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.

59 of 314 comments (clear)

  1. Washington Post by Error27 · · 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.

    1. Re:Washington Post by arbiter1 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      It lets everyone see the truth instead of what governments try to filter from the rest the world.

    2. Re:Washington Post by Anonymous Coward · · 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.

    3. Re:Washington Post by FriendlyLurker · · 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...

    4. Re:Washington Post by mythix · · Score: 5, Funny

      I which he got his way, then I wouldn't be able to read his stupid opinion...

    5. Re:Washington Post by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Funny

      uid 50431 calling people old... lol

    6. Re:Washington Post by Anonymous Coward · · 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.

    7. Re:Washington Post by Yetihehe · · 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
    8. Re:Washington Post by Z00L00K · · 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.
    9. Re:Washington Post by squiggleslash · · 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.
    10. Re:Washington Post by OolimPhon · · Score: 5, Insightful

      There are four versions of any event: my version, your version, the truth and what really happened.

    11. Re:Washington Post by geirlk · · 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.

    12. Re:Washington Post by K.+S.+Kyosuke · · 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
    13. Re:Washington Post by Evtim · · 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..

    14. Re:Washington Post by wagnerrp · · 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.

    15. Re:Washington Post by bluefoxlucid · · 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?!

    16. Re:Washington Post by IndustrialComplex · · 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
    17. Re:Washington Post by gnick · · 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.
    18. Re:Washington Post by riT-k0MA · · 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.

    19. Re:Washington Post by lennier · · 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
    20. Re: Washington Post by Rational · · 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
  2. Got that finger pointed the wrong way... by meta-monkey · · 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.
    1. Re:Got that finger pointed the wrong way... by c · · 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.
    2. Re:Got that finger pointed the wrong way... by khallow · · 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?

  3. Uh, duh? by wonkey_monkey · · 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.
    1. Re:Uh, duh? by wonkey_monkey · · 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.
    2. Re:Uh, duh? by clemdoc · · 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.

    3. Re:Uh, duh? by VortexCortex · · 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...

  4. The guy has no clue by Lonewolf666 · · 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
  5. What is he talking about? by mythix · · 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.

  6. I feel stupider for having read that... by fuzzyfuzzyfungus · · 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...)

  7. Re:er what by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    What? We readily take an 18 year old's opinion on pensions and healthcare, why not the other way around?

  8. The "good old days".. by Dynamoo · · 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
    1. Re:The "good old days".. by aliquis · · 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.

    2. Re:The "good old days".. by jtownatpunk.net · · 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.

    3. Re:The "good old days".. by Esteanil · · 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.
    4. Re:The "good old days".. by grouchomarxist · · 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.

    5. Re:The "good old days".. by Danathar · · 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

    6. Re:The "good old days".. by Chris+Mattern · · 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)

  9. I'm glad the internet lifted the veil by secondhand_Buddah · · 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.
  10. Beware the roads! by discord5 · · 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).

    1. Re:Beware the roads! by Required+Snark · · 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?
  11. Meh by Anonymous Coward · · 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.

    1. Re:Meh by instagib · · 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.

  12. This is so stupid it's beyond belief by Rosco+P.+Coltrane · · 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
  13. Doesn't go far enough by RogueyWon · · 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?

  14. I'm reminded of a Douglas Adams quote: by Chrisq · · 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.

  15. A New Era by vikingpower · · 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
  16. Terrible article by Camael · · 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.

    1. Re:Terrible article by khallow · · 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.

  17. Re:er what by Anonymous Coward · · 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.

  18. Oh, Irony by Camael · · Score: 2

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

    Its pretty funny.

  19. Re:Social network is an oxymoron by Chrisq · · Score: 2

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

    +1 like

  20. Re:er what by sirlark · · 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.

  21. I disagree by Sycraft-fu · · 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.

  22. gatekeepers at the shopping mall by PopeRatzo · · 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.
  23. Re:Not really by TapeCutter · · 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.
  24. A Pox On Horseless Carriages by Grashnak · · 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.