statement it is impractical, but he did offer an alternative.
Was that supposed to be a serious argument? A non sequitur is not merely impractical. It simply doesn't make sense. People aren't something you can repeal or revoke with laws.

I can see a not-so-literal interpretation of that possible though, simply because of attrition. It's a little thing called old age. Nature will "repeal" the Boomers in time.
Unless, of course, longevity improvements trump Nature. I don't think it's likely, but one should remember that there is the possibility of better outcomes than waiting for a generation of unfairly scapegoated people to die.

Though if younger generations are just as ignorant as you said, you'll still be screwed. So again, I suggest you head to the ammo box sooner rather than later.
Alternately, I can communicate with those ignorant masses like I'm with you. And it doesn't require killing anyone.
Re:Got that finger pointed the wrong way... by khallow · 2013-07-03 16:37 · Score: 1

So again, I suggest you head to the ammo box sooner rather than later.
As an aside, when I see babble like this in response to mere disagreement, I see that as evidence of diseased thinking.

I disagree with the assertion that the Baby Boomer generation somehow has an unusually large share of guilt for what's going on now. So that somehow means I should be stocking up on ammo? No logic or reason can get you to that conclusion. Either you've been poisoned by some particularly irrational memes or you have something biologically wrong with your brain. I have nothing to do with either one.

Of course, just the fact that someone actually does blame things on the members of some nebulous generation (especially when the members of that generation behave no differently than anyone else and in fact are indistinguishable from anyone else except when you happen to know their age) is inherently irrational, so I guess I am selecting for this sort of thinking.

er what by Anonymous Coward · 2013-07-01 21:07 · Score: 0

Seriously, /.? Reporting on a 68-year-old opinion column writer's take on the internet?

Re:er what by Anonymous Coward · 2013-07-01 21:12 · Score: 2, Insightful

What? We readily take an 18 year old's opinion on pensions and healthcare, why not the other way around?
Re:er what by Anonymous Coward · 2013-07-01 22:02 · Score: 2, Insightful

Imagine if his opinion was reversed. Of course, now you've invested emotionally in your ad hominem so you will claim that you'd think he is just as irrelevant no matter what his opinion were but if you had originally seen him hail the Internet as the greatest invention of mankind, you'd think him absolutely correct and relevant despite his age and occupation.
This is the fallacy of ad hominem.
Re:er what by sirlark · 2013-07-01 23:20 · Score: 2

You mean we should take our pensions and healthcare and give them to an 18 year old? No problem, wall street seems to be getting along nicely in that regard.
Re:er what by Joce640k · 2013-07-01 23:46 · Score: 1

The solution to "cyberwarfare" is extremely simple: Don't connect your power stations and nuclear missile silos to the Internet.

--
No sig today...
Re:er what by Anonymous Coward · 2013-07-02 03:29 · Score: 0

Ugh but then we can't work from home. This Xbone isn't going to monitor itself, you know.
Re:er what by Anonymous Coward · 2013-07-02 06:14 · Score: 0

Incorrect. For all you know, he could just mean that it's unlikely such a person would have anything useful to say, so he's not sure what they were thinking when they put this article up. That is not a fallacy.

Uh, duh? by wonkey_monkey · 2013-07-01 21:08 · Score: 5, Interesting

By cyberwarfare, I mean the capacity of groups — whether nations or not — to attack, disrupt and possibly destroy the institutions and networks that underpin everyday life. These would be power grids, pipelines, communication and financial systems, business record-keeping and supply-chain operations, railroads and airlines

Hey, guess what? Ordinary warfare can disrupt and destroy those things as well. Guess we'd better "repeal" those, too.

a terrifying danger: cyberwar

I don't know about anyone else, but compared to actual war, I find cyberwar to be about as terrifying as getting up in the night to go to the toilet.

--
systemd is Roko's Basilisk.

Re:Uh, duh? by wonkey_monkey · 2013-07-01 21:09 · Score: 4, Insightful

I also like this bit:

I don’t know the odds of this technological Armageddon. I doubt anyone does. The fears may be wildly exaggerated
Wildly exaggerated, you say? Who would do such a thing?!

--
systemd is Roko's Basilisk.
Re:Uh, duh? by fuzzyfuzzyfungus · 2013-07-01 21:19 · Score: 1

It's possible that Samuelson has spent a little too long living in Bethesda, MD, proud home to a metric fuckton of defense contractors and private sector spook shops...
Re:Uh, duh? by clemdoc · 2013-07-01 21:19 · Score: 2

Also, we should think again about whether we really need that round thingie, the wheel.
Sure, it's really useful, but considering how much harm can be wrought with it... better leave it uninvented.
Re:Uh, duh? by Anonymous Coward · 2013-07-01 21:41 · Score: 1

Hey, guess what? Ordinary warfare can disrupt and destroy those things as well. Guess we'd better "repeal" those, too.
Yes but he like most Americans isn't worried about normal warfare coming to knock at his door. That's why the entire country was thrown into what's starting to look like decades of insane spasms after 9-11, suddenly the war was in American streets, not in far off brownguyistan-that-we-can't-find-on-a-map-har-har.
Exceptionalism and excuses don't last long when you've skyscrapers raining about your ears. Home of the brave indeed, more like home of the petty thugs that run squealing when someone hits back. The US got away with it for a bit longer than the UK, who weren't smart enough not to fuck with their next door neighbours, but it was only a matter of time. And on top of all that the nascent aristocracy have been very careful to nurture a near religious respect for all things military, ensuring their own disposable men at arms will be ready to enforce their will.
All in all, welcome to the united states of derp, where the low and the mean strut around with their chest puffed out, clutching stupidity to themselves like a comfort blanket, where the intelligent are called "nerds" and "geeks" and killing people in far off countries for corporate profits is celebrated as "pertecktin our freedoms".
You people deserve to be shit upon from every possible angle.
Re:Uh, duh? by VortexCortex · 2013-07-01 22:13 · Score: 2

I don't know about anyone else, but compared to actual war, I find cyberwar to be about as terrifying as getting up in the night to go to the toilet.
To me it's as scary as getting up in the middle of the night to shuffle a server in and out of service. The NSA has all the data, they could make mad bank notifying folks of malware / hacker traffic BEFORE they put on pajamas...
Re:Uh, duh? by FudRucker · 2013-07-01 22:41 · Score: 1

what happens is some enemy wipes out a few computer's software, and within an hour some IT guy can re-image a backup copy on all the servers plus a more hardened firewall and blacklist of a few more IP-Addresses and BAM! it is as if that cyber war never happened

--
Politics is Treachery, Religion is Brainwashing
Re:Uh, duh? by lxs · 2013-07-01 23:04 · Score: 1

It's a damn shame that you didn't feel the courage to risk some karma on that post and posted AC because I think you hit the nail right on the head.
Re:Uh, duh? by Anonymous Coward · 2013-07-01 23:51 · Score: 0

I agree 100%.
Syria wasn't torn apart by cyberwar. It was/is being torn apart by actual war.
Re:Uh, duh? by Cenan · 2013-07-02 00:13 · Score: 1

He's talking about warfare not pranks.

--
... whatever ...
Re:Uh, duh? by Anonymous Coward · 2013-07-02 00:52 · Score: 0

Compared to warfare, yeah, you're right.
Thing is, it's even more remote controllable than missiles, does a lot of damage if done right, with little risks and costs to the attacker.
If you're comparing it to just war, you're a fool, though. Cyberwarfare is the low-cost way of conducting warfare in a cold or cool war situation and coming out smelling like a rose. It's ongoing- and it can affect you and not just as weapons of mass annoyance. (Hint: That East Coast Blackout in 2003 wasn't just a series of accidents...and it could've been worse, but it was more of a trial run...) And one can use it, if done right, as a prelude to real warfare, lowering the risks involved there- we've shown it can be done, the US has been at doing that for a while now if you've not figured it out.
Banning the Internet like TFA's idiot author suggests? Not likely. The risks he talks to are mostly mitigated by not doing stupid things (which they keep doing...sigh...) with your SCADA systems for convienence or cost concerns- including having it exposed to any networks on the Internet. Cyberwarfare becomes vastly less possible when you quit doing stupid stuff in the first place. It becomes even less of a problem when you overhaul aging infrastructure with soundly desgined replacements instead of going on the cheap like they've been doing. If you do the best things possible, you even mitigate the risks of a real warfare/terrorist attack.
Minimizing it won't get it done.
Minimizing it will allow someone to get a masterstroke in on real warfare. It's quite a bit easier for an attacker to succeed if a good part of your communications infrastructure is compromised or the power's mostly out. Part of this country's resilliance to warfare is it's infrastructure and it's people, not it's standing armies.
"Interesting" as the moderators saw fit to do? Not liklely. Not even close.
Re:Uh, duh? by X0563511 · 2013-07-02 01:41 · Score: 1

Right, I think somebody has been watching too much TV...

--
For large sets, this will be our guide even unto death, for the LORD will work for each type of data it is applied to...
Re:Uh, duh? by Anonymous Coward · 2013-07-02 02:11 · Score: 0

When the Chinese or Iranians hack into your water distributor's systems and the utility that provides your electricity, you'll be digging a latrine in your backyard in about a week. Oh, and since you can't get cash out of the cash machine and you don't have any on hand cause you've been using your plastic you won't be able to pay the suddenly inflated food and gas prices to get you to work 40 miles away from your home in suburbia. Having just lost my sewer line to age a few weeks ago and taking a week to repair, I can attest to how fast things will go south without electricity and running water.
Based on what's going on now, major nation states (including the US) already have the capability to shut systems down remotely. Banks would not be able to process transactions and basically the entire host of systems built up around the internet would come to a screeching halt. Face it people, the whole thing is just swiss cheese waiting for al Queda or someone else to bring it down.
Re:Uh, duh? by x_t0ken_407 · 2013-07-02 03:27 · Score: 1

Best AC post evar? Unfortunately I've no mod points.
Re:Uh, duh? by epyT-R · 2013-07-02 04:00 · Score: 1

Today america faces a worst-of-both-worlds situation: a corporate oligarchy controlling/enabling/building an overreaching government to act by proxy. When one side hits a legal wall, the puck is tossed over it, dealt with by the other, and tossed back. On one side, myopic cults passing themselves off as 'social activists', dictate reality to politicians who then pass legislation that needlessly curtails liberty. On the other, we have incestuous financial greed. The net result is that we have the worst toxins of socialism and capitalism focused, and then amplified by the state, on the people least able to resist: the average american citizen near/at the bottom of the pyramid.
The solution is coming one way or another. Either america will wake up and kick these guys out of office, or the whole state will become too top heavy to function at all, and collapse. I was kinda hoping it would happen in my 30s rather than in my 60s, but alas...
Re:Uh, duh? by Pieroxy · 2013-07-02 04:10 · Score: 1

Stuxnet made me think actually. Anyone organization can succumb to something like that. And the fact that all my money and soon my title of property from everything I own is susceptible to such an attack is... well... kind of annoying.

--
Write boring code, not shiny code!
Re:Uh, duh? by Kjella · 2013-07-02 06:30 · Score: 1

Wildly exaggerated, you say? Who would do such a thing?!
People. Remember y2k, when society would collapse overnight as all our fancy technology would be hit harder than a world-wide EMP burst? What we don't understand is blown hilariously out of proportion. And certain people seem to have an irrational belief in impending doom no matter how unlikely, I guess they're some kind of evolutionary emergency insurance policy. Personally I'm not afraid of people throwing bits and bytes at each other I'm afraid of those bits and bytes controlling far more traditional means of war.

--
Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
Re:Uh, duh? by Anonymous Coward · 2013-07-03 17:09 · Score: 0

I don't know about anyone else, but compared to actual war, I find cyberwar to be about as terrifying as getting up in the night to go to the toilet.
Which is so scary that people who don't go to the toilet in the night out of fear end up wetting themselves!!

The guy has no clue by Lonewolf666 · 2013-07-01 21:10 · Score: 5, Insightful

I grant its astonishing capabilities: the instant access to vast amounts of information, the pleasures of YouTube and iTunes, the convenience of GPS and much more.

Hello? GPS is not a feature of the internet.

Also, I think he is totally wrong when he quotes cyberwar as a reason for removing the internet. Any organization that does not want the risks that come from connecting systems to the net can disconnect theirs. Simple, isn't it?

--
C - the footgun of programming languages

Re:The guy has no clue by fuzzyfuzzyfungus · 2013-07-01 21:21 · Score: 1

If I were feeling charitable, I might imagine that he's never used a 'pure' GPS device, only the (sometimes internet connected, sometimes non-IP cellular data) A-GPS gear.
I'm not feeling charitable.
Re:The guy has no clue by Anonymous Coward · 2013-07-01 21:31 · Score: 0

I grant its astonishing capabilities: the instant access to vast amounts of information, the pleasures of YouTube and iTunes, the convenience of GPS and much more.
Hello? GPS is not a feature of the internet.
Also, I think he is totally wrong when he quotes cyberwar as a reason for removing the internet. Any organization that does not want the risks that come from connecting systems to the net can disconnect theirs. Simple, isn't it?
Yes, and perhaps they should start by disconnecting him from his employer. After all, he doesn't want to play online, so his career can die with the rest of the printed newspaper world.
Re:The guy has no clue by Anonymous Coward · 2013-07-01 21:35 · Score: 0

Hello? GPS is not a feature of the internet.
Technically, but GPS as many people use it is heavily dependent upon it. Most people these days think of A-GPS, dependent on cell networks. And most people have no use for their actual position, but only what an internet-based service can do with the location. So it's badly worded, but GPS as used by much of the first-world population is a feature of the internet.
That said, there was an interview at Wired a while back with the people that run GPS, and they pointed out that they don't care whether it helps people with driving directions, as their purpose of existing is putting missiles on target.
Re:The guy has no clue by K.+S.+Kyosuke · 2013-07-01 23:18 · Score: 1

Most people these days think of A-GPS, dependent on cell networks.
That's like saying that non-alcoholic beer is beer. Or saying that soya meat is meat.

--
Ezekiel 23:20
Re:The guy has no clue by Jon_S · 2013-07-02 00:30 · Score: 1

Yeah, I was reading this in the dead-trees paper over breakfast this morning and as soon as I got to the part about GPS being a part of the internet I stopped, figuring this guy obviously had no clue what he was talking about.
Re:The guy has no clue by Chris+Mattern · 2013-07-02 01:18 · Score: 1

Hello? GPS is not a feature of the internet.
Let's be fair here. GPS is not a feature of internet, but for most people, effective use of it is. The position returned by GPS is not much use unless you have a map database to give it context, and these days, over 90% of users will be pulling that data off the Internet.
Re:The guy has no clue by X0563511 · 2013-07-02 01:43 · Score: 1

So you mean the only times that my GPS is active, when I'm navigating somewhere, doesn't actually need my position?

--
For large sets, this will be our guide even unto death, for the LORD will work for each type of data it is applied to...
Re:The guy has no clue by X0563511 · 2013-07-02 01:44 · Score: 1

That's like saying that non-alcoholic beer is beer.
It is. Alcohol isn't what makes it beer. ... not that you don't have a good point besides :)

--
For large sets, this will be our guide even unto death, for the LORD will work for each type of data it is applied to...
Re:The guy has no clue by Anonymous Coward · 2013-07-02 03:22 · Score: 0

For the record, I had maps before common access to the internet, and I had GPS with maps long before my phone has access to the internet.
Re:The guy has no clue by Pieroxy · 2013-07-02 04:11 · Score: 1

Stuxnet did hurt facilities from Iran that were *not* connected to the internet, yet it was because of the internet that Stuxnet got in.

--
Write boring code, not shiny code!
Re:The guy has no clue by Alsee · 2013-07-03 07:33 · Score: 1

Yeah, this guy couldn't make it past the third sentence without tagging himself as technologically illiterate. I can't believe he tried to cite GPS as a benefit of the internet.

Any organization that does not want the risks that come from connecting systems to the net can disconnect theirs.
I fundamentally agree with you ten-million percent.... but to be fair critical systems connected to the internet is not a an easily solved technological problem.... and that's because it's not a technological problem at all. It's a people problem. If you can figure out a fix for people problems then there's about a half-dozen Nobel Prizes soon to arrive at your doorstep.
-

--
- - You can't take something off the Internet! That's like trying to take pee out of a swimming pool.

No thanks, by Tifer · 2013-07-01 21:11 · Score: 1

I'm still using it.

What is he talking about? by mythix · 2013-07-01 21:11 · Score: 5, Insightful

First of all he starts by telling us what the internet has brought us:
- vast amounts of information
- youtube
- itunes
- GPS

Wait, what? GPS?

second, the problem with the internet is not the internet. the internet is not obligatory, not everything people put on it is truth, it is not a reliable information source for personal data.
I am not scared of it, nor should I or anybody else be.
The problem with the internet, as with everything on this planet, is the nature of human kind.

Re:What is he talking about? by rvw · 2013-07-01 22:16 · Score: 1

First of all he starts by telling us what the internet has brought us:
- vast amounts of information
- youtube
- itunes
- GPS
Wait, what? GPS?
Yes! GPS! Global Piss and Shit!
Re:What is he talking about? by TheP4st · 2013-07-01 22:23 · Score: 1

- GPS
Wait, what? GPS?
The mention of GPS is the reason why I sprayed my monitor with coffee and stopped reading halfway through the first paragraph. If you are going to suggest that a technology should be repealed then at least make sure you at least understand the very basics. If you don't, stick with what you do know and get of our lawn.

--
"I have downloaded hundreds and hundreds of records, why would I care if somebody downloads ours?" Robin Pecknold
Re:What is he talking about? by loufoque · 2013-07-01 22:39 · Score: 1

how is itunes related to the Internet?
I thought it was a bloated media player and iThing management application from Apple.
Re:What is he talking about? by X0563511 · 2013-07-02 01:47 · Score: 1

I think you're probably being obtuse on purpose, but just in case: It uses the Internet for managing your content licenses and pulling down content you have a license for but do not have a local copy. It's also got a store for said licenses, which requires Internet access to function.

--
For large sets, this will be our guide even unto death, for the LORD will work for each type of data it is applied to...
Re:What is he talking about? by Anonymous Coward · 2013-07-02 03:41 · Score: 0

I sprayed my monitor with coffee
You are letting him win. If enough people sprayed their computers with coffee and ruined them, he'd get his way. Now if only there was a way to make people read the article while drinking in datacenters....
Re:What is he talking about? by PuZZleDucK · 2013-07-03 13:46 · Score: 1

Maybe Loufoque is being obtuse, but I jumpped ship on iTunes before it hooked up to the mother ship too... I only know it in my memory as a stand alone media player, and now through friends descriptions.

--
Can a person program a new solution to a problem? Why should anyone be able to stop such a thing? -Richard Stallman

I feel stupider for having read that... by fuzzyfuzzyfungus · 2013-07-01 21:12 · Score: 4, Insightful

Is the good Mr. Samuelson aware that 'the internet' is not actually a binary thing(except in certain architectural senses)? It's not like somebody in the control room flips a switch and *boom* TCP-rays fan out, brutally penetrating previously secure systems. You. Have. To. Connect. Things. To. The. Internet. To. Make. Them. Vulnerable. Are there plenty of things connected, that really ought not to be, because people are insufferably cheap and lazy? Sure, hard to argue with that. Does it somehow follow that we would be 'better off without the internet?". Only if you live in a curious universe where you have to shut down the entire internet just to get a few dumb fuckers to airgap their retro SCADA system.

(One might also argue that, if the people who are actually victims of internet attacks, the various companies and banks and things he cites, aren't willing to give up the convenience and low cost of the internet in favor of greater security, it is possible that the alarmist bullshit of people who want a wider remit to expand their paranoid security state online is alarmist bullshit... There is an argument to be made that people who haven't yet been attacked are illogically discounting the costs of future attacks in favor of present savings; but people who are being attacked today are weighing the costs and the benefits of being networked today, and generally staying networked. Go figure...)

Re:I feel stupider for having read that... by Anonymous Coward · 2013-07-02 02:53 · Score: 0

You. Have. To. Connect. Things. To. The. Internet. To. Make. Them. Vulnerable.
Don't do that. It's annoying to your readers.
Two or three words is fine, but more than that and it's tiring. It also causes your reader to focus on your (poor) writing style rather than on the content of the message.

Opinions are like assholes by jtownatpunk.net · 2013-07-01 21:13 · Score: 1

And that asshole doesn't even know what he's afraid of but he's going to publish his opinion.

Something something and remove all doubt.

I would take this more seriously if.... by Anonymous Coward · 2013-07-01 21:14 · Score: 0

It wasn't focused on cyber attacks.

After 15 years on the internet, I'm much more concerned about how easily cultures are able to pacified using the internet to reach broad swaths of people "instantly." I'm much more concerned about the tracking and intrusion into everyday life it's encouraged. I'm also disappointed, although not remotely surprised, by the darker side of humanity it has revealed due to mistaken belief there is anonymity on it - and yes I understand the irony of my "Anonymous Coward" usage.

The "good old days".. by Dynamoo · 2013-07-01 21:18 · Score: 5, Insightful

Let's time-travel back to the 1980s and try to research a topic. You might need to allot a whole day for this.

Where would you start to look? Well, probably the library. If you really know nothing about a topic you might want to start with one the Encyclopaedia Britannica, something that hardly anybody would be able to afford to own at home. Then, if you want more specific information you might find out the Dewey classification for the topic area and check out the books on the shelves, or rummage through index cards. Perhaps (if you are lucky) the library has a computerised index. Want to look up something more topical? We used to have the Times Index, a printed index of what had been published in the Times (of London). Then it was a trip to the microfilm collection to look up back issues. Perhaps if you weren't making much progress you would have to ask around to see if someone had some pointers, maybe a contact of a contact. You *could* use the Internet and post a question to Usenet, perhaps someone would give you an answer in a few days. Maybe after a hard day's work you might be able to tease the nugget of information you wanted out of the library. Perhaps not.

Today? Well, you either Google it or look it up on Wikipedia. You'll have your answer in minutes and you can then get on and apply that knowledge. Now, tell me how that is NOT progress?

--
Never email donotemail@WeAreSpammers.com

Re:The "good old days".. by aliquis · 2013-07-01 21:59 · Score: 2

Today? Well, you either Google it or look it up on Wikipedia. You'll have your answer in minutes and you can then get on and apply that knowledge. Now, tell me how that is NOT progress?
But please also think off how it empowers people, bring freedom, true information, equal rights and all other sorts of nasty things to people.
Someone need to restrict them. What would happen with authority and power if everyone was equals? The horror.
Re:The "good old days".. by aliquis · 2013-07-01 22:01 · Score: 1

.. O'er land of the... freer than north Koreans and ...
Re:The "good old days".. by martin-boundary · 2013-07-01 22:15 · Score: 1

It's not quite that stark a comparison. People would normally ask their friends about a topic first, to see if they know something about it. This isn't that uncommon even today, as topics of interest tend to come up in conversations, which usually involve people who might be friends or colleagues. Then there's the difficulty for many people to find stuff on the internet even now - you need to know how to use a computer at a minimum. Finally, if you have the resolve to go to a library to research a topic, you'll have it again. And you only need to learn how to navigate the place the first few times, after that it's as easy as googling.
But you are largely right about progress, provided you can actually trust some of the drivel that ends written all over the Internet.
Re:The "good old days".. by Anonymous Coward · 2013-07-01 22:23 · Score: 0

Agreed. It was a real pain in the ass trying to buy Playboy at the corner store all the time, and then having to hide the evidence from mom!
Re:The "good old days".. by jtownatpunk.net · 2013-07-01 22:29 · Score: 2

While I'm a great supporter of The Internet, there's a downside to having all of that information so readily available. The information doesn't stick. There's no cost to obtain it. No effort required. The process of obtaining the information is part of what makes it stick.
Re:The "good old days".. by Esteanil · 2013-07-01 22:33 · Score: 2

Let's time-travel back to the 1980s and try to research a topic. You might need to allot a whole day for this.
A whole day to build a time machine? Man are *you* slow! ;-)

--
I'm a dreamer, the world is my playpen. But hey, I'm a serious person, I can't dream all the time.
Re:The "good old days".. by grouchomarxist · 2013-07-01 22:39 · Score: 3, Insightful

The other day I had a flashback of writing a report in elementary school. The teacher would make everyone do a report on the same subject and the industrious students would then go to the library and check out all the books on the subject, leaving the slacker students with nothing.
Well, you can't check out the internet.
Re:The "good old days".. by antifoidulus · 2013-07-01 22:50 · Score: 1

Obligatory modified Simpsons:
There's the right way, the wrong way, and the Wikipedia way!
Isn't that just the wrong way?
Yes, but faster!

--
Monstar L
Re:The "good old days".. by Anonymous Coward · 2013-07-01 23:38 · Score: 0

Now everyone can be slackers?
Re:The "good old days".. by Danathar · 2013-07-01 23:38 · Score: 3, Interesting

Actually, in the 80's you probably (unless you were at a MAJOR university) did not have access to the Internet as it was a pure research network, and even if you did it was text based only (for the post part). Most people (like myself) would of logged onto a BBS and posted to FidoNet. I can't remember but there probably was a FidoNet to Usenet gateway. Once you posted a message it took DAYS for it to propagate across the planet, and more days for a response to come back.
People don't realize how much more productive they are due to instant access to information.
In the 80's if I wanted to fix my washer machine (and I didn't know how) I could pay somebody, try to find a general purpose book at the library, etc.
Now I just type in the model number of the dryer and I can probably download the maintenance manual for the darn thing. On top of that there probably is a message board dedicated to people JUST TRYING TO FIX THEIR WASHER MACHINE.
Perspective can illuminate how much things have changed since then
Re: The "good old days".. by Therad · 2013-07-01 23:43 · Score: 1

give him a break, it is kind of hard to find a working delorean these days. also most libyan terrorists wants more than a day to get plutonium nowadays.
Re:The "good old days".. by cold+fjord · 2013-07-01 23:46 · Score: 1

Today? Well, you either Google it or look it up on Wikipedia. You'll have your answer in minutes and you can then get on and apply that knowledge. Now, tell me how that is NOT progress?
All that progress and yet people seem to be about as uninformed as ever. In some cases they are worse off since the opinions of charlatans and cranks are more available than ever. We'll leave the tendency of people to avoid unpleasant facts for another time.

--
much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don't even know that fire is hot - George Orwell
Re:The "good old days".. by JasterBobaMereel · 2013-07-02 00:12 · Score: 1

In the 1980's I could have used this thing called the Internet (in fact I did) ... it has been around since at least 1969 ...it was not very accessible, had less on it, and most people did not have a connection but it was there
You may be thinking of the WorldWideWeb which is built on top of the internet, that only started in the 1990's ....

--
Puteulanus fenestra mortis
Re:The "good old days".. by TapeCutter · 2013-07-02 00:39 · Score: 1

Encyclopaedia Britannica, something that hardly anybody would be able to afford to own at home.
Not really, I grew up in the 60's, most middle class households with school aged kids had a set of encyclopedia, the expense would compare well with a good PC and internet connection. Second hand sets were dirt cheap but somewhat outdated.

--
And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
Re:The "good old days".. by foniksonik · 2013-07-02 00:47 · Score: 1

People are not uninformed. They are selectively informed. I know next to nothing about Justin Bieber. Also I can't tell you one good or bad thing about .Net and C#. Finally, I am blissfully unaware of the politics of Switzerland. There are plenty of people who want to be informed of these topics and can become so within minutes. This does not mean that I am uninformed or that they are superior in some way.

--
A fool throws a stone into a well and a thousand sages can not remove it.
Re:The "good old days".. by Anonymous Coward · 2013-07-02 01:19 · Score: 0

...Today? Well, you either Google it or look it up on Wikipedia. You'll have your answer in minutes and you can then get on and apply that knowledge....
I was with you right up to "...look it up on Wikipedia. "
At that point I lost you. Because all that is on the Wiki is by no means true...
I suggest that you compare the 1980s, when it was hard to find out things but you could be pretty sure that any info you got was authoritative, with the 2000s, where you can get much more info, but can't be sure what's true or not...
Re:The "good old days".. by Chris+Mattern · 2013-07-02 01:22 · Score: 2

Gosh darn it, if you start using this new-fangled "writing" to write everything down, you'll forget how to remember anything! (And as far as we can tell, yes, this was an argument made at the time)
Re:The "good old days".. by Chris+Mattern · 2013-07-02 01:26 · Score: 1

Not really, I grew up in the 60's, most middle class households with school aged kids had a set of encyclopedia,
But few had Britannica, which was regarded as the gold standard and was notably more expensive. Our family had World Book, which was a favorite of people who didn't want to shell out for the Britannica.
Re:The "good old days".. by fustakrakich · 2013-07-02 01:26 · Score: 1

Ha! You have it so wrong. When I 'research' a topic, I go to the bar and place some bets. The damn internet destroyed that business.
And if it takes minutes for your answers to show up on Google or Wikipedia, then you should complain to your service provider about latency issues.

--
“He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
Re:The "good old days".. by fustakrakich · 2013-07-02 01:31 · Score: 1

All that progress and yet people seem to be about as uninformed as ever. In some cases they are worse off since the opinions of charlatans and cranks are more available than ever. We'll leave the tendency of people to avoid unpleasant facts for another time.
:-) Yes, we've noticed...

--
“He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
Re:The "good old days".. by Anonymous Coward · 2013-07-02 02:08 · Score: 0

Dude, you suck at the internet.
Re:The "good old days".. by kilfarsnar · 2013-07-02 02:41 · Score: 1

Someone need to restrict them. What would happen with authority and power if everyone was equals? The horror.
This, unfortunately, is a large part of why the world is the way it is.

--
"What the American public doesn't know is what makes them the American public." -Ray Zalinsky (Tommy Boy)
Re:The "good old days".. by Anonymous Coward · 2013-07-02 05:12 · Score: 0

Even small universities had Internet pipes by the late 1980s. Without looking up any paperwork I would say that by 1990 it was a standard infrastructure.
Re:The "good old days".. by PuZZleDucK · 2013-07-03 13:48 · Score: 1

Anyone know the Dewey classification for 3D printing? :p

--
Can a person program a new solution to a problem? Why should anyone be able to stop such a thing? -Richard Stallman
Re:The "good old days".. by aliquis · 2013-07-03 18:13 · Score: 1

This, unfortunately, is a large part of why the world is the way it is.
Yeah mean why unrestricted people in some countries is a problem for others? (Guess those people will fail the equals part though.)
Or that those are able to exist because they aren't equals with everyone else? Just as governments, dictators, some military and so on?

Cyberwarfare idiocy by Anonymous Coward · 2013-07-01 21:18 · Score: 0

Since WWII and the Cold War, the U.S. are selling their older generation gear to allies and NATO partners. We (includes me) used it ever since, observing our troops and civilians as well.

What's new is just the idiocy of the media who want to play their game as well.

I'm glad the internet lifted the veil by secondhand_Buddah · 2013-07-01 21:19 · Score: 5, Insightful

I think the author longs for the bygone era when journalists were the primary source of how the majority of people shaped our personal views of the world. I for one, am glad that the veil has been lifted.

--
Participatory Governance : The only feasible option for a real democracy, where everyone really does have a say.

Re:I'm glad the internet lifted the veil by Anonymous Coward · 2013-07-02 00:17 · Score: 0

Mmmm,
The 'conventional' or 'traditional' media has an unremitting hostility to the Internet. They see their traditional outlets going down the tubes, the business models which justify their employment failing, and the advertising cash cow failing ... and they don't like change. Pundits who had been pundits for captured audiences are now just one of many in the Twitter/Blog/FaceBook-o-Spheres ... and indeed have a much reduced exposure to their audience if they don't adapt.
So, they couch their opposition in terms of security, old economics, and fallacious argument and debate that could conceivably be applied to ANY change in communications technology (from the road, as one contributor above pointed out, to the printing press, to broadcast media, and now to the packet switched network).
The bottom line is that every new technology, every new choice, every new option, every new communications medium carries with it some risk ... but the question is can they be mitigated (and I'd argue that they can), and is it worthwhile adopting them on any conventional cost-benefit analysis (and I'd argue that the Net has more than proved its value here).
Re:I'm glad the internet lifted the veil by Shirogitsune · 2013-07-02 03:44 · Score: 1

They see their traditional outlets going down the tubes...
How else does it get out on the internet?
Re:I'm glad the internet lifted the veil by sjames · 2013-07-02 05:37 · Score: 1

I can understand their concern, but it seems to me that journalism was already failing before the internet became widespread. The net just gave people a semi-viable option.
A newspaper staffed with paid professional journalists who dig full time for the truth and publish their proof should be able to provide more value than a couple 20 somethings with a blog in their spare time, but they often don't. They fell into 'if it bleeds it leads' and just showing for the press conference and avoiding embarrassing questions so they can be sure to be invited back. Not to mention affixing a byline to a PR release and calling it news. Where's the investigation that can only be done by a professional?
Not to mention the editorial monoculture. There will be no hard hitting news when all of the papers are owned by the people who most need hitting. That just leaves small independent researchers and their blogs to hopefully get some of that information out.

Beware the roads! by discord5 · 2013-07-01 21:20 · Score: 5, Funny

If I could, I would try to convince the Romans of the past to stop building roads. The reason for this is that I've discovered that since the advent of roads, there has been such a phenomenon as road-side bandits, highway robberies, and even standing armies using this newly found infrastructure to lay siege to our vast empire.

Ever since the Romans came along and deprecated our glorious and superior dirt infrastructure, we've been carelessly hooking up critical systems to this "road"-system: tax-collection, food transportation, even up to the point where we are now moving cattle over these infernal cobblestones instead of using the much safer glorious dirt infrastructure. We've hooked up entire towns, cities, even castles and palaces to this infrastructure we can barely contain and are surprised when those of malicious intent use it to our disadvantage.

Back in the good old days of our vastly superiour dirt infrastructure we had no such troubles with malcontents, criminals and foreign armies. It was a pleasant land of peasants toiling about in our magnificent dirt.

In conclusion, the Roman empire was a detriment to all of society. While seemingly introducing a convenient mode of transportation, and making all of our society dependant on our infrastucture, they clearly have introduced this concept with the intent of ending civilization as we know it. I therefor call out to you, citizens, fellow countrymen: Tear down these "roads" that threaten us all! Go back to rolling around in our glorious dirt, and burn down anything even remotely Roman (even if it contains water, such as aquaducts, don't even get me started on those).

Re:Beware the roads! by vikingpower · 2013-07-01 21:38 · Score: 1

Man, where are the mod points when you need them most. I would mod you up into the stratosphere for this funny, finely sarcastic and well-informed comment ( being, btw, a great admirer of ancient roman culture and engineering ). Of course, one could imagine writing something similar about weaving textile ( origins lost in time ), first successful domestication of animals ( idem ditto ), or printing books ( central and western europe, end of the middle ages ). Best comment of the year, sofar.

--
Religous speak to God. Insane are spoken to by God. When all shut up, one can finally hear Shostakovich in peace
Re:Beware the roads! by Impy+the+Impiuos+Imp · 2013-07-01 21:39 · Score: 1

On the other hand: "Hi. I've just invented roads and cars. They will kill about 22,000 people a year in the US alone."
Congressman looking to get paid to get ot of the way: "WHOA NELLIE! I can't allow that!"

--
(-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
Re:Beware the roads! by Required+Snark · 2013-07-01 21:42 · Score: 3, Insightful

Thag say fire bad.
Fire hurt Thag.
Thag see fire make sharp stick harder. Even after fire gone, fire still hurt with sharp stick.
Thag like rock. Have rock for long time, everyone good. Rock good for Thag father, and Thag father father, and father father father.
Keep rock, all stay good.
Have fire, all get bad.
Fire bad.

--
Why is Snark Required?
Re:Beware the roads! by c0lo · 2013-07-01 22:49 · Score: 1

If I could, I would try to convince the Romans of the past to stop building roads. The reason for this is that I've discovered that since the advent of roads, there has been such a phenomenon as road-side bandits, highway robberies, and even standing armies using this newly found infrastructure to lay siege to our vast empire.
They are also the reason for not being able to deliver larger rocket boosters.

--
Questions raise, answers kill. Raise questions to stay alive.
Re:Beware the roads! by Anonymous Coward · 2013-07-02 04:20 · Score: 0

Romanes eunt domus!
Re:Beware the roads! by Alsee · 2013-07-03 18:26 · Score: 1

Yeah we would be better off without fire. I grant its astonishing capabilities: the sharpening sticks, cooking food, keeping us warm, lighting the darkness, the convenience of GPS and much more. But the fire's benefits are relatively modest compared with the terrifying dangers it brings.
-

--
- - You can't take something off the Internet! That's like trying to take pee out of a swimming pool.

Meh by Anonymous Coward · 2013-07-01 21:21 · Score: 2, Insightful

The net was awesome until the barrier to entry got too low... (aol)

That got every fucktard in the world online. And then came the marketing scum...

And here we are.

Re:Meh by instagib · 2013-07-01 23:56 · Score: 2

Eternal September sure changed things, but you had ways to avoid the derp. The real problem is what I call the "Cult of Mediocrity", which got born through "Web 2.0".
Before that, people would have hobbies, having fun with them, and get inspired by professionals.
Today, everyone is a writer, photographer, musician, etc., posts online and gets cheered upon by other wannabies, celebrating their mediocre hobbyist results as the ultimate achievement. Consequences of this are rampant narcissism and arrogance on the one hand, and a society which focuses on equality instead of talent.
If one compares test levels for university entry between then and now, one can see an example of where we're heading.
Re:Meh by Anonymous Coward · 2013-07-02 02:21 · Score: 0

You need to turn that frown upside down. Start by giving your internet noise filter a tune up.

ZIMMERMANM SOLUTION !! by Anonymous Coward · 2013-07-01 21:21 · Score: 0

Kill everybody but the good guys (America). Kick off Russia. Kick off Nigeria. Kick off China. Kick off ... !! And let the internet be what it was intended - AMERICAN !!

This is so stupid it's beyond belief by Rosco+P.+Coltrane · 2013-07-01 21:23 · Score: 4, Insightful

So you want to suppress the internet because of cyber-warfare? How about suppressing cars because there are car accidents? Or suppressing humanity because humans get diseases?

When something new comes to light, new problems appear with it. Intelligent people try to solve the problems. Idiots try to suppress the new thing.

Incidentally, this guy's opinion is published far and wide thanks to the internet. Oh the irony...

--
"A door is what a dog is perpetually on the wrong side of" - Ogden Nash

Re:This is so stupid it's beyond belief by Anonymous Coward · 2013-07-01 21:47 · Score: 0

Or suppressing humanity because humans get diseases?
Help! Help! I'm being suppressed!
Re:This is so stupid it's beyond belief by msauve · 2013-07-02 00:32 · Score: 1

"So you want to suppress the internet because of cyber-warfare? How about suppressing cars because there are car accidents? Or suppressing humanity because humans get diseases?"

Or suppressing firearms because there are criminals.

--
"National Security is the chief cause of national insecurity." - Celine's First Law

"Repeal" by Anonymous Coward · 2013-07-01 21:24 · Score: 0

The first problem is that he starts talking about the Internet as if it were created by some mandate of some governing authority, and that if that mandate hadn't happened, the Internet wouldn't exist. Except that "the Internet" isn't really a unit, and no one body controls it. Once again, pundits and politicians just don't get it.

Why of course? by Anonymous Coward · 2013-07-01 21:24 · Score: 0

Why of course? There are other reasons to want to repeal the internet. For instance, because it is deepening the Western cultural narcissism of our age, and spreading it throughout the world, backed by the US's hubristic and demonstrably false claim that they have discovered the best possible way to live.

Doesn't go far enough by RogueyWon · 2013-07-01 21:25 · Score: 5, Funny

Having read TFA, I am forced to conclude that if I could, I would repeal the printing press.

See, the printing press gave rise to mass publishing. Mass publishing gave rise to newspapers. Which in turn led to the Washington Post. Which in turn led to the ability of somebody as atrociously stupid as Robert J. Samuelson to find a mass audience for his idiocy.

Or is that not going far enough. If we're going to be truly safe, do we need to repeal writing?

Re:Doesn't go far enough by Meneth · 2013-07-01 23:43 · Score: 1

And speech. And sign language. Might as well repeal all of humanity, while we're at it. We'll be dead, but at least the Earth will be safe. :)
Re:Doesn't go far enough by StormReaver · 2013-07-02 02:18 · Score: 1

Or is that not going far enough. If we're going to be truly safe, do we need to repeal writing?
To be truly safe, we have to repeal humanity. After all, the only way to save it is to destroy it.
But then it may pop up elsewhere in the universe. So to be truly safe, we must destroy the entire universe.
There. Problem solved.

In some ways I agree, but... by Anonymous Coward · 2013-07-01 21:28 · Score: 0

My colleagues at Kuro5hin ridiculed me mercilessly when I told them that I was for the very first time prepared to accept the responsibility of being root on a Linux box connected directly to the Internet.

It's not like it's hard to install and configure Linux. What is hard is to ensure that it's not broken into.

I challenged them all to deface so much as one page on any of the sites I serve from that box. It's been a couple years, but none have yet been defaced. While it is possible I've been penetrated, it's been done in a way I cannot detect.

By comparison, I am able to root any Apple A/UX 2.0 box within ten or twenty seconds of it being connected to the same network I have access to. That is, if it's within a firewall, I have to be inside that same firewall. I can also cover up the fact that I'm logged in. I never tried to make myself completely indetectable, say by patching ls, ps and so one, but I know how I could.

My rootkit was maybe fifteen lines of C code. I attached it to a Radar report, then referred it to the A/UX team because I was so pissed off that they did not even know what the CERT advisories even were.

I feared I would be fired, but no, I was enthusiastically invited to play "Capture the Flag" on one of Apple's BSD VAXen. The objective was to alter the file "/flag" in any way whatsoever. At the same it's contents were something like "Kevin Mitnick RUL3Z!". But I was never able to scratch that VAX's security in any way.

My logs on my current server tell me it receives thousands of breakin attempts every single day, the vast majority of them attempts to GET /phpMyAdmin.php, /phpMy-Admin.php and so on. My guess is that some clueless PHP "coders" get the bright idea they can lock down their box rather than changing the password from the default!

But there are lots of other kinds of exploit attempts. The most serious one was a persistent effort to load some URLs that I found to be part of some commercial content management system that had not been updated in five years or so. I'm sorry I don't recall what its name was. I don't use it, but whoever does likely has many well-known, unpatched vulnerabilities.

On the other hand, telephone wardialing is a far, far greater problem than CyberWarfare over the Internet. I'd rather not be too specific as to why, but I've been thinking lately that I would do well to send a registered letter to the Department of Homeland Security.

I personally know how to cause a huge detonation over a telephone modem. That's all I'm going to say about it, that and that it's been long enough that the ignorant mother fucker who is responsible for enabling that detonation has had plenty of time to fix his broken code. I didn't want to put his whole company out of business as in many respects their product has many merits. It's just buggy as all get-out, with many security vulnerabilities being no more than commonplace bugs that enable one to break in - or make something explode - when stimulated in certain ways.

Root cause: substandard computer security by Anonymous Coward · 2013-07-01 21:28 · Score: 0

At the heart of this opinion piece is the fact that we still cannot make computers both usable/useful and secure. Every reason why the Internet should be repealed has something to do with computer security, be it worms, remote control of powerplants, etc, from foreigners, etc.

Which is to say that the problem isn't confined to cyber-warefare, rather the lack of means that can be deployed to mitigate attacks.

I'd love for someone to come up with a real answer to DDoS so that the 21st century mafia were not able to use standover tactics ("Give us $100000 every month or we'll DDoS you into oblivion for a week.")

The Internet is not for war by allcoolnameswheretak · 2013-07-01 21:28 · Score: 1

The reason? Mass blindness of course.

Fixed that for you.

I'd like to repeal: by Anonymous Coward · 2013-07-01 21:30 · Score: 0

Fire - terribly dangerous - kills lots of people

The Wheel - kills even more than Fire, every year, on our roads

Language - The minute we started to communicate, we started having disagreements, which ended up as Wars.

Disease - Why not, since we're talking about stupid impossible things? Let's have everyone living till 102.

The Brain - responsible for all the unhappiness in the world. We were better off when we were apes. Or small floating things in the primeval ocean....

Re:I'd like to repeal: by Anonymous Coward · 2013-07-01 22:00 · Score: 0

Life. The world was so peaceful before life entered the stage. Have you ever heard of one rock eating another? Or of predatory planets?
Re:I'd like to repeal: by fellip_nectar · 2013-07-02 02:23 · Score: 1

The technique of violence was first developed in 2,000,000 BC by the Australopithecines. A tribe of four-foot primates who had no brains to speak of. But who - nevertheless - invented the tomahawk and used it on each other. This practice led to the enlargement of the brain - another useful weapon. Yes, murder was invented even before Man began to think. Now of course, Man has become known as the thinking animal.

--
Worst. Signature. Ever.

He's partially right, but I would not repeal it by Anonymous Coward · 2013-07-01 21:37 · Score: 0

We just don't have enough "open" net, and an infrastructure to protect us from spying. We need further generations of the Internet to surplant this one and fast.

The cyberattacks are a result of "closed" systems, and some things should never be on this Internet like bombs, power generation plants, hospitals.

Re:He's partially right, but I would not repeal it by mlts · 2013-07-02 02:12 · Score: 1

Maybe we need to just keep on trucking, and add some new solutions to fix the problems we have, a lot of them are going with design on the cheap to survive next quarter's earnings reports.
For hospitals and other sensitive stuff, maybe we need to go back to air gaps. At least a bad guy would have to get physical access or compromise someone enough to plug a wire in, which is the same security level we had before the 'Net. If reports are needed, the concept of a "data diode" is a proven one (even if the implementation is two machines communicating via a serial port with one side's Tx line snipped.)
Internet security isn't magic; oftentimes it is a matter of won't than can't. Being in IT for many years, I've seen the mantra, "security has no ROI" said many, many times.

Don't all newspaper writers by SinisterRainbow · 2013-07-01 21:38 · Score: 1

Don't all newspaper writers wish the Internet didn't exist? And just replace 'Washington Post' with 'all' while you're at it. You're only supposed to read those when you want to feel sad about human stupidity or see 'legal' corruption in action.

--
-Ultimate Stickman Game Developer Infinite World Puzzler

Re:Don't all newspaper writers by Anonymous Coward · 2013-07-01 23:56 · Score: 0

Don't all newspaper writers wish the Internet didn't exist?

Nope, that's what just what they say (so you don't ask why they just blindly requote what they saw on Reddit instead of actually doing some research).

I'm reminded of a Douglas Adams quote: by Chrisq · 2013-07-01 21:42 · Score: 3, Informative

From HHGTG:

Many were increasingly of the opinion that they'd all made a big mistake in coming down from the trees in the first place. And some said that even the trees had been a bad move, and that no one should ever have left the oceans.

None of these problems are hard to solve by MikeRT · 2013-07-01 21:51 · Score: 1

Utilities connected to the public internet? Make doing that except on a one time, emergency basis a felony and threaten to charge the entire management with felony murder if anyone dies because of a "cyber attack." The possibility of facing the death penalty for criminal negligence leading to homicide will cause them to suddenly find a way to invest whatever resources are needed to get off the internet post haste.

Stolen trade secrets? Just build a private company network with no internet access. ZOMG it's so expensive that like... you can buy a "corporate machine" for like $400 now. A KVM or dual monitor set up would be fine.

Re: None of these problems are hard to solve by Therad · 2013-07-01 23:47 · Score: 1

internal nets are a pain to work on. which means productivity goes down. which ofcourse the author didn't think of. he is a fear-mongerer.

Why you are a terrorist for internetting by Anonymous Coward · 2013-07-01 21:54 · Score: 0

So, why are you a terrorist for using the internet?
Because you are. /WASHINGton post

What do he got to hide? by aliquis · 2013-07-01 21:54 · Score: 1

That he's an idiot?

Hey people, it's just a question =P

TROLL by korbulon · 2013-07-01 21:57 · Score: 1

is what the author of TFA is. Obviously he's being disingenuous.

This is simply a lot of ink spilt in order to sell more newspapers, nothing more.

A New Era by vikingpower · 2013-07-01 21:59 · Score: 3, Interesting

My father grew up during the '30s, amidst nation-states all on an ineluctable course for war. Information was scarce, could take weeks before reaching citizens, and was always colored. Until he recently died, such was his mindset: nation-states, triumphing nationalism, shifting alliances, scarce and coloured information. And I remember, when growing up during the last 2 decades of the Cold War, that I sometimes went to bed realizing that nuclear war might and could break out overnight. That, in that case, I would either never wake up again: our family's home was close to a piece of infrastructure important for routing supplies to armies fighting in the Northwest-European plains, or otherwise might wake up as a radiation victim. The Cold War: information was not as scarce. We had newspapers, radio, television - but information was incomplete. We later learned that information on much of what happened behind the Iron Curtain had simply been suppressed to us, ordinary citizens, and that the same was true for the citizens "on the other side".

The Cold War passed, and exactly 12 years of prosperity, along with unbridled & blooming innovation, followed. Until 9/11/2001. We have, since, been sliding into what seems more and more to become as much of a status quo as the Cold War was: the Information War.

Many are struggling to adapt to the new mindset required to cope with this new paradigm, as German Federal Chancellor Merkel illustrated by likening the US eavesdropping and bugging practices to "Cold War practice". The Information War is taking up speed: information is nearly free-flowing over the internet - and at the stake of conflict itself.

I can imagine, hence, the confusion and revulsion of Samuelson, who must have somehow - like most of us did - settled for a world in a state of seemingly permanent Cold War. War has never, or hardly ever, been about infrastructure, and such Samuelson's text is far off the mark. War has always been about either assets or power, and the asset now at stake is: information. It must be hard, for people of Samuelson's generation, to get that into their heads, although they better do - lest they lose fundamental understanding of what our world has become, and is becoming ever faster: an always-shifting patchwork of information sinks and sources.

--
Religous speak to God. Insane are spoken to by God. When all shut up, one can finally hear Shostakovich in peace

Terrible article by Camael · 2013-07-01 22:00 · Score: 5, Interesting

Let me explain.

First he admits the benefits the Internet brings :-

I grant its astonishing capabilities: the instant access to vast amounts of information, the pleasures of YouTube and iTunes, the convenience of GPS and much more.

Then he explains why he thinks the Internet is bad :-

But the Internet’s benefits are relatively modest compared with previous transformative technologies, and it brings with it a terrifying danger: cyberwar. By cyberwarfare, I mean the capacity of groups — whether nations or not — to attack, disrupt and possibly destroy the institutions and networks that underpin everyday life. These would be power grids, pipelines, communication and financial systems, business record-keeping and supply-chain operations, railroads and airlines, databases of all types (from hospitals to government agencies). The list runs on. So much depends on the Internet that its vulnerability to sabotage invites doomsday visions of the breakdown of order and trust.

Take note of his key objection - he fears that essential utilities/services would be easily disrupted because they are connected to the Internet.

Point 1- Easy solution, disconnect these essential utilities/services from the Internet!
Point 2- If these essential utilities/services cannot be disconnected from the Internet without some loss of function, they would not have been able to enjoy the same function if the Internet never existed.

I do not blame the writer for this article, he is primarily an economics reporterand appears to have been taken in by the fearmongering flogged by all those who have an agenda to promote cyberwarfare capabilities. I do however blame the Washington Post for allowing such drivel to be posted under their name. They should have known better.

Re:Terrible article by Idimmu+Xul · 2013-07-01 22:58 · Score: 1

I do however blame the Washington Post for allowing such drivel to be posted under their name. They should have known better.
Unfortunately many online news papers have started to have 'opinion posts' or 'writer blogs' which completely seem to bypass any kind of editorial guidelines, fact checking etc and allow writers to post their opinions, often unsubstantiated, on anything seemingly as a news item.
It allows for random drivel like this to go viral and increase page views and potentially advert revenue whilst letting them dodge any kind of journalistic Codes of Ethics.
News is business and is not here for the good will of anyone other than shareholders.

--
The problem with slashdot is that most of its users were bullied and stuffed into lockers as kids!
Re:Terrible article by khallow · 2013-07-02 00:11 · Score: 2

Unfortunately many online news papers have started to have 'opinion posts' or 'writer blogs' which completely seem to bypass any kind of editorial guidelines, fact checking etc and allow writers to post their opinions, often unsubstantiated, on anything seemingly as a news item.
So what? The point of an opinion post is to communicate an opinion, which despite your complaints has long been one of the useful functions of newspapers. Lack of editing, logical fallacies, not being based on actual fact, and similar errors are great warning signs.

whilst letting them dodge any kind of journalistic Codes of Ethics.
And how would that "Code" apply to an opinion writer's opinions? It's clear that the work in question is an opinion. Any such Code is satisfied at that point.
Re:Terrible article by Anonymous Coward · 2013-07-02 01:18 · Score: 0

Dean Baker, a linux advocate btw, would disagree about the quality of Samuelson's economics reporting.
Re:Terrible article by anegg · 2013-07-02 02:24 · Score: 1

I have often wondered how much critical infrastructure is connected to/through the Internet. Back in the late 1990s I was involved in security assessments of petrochemical firms. I was astounded to find out that they were beginning to attach their SCADA networks to their internal enterprise data networks, which were in turn attached to the Internet. Moving forward a couple of years, lots of companies started using Internet-based VPNs to eliminate leased-line connectivity to remote offices, because it was cheaper. The cost savings outweighed the potential availability concerns at the time. In retrospect, that tradeoff has turned out a lot better than I thought it would at the time - Internet services tend to be fairly stable. The security angle is harder to figure. It is possible to secure things quite well, but such security requires money, competent design, and a constant attention to detail over years of *nothing happening* (except for ankle-biter attacks that are thwarted easily and may very well bring about a false sense of security). By way of example, the vulnerabilities in commercial aviation security that allowed 9/11 to happen were obvious upon reflection, but weren't spotted prior even though lots of money was spent and lives were at stake.
Projecting these trends forward in time, I don't have trouble believing that there might be substantial interconnections between the Internet and critical infrastructure, and that not all of it is protected well. The idea that "disconnecting critical infrastructure from the Internet is the best way to protect it" seems simple, but economic drivers appear to hold sway and keep this from happening. The US government has a "cyber command" center at Ft. Meade specifically tasked with "critical infrastructure protection." It seems absurd for the government to drop big $$ into CIP when the simple answer is to just disconnect it from the Internet.
I don't know whether there is a lot of critical infrastructure connected to the Internet, but if there is then I believe there are big economic incentives that outweigh the security disadvantages, at least in the minds of the people paying the bills. It isn't that the Internet is required for them to function, it is that it is economically advantageous to the people who control them to use the Internet instead of some other data service. So the exposure can be real yet not very amenable to correction since it involves exactly the kind of very low probability/high impact risk that humans, especially those concerned about expenses, have trouble dealing with well.
Re:Terrible article by kilfarsnar · 2013-07-02 02:29 · Score: 1

I used to read Samuelson in Newsweek (way back when it was a decent mag) and I often thought he was not the most insightful person.

--
"What the American public doesn't know is what makes them the American public." -Ray Zalinsky (Tommy Boy)
Re:Terrible article by PlusFiveTroll · 2013-07-02 03:10 · Score: 1

>The idea that "disconnecting critical infrastructure from the Internet is the best way to protect it" seems simple,
Even disconnected networks are not simple to protect. Stuxnet shows how USB keys can jump the gap. Also the proliferation of wireless makes it very, difficult to verify that your network is truly separate. You still have to spend the money to make sure each host, along with the network is secure.
Re:Terrible article by Megane · 2013-07-02 03:29 · Score: 1

But when the internet becomes an essential utility/service, how can we disconnect it from itself?

--
#naabhaprzrag, #sverubfr-000, #agi-fcbafberq, negvpyr[pynff*=' negvpyr-ary-'] { qvfcynl: abar !vzcbegnag; }
Re:Terrible article by Stuarticus · 2013-07-02 03:44 · Score: 1

I've never had any luck getting GPSoE (GPS over Ethernet) working, can someone point me to a good driver?

--
If you think someone isn't free to have a different definition of "freedom" you may be a tyrant.
Re:Terrible article by jfengel · 2013-07-02 05:22 · Score: 1

This is in the print edition, not just an online blogger. Samuelson is one of their regular opinion writers.
Having hired him, they put very little editorial control over him. They hired him because they believe his opinion should be heard, without interference from their own opinions. They have a stable of both liberal and conservative voices, both of which are separate from their editorial staff (and all of those separate from their newsroom).
I personally find Samuelson's opinion on economics (his primary focus) as ignorant as his opinion of technology. But perhaps that's just my own bias showing, so the Post Writers Group is helping expose you to "both" sides of the story. (I don't think that "both" is a very helpful way to look at such things, but it's the way journalism has long operated in the US.)

if you want to repeal the internet by Mister+Liberty · 2013-07-01 22:02 · Score: 1

there's usually just one cable to cut.

Re:if you want to repeal the internet by Anonymous Coward · 2013-07-01 22:13 · Score: 0

Go and live in a hut in Montana, but please just don't start putting bombs in the post.
Re:if you want to repeal the internet by Anonymous Coward · 2013-07-01 22:13 · Score: 0

Yes it's in Baltimore. It has been cut a few times in the past :)

Social network is an oxymoron by Anonymous Coward · 2013-07-01 22:12 · Score: 0

Having one's face stuck in a computer chatting and liking is not socialising.

Re:Social network is an oxymoron by Chrisq · 2013-07-01 22:44 · Score: 2

Having one's face stuck in a computer chatting and liking is not socialising.
+1 like

Not really by Camael · 2013-07-01 22:12 · Score: 1

You are reading too much into things.

I give WashPo credit for their coverage of NSA and for going where other US based news sources fear to tread. Of course, I'd give them even more credit if they had been a bit more bold and not lost the exclusive.

This however, does not give them a free pass if they publish silly articles.

In any case, most of the comments here I see are directed at the article and the writer, not the newspaper.

Re:Not really by TapeCutter · 2013-07-02 00:20 · Score: 2

WP news and opinion departments live in different galaxies and often contradict each other.

--
And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.

Oh, Irony by Camael · 2013-07-01 22:15 · Score: 2

You do, I hope, see the irony in your comment.

Its pretty funny.

Re:Oh, Irony by Anonymous Coward · 2013-07-01 22:31 · Score: 0

The internet as it has become has made me thus.
But i still remember being able to log in at 300 baud and and anyone you talked to would be intelligent.
Now you can go for months without seeing intelligence. Tends to make you bitter.
Now get off my lawn. boy.
Re:Oh, Irony by Anonymous Coward · 2013-07-02 02:16 · Score: 0

Now you can go for months without seeing intelligence. Tends to make you bitter.
Maybe you could try replacing that mirror with a photo of Stephen Hawking.
Re:Oh, Irony by Anonymous Coward · 2013-07-02 15:17 · Score: 0

The internet as it has become has made me thus.
But i still remember being able to log in at 300 baud and and anyone you talked to would be intelligent.
Now you can go for months without seeing intelligence. Tends to make you bitter.
Now get off my lawn. boy.
Dementia's a curse on modern living

They descend into bad temper, irritability, abusiveness, self-centredness, anti-social behaviour.

Lets take it to its logical conclusion by Camael · 2013-07-01 22:30 · Score: 1

Make doing that except on a one time, emergency basis a felony and threaten to charge the entire management with felony murder if anyone dies because of a "cyber attack."

While youre at it, lets get rid of murder and all violent crimes by making them capital offences where the presumption is guilty until proven innocent. Lets get rid of that pesky jury trial and time wasting right of appeal as well. That should scare off them criminals from even thinking about carrying out crimes.

Since we're relying on excessive punishments as a deterrence factor, why not also make speeding a felony as well.

Re:Lets take it to its logical conclusion by TapeCutter · 2013-07-02 01:02 · Score: 1

presumption is guilty until proven innocent
Because it's unfair to try an innocent man! - Q

However I agree the OP is an idiot who has never seen the inside of a corporate server room and is way too enthusiastic about giving the state the power to kill it's own citizens.

--
And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
Re:Lets take it to its logical conclusion by MikeRT · 2013-07-02 01:20 · Score: 1

Gross criminal negligence leading to homicide has been considered a form of murder in most civilizations since the dawn of time. It is technically still murder in even in the US. In addition to that, the same is true of serious felonies where there is a possibility of killing someone during the commission of the felony. For example, if you rape a woman and accidentally kill her by trying to knock her out that is felony murder regardless of your intent to kill.
Consider this scenario. You have a nuclear power plant connected to the Internet. Some Chinese general decides to stick one to us with or without Beijing's blessing and gets their hackers to mess with it, causing it to go into a meltdown. The result is thousands of people suddenly killed or dying slowly of radiation poisoning.
Was that foreesable? Yes. Was that preventable? Yes. Did the power plant's owners take any measures to disconnect those systems from the general public? No. So it was preventable, it was known to be a serious risk and the owners didn't do a damn thing about. Got news for you, that is extremely serious negligence.

Ugh by multimediavt · 2013-07-01 22:30 · Score: 1

'If I could, I would repeal the Internet. It is the technological marvel of the age, but it is not â" as most people imagine â" a symbol of progress. Just the opposite. We would be better off without it.'

That makes about as much sense as:

'If I could, I would repeal the fire. It is the technological marvel of the age, but it is not â" as most people imagine â" a symbol of progress. Just the opposite. We would be better off without it.'

Why not do that instead. It would certainly have ended a lot of conflicts if we didn't have fire. Actually, you could reference just about any man made technology as contributing to man's demise. Anything can be perverted to be a weapon. Where do they find these idiots and why on Earth are they paid money for spreading this nonsensical drivel?

Don't use the damned thing by mdragan · 2013-07-01 22:36 · Score: 1

Nobody is forcing anyone to connect to the internet (well, except EA and UbiSoft if you really need to play their games).
People who think the Internet should not exist, should just unplug that cable from the computer, or better, they shouldn't get a subscription from the ISP. It's THAT simple! No more fear of those crazy cyberwarrior ninjas and their electronic katanas.

Re:Don't use the damned thing by Chrisq · 2013-07-01 22:43 · Score: 1

Nobody is forcing anyone to connect to the internet (well, except EA and UbiSoft if you really need to play their games). People who think the Internet should not exist, should just unplug that cable from the computer, or better, they shouldn't get a subscription from the ISP. It's THAT simple! No more fear of those crazy cyberwarrior ninjas and their electronic katanas.
Not that simple. If you read the article the guy is talking about cyber attacks on utilities, financial institutions, etc. If you have that fear as well as unplugging you need to go off-grid, have your own water supply and be self-sufficient for food.
Re:Don't use the damned thing by omnichad · 2013-07-02 04:23 · Score: 1

Speaking of Ubisoft - 4 minutes ago:

Dear Member,
We recently found that one of our Web sites was exploited to gain unauthorized access to some of our online systems. We instantly took steps to close off this access, investigate the incident and begin restoring the integrity of any compromised systems.
During this process, we learned that data had been illegally accessed from our account database, including user names, email addresses and encrypted passwords. Please note that no personal payment information is stored with Ubisoft, meaning your debit/credit card information was safe from this intrusion.

Lots of other reasons to regret the Internet by Anonymous Coward · 2013-07-01 22:47 · Score: 1

Cyberwarfare is an interesting choice as the top regret, but it strikes me as something that can be addressed (or at least managed) through engineering and adaption of protocols to keep sensitive systems off the worldwide Internet.

Here's my top of the head list of what we've lost from "Al's invention":

1) Loss of Privacy. The NSA is in the news, but I'm thinking more in terms of Google and Big Data, permanently archiving, cataloging and predicting every move that every one of us makes.

2) Loss of Leisure. We used to have down time after we left the company parking lot, except for a few unfortunates who had to carry beepers. Now we're all unfortunates, we're all on call 24x7 even when we're on vacation, and it's tough to schedule vacation these days.

3) Offshoring of Jobs. It's now very easy for corporations like IBM to save money (at least at first) by replacing an American or UK job with five jobs in India, Viet Nam or some other developing country.

4) Reputation Bombing and Management. What used to be word of mouth, whisper campaigns and slam books has now become worldwide and permanent, powered by social networking sites and search engines. A local restaurant can be ruined by disgruntled ex-employees or competitors trolling Yelp and similar sites. A 23-year old posting foolish pictures on Facebook or Tumblr (or their boyfriends/girlfriends or some random dude posting them) will have to deal with them probably for the rest of their lives. Google never forgets and neither does the Internet.

5) Loss of Local Retailing. Twenty years ago we could drive around town and visit lots of well-stocked stores for music, books, electronics. Today, not so much thanks to Amazon and its online competitors. And remember how Amazon drove Tower Records out of business - by consistently offering top musical CD's at 30-35 percent off list. If you haven't noticed, Amazon doesn't do that anymore with music now that it has no bricks and mortar competitors to worry about. They still do that for books though - for now.

6) Machine Intelligence. This is the scariest one, much scarier to me than cyberwarfare. Machines can be programmed not just to execute the designs of teams of programmers, but to essential develop new patterns and designs. At a certain point, lots of jobs will become unnecessary, and machines themselves will pose a threat to humanity (right now we're starting to see that with the issue of drones).

But no, you can't put the genie back in the bottle. We're stuck with these times, and yes, Google, Amazon and the others have certainly brought us some amazing benefits (I'll leave it to others to discuss the benefits of Facebook).

Well damnit it all, just blame it on.... by 3seas · 2013-07-01 23:07 · Score: 1

...ARPA, or its evolution into DARPA & ARPANET.
You shall reap what you soe....

I agree by Anonymous Coward · 2013-07-01 23:23 · Score: 0

I think the world would be a much better place for many, many people if there had never been such a thing as internet. If technological development (in communications) had just ended after the radio, phone and TV.

I disagree by Sycraft-fu · 2013-07-01 23:27 · Score: 4, Insightful

And if you want to argue that, then you want to actually argue against the printing press. I cannot remember the book or author, Vonnegut I think, had a good bit about how prior to the printing press knowledge was something like the martial arts: You had to work on it,sweat, spend your time and effort, often a lifetime to attain it. Your mastery died with you. For each person, learning something required an apprenticeship, basically.

The printing press changed all that. Now ideas could be made permanent, and disseminated. Now people didn't have to discover everything themselves or learn from what masters they could, they could get information and then build on it. They could stand on the shoulders of giants, as Newton said. So when a genius like Newton came along and advanced the knowledge of mathematics, physics and optics by probably 100 years or more, it wasn't something just limited to him and perhaps those that studied with him, the world could learn.

If you think that there needs to be a lot of effort for information, well then the printing press is your enemy, because that is what it became easy. Not as easy as it is now, but pre and post printing press was a bigger difference than pre and post Internet.

It is also necessary if you want to keep advancing things. There's really only so much time one person has to learn, only so much information they can soak up so fast. So if things are going to continue to get more complex and require more information, then we are going to need easy access to that information.

an open letter to the internets by FudRucker · 2013-07-01 23:30 · Score: 1

Dear Internet:
you've been trolled

Dear NSA:
fuck off you nosy bastards

sincerely yours, The Fud

--
Politics is Treachery, Religion is Brainwashing

gatekeepers at the shopping mall by PopeRatzo · 2013-07-01 23:31 · Score: 2

Rather than repeal the internet, we should just roll back the monopoly on it that the handful of service providers have claimed on it.

Though there is a case to be made that the internet lost much of its value when it was opened to commerce.

--
You are welcome on my lawn.

never before was this meme more pertinent: by Anonymous Coward · 2013-07-01 23:34 · Score: 0

"ha ha ha,

oh wow"

Neuland by Skinny+Rav · 2013-07-01 23:46 · Score: 1

Yet another influential person, for whom, like for the German Chancellor Angela Merkel, the Internet is "Neuland", Terra Incognita, a "Here Be Dragons" place, foreign and scary.

I AM FUCKING SHOCKED by Seumas · 2013-07-01 23:51 · Score: 1

... that the dying industry of print news media publishes the opinion that the internet should not exist.

Nothing to see here... by Anonymous Coward · 2013-07-01 23:58 · Score: 0

Samuelson's opinion piece is perfectly consistent with the next evolutionary stage of the Internet; DERPANET.

Baby, bathwater ... by Anonymous Coward · 2013-07-02 00:14 · Score: 0

... 'nuff said.

What happened to Mutually Assured Destruction by abies · 2013-07-02 00:30 · Score: 0

What Mr Samuelson is really complaining about is not a danger of internet as such, but rather fact that US is not a superpower on this arena as it would like to be.

US is very much used to be the biggest player in the world, military-wise. Yes, they were losing wars (Vietnam etc), but these were wars on foreign soil. Only USSR could threaten the US itself - and it was a biggest problem for US for 50 years or so. It was a race with arms versus defenses, but with advent of MIRVs, defence game lost - so the new doctrine was MAD. USSR would not attack US, because it would get obliterated in return - and as Sting hoped, Russians loved their children enough to not let it happen.

These days, nobody can reach US military-wise. Yes, you can put few suicide bombers, maybe kidnap a plane and crash it into a building, but as much tragic these situations are, they are hardly a danger for the country itself (a lot bigger danger to citizen freedom and quality of life, which make sit worthwhile as psychological war but thats different story). And US enjoys that - as much as North Korea can wave their few puny atomic missiles, US can obliterate NK at any point, without taking any significant damage itself.

Cue internet. New arena of warfare, next to land, air, naval, submarine and missile. And it is now very similar to situation with nuclear MIRV missiles - it has reached the stage where you cannot mount proper defense against capable and determined foe. And same way as USSR has stockpiled nuclear missiles, quite a few countries/groups in the world stockpiled adept hackers, zero day exploits and dormant botnets. Yes, barrier of entry was considerably lower than with creating intercontinental missiles and proper A-bomb, but this is not a crux of the issue.

Problem is that US is now in cold war with MAD situation against quite a few countries. It has an advantage - after all-out cyberattack, it can repay in same way PLUS nuke them to oblivion - which in longer run is going to hurt more (cyberstrikes has a lot less half-time of decay than nuclear fallout...). But still, it is positioned in another cold war. And same way it was not able to slap USSR for sending AK47 to guerilla in various countries, it is now not able to slap Iran for funding some terrorist groups - because Iran will escalate.

And the real real problem is that we cannot be sure than Iranians love their children same way Russians did. Not talking about civilians, but about people on the top. As crazy as Russians were, they were still living in this world and were aiming to conquer _this_ world. Maybe picking up on Iran is confusing things - but at some point, some fanatic islamic government might decide they don't care about _this_ world and just lash out. All their children will die in jihad, which is good thing, isn't it? Or maybe it wn't be fanatic islam, maybe just demented enough leader of NK? In any case, people who don't necessarily value our world same way as US and Russia did are now part of the game.

And this is what is scary for WP writer. Not that there is somebody out there with unstoppable weapon of mass destruction - but that that guy is not afraid of dying himself from retribution. And you cannot apply MAD rules to religious fanatics or single demented dictators.

Beware the Internet? No, change everything else. by MistrX · 2013-07-02 00:51 · Score: 1

The problems outlined in the opinion piece is to me only evidence that governments, economy isn't build on massive information disclosure and the changes in society it brings. Instead of repealing the Internet as it is, I think it's more effective for said governments and economies to evolve and reform to cope with the changes in our daily lives because of the Internet (let's start with freedom of information in the form of fixing the defective patent system by altering default business models of old businesses and transparency within government).

Repealing or shutting down the Internet would be progress suicide in anyway.

The dude just went full retard by Anonymous Coward · 2013-07-02 01:06 · Score: 0

Never go full retard.

Baby With The Bathwater by Jason+Levine · 2013-07-02 01:19 · Score: 1

The author acknowledges that the Internet has many good things about it but says we need to get rid of it because of some bad things that come with it? Here's a tip: Every piece of technology can be used for good or bad. You can use the Internet to research in minutes what might have taken days or to connect to people who share your interests but live half a world away. Or you can use it to attack people, steal their information, and cause chaos. You can use an airplane to visit exotic locales or far away family members. Or you can use it to drop bombs on people (or even turn IT into a giant bomb). You can use roads to go from place to place quickly and easily or you can use them to escape from the law. You can use a hammer to hit a nail or bash in a skull. You can use nuclear power to generate electricity or as a stepping stone towards creating a nuclear bomb. You can use microbe research into finding a cure/vaccine for diseases or for breeding powerful germs for biological warfare.

If you want to repeal every piece of technology that can be used for any evil purpose whatsoever, ALL technology would be repealed. (Yes, even his vaunted newspapers: You can spread news or smear the reputation of a person or technology.) We would be back to living in caves. Don't light a fire to keep warm, though, because you might use it to burn your enemies and that would be bad.

--
My sci-fi novel, Ghost Thief, is now available from Amazon.com.

If I could, I would repeal ... by Skapare · 2013-07-02 01:20 · Score: 1

... humanity. While there is a lot of good that comes with humanity, the dangers far outweigh the benefits. Look at all the wars. Look at all the greed. Look at all the evil governments. Look at all the murder even where there is no war.

--
now we need to go OSS in diesel cars

Take Heed by bentcd · 2013-07-02 01:20 · Score: 1

Beware the fearmongers, for they shall paralyze you with their visions of Doom!

(todo: wood engraving decrying the luddite sentiment)

--
sigs are hazardous to your health

A Pox On Horseless Carriages by Grashnak · 2013-07-02 01:24 · Score: 2

If I could, I would repeal the internal combustion engine, for it has lead to the scourge of drunk driving which claims thousands of lives a year. Sure, people claim that the infernal explodo box is valuable because it makes possible the rapid transport of people and goods around the world, but won't someone think of the children?

Life was better back in the day. Bah Humbug.

--
Life needs more saving throws.

Re:A Pox On Horseless Carriages by omnichad · 2013-07-02 04:22 · Score: 1

What about all the fatal buggy crashes before that? On second thought, it was probably not a good idea to give the horses alcohol in the first place.

delivery system by Anonymous Coward · 2013-07-02 01:39 · Score: 0

so the internet is just a stuxnet delivery system to conveniently insecure infrastructure command and control siemens industrial control systems?

Human Advancement is Dangerous by Anonymous Coward · 2013-07-02 01:42 · Score: 0

Any technological advancement with broad social implications carries significant and often unforeseen risks. Look no further than the Industrial Revolution and the consequent global warming we are now reaping as an example. Samuelson's comments, however, are like the Luddite's screed of the early 19th Century; more driven by personal distaste than real insight.

double standard? by argStyopa · 2013-07-02 01:52 · Score: 1

I think it's amusing to read the nerdrage at the obvious fallacy in the OP's point (ie his logical reasoning that "we have this technology, people use it for bad things, therefore we should get rid of the technology"), yet don't notice their own hypocrisy using that same logical train of thought when it comes to guns.

We have guns.
People use them for bad things.
Ergo we should ban guns.

Seriously, how insulated from the world does one have to be to not understand the utility of a weapon? (Setting aside the Homer-Simpson-demonstrated utility of a gun for retrieving a stuck basketball or cat.) Or is it sheer denial that (some) people will be violent entirely independently of their access to a weapon?

--
-Styopa

Looks and sounds like this guy... by JeanCroix · 2013-07-02 01:53 · Score: 1

Wow, it's our very own Krola.

its all been predicted by Anonymous Coward · 2013-07-02 01:55 · Score: 0

Go back and read the last 20 years of Risks to the Public. The same mistakes keep getting made by people who don't know any history.

Ack by Alomex · 2013-07-02 02:12 · Score: 1

Dear Mr. Samuelson,

We acknowledge receipt of your application for "Biggest Idiot on Planet Earth". As you know we take the selection process quite seriously and every year we examine millions of applications. If I might proffer a word of encouragement at this point I would like to say that yours looks really promising. You will hear more from us in the future.

Sincerely,

The Internet

Re:Ack by Anonymous Coward · 2013-07-02 02:37 · Score: 0

Nice post - about sixty people have already posted similar sarcasm so you're safely in the middle of the pack. Kinda like relieving middle school, isn't it?

Bruce Could Save Us by Anonymous Coward · 2013-07-02 02:12 · Score: 0

This man has obviously never seen Die Hard 4.0 ~ or else he's got it on auto-rewind?

So Repeal The Internet Then, Robert by Greyfox · 2013-07-02 02:31 · Score: 1

Go ahead, go off the internet for a year and see how you do. Turn off the computer, blow the dust off that old electric typewriter, ditch the smart phone for a not-so-smart phone and see how well you do. I suspect it'll look something like this.

--

I'm trying to teach myself to set people on fire with my mind... Is it hot in here?

No, Samuelson is dumb by peter303 · 2013-07-02 02:42 · Score: 1

I find his columns often incorrect. And he frequently takes a contrarian position to rile readers and get attention. I would NEVER follow any of his investment advice.

Porn by booch · 2013-07-02 02:44 · Score: 1

The Internet is the culmination of all human knowledge, plus porn.

Whoever thought it was a good idea to add industrial control systems to that mix was an idiot, and should be shot.

--
Software sucks. Open Source sucks less.

Re:Porn by Man+On+Pink+Corner · 2013-07-02 09:43 · Score: 1

Wait, are you saying that Three Mile Island doesn't really need a REST API?

This just in! Media relic hates internet! by Anonymous Coward · 2013-07-02 03:01 · Score: 0

A guy whose relevance, credibility and livelihood are crushed by the Internet says the Internet is bad. I never saw that coming! What? Liberace was gay?

bombs and bullets by Anonymous Coward · 2013-07-02 03:05 · Score: 0

Compared to bombs and bullets cyber-war or electronic warfare in general is positively benign. Sure cyber-war can cripple and perhaps destroy some computers but I live in a world where computers and software malfunction every day. Don't you?

He's right. by koan · 2013-07-02 03:08 · Score: 1

What was hailed as miracle of World communication will rapidly become the control nexus for all humanity, just wait until they have a working AI they can plug all those cameras into.

We know the value of a human prisoner, he is a work unit, what is the value of a free man?

--
"If any question why we died, Tell them because our fathers lied."

Paywall by Anonymous Coward · 2013-07-02 03:11 · Score: 1

Best argument yet for putting the Wash. Post behind a paywall so we don't have this tripe floating around the Internet.

Circular logic never works by Anonymous Coward · 2013-07-02 03:32 · Score: 1

But what is the big deal. The Internet is just a bunch of pipes isn't it? That is what I was told.
This logic would work well if the model was to stop innovation and remain static. My reply to his Thesis is: "Get over it. Technology happens. Go back to your Typewriter, No wait, your pen and paper, No wait, your Chisel and Stone, No wait, Oral history,"
The internet is more of a democratic levelizer than anything. It is similar to the Printing press, Telephone... etc.

He's so right by Anonymous Coward · 2013-07-02 03:35 · Score: 0

If Battlestar Galactica has taught us anything, it's that putting all your faith in technology inevitably leads to sentient robots of your own creation trying to exterminate your species.

Aging ungracefully by Anonymous Coward · 2013-07-02 03:43 · Score: 0

Like athletes hanging on long past their productive years public figures sometimes stay to late at the party. Both Justice Scalia ans columnist Samuelson have lost the power to persuade or influence others and should simply retire gracefully.

The real threat of the Internet by hargrand · 2013-07-02 03:49 · Score: 1

I thought the real threat of the Internet was the time people waste posting to FB or reading /. comments. Think of all that lost productivity.

Pandora was A Fraid Not by pubwvj · 2013-07-02 03:52 · Score: 1

What he says could be applied to almost any human innovation. Fire, the wheel, throwing sticks, transistors, nuclear energy...

Fortunately pundits like this can't actually act on their ideas. There is no stuffing the genie back in the bottle. The tool box is open. Learn to work with it.

Guns don't kill people by gmuslera · 2013-07-02 04:05 · Score: 1

Is people that do, using guns. And even guns only meaning is to kill. In the other hand, Internet (or, if you want, medicine) have a lot of potential uses, that the main actual core of it locatedat the hand of a very aggresive/intrusive government and then is used to harm is fault of those companies and governments, not internet per se. What if the US government started investing in biologic weapons, fake medicines or with added elements to force people into submission and/or acceptance, we would stop taking medicines? Would be medicine evil by itself?

The cure is not to leave internet, just leave US government area of influence, here are some hints on how to do it. And if you are in US, make sure that your government is your government, not theirs.

Beware the Robert J. Samuelson by Dishwasha · 2013-07-02 04:38 · Score: 1

Slashdot opinion poster Dishwasha writes 'If I could, I would repeal Robert J. Samuelson. He is a great writer of the periodicals, but he is not — as most people imagine — a symbol of sanity. Just the opposite. We would be better off without him.' It is his belief that the dangers of Robert J. Samuelson's writing outweigh its benefits.

Harder to control information marketplace by Beeftopia · 2013-07-02 04:48 · Score: 1

The big media players were gatekeepers of the popular media marketplace. This gave them a tremendous amount of wealth, power and prestige.

Now, with the Internet allowing a free flow of ideas outside of that controlled marketplace - print, radio and television - it negatively impacts their wealth, power and prestige.

Tightly corporate controlled print, radio and television media is very close to government controlled print, radio and television, with significant overlaps.

Another Editorial by boris111 · 2013-07-02 04:50 · Score: 1

Didn't I read this article before?

Primitive Tribesmen Get Candy, Lose Teeth by Anonymous Coward · 2013-07-02 04:51 · Score: 0

I grew up reading stories with headlines like the ones above. There was always an air of smugness. Cultured modern man could handle it. Primitives couldn't. As usual, nobody is entitled to smugness. We are no better than natives who forget to forage because of TV, or perform cargo-cult dances to bring back the airplanes. Somewhere the drums of the native are beating out their song:

White Man Gets Smartphone, Walks into Wall.

Who is this guy again? by techhead79 · 2013-07-02 05:09 · Score: 1

Without the Internet the majority of the people that read his opinion wouldn't have. This is one of the dubest opinions I've seen in a while. Nothing is perfect. Not a new baby, not a new child, not a new marriage, and certainly not the god damn Internet. You don't burn down your house, kill your child, murder your wife just because of a few flaws do you? Well ok some people do.

Re:Who is this guy again? by techhead79 · 2013-07-02 05:10 · Score: 1

And I spelled "dumbest" wrong...damn you internet for submitting my opinion about his opinion so fast that I didn't bother to proof read it first....I'm never using this damn thing again.
Re:Who is this guy again? by Cro+Magnon · 2013-07-02 05:32 · Score: 1

Without the Internet the majority of the people that read his opinion wouldn't have. This is one of the dubest opinions I've seen in a while. Nothing is perfect. Not a new baby, not a new child, not a new marriage, and certainly not the god damn Internet. You don't burn down your house, kill your child, murder your wife just because of a few flaws do you? Well ok some people do.
Oddly, your first sentence is a good reason to get rid of the internet. :)

--
Slow down, cowboy! It has been 4 hours since you last posted. You must wait another few hours.

Yeah guess what, he's old by dittbub · 2013-07-02 05:27 · Score: 1

I knew right away these were not the words of a 20 or 30 something.

I don't like it = it should be banned by Anonymous Coward · 2013-07-02 05:57 · Score: 0

The filthiest opinion states "what I don't like/approve of/understand should be banned". It is a way of thinking that politicians positively encourage in the sheeple they seek to influence.

Here's an example. Australia, after many, many years, finally introduced an 'adult' 18+ rating for video games. Sounds great, eh? However... Australia just officially refused to give the video game "Saints Row 4" a classification, making it illegal to sell in that nation. Now "Saints Row" games are designed to be a satirical spin on the famous GTA franchise- but humour poses the greatest threat to vile, small-minded politicians. If the sheeple dare to learn how to laugh at their fears, how can vile politicians exploit those fears?

In Australia, the politicians literally say "if you play saints Row 4, you are a dangerous deviant", and use the refusal to give the game an 18+ rating as proof.

Y2K vs computer chips by Anonymous Coward · 2013-07-02 06:23 · Score: 0

Hilarious stuff, once you get to the "they told us the Y2K bug was going to damage computer chips" part, you realise that the web (where his article is being read) has enabled this fool to earn his living from writing ignorant, inane rubbish for a living, and now he's not too sure that was a good thing.

Next week : the invention of stone tools was a disaster for mankind, as it created the potential for..... oh does it really need to be spelled out?

I'm sorry... what? by dragon-file · 2013-07-02 06:43 · Score: 1

By his logic we should repeal all of the following:

Planes: Because they can be flown in from other countries and used to drop bombs on us.

Cars: Because people in other countries load them with explosives and turn them into mobile bombs and that could happen here.

etc...

Almost everything made for the betterment of mankind can be used for the exact opposite purpose with little to no ingenuity.

--
Whenever a player quits EVE to go play WoW, the Average IQ of both games increase.

If it wasn't for the Internet's existence. . . . by sgt_doom · 2013-07-02 07:17 · Score: 2

how would we know about the real street-level protests going in Egypt?

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-SVY5QZCucwc/UdItScyuYbI/AAAAAAABNQM/hCnuET7xM8Y/s600/130701-obama-egypt-003.jpg

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-ywpwtf0tt0c/UdItUBg6c1I/AAAAAAABNQ8/Xpn0SP8FSDw/s600/130701-obama-egypt-050.jpg

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-qkeWcCGDZ0Y/UdItUdTkHOI/AAAAAAABNRA/XkM3Gy0ZIUM/s600/130701-obama-egypt-054.jpg

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-ihWR6dN46Y8/UdItSYEFi5I/AAAAAAABNQY/UqcOGv9rtJE/s600/130701-obama-egypt-010.jpg

Courtesy of this site below:

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2013-07-02/guest-post-egyptians-love-us-our-freedom

Once again let us give thanks to the Kennedy Administration (and their appointment of JCR Licklider to the Pentagon) for the Internet!

If it wasn't for the Internet . . . by sgt_doom · 2013-07-02 07:19 · Score: 0

how would we know about the real street-level protests going in Egypt?

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-SVY5QZCucwc/UdItScyuYbI/AAAAAAABNQM/hCnuET7xM8Y/s600/130701-obama-egypt-003.jpg

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-ywpwtf0tt0c/UdItUBg6c1I/AAAAAAABNQ8/Xpn0SP8FSDw/s600/130701-obama-egypt-050.jpg

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-qkeWcCGDZ0Y/UdItUdTkHOI/AAAAAAABNRA/XkM3Gy0ZIUM/s600/130701-obama-egypt-054.jpg

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-ihWR6dN46Y8/UdItSYEFi5I/AAAAAAABNQY/UqcOGv9rtJE/s600/130701-obama-egypt-010.jpg

Courtesy of this site below:

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2013-07-02/guest-post-egyptians-love-us-our-freedom

Once again let us give thanks to the Kennedy Administration (and their appointment of JCR Licklider to the Pentagon) for the Internet!

He's just mad by umask077 · 2013-07-02 07:58 · Score: 1

He's just mad cause the press photographers went and he knows his day as a newspaper reporter are numbered.

Just remember,. A picture has been revalued to 38 words,

If he doesn't like the Internet disconnect. There is no law you have to. Suppose if he did he would quickly become as obsolete as his paper.

--
--- Always remember. 99.36% of all statistics are inaccurate.

well.... by pakar · 2013-07-02 09:22 · Score: 1

If the problem is cyber-warfare then there is a easy solution to the problem... Just don't frecking connect sensitive machines to it...
If you want a secure tunnel via the internet that is also 'easy' to make secure and more or less hacker-proof... The issue is when you want the sensitive machines/networks to be both secure *and* connected to the rest at the same time...

The Internet is bad for Economics! by bbsalem · 2013-07-03 18:37 · Score: 1

It is odd that Samiulsen would see cyber crime as the biggest threat of the Internet when he has had a front row seat to its biggest negative impact on economics, strategic planning and markets. By allowing for the speedup of human processes, the Internet has taken the prudence and "sleep on it" caution out of business. This started back around 1990 when because of the instantaneous flow of information about finance, stock performance, and business intelligence, long term planning was abandoned. Companies went to much more short-term thinking as investors demanded shorter time scales for ROI. This has led to more volitility and instability and has introduced an impulsive push to the conduct of business, most obvious in problems with program trading and with the impact of glitches in markets caused by events like the AP-Twitter Hoax. If the threat is cyber crime, that is already magnified by the rapidity of trading. The abuses in finance and banking that led to the Crash of 2008 haven't been fixed, and many people think that history would repeat itself in a few years. If I could make a rule, it would be that there had to be a 30 second delay on any electronic trade in the markets, and even a cap on the size of these trades in value.

"I don't think the internet should exist." by Anonymous Coward · 2013-07-09 02:24 · Score: 0

"..And by the way, don't forget to get an online subscription to the Washington Post so you can read all my articles!"

314 comments