Slashdot Mirror
Beware the Internet
frost_knight writes "Washington Post opinion writer Robert J. Samuelson writes 'If I could, I would repeal the Internet. It is the technological marvel of the age, but it is not — as most people imagine — a symbol of progress. Just the opposite. We would be better off without it.' It is his belief that the dangers of the Internet outweigh its benefits."
The reason? Cyberwarfare of course.
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.
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
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
There are four versions of any event: my version, your version, the truth and what really happened.