Slashdot Mirror
Feature: The Net- Boon or Nightmare?
The founders of the Internet understood from the beginning that the primary moral issue involving networked computers for America and the world wasn't dirty pictures but equal access.
If "The Network" was available for the betterment of all minds, wrote J.C. R. Licklider, a computer pioneer who assigned the Defense Department research that led to the Net, wrote in l968, then the "boon to humankind would be beyond measure."
But if the Net became a privilege rather than a right, and only a favored segment of the population gets a chance to use the "intelligence amplification" of networked computing, disparities in intellectual life and economic opportunities would get worse.
Licklider's worry is, and has always been, the seminal moral issue surrounding the Internet, even if our so-called responsible leaders and thinkers only seem to think about sex online.
We should be fighting to get kids onto computers. But in l999, millions of blocking programs are being sold, restricted access to the Net is a position of almost every national and local political candidate, and schools and libraries have to fight parents and politicians to offer Internet access at all. Licklider's is even more timely now than when he raised it.
The Net is no longer a strange technical phenomena, but an integrated essential of mainstream life: next year, reports the "Computer Industry Almanac," the United States alone will have 133 million Internet Users (about 42 per cent of the estimated 318 million global total).
It would seem logical, even imperative, that society's task is not to protect people from the Net and the Web, but to make sure everyone has access to it.
In our loopy, insanely inverted moralistic culture, neither journalism nor politics pays much attention to growing disparity between the Wired and the unconnected. But let Johnny gets onto the Playboy website, and government grinds to a halt.
In America, there is no tradition of rational consideration of technology. We seem only able to focus on the moral issues that don't matter or are insanely exaggerated. The ones that do matter and are significant are ignored.
This week, the U.S. Commerce Department reported that the disparity between whites and black and Hispanic Americans who own computers and use the Net is growing significantly. Among families earning $15,000 to $35,000, more than 33 per cent of whites owned computers, but only l9 per cent of blacks did.
Ownership of computers is still closely linked to income. Families with incomes over $75,000 were more than five times as likely to own a computer at home and 10 times more likely to have Net access than families who earned less than $10,000. Significantly, gaps in computer ownership and Net use narrowed between white families and blacks and Hispanics earning more than $50,000.
A child in a low-income white family is three times more likely to have Internet access as a child in a comparable black family and four times more likely than a Hispanic child. People with college degrees are more than eight times as likely to own a computer and 16 times more likely to have Net access than people with an elementary school education.
Technologists who study history have predicted that computers - like the telephone, TV, electricity and other technological advances - will inevitably become so inexpensive and ubiquitous that everyone will have one. Many PC's are already less expensive than many TV's, and almost every American household now has a television set. The tube is, in fact, a classic example of how a particular technology can grow rapidly and spread across racial, age, economic and other cultural lines.
These optimistic futurists better be right. So far, they're not. It's the wealthier, better-educated, middle-class Americans who are piling onto the Net. Tech jobs are the fastest growing employment category in the world. Net literacy is essential to economic opportunity, educational research, access to popular culture, and, increasingly, to economic opportunities from the stock market to competitive bidding for products, and global, intensely competitive retailing.
Net skills are essential at most colleges, and increasingly, most good jobs.
The U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics reports that hundreds of thousands of technology jobs go unfilled, and that approximately 100,000 new ones will be created each year for most of the next decade. No other sector of the economy offers that kind of long-term opportunity.
Some of this disparity seems voluntary. The Commerce Department survey suggests not only a growing gap between whites and minorities when it comes to computing, it also suggests some resistance to computing among underclass minorities who might be able to afford them.
"I really don't think the advantage of being online is being instilled in them," Trevor Farrington, a director of the Massachusetts-based African American Internetwork, a Web site aimed at blacks, told CNN.
"Online banking, investing - that's hotter than pornographic sites now but it's not being driven home among African Americans. I really don't think they understand it. They think it's too technical, but it's as easy to use as TV and it's better. Once they understand that, it should grow."
It should. But will it?
And if it doesn't, will these same minorities wake up in a decade or so to find themselves and their families at the bottom of the economic and educational heap.
What's clear is that they aren't going to get much help. The institutions of technology, government, education and journalism aren't spending much time or money making sure it the awareness Farrington talks about does grow and spread. American kids are bombarded with patronizing, boring, generally-ignored messages about drugs, drinking, violence and sex but nobody is hiring ad agencies to spur computer awareness - warnings kidor their parents might actually pay attention to and benefit from.
The so-called serious press remains fixated on issues relating to what they perceive as morality - that is, sex pursued under various self-righteous guises -- as the Monica Lewinsky nightmare made so convincingly clear.
Web searches on the subject yield only a handful of links, stories and writings on the subject of equal computing opportunity and Net access for all Americans. Try searching for sites and stories on sex, pornography and computing access for kids if you want to drown in links and lists.
Yet anybody who knows the Internet knows that kids are much more endangered in the 21st Century by restricted access to computing and the Net than they are to exposure to sexual imagery. Net illiteracy will become - already is - an enormous barrier at almost every stage of life. Computing skills are a literal passport to the hi-tech economy.
If foregoing computers or the Net is a choice, fair enough. Nobody should be forced to use computers or browse the Web. But it's a big enough choice that the people making it deserve to understand the implications -- especially for their children.
As the Commerce Report suggests, we are, for now, stuck in the looking glass, living in a country with a governing body that passes two Communications Decency Acts, but wouldn't dream of even considering an Internet Access Act.
The irony is that it would be a lot cheaper to give every kid in the U.S. his or her own computer than hire all the cops it would take to monitor Net communications for "decency". And it would do a lot more good.
Good old J.C.R. Licklider got it, even if the people running the country don't. If everybody gets to use it, The Network could end up as one of the greatest boons ever to mankind. But if the country continues to devolve into the favored and the deprived - rich computer users and poorer, less educated techno-illiterates - he and his fellow engineers and scientists understood well that they were participating instead in the making of a social nightmare.
The free market is doing a fine job; look at how much computer prices have dropped. Bandwith will follow soon. This is the pattern that technological innovations, from the automobile to the telephone follow. Early adopters pay extremely high prices that finance research and development to bring the price low enough for the mass market. Taxation and government interference only slow the process down. Bill Gates (motives not withstanding) has donated 10's or 100's of millions of dollars towards providing Internet access for schools and communities.
9 990716_xclro_equality_a.shtml for example.
Not to mention there already is a tax on phone service that goes towards providing access in schools and other places that cannot afford it
It is amazing the extent that statistics are manipulated and distorted to make the case for statism See
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/bluesky_rockwell/1
didn't i just read this article on cnn.com last week?
I think Jon has really missed the point on this one. I, for one, am glad to see an article discussing a real social issue - it's much better than alot of his usual stuff. But the way this article is written does very little toward suggesting any solutions.
Let's be honest here. I've noticed a disturbing trend on this site - if someone posts an article about some minor aspect of the GPL or on some new release of Quake, instantly there are 100 posts. But articles like this one, that talk about things that actually matter, are overlooked. I hope that people post their reactions to this, I really do.
This is a real problem, sure, but dumping a computer into the slums isn't going to do too much without any real infrastructure. Crime, drugs, bad schools, poverty - these are the real problems. Those kids can wait a while to read slashdot. Let's make sure they get an education first. Too many kids graduate from high school in the inner cities without being able to discuss basic concepts or solve simple math problems. The school systems are overcrowded and understaffed as it is. I, for one, do appreciate that the Internet can be a low-cost solution. But, aren't there more important priorities?
Hey Jon, how many inner city kids did you interview for that article? I'm betting none. Please, correct me if I'm wrong.
Here we go again with the hand wringing and moaning about disparity and unfairness, as so typifies the USA in the 90s (yes, I'm being US-centric for this conversation). The question, though, is why does this matter? There have always been those who have ignored the opportunities placed in from of them, from public education to libraries to gov't sponsored college programs. If some people choose to ignore the opportuniities offered by Net access, so be it.
As harsh as it sounds, there's simply normal social darwinism at work. In an era where one can get a free PC in exchange for signing up for a PC, or simply buy a secondhand 486/133 for $75 and sign up with one of the free internet services (Netzero, etc), or even use the free internet kiosks that are popping up at the malls, I feel no sympathy for those who complain about the lack of net access. It's not a social problem, it's a personal problem.
Tillman
enuff said
The solution to access for all is to put more internet connected PCs in public libraries. That way everyone has access to the web, email (a hotmail or yahoo acct), etc. A PC in every home will just never happen and is an unreasonable expectation, but public access machines grants access to all who want it. What about the kiddies being able to access p0rn? Either have 'filtered' and 'unfiltered' machines or (radical concept) restrict 'net lab to 18 and over only. Kids already don't have access to all parts of all libraries (video rental, nudie mags [yes, some libraries (university and other) carry these]) so what's the big deal about locking kids out of the loop on one more area? Let the schools install filter software on their terminals. And on the subject of school access, it should be in the school library where all kids can use the machines on recess/lunch and not locked away in some room where only certain enrolled students can use 'em.
First of all, this is very old news. It's been out for weeks now.
Second and more importantly, it is obscene that techno gadgetry is given more importance than mere literacy. 40% of our 18-year-olds are functionally illiterate, which means that 5th-grade reading is too hard for them. This means they can't fill out job applications, read election ballots, or even read the labels on food products. They are not able to participate in our democracy. Clearly, that 40% average is higher in the inner cities and lower in prep schools. To focus on computing access when you have a huge segment cut off from simple READING is a disgrace. And illiteracy is a far greater threat to our way of life than not having a computer in every house will ever be. It is illiteracy, and to a lesser extent innumeracy, which is causing the great gap between haves and have-nots.
Watch out! The 'evil' socialists are coming to get all the good companys that help the people!
Think about it, would computers have been so much more expensive on society if we didn't have Wincrash Os 95 and the like wasting millions of dollars of time?
Not to mention there already is a tax on phone service that goes towards providing access in schools and other places that cannot afford it
Like that has anything to do with socialism? That's daftism
Bill Gates (motives not withstanding) has donated 10's or 100's of millions of dollars towards providing Internet access for schools and communities.
So he gets them using windows!
Hmmm, so one group is going to be better off than another group. Big flipping deal. Since when did "equality" become the *sole* criteria by which to judge the effects of change on society?
To be blunt, I don't care if one group is better off than the others, I just want to be in that better off group. I've seen the minority groups and feminists in the US rant for literally years about getting their equality, when their actions show that what they really want is power, not equality. Since so few people (Katz apparently among the few) really want things to be equal for everyone, the odds seem good that there's going to be some group or another at the top. Might as well be MY group, eh?
You can all start calling me names now if you like, but that's honestly my viewpoint on the whole thing.
Probably because there aren't any Asian white trash. 8vP
Hey, a segment of the population wanted free trade. Let the people of other countries do the factory work of making cars, shoes, plastic stuff, household items. Getting pretty hard to buy USA made items, too expensive anyway.
Blacks and other minorities were making good money at these jobs, and who did they vote for but Bill Clinton, a leading advocate and implemtor of free trade policies.
Now they are whining they don't have the old jobs? Tough. Pick up a book, and start learning programming. You made this situation, now learn to live with it. I have.
The word, sir, is "elitism". Sigh. You're being a poster-boy for the problem.
Asians as a group are more literate, more numerate, more educated that anglos.
Anglos as a group are more literate, more numerate, more educated than Hispanics.
Hispanics as a group are more literate, more numerate, more educated than blacks.
Now, what are you going to do about this? Restrict schools from admitting Asians? Define educated as having completed the fifth grade? None of these get our children reading. Kill the television, get them involved in books. That's the road to education.
Of all banal things to compare looking for racism, we finally come upon net access and computer access.
Poor whites buy computers more often than poor blacks or hispanics. What to do about it?
Is it just me, or do the media and certain members of the minority establishment go out of their way to find problems?
If parents don't buy computers for their kids, its *their* fault. If they don't get their kids to good schools and make sure they are well educated, its *their* fault. Its not whitey's fault, and its not the government's fault. See again, poor hispanics and blacks buy computers less often than poor whites of the same income level. This is a decision these people are making, and I for one don't think my tax dollars should pay for their poor decisions, which is exactly where this is heading.
Welcome to the United Socialist States of America.
That would be "quibble".
The one that gets me is "and such-and-such literally killed me!"
Funny, you're doing rather well for a dead person.
Illiteracy is our greatest foe.
and then proposing a solution" is what politicians do best. This is a non-problem if I ever saw one. What, the 3rd world needs net access so that they can futz too? Or download porn? Or have porn sites featuring Ethiopians? Give me a break! No one NEEDS a pc! People that I know who live in "depressed" areas (Appalachia in the top 20 poorest US counties) LIKE where they are at because you DON'T need all the crap that the rich folks need to get along.
And another thing, Jon, A right on some else's part is not a right if it produces an obligation on my part. It is then just a wish. People should have the right to pursue PC ownership. That doesn't mean that we need to give them PCs.
Socialism doesn't work!
Strange to think that the same statistics are likely to be true for other things that are usefull, but not essential for life. For example I wouldn't be surprised if there is a strong correlation between the number of families who have a second car, and the number of families who have internet access, yet I don't see a whole lot of specific complaints about second cars.
Any capitalist system is a system of greed, that is a system of haves, and by extension, have nots. The idea is that these very things serve as an incentive to work, as rewards. Not as some entitlement for the masses. Any claim based on advantage issues for internet access is as valid for a car, or a better neighborhood to live in.
This is however an attractive gripe issue for many, since it is a "liberal" issue for the internet, the same way that censorship of pornography is a conservative one. Both are perhaps undesirable, but inevetable. However, now the liberals can complain any whine about the world wide web too, and thus be ready to gripe well into the next millenium.
Spending money on cable is how we luck blacks into the illiteracy trap. Until we tax cable and tv sets to pay for books and libraries, this trend will continue.
It's not "lowest common demoninator". It's "greatest common factor". Innumeracy sucks, and you're a good demo of why.
Wellll, you do realize that "underprivileged" minorities (black, Hispanic, Native American") *are* tacitly favoured by universities and other involved organizations for recruitment, scholarships, and so forth -- and admissions?
It's a fact that schools try to balance admissions. For instance, universities know it doesn't look that good if they have absolutely insane M-F ratios, or if they're 30+% Oriental, or so forth...
I do agree, though, that education is the optimal solution, not wishing.
Damn those white folks for working hard to get money and buy stuff. And damn them for trying to determine age-appropriate content for their chidren.
I want SouthPark on every channel! George Carlin's "Seven Words" playing on every radio station. Anything less is CENSORSHIP. If those "moral" people don't like it, they can turn off the TV and spend the rest of their lives inside their homes.
Anonymous Cow Herder
PS (for the sarcasm-impared): the preceeding post was sarcastic. I meant the opposite.
Computers are not the gateway to knowledge. Literacy is.
I oppose both profiling and AA. For that matter, I oppose hate-crime legislation, and almost any regulation, legislation, or practice that specifically classifies by a pointless criteria such as race. If I'm going to hire somebody, I'll demand the best that I can afford to pay, and I'm not going to cut somebody a break regardless of who they are -- friends and family included.
AA *does* unfairly aid the targetted minorities, however; it is *not* just for a university or an employer to weight a minority candidate higher to compensate for possibly lost opportunities, for that denies others. And this *does* happen, and often explicitly (as in matrices that classify people via test score or GPA range -- and race.)
What *is* just is to fix the original problem, which is partly political, partly socioeconomic, and partly cultural.
* It is truth that bright black students are sometimes accused by their fellow students as "acting white". That is evidence of a cultural problem.
* It is truth that cities tend to have higher-density populations with poor mobility, so that many of the best and brightest *leave*. This is socio-economic.
* It is truth that politicians have little stomach for actually fixing the problem (e.g. radical overhaul, or oversight, or penalties/incentives), and more for perpetuating it.
To "fix" the problem through AA is, essentially, legitimizing it. Instead, it would prove more helpful if --
* The communities actually supported education, and were in a position to do so. This means more two-parent families that can provide for their children, and nuture them. This means educators that actually care, and have the power to do so w/o being hamstrung, be that by students hurling false allegations, or by parents frustrated at a teacher not afraid to give poor marks, or by principals who want their staff to teach the tests instead of the material.
* And so forth....
You might be onto something there.
Figure,
* A screw-less case design (no geek jokes, pls...), perhaps coated in durable, high-impact plastic for safety? (sharp, metal edges on normal cases...)
* Minimal expansion slots req'd
* Somehow, have to figure out how to make it tough to electrocute oneself... like a case that won't open if the power is connected, c/o a magnetic switch or something like that.
* 'Hardening' the connectors (pins, eg) somehow so that kids don't break/bend delicate components
* Quickie, simplistic schematic on the inside of the case?
* Friendly, pre-installed OS
* Low price, probably low power as well
Personally, I think the net is hyped up WAY tooo much. I think kids in general would be better off just reading plain old books than relying on the internet for information. Have your child use aol to talk with his/her friends about what they are going to do later on that night isn't exactly of much educational value. The internet has no organization whatsoever, and doing research (for school) on the internet is really riduclous. Search engines aren't of any real help,a nd you could find the information you need much more quickly searching at a library (or asking the librarian :). I personally think the internet is just another form of entertainment (like t.v. and radio). The only real unique aspect of the internet is its great colloboration facility. Which really isn't too much help to most kids.
Keep in mind that blocking software is empowerment *only* if the individual (or family head, or so forth) gets to choose whether to use the software, and *exactly what it blocks*. If another power, such as the government, uses coercion to impose blocking software on one's 'net access, then that leads to a lack of discretion; and should another organization do all the blocking choices, then that leads to *no* discretion whatsover, as they are now free to block, say, any organizations or individuals with whom they disagree in the slightest.
Not to mention that you're not forced to go to URLs you don't choose, at least if you disable JavaScript or don't search for w4r3z or other illicit content on your own. HTTP is *not* a broadcast protocol, and you are *not* forced to view content you don't want.
Er, all you have to do to be heard is *scream loudly* to the right people. Ever hear of letters to the editor, say? If I want to, I could take time spent writing bizarre stuff for my own amusement (such as satirical ads, strange haiku, and so forth) and instead write to either my local (incredibly provincial, and somewhat leftist) newspaper, the Pittsburgh P-G; or to the NY Times. I simply don't care to, since I'm not going to waste my time _forcing_ unwilling people to think, nor preaching to the choir...
The standard counter-argument to what you just wrote is that there have been, and still are, many "hidden" privaleges for whites, such as legacy admissions to colleges, unconscious preferences, etc. etc. All this is true- for upper middle class and above whites. But what is usually ignored by affirmative action liberals is that there are many more class/race splits in america than simply white and black. There is also the white/poor white split, which is sometimes nearly as great as the black/white split, although less visable.
Consider this: if I'm a poor white living in a ghetto (yes such a thing _does_ exist, despite what many minority advocates would have you believe), I am completely hosed by the minority-preference scholarships that you refer to, and I get nothing at all from legacy admissions, or anything like that.
Even being from the middle class, I've been put at a distinct disadvantage because I'm white. My parents can barely afford to send me to college, and we got absolutely no financial aid. There were of course many minority-only scholarships that I didn't get. Had I been black, things would be different. The one advantage I had is that my parents valued learning and tried to instill this value into me all my life, not a trivial thing, and maybe reason enough for scholarhips for minorities, where cultures may not emphasize learning tothe proper degree.
Now, I don't think affirmative action should be ended-although the better place to spend money and effort, in my opinion, is at the root of the problem- decaying and underfunded secondary school systems in minority communities. But I wish that people would at least look both ways across the color divide before condemning any criticism of affirmative action (from whites) as rich white boys whining. I for one would much rather be branded a racist than to give up my right to discuss things that affect my life in a reasonable manner.
The US Gov't actually doesn't do that much to bail out industry [*especially* compared to other Gov'ts, with their MITIs and so forth. Don't discuss Gov't involvement in business if you don't recognize even those initials. The MITI is *far* more involved there than the Feds here.], and I wouldn't mind it doing far less. So there. The Gov'ts torment the rich far more than they help them, with their mandatory audits and extortion. Or would you rather contribute more of *your* personal income to the Gov't, and voluntarily pay higher taxes and be audited more frequently simply on the basis of ability?
.45 into my medulla oblongata; that oughta do it, plus it'll have the nice effect of not damaging the rest of my organs. A corpse is just a piece of meat, which might as well be hacked up for anybody else to salvage. (Target the M.O. 'coz a) it's *vital* to life, b) dead brains are not currently as useful to the living [read: non-transplantable, in constrast to the vitals in the torso. If you shoot yourself in the heart, you've denied somebody else a possibly useful gift.]).
For that matter, most of the bottom third here is far better off than the third world, in case you haven't noticed.
And note -- it's cheap to off yourself. IMHO, when/if I reach that point (instead, say, of meeting a quicker end via auto accident, lightning bolt, etc), I might as well fire a
Much cheaper, more useful and definitely more practical than wasting away. How's that for an option?
You write: "~A nerd is someone who's life revolved around computers and technology. A geek is someone who's life revolves around computers and technology".
Apparently both are people who can't spell "whose" to save their lives.
*DUPLICATE*
How do "dependents" differ from "dependants"? Illiteracy strikes again.
Being poor doesn't mean you have to be illiterate.
Being poor doesn't mean you have to be dirty.
Being poor doesn't mean you have to be ill-mannered.
Being poor just means you don't have a lot of money.
I agree with katz- net access is important. But not as important as functioning schools and decent teachers.
Before we add to the billions of dollars that we've already spent on getting people online, and before any more politicians or pundits parrot catchy lines about "a computer in every classroom", we need to take a long, hard look at ourselves, and our technology. If I take a 7th grader with a kindergarten or worse reading level,
not a scrap of mathematical ability, no decent teachers, and a school that is physically decaying around him, and I shove a computer into his hands, he doesn't suddenly become any more employable, knowledgable, or internet saavy. In my high school experience, computers were nothing but a distraction and money-sink. except in a few instances where the infastructure to deal with them is in place- ie. dedicated and informed teachers, and organized classes, computers are only destructive, in that they eat up money that is desperately needed elsewhere, and don't accomplish anything. Wiring every classroom is an easy answer that doesn't work.
No, the hard facts of the situation are this: in Brooklyn, NYC many high schools now hold class in hallways, or auditoriums. The midwood high school biology department is now run out of a bathroom, with converted urinals for the teachers desks'. Yearly, several students die from parts of schools collapsing on them. Now do you really think that throwing a computer into this fuckup is going to fix anything? Get real.
Why are we continually distracted by shit like this when we should be thinking about the basic problems of our society? Could it be that there is a large segment of our economy that has a vested interest in selling lots of computers to all schools?
The sad thing is that there is no vested interest, or at least not one that is organized and rich enough to make a difference, in the maintainance of schools and the actual teaching of kids.
Should everyone have internet access? Yeah, why not. But we need to keep our priorities straight, no matter how many experts and high tech pundits tote the latest industry fix-all as the answer.
Lets review the so called facts again, the problem for Net access is class, race, and income. I stil don't see any evidence that site blocking was an important factor is net access. This Katz opinion seems more like an opportunity for Katz to take an immoral position and bash those with morality, rather than make a real case. Katz tries to make case that somehow too much much is being spent on site blocking, and not enough basically giving net access to those to who don't have it. I think he was more interested in bashing those who think kids should NOT be exposed to everything (especially at a young age), then really talking about net access.
Katz probably dropped kids off when they were 5 on some large city street corner, and didn't care what they did, or saw, and didn't expect the rest of society to give a damn either. No wonder kids have problems growing up in today's society.
As a parent I am a 15 year software engineer, with kids in elementary school, I can tell you first hand that computers and net access are vastly overrated for educational purposes. Like that other great technological revolution that misfired despite some promise, the Net, like TV tends to be a "vast wateland". The good part about the net is that a least you have some hope of searching for something useful.
You want to really help a kid, teach them how to read, write, and do aritmetic. Then you can consider adding the computer. The kid will do better in the long run.
Internet access is significantly more expensive in Europe where even local telephone calls are charged a per minute fee on top of their monthly charges. Therefore, Internet access has been much slower to take hold in Europe. GSM/Digital cellular phones, however have been quite quick to catch on! Just look at the Nokia 9110 as an example! Since Cellular rates are reasonably inexpensive (almost as cheap as regular telephone) digital phones have become all the rage, with the Nokia 9110 outdoing expected sales by a very wide margin.
Which brings us back to.. cost of access. For some people $20/month is still too expensive. Those folks living paycheck to paycheck certainly wouldn't want to add one more monthly bill to their expenses...whether black, white, asian, AmerInd, hispanic, or any other *minority*
How does an "inherit problem" differ from an "inherent problem"?
How does "litteraly" differ from "literally"?
Illiteracy strikes again!
Your first few sentences hit home. You surely seem
// nbodley@tiac.net
to be right. I call it cultural suicide.
One small, but very telling symptom is that there's
an epidemic of pig-ignorance about how to write prices in the
formats used for about six centuries. There's no compelling need to change the format. We post pricesin centicents, as in ".79c", where "c" is the cents sign. This price is 79/100 of a cent (not a dollar!), and even legally so, according to one lawyer. This sort of thing used to be
what parents passed on to their kids; no longer.
It's un-American to oil a squeaking door hinge.
Nicholas Bodley
Someone who attributes his success to "genetic superiority", or who claims to support laissez-faire capitalism yet advocates subsidies and bailouts for industry, is no objectivist.
Criticize Objectivism all you want -- but consider that your criticism will be much more effective if you address what O'ism actually teaches, not what you imagine it does.
The San Jose library system has had internet access for almost 5 years now. I wish JonKatz and the people who do those silly studies would go take a look. The internet terminals are one of the libraries most popular features. People from all walks of life use the terminals. There are homeless people there with web pages and hotmail accounts and they use the computers for word processing as well.
Money will not help our schools. Computers will not help our schools.
Only hard work and creative learning will help our schools.
We need teachers who care, and parents who care, and students who want to learn and want to work.
At university, to get into the CompSci dept. you needed a 3.3 GPA; for CompEng, 3.0; for MIS (business), a 2.5; and for computer education, only a 2.0. What is this saying?
OED: "dependant": A person who depends on another for support, position, etc.; a retainer, attendant, subordinate, servant.
1588 Shaks. L.L.L. iii. i. 134 - The best ward of mine honours is rewarding my dependants.
1750 Johnson Rambler No. 28 P8 - An error almost universal among those that converse much with dependents.
1752 Johnson Rambler No. 190 P7 - Convinced that a dependant could not easily be made a friend.
1786 Burke W. Hastings Wks. 1842 II. 105 - Her female dependants, friends, and servants.
1858 Froude Hist. Eng. III. xiii. 118 - The gentry were surrounded by dependents.
1875 Jowett Plato (ed. 2) I. 309 - A poor dependant of the family.
Dependent is an adjective.
Dependant is a noun.
Both are words.
How do the "underpriveleged" differ from the "underprivileged"? Illiteracy strikes again.
Until fairly recently, many people couldn't afford //Nicholas Bodley | nbodley@tiac.net | Working poor, not that far back; age prejudice. Recovering legacy-hardware addict :)
the hardware needed to run M$ bloat. Public-access
Internet (but no private e-mail accounts?) has helped.
However, there are software alternatives (such as ELKS),
Clienux (Caps/l.c. are wrong, there), and NewDeal
on top of updated GEOS on top of FreeDOS.
386s and slower 486s should be giveaways, if not the monitors. Total cost
for this last is $100, and you have a complete office suite, nice GUI and all.
Main point is that earlier hardware, giveaway, or all but, can give very decent Net access.
Fwiw, I'm still using a 386/16, 8//52 MB; DOS 6.22, shareware image viewer, Conex, and File Wizard.
So an underprivilidged minority student is more likely to use a school or library computer to access the net than his white computerparts who are (it is shown) more likely to have computers at home.
/. be allowed through a software filter? It wouldn't surprise me if the answer was no -- /. tends to encourage free thought, something that many filtering software companies don't particularly like. So the underprivilidged student does not have the right to partake of this forum. Or the NOW web site. How about a web site on child abuse or abusive relationships? A web site on Sexually transmitted diseases and how to prevent them?
So let's filter the school and library computers so the underprivilidged minority student doesn't have access to the whole internet. Keeping in mind that most filtering software is written by people with more of an agenda than keeping porn out of the hands of our children.
Would
Our politicians obviously have no concept of morality. They make the noises that promise to get them re-elected and that is all. Instead of demanding internet filtering for public access terminals, we should be demanding that any politician talking about morality and family values should automatically be subjected to a background check and a thorough audit and investigation to see if he is a hypocrite because I guarantee you it's a sure bet he is. And we should take to public canings of said hypocritical politicians in the interests of the welfare of the people as a whole.
The 'net an "integrated essential of mainstream life"?
"...We should be fighting to get kids into computers..."?
Let me put this as simply as I think I can. LITERACY is an "integrated essential of mainstream life." By literacy, I do NOT mean being able to sit down at a computer and start a game of Doom or Quake. I mean mastering the BASIC AND CRITICAL SKILLS of reading, writing, and simple math, without which a computer is worse than useless.
That's never going to change no matter how much you, or any other folk, may think or wish otherwise. You can have the most powerful computer on the planet, and a direct SONET link to the Internet backbone, and do you know what they'd be worth?
Diddly-squat, unless the user in front of the keyboard knows how to read, and write in a coherent and expressive manner in whatever language is native to their part of the world.
Computers and the 'net are TOOLS... nothing more, nothing less. The World Wide Wait is another tool, and a pretty messy one at that (when was the last time YOU got more than, at best, two or three worthwhile hits from a search or meta-search engine?)
Neither one is what I would call an "integrated essential" of mainstream life. The most important tools I can possibly think of to give to our kids are the skills of critical and logical thinking, creativity, and actually daring to ask 'Why?' instead of just settling for a verbatim answer.
Would you please explain to me how a net connection could possibly help with building such skills? Last I checked, it took immediate and interactive feedback from a much older and wiser human to teach at least two out of those three.
I'm not saying that teaching basic computer skills is unimportant. I feel it's very important to know at least what to do when you sit down in front of that keyboard.
However, I think we're seeing far too much importance attached to computers and the 'net by the media and politicians. I think this is happening because it's much easier to create an issue we can all deal with than face the truth about how badly so much of our public school system has been neglected by the very same media and politicians.
Jon, do yourself, and the rest of us, a big favor. Sit down and read 'Silicon Snake Oil' by Cliff Stoll, cover-to-cover, before you think about writing anything like this again.
And no, it's not available on the web. It's a paperback book. You'll actually need to go out and borrow or buy a copy.
excuse me for using an a instead of an i.
can you think of anything better to write about?
Possibly 'coz most of the non-Asians been here longer. If you tossed out people who would have failed to meet qualifications for coming here legitimately, then you might skew the population's ability upwards.
Well, has anybody controlled for self-selection effects? Considering that
* My suspicion is that most Asiatics in the US go back fewer generations (in the US) than other ethnic groups. This might actually be interesting to control for... noting, for instance, that due to immigration regulations it helps to be either a skilled worker in various areas, or alternately somebody fleeing political repression.
* It's harder to get here from Asia, and that's going to weed out people, in constrast to people who have already been here for generations and generations, or who can reach here through land transport.
* Asians in Asia may present a completely different demographic, and probably would...
1) Those 100,000 unfilled IT jobs, that's a load of crap. It's not 100,000 unfilled jobs because there are no workers. It's 100,000 jobs that companies did not want to pay the salaries that tech workers demand today. They'd rather import someone from Pakistan and pay him near minimum wage, so they make a big fuss that they can't get tech workers. Corporate America needs a solid twacking with a beat down stick.
2) People say that the way we're going right now is going to lead to a technically elite ruling class and a non-technical working class. This is absurd. What's going to happen is there's going to be a technically elite class that is able to find employment in the coming information age and a non-technical class that is not able to find employment because ALL the jobs require extensive computer skills. The latter class will most likely be composed mostly of older people at or near retirement anyway (Though a good many of the already retired elderly are, in fact, taking up computers as a hobby and are quite good at it.)
Be creative. NO, I don't mean lie. I mean...
* Consider interviewing the local coroner/pathologist/medical examiner/GP, if your town's too small to have a hospital w/ an approachable oncologist.
* If books won't help you, consider journals, like JAMA or the New England JoM.
Well, the BIK stumps me, but the first part's likely "In my not-so-humble opinion"...
BIK = ? but I know?
Really. How do you know they were African-American? Maybe they were just African. Or Indian, or Indian-American.
The rapper NAS, said it best, " We be playin' with our PlayStations, while they building space stations." The black/white dichomety stems mainly from the expectations of each of the majority of the racial groups. Studies have shown that blacks often underrepresent themselves in the hard sciences (math,physics, computer science, etc.), and overrepresent themselves in the social sciences (teacher, social worker, etc.). During the civil rights era of the '60's, this path was encouraged, as it helped raise self-awareness
among the minority group. The problem, as it is showing now, is the economic (and technical) growth was not matched by the civil-rights gains,
and consequently, entertainment and sports have become the way to money for many. Unfortunately, it is a lottery with 100 people that have
lost, compared to the one that made it.
That expectation must be eradicated, as it is unrealistic for many.
There is no reason other than what I have said here for this to exist, and legislation will not change anything, until the values of education and
deferred gratification are imparted to our youth, as a whole.
I'm at work, so I can't use my account.
Dave Janoskie
Will you shut up about that already? Just because someone mispells a few words doesn't make them illiterate.
During my term in tech support (never again *shudders*), I found that people of all ages were equally incompetent (at least of those who called).
If you're 19, and you're bringing in a "big handful" of 50 dollar bills, you're probably going to raise eyebrows...
And I'm 16 and receive offers for platinum credit cards in which they praise my great credit history (been getting them for 4 years, too). Scary, isn't it?
In My Not So Humble Opinion is the first part...
BIK though is a bit harder.
Because I...
::shrug:: If anyone else would care to enlighten be, I'd appreciate it. (rhys at transform dot to)
Ring ring. "I'd like to subscribe to your
Internet access, please."
"Are you white or black?"
"What does that have to do with it?"
"Just answer the question."
"I'm white."
"Well then, we'll put you on the waiting
list. When the percentage of black people on
the net reaches the percentage in the general
population, then we'll get to the waiting
list, and assign white and black people access
in strict proportion. Until such time, you'll
just have to wait. We've already traced your
call, so you're on the list. Goodbye." Click.
AFAIK, "Big Bill" has donated under $100M, *much* less than allowed by his means.
The Internet is no big thing for education; reading and mathematics skills are still the basis of a good education. Research for children? Blah--I realized this as soon as my little brother started cutting and pasting from the WWW, instead of from encyclopaedias, like me. No difference whatsoever! Computers make you smart just like going to the gym makes you look like Stallone. Sure, it can help, but you have to put in the work, and there are other ways. Depending upon how they are used, computers in classrooms can be beneficial, down to very detrimental. Computers can do a lot for people, but they are neither the be-all-and-end-all, nor even necessary for learning/ intelligence.
Besides, I don't really want my children indoctrinated with Windows 2020 or whatever when they are five years old.
Elite => competent
Elitist => professional
IT professional => word-processing lackey
You're also assuming I can afford the $60/month for phone and $45/month for electricity, to say nothing of the physical space to put the computer and security to keep it from being stolen.
Now how 'bout the software costs, so I'm not stuck with the adware that came with the machine, training costs on how to use it, and documentation costs for manuals...
Free software isn't free, and neither are free computers!
Now you know why text-based interfaces are so unpopular: Johnny Average can't read!
You don't understand how illiterate people really are. America has over the last 20 years fallens from being in the low teens in world rankings of literacy to being in the high forties. 40% of 18 year old just cannot read at a fifth-grade level. You're right, they can't function in our society. It is a grave and urgent matter.
Good ol Asians... Mmmm... yummy.. treat women like objects.. mmmmmmmm
You know you all like it too! Even you nazi types!
This response makes me wonder if Michael Medved reads slashdot.
Which group buys more lottery tickets?
and try doing you own homework too..
/is/ doing their homework. They didn't ask you to write the report, merely to help them find information...
*sheesh* This person
Here are some possible brain tumor / cancer links:
http://brain.mgh.harvard.edu/
http://www.oncolink.org/disease/brain/
http://wwwicic.nci.nih.gov/patient.htm
http://www.mdanderson.org/
Christian E Becker
Proponents of laissez-faire capitalism don't support doing anything to benefit industry. That charge is false, where the others are true.
Why should we put in 65 hours when we're paid the same as at 40 hours in a week? But we do it all the same. The 20- and 30-something corporate slavery racket happens to engineers, too, you know.
"Ubiquitous" no more means "commonplace" than does "unique" mean unusual. Either something is ubiquitous, or it is not.
Illiteracy strikes again! Don't use big words without looking them up.
That was the wrong accent mark on voila. You want a grave accent, not an acute one. Are you sure you know what the word means?
Gosh, you'd think someone who could type as much as you do would've fixed his broken apostrophe key by now.
Part of the problem is with the culture. Have you listened to any black music today? Almost all of it revolves around gang culture. Drinking Mt. Dew and sitting in front of a screen for hours on end isn't really part of that.
A few months ago, Jesse Jackson was in Sillicon Valley, doing something for "people of color" (you guessed it, accusing everyone of racism, his old M.O.) but really, he's done far, far less than Lawernce Fishburn. By playing Morpheus in the movie "The Matrix" Fishburn made computers cool. In fact, a recent issue of The Source, a hip-hop magazine, had a cover that was a Matrix rip-off.
There's an old story about how Nichelle Nichols wanted to quit Star Trek (original series,) but Martin Luther King called her on the phone and told her that having a black woman doing an important job, on national television, was too important, that she must stay on. I don't know it that's a true story or not, but I think it says a lot about what really makes a difference.
So here, in the footsteps of Margaret Mead, Internet anthropoligists have uncovered a last group of digitally-disempowered Americans who have not yet fallen head-first into their computer monitors. What a tragedy, that they shall be denied the opportunity to turn pale, weak and sickly as they slump hypnotized inside their houses before their computers! Instead these poor outcasts are going to be forced by default to read books, drink wine, make love, breathe fresh air, andlook at the sun and the sky.
Has it occurred to any of you that in the new Internet-enabled America of the near-future, the vast "middle-class" will get "free" access to a daazling panoply of virtual delights - that is, sequences of easily and cheaply reproducible binary data, ninety-nine percent of it professionally prepared by the advertising and propaganda industries - and meanwhile the rich who run the works will get all the stocks and bonds, all the waterfront property, and everything else material worth possessing? And I now it appears some people think this blessing needs to be forcibly extended to everyone everywhere, so no one can escape.
Come on, Ted, toss out that old typewriter! Now that we've run a cable modem line to your Montana cabin, you can use Microsoft (tm) Word (tm) with exciting Web Extensions instead, and be a hundred percent more productive! Smile!
microsoft employees : 92 % white.
/., EVERY KID IN AMERICA is probably better off playing ball, riding a bike, or reading a few books.
microsoft ads : 12 % white.
bob young of redhat : "linux users are 99% male -- we need to change that"
...what the hell happened to freedom of choice? did any on you moronic linux 31337 chumps consider that maybe some people don't want their kids staring into a screen 24 hours a day?
maybe a lot of people aren't interested in the net. maybe using it at the library is enough. or work. and just cuz dad beats off to internet pr0n after work doesn't mean the whole family uses it, either.
the arrogance implicit in the report is astounding -- "if you aren't on the net, you are less than a person". Yeah right. And if you don't want to use M$ products, there's something wrong with you, because they're cheaper/faster/better than linux and mac.
judging from the posts and imbecilic moderation that goes on here at
How does "acces" differ from "access"?
How does "arguement" differ from "argument"?
How does "bearly" differ from "barely"?
How does "guese" differ from "guess"?
How does "librarys" differ from "libraries"?
How does "poepl" differ from "people"?
How does "primative" differ from "primitive"?
How does "privalaged" differ from "privileged"?
How does "thier" differ from "their"?
How does "verbage" differ from "verbiage"? Illiteracy strikes again. And again. AND AGAIN! You die. Do you wish to see an inventory of your library?
People who let their tax dollars be spent on statia doubtless engage in what Hawking referred to as a stupidity tax: the lottery.
It's all part of the dumbing down of America. Until it's cool to be educated again, no one shall be.
Instead, they'll just keep demanding their bread and circuses.
Haven't you read the article?!? It states that white families are on the net more than comparable black and hispanic families of a comparable income! So your assumption is FALSE. Next time read the article! Yeesh. So, why the discrepancy? It has nothing to do with income!
The "pull yourself up by the bootstraps" approach is a myth perpetuated by people who would have us believe that such things are common occurrences, when in fact they are really quite rare. Honestly, how many people rise out of poverty by simply applying themsleves? One, two, maybe four or five a year? That still leaves all those lazy people right? Wrong. The causes of poverty are pervasive and systemic. To attribute its existence to 'laziness' is simplistic and actually wrong. Poverty is a cyclical social condition
Ever heard of genetics? Stupid, lazy parents have stupid lazy kids. Explains quite a lot doesn't it?
It amazes me the way whiny liberals who scream if a school tries to stop teaching evolution will refuse to apply the theory to the real world.
Stupid people have stupid kids, and now that intelligence is no longer being selected for (i.e. stupid people have more kids that reach breeding age than intelligent people) it will disappear.
It's ugly, but it's the truth. Human intelligence today is a vestigial remnant of the time when it was required to survive. That time ended, in America at least, some time around 1945. Say hello to the legions of idiots so stupid they can't decide for themselves whether or not to buy a computer, and need the government to decide for them.
Soon as I finish the hydrogen scoop on the rocket I'm building in my basement I'm getting the hell off Planet Moron.
I cannot see how "make them all website admins" is going to teach them reading OR writing OR mathematics.
If you want Internet access, hie thee to a library. You might be surprised at what else you find there, too.
Take any sociology class, you'll hear the phrase race/class/gender. But that's the ivory tower and / or academia... The press is less likely to quote from research that focuses primarily on class, seeing as that's less of a hot-button big-seller topic than race. In turn, the politicians won't address it because it hasn't become a public issue because the public isn't constantly being accosted by it in the papers.
Viscious cycle, but hey.
Scholars would say that yes, there's "hidden" privilages for white males, but they'd throw in middle class as well. A middle class white male would be more privilaged than a poor white male, who in turn would be more privilaged than a poor white female, who'd be more privilaged than a poor black woman. Dig?
I don't see anything preventing internet access.
I grew up below the poverty line. My brother went for buying trucks and I bought a computer. This was my choice. It was not coerced and nobody had to make me 'aware of' anything.
NOTE: Would somebody check the census. If it hasn't already happened, it will soon be inaccurate to refer to the white RACES as 'the majority.'
-Admiral Coeyman
you certainly do have a knack for rudeness eh?
in the last 15 minutes i've seen you grace people with your proclamations at least 2 or 3 times.
enough with the "my opinion is bigger than yours and you're stupid".
everyone knows size doesn't *really* count....
try quality for a change... you might be amazed when you sit back and read one of your own posts thinking, "wow. i conversed with someone i've never met and convinced them to change their mind, all without ego or hostility. i've done well."
your ability to reason through an argument certainly must be something everyone you interact with cherishes. I know i do.
(somewhat like a barium enema, in fact)
i'm fear the anonymity of this medium does bring out the very worst in us...
It may be a combination of income, and the amount of asians in the US... or it could be job skills, no offense but when we go to computer sells they person usually selling you parts is asian after all...
Doesn't seem to be anything wrong with your fuzzy logic if you can figure that out all by yourself, then what could the problem possibly be, maybe it took your fuzzy logic a long period of time to figure out what he was trying to say, and that is the reason you initiated an official bitch.
My sister has a computer. Sometimes I think I have a computer at my sister's house. I go there and fix it regularly. If I didn't, my sister wouldn't have an operating computer. It's not a TV, it's not even a car (and I used to fix her car). It's complicated, and hard to use. But she believes she has a computer. She just uses it when it works. Good luck on everyone having a computer. I won't help them. Maybe they can find someone who will, maybe they won't. Good luck.
I wasnt aware those were pre-requisites for web site admins ;)
Brad
The group that's bad at math, of course.
"minoritys" "relized" "nither"
I'm afraid you've just disqualified yourself from being taken seriously when making written comments regarding literacy.
It's not the breasts that dad wants to protect his 13-year-old son from seeing. It's the two young guys 69ing that dad doesn't want sonny to know about.
Listen, pop, if the only thing that's stopping your 13-year-old son from 69ing the neighbour boy is not knowing he can do that because you've port-filtered his internet access, then it's your own fault that he tries it. Haven't your heard of morals?
I never played computer games. I played real games.
If kids without computers are going to feel left behind, why is it that kids who can't read don't feel that way? I bet they do. Or how about those who can't balance their checkbooks?
There certainly is evidence that laziness, like most other human traits, is inherited. Studies of identical twins seperated at or near birth reveal an astonishing degree of similarity between people raised in completely different environments, due solely to genetic makeup.
Why waste education on morons? The world needs manual laborers as well as computer geeks, you know. And no, I obviously don't believe in creationism, although you are the shining example of the whiny liberal who refuses to apply the principles of evolution to the real world. I'll say it one more time, read your Darwin: stupid lazy people have stupid lazy kids, period.
Your cultural prejudice is showing. Maybe most English people want single-family detached houses, but this is not true in all cultures.
Given: "There are many more minorities in Democratic Party functions than in Republican Party functions"
Your conclusion: this is because the Republicans try to be "colorblind," whereas the Democrats embrace diversity and actively embrace minorities.
I don't know that I would come to the same conclusion. I would say that more minorities are Democrats bacause the Democrats are more interested in providing programs which target them. Conversely, the Republicans are interested (supposedly) in shrinking gov't, so providing extra programs is against their philisophy. Not surprisingly, this wouldn't seem to attract persons looking for help because of their minority status.
In my view, programs by the government to moderate social concerns are undesirable, or at least on thin ground. I'm not opposed to helping minorities, I just don't think the gov't should favor anyone, only protect all. We keep hearing that in a few years, there will be no majority, only minorities. We should keep this in mind when framing policies. We need to rid ourselves of double standards. Think of gov't programs, and switch minorities with other demographic groups. If it's one sided, it a double standard. Affirmative action helps minorities. What if it benefited white people? It would be completely unacceptable. Therefore I don't think the gov't should be involved with affirmative action. I agree with the results of affirmative action, I just disagree with the Gov't doing it.
I feel that if people treat you with colorblindness, or without language bias, etc. then they project themselves onto you. I don't know that you can automatically assume a bias toward white, English speakers on an indididual basis. It depends upon the source.
What does equal protection under the law have to do with specialized gov't programs or controlling gov't size? Do you need protection from them?? Do you need protection from a LACK of programs? I interpret Equal Protection to mean the gov't will apply the laws to everyone, regardless of their race, gender, etc. This does not mean, the government will provide programs to counter society's collective bias toward a minority population, thereby putting everyone on the same footing. While this may, indeed, be desirable, it's not Equal Protection.
Try raising a family on $10/hr (thats 8 $50's a week pretax).
Simple. Don't have kids if you can't afford them. Once again, not my problem or responsibility, someone else's bad choices and problems, and I'm not going to reward them for being stupid.
In this case, literally, they made their bed, so they get to lie in it.
"Licensiado" is hardly respectable. "Licenciado", however, is.
Many trade experts agree that the US is BY FAR the most free-trading nation in the world. OK, so now there's a tarriff on Lamb. So how much lamb does the US import a year, compared to everything else it imports. A tiny fraction. The US even went to the extent of giving US steel companies subsidies to keep them alive when the rest of the world was dumping steel in the US market due to the economic crisis in Russia and Asia. The US gov't paid US companies rather than raise tarriffs.
.au did this, mate?
When was the last time
You think trading is tough with the US?? Try Japan or China. VERY restrictive. If I can recall correctly, I think Japan allows something like a couple of thousand US cars in the country a year, that's all. Maybe less. How long has Kodak been trying to get into Japan?
I was thinking about this myself recently. I am a teacher in the South Bronx, New York, which is one of the most economically depressed areas in America. My students are hispanic and black. When I taught in a mixed class, the students who performed higher were those who had computers at home. Although this is not the key reason to their success, I found that this summer, I am teaching a gifted program and 90% of my students have computers at home.
Correlation??
I think that parents who make the means to buy a computer are sending a message to their children that education comes first. I don't think computers automatically equal education, but they are among the elements that create parents valuing education for their children. All of my children fall below the poverty line and are minorities.
Here's some evidence for you, fart face:
This is from neuro.psych.memphis.edu:
"However, since they are usually treated the same from birth this could result from environmental factors. A researcher by the name of Cyril Burt discovered how to get around that problem: he studied pairs of twins who had been separated from birth and brought up by different foster parents. Burt found that the IQ's of the separated monozygotic twins were still very close but the same was not true for the separated dizygotic twins. This indicates that the IQ scores were determined by genetical inheritance and were unaffected by differences between the fostering families. Burt's work has been repeated by Thomas Bouchard in a study that looked at
over 100 sets of monozygotic and dizygotic twins and triplets (Science, 12 October, 1990). He found that genetic variation is responsible for about 70 per cent of the variance in IQ scores."
I doubt that you yourself have read any Darwin, for the theory of natural selection states that
traits that give advantages are passed on, and that traits that are disadvantages are lost.
What the hell do you think I'm talking about? Intelligence in today's society has no survival value. You can be dumb as a baboon and still breed like crazy and have your children themselves reach breeding age.
Darwin was also applying his theories to a much larger continuum of time than you can observe.
Where do you get your science info, off a cereal box? Here's some info from www.talkorigins.com:
In the genus Tragopogon (a plant genus consisting mostly of diploids), two new species (T. mirus and T. miscellus) have evolved. This occured within the past 50-60 years. The new species are allopolyploid descendents of two separate diploid parent species.
To recap:
Intelligence is inherited. There is no survival value to intelligence in today's society. Those without intelligence are breeding faster than those with it. Intelligence will quickly begin to disappear from the face of the earth. The logic is clear, and the evidence is in your bathroom mirror, fart-face.
I think this statistic is better countered by this article:
http://www.cato.org/dailys/07-17-99.html
Basically, all households, black and white, will soon be saturated by computers. The percentage of black households with computers has increased FASTER than that of white households. And no one mentions Asian households, which outstripped white households entirely.
Thanks to the introduction of the cheap-PC, and the free-PC, I don't there's anything to be concerned about, not at all.
People aren't on the net? People don't have computers? I say so what? I don't think this is as important is vaccinating children or school violence.
I think it's important to expose kids to computers in school, but it's not essential for every household to have access to one. Do all these couch potato kids need another game machine? Do parents need another thing that breaks?
Computers are still intimidating to many people. I have no statistic here, but I'd bet more lower income families are intimidated more than upper income families. Folks with more education would probably be more likely to buy a computer.
But this is just another government statistic. Is this a good thing? Is it a bad thing? Statistics can't tell you this. There's usually more damage when more fire engines respond to a call? Do we outlaw fire engines?
I just don't see how access to the net makes me any better than others. There are still those old fashioned library things, but then I'd have to get up off my ass.
Pornography is an old and battered issue. I really think that its hardly even worth talking about anymore. Clearly it is available more easily than magazines and such to people with internet access, but its much like looking at the magazine selection at the convenience store; if you're looking for a hunting magazine you're not going to run into Hustler. And on the net (unless you're looking for mp3s) you're probably not going to run into porn unless you're looking for it.
Point being: don't run a dying issue as foreground. The Communications Decency Act was a near-miss for the paranoid freaks of the world who don't understand technology and don't actually take the time to research anything: they look at numbers that are slated for them and make them look good (e.g. 40% of UseNet posts contain nude pictures, where the sampling is from alt.sex.something) I think the media has run out of ideas in this area, and the wave of hysteria has definitely crested and is falling. Im sure the same thing happened when Playboy magazine started.
Also, a decent AMD system (450 Mhz) that will provide you with plenty of functionality and internet access can run as low as $700 (prices tabulated from killerapp and pricewatch). I think the price of PCs is now becoming a dead issue as well. So what does that leave us with?
Ability? Heres a little story: I left my computer in X-windows one day and found my younger sister (13) checking her email from hotmail.com and playing XGalaga. She said "your windows looks weird" - this may be a biased opinion, but I think kids today are very computer savvy. During my job as a tech support worker for Erol's, I found (first off, very few people requested surfwatch or net-nanny with their subscription) that the majority of people that made me want to scream were 35+.
Almost all of the younger people (25-) were intuitive enough to understand what I was trying to do for them, and had much better questions (not like "what do I do with the Internet?" that many of the people who got it just to be hip asked) It seems to me that people are growing up around computers more, just like anything else. The "racial difference" as you put it, is just an unfortunate socioeconomic difference. I may get flamed for saying this, but I don't think it has been long enough since the Civil Rights Act for blacks to have been fully dispersed through society...
This is my two cents, what do you all think?
... if jonkatz knows the difference between the "L" key and the "1" key...
Actually I do have experience in what it's like to be truly poor. My family was in a tough bind for several years straight. When one of my relatives died, we got some money and my mom decided to put part of it to a new computer. It HAS changed my life. With it I was able to start accumulating skills that allowed me to escape the quagmire of poverty. The same went for the rest of my family.
Computers are a gateway to knowledge, and knowledge, when used effectively, is power. And in our society, power is money.
The basic difference between computers and TV is that TV is a passive medium, and computers are an active medium. That's why I worry about current trends in making computers more user-friendly (or in some case replacing them with passive medium type devices, like WebTV for example). You take the challenge out of it, and then you take away the opportunity. Good-bye knowledge, say hello to all the couch potatoes.
Unfortunately, our culture (American culture that is) thrives on mass media, and mass media thrives on people who don't think and just act on impulse. The World Wide Web was a reversal in that trend... suddenly a mass medium that challenged you and made you a part of a community, rather than a spoon-fed society! But the reversal has reversed again, and we're going back to dumb mass-consumerism.
This is precisely the reason why I don't have much sympathy for those who won't take on new challenges because it might be "too hard". If it's too hard for you, then step aside for someone willing to take on the challenge. You're only standing in the way.
Back to the original article that started this thread: If we want minorty and poor families to get involved with technology, making things easier and more user-friendly won't solve the problem. To them, it's just another type of TV. Why bother? Present them with the challenge of opportunity. Believe me, there will quite a few people who are currently disadvantaged economically who will answer the call.
--- Journals are boring; Go to my web page instead
There's a gap between those who use cell phones and those who don't. There's a gap ....
There are really 2 major gaps here: 1) the gap between those who want to use the internet to expand their knowledge, and those who don't care -- since nearly every public library and school now has internet connectivity available free -- and 2) the gap between those who, like Jon Katz, feel compelled to see Major Social Catastrophes Which Require Urgent Action around every corner (and feel even more compelled to go on and on about them) and those who believe that people as individuals will find a way to get what they need without the advocacy of fretting do-gooders.
Craig
I think Mr. Katz has overstated the problem. Others have pointed out that money isn't that much of an obstacle since even a modest computer can be configured to connect you to the net if you're sufficiently motivated and knowledgeable. Does everyone HAVE to be on the net? no. Does everyone HAVE to go to college? no. My advice to high school kids today is take a long hard look at the trades. Just try and get a plumber to answer the phone. Good luck! Most have more work than they can do. They make real good money, probably more that most programmers. Yeah! And they aren't cast out when they turn 50. Does your average plumber need the net today? probably not. Most people are inclined to pick up the phone book and go to the yellow pages.
Wansu, th' chinese sailor
White Americans earning less than $75K/year are about twice as likely to be using the Net as black Americans in the same income bracket. Why...?
I suspect it's because the numbers don't tell the whole story. First off, there's a wide variation in people earning less than $75K a year; comparing people earning $60 to 75k a year would be more relevant. Also, while their incomes may be similar, I would bet that the average black person didn't get as much from their parents, and has more "dependents." That is, not children (although they may average more of those), but parents or other relatives who need financial assistance because they didn't earn much, didn't save much (or invest it in stocks), etc.
Ooh, a sarcasm detector. Oh, that's a real useful invention.
How do "dependents" differ from "dependants"?
:-)
Well for one, "dependants" isn't a word (or at least not any longer, see the Etymology below.) From Merriam-Webster online:
Main Entry: dependent
Pronunciation: di-'pen-d&nt
Function: adjective
Etymology: Middle English dependant, from Middle French, present participle of dependre
[...]
I used the quotes to differentiate from dependents in the U.S. legal sense, which mainly refers to children.
You may be thinking of "defendant," which apparently stayed closer to its Middle English roots.
P.S. PHHBBBTTT!!!
Ooh, a sarcasm detector. Oh, that's a real useful invention.
Look it up yourself at http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary, variation 2:
/-d&nt/
Main Entry: dependent
Variant(s): also dependant
Function: noun
Date: 1523
1 archaic : DEPENDENCY
2 : one that is dependent; especially : a person who relies on another for support
Now, I'm a maroon for not checking on dependant (although "independant" is not a word), but I still wasn't wrong to use dependent as a noun originally. Note that the IRS 1040A form uses dependent, not dependant.
Ooh, a sarcasm detector. Oh, that's a real useful invention.
Use Google. Scan for oncology and neurology. Grab the correct and detailed medical terminology from those hits, and search on those. If you run across a support group page, read it carefully, it probably has links to detailed info about cause, effects, and treatment options.
The internet has massive amounts of information about any and all medical conditions, you just have to put some research work into it.
While it is true that there remain substantial differences in net access between rich and poor, dual- and single-parent households, based on education and some regional differences, when these things are statistically separated out there is extremely little variation based on race.
The cited Commerce Department report's section on acess and race doesn't offer any help. For example (part I section C, 2), only gives overall racial numbers, and numbers for households below $35K where the differences are greatest because of correlations between race, household status and education.
What's really shameful is where the report talks about "the expanding digital divide" (I C 3 a). The report chooses a completely meaningless metric which makes it look like inequality is increasing when in fact you're just seeing an artifact of the rise in overall net penetration with no increase in white/(black or hispanic) ratio whatsoever!! Click on the link to Chart I-15 to see what I mean.
Properly understood, the difference in access between whites and all minorities is so small- or even counter to what the hype tells us- that a black panalist at the recent Unity convention (five minority journalist organizations) said, "With normalized access rates for Asians and Latinos ahead of whites, and blacks catching up fast, we may soon need a commission of minority experts to help more white people get on line!"
The policy recommendation was obviously tongue-in-cheek, differences based on income, household status and education are significant and need to be addressed. But using this report to say that race needs to be addressed separately will result in wasted effort and bad policy. There are important societal reasons why black and latino families are on average poorer, less educated and more likely single parents- many of which are based on prejudice at various levels. So let's focus on these root causes of these problems and not waste our time on symptoms.
"...the firmament sheweth his handiwork" (Ps. 19:1)
Firmament Science and Engineering
"...the firmament sheweth his handiwork" (Ps. 19:1)
Firmament Science and Engineering
Standing on the Solid St
I wrote a short article about the matter of pornography and children which some readers may be interested in. In a nutshell, the premise is that we must educate children to understand the difference between nakedness in art and the nakedness in hustler magazine.
Possibly many minorities are having to spend too much time making ends meet to have such discussions. Possibly the net content is catered to white viewers since it is authored primarily by whites. Either way, regarding pornography I believe that children are not equiped to judge what they see, and this is the problem:
read the article
-- Solaris Central - http://w
Easy to say when you're not scraping money together for groceries every week, or working a third job so that those same kids can have clothes next month when they outgrow the stuff they've got.
I strongly suspect that people who have the means to be posting on Slashdot have no idea what it means to be truly poor. Those people should reserve judgement until they've had the pleasure.
Before those technologies became so ubiquitous that even the poorest people could hope to benefit from them, however, these waves of innovation wracked the world as they came and went. Take the time to study these "Schumpeter's Waves" as reviewed by The Economist, Feburary 20, 1999, "Survey Innovation in Industry", pg 8.
First wave, 1785-1845
Water power
textiles
Iron
Second wave, 1845-1900
Steam
Rail
Steel
Third wave, 1900-1950
Electricity,
Chemicals
Internalc-combustion engine
Fourth wave, 1950-1990
Petrochemicals
Electronics
Aviation
Fifth wave, 1990 - 2020(?)
Digital networks
SOftware
New media
Given a study of history, it is an inevitable conclusion that division of economic classes will occur as these waves come and go. Tragically, these divisions are typically along the lines that existed before. This appears to be happening again, as Mr. Katz's essay shows. Much of this may be inevitable and unstoppable, yet some may be done to stop it.
Certainly, every effort should be made for getting large volumes of computers and networks into the chools and adding to the curriculum to give the new skills early. If such an effort should be made by the government, then current class divides should not become a deciding factor in who gets how much. That would help to narrow the gap of class division.
Yet also, as many of these postings by Slashdotters have pointed out, much of the responsibility does lie in the hands of the individual. Some would say most. A happy, fair balance must be struck, if we are all to be ready to catch The Sixth Wave.
So what will be The Sixth Wave? That will be an exciting question to ponder as we carry out the remaining thirty-year or so course of this exciting revolution.
Until then, happy surfing. Don't wipe out before you catch the next wave.
Well said and insightful. Reads like a bio for Lara Croft (sp?)!
**>>BELCH
Forgot to mention that I really love the bit about never being denied a book. If I ever have a child, that rule will be applied in force! 'Til then, nieces beware...
**>>BELCH
Maybe it's time you caught up with the 18th century and started rounding off prices to the nearest penny, instead of playing games with "centicents" and expecting the rest of the world to embrace your antiquated system.
While American schools may suck, I'm glad one of their misplaced priorities was not the teaching of a numerical system in which merchants divide pennies into smaller units as a means of making their prices as confusing as humanly possible.
I shudder to think at what products you must be hawking, given your need to achieve more pricing precision than a penny.
Rogers Cadenhead (Web: http://www.cadenhead.org/workbench)
You're right, current technology is beyond the percieved norm of society but I see this as an ancient taboo which we are beginning to get over. Most of these average peaple just think they can't use it because it's technical but most consumer computers are ready to go and somewhat easy to use, once things are explained properly. The problem really is people thinking they're dumb and others preying on this with Dummys books that don't help. These true newbies shound get an original 1984 Mac, learn on it and graduate to a modern PC. Those older computers are easier. Or better yet, get someone to explain everything to them properly and they will be just fine.
So, I haven't read mention of how much of a marketing opportunity this is.. FreePCs notwithstanding, doesn't it behoove companies to spend money on educating their customers? They do it in other industries, why should the computer biz be any less interested in their customer's needs? Where are the big-biz or ISP-biz educational campaigns? Why aren't they being directed to inner-city households and schools?? not enough turnaround?? Raise the knowledge of the communities, raise thier desire to buy into your online business, raise their desire to identify with your products.. doesn't 2+2=4 anymore? Where have all the -real- capitalists gone? You nurture a market, it grows for you.
VT
US$0.02++
Ok, here's my guess:
...
..
In My Not So Humble Opinion (I Know)
I'm fairly sure of the first bit, but not about the IK
Ok, here's my guess:
In My Not So Humble Opinion
but what's the BIK for ?
"On the Internet, no one knows you're a dog".
It's a very common reference to the complete absense of "minority status" in an online world at this point.
I don't buy that minorities are 'disadvantaged' on Internet access. Economic issues aside (which is what the stats are doing), saying that a minority (and let's cut the euphimisms, we're talking about black and hispanic people) family is less likely to have a computer and/or Internet access than a "white" family is not about racism. It's about interests and cultural values. It's also about attitudes toward education and learning, which frankly is very poor in most inner city environments, and among certain cultures within America.
These numbers seem to indicate that the interest of minority persons towards computer and network technology isn't up to the level of gadget-happy, white America.
No one will prevent a black man from buying a computer. The checkout person at Best Buy doesn't care. No one will prevent a hispanic person from getting an Internet account. I've never met anyone from my ISP's over the last several years.
Should economically disadvantaged be offered online access. Sure, but based on economy, not racial lines. Schools. Yes, regardless of economic stature. Should minorities be aware of possible opportunites they may be missing out on by not being "plugged in"? Maybe. But this should be done through education and encouragement, not through civil rights legislation, as I have heard is considered.
I expect that some of the above comments will be construed as racist. Of that I am sorry, as I am not trying to offend anyone. I judge people as individuals, regardless if they are black, white, red, yellow, purple, or polkadotted. However I don't believe that EVERYTHING has to do with race and the majority putting down the minority.
However, I also suppose that in some respects, this whole issue could be just another example of the majority dictating what is important and what isn't to the minority. There are many things that many people find important that have nothing to do with technology; Family, relationships, careers, quality of life, hiking, fishing, spirituality. Maybe being less plugged in is more important in the long run for many people. And maybe they may be right.
While TV may have become a fixture in American society, it did not happen over night. Similarly, you can't expect the same of the net, which requires far greater infrastructure and more equipment to keep going than television. For a long time it was rare someone would have >1 television. TVs are less complicated to operate, as well. Any one who can press channel up/down can have an effective television experience. In the end, you can't really compare TVs to PCs on this subject, because there are inherently different. One is a two-way communications tool, the other is manipulated by "the media" to deliver what they please.
Computer skills are not a literal passport to the hi-tech community, they are a figurative passport. As in, computer skills are to the hi-tech community as a passport is to Equador.
/., should be held to a higher standard (and thus has to put up with schmucks like me) :)
It's unfortunate that even in professional circles 'literally' has come to mean 'very', and is almost always used in a metaphoric context.
Normally I don't burden people with my pet peeves, but Jon, being a professional and getting to post features on
Other than that, I agree with other posters that it seems the reduction in cost is going to put computers in more homes, eventually making them as ubiquitous as the TV, or the phone. The key is to convince everyone that they _want_ a computer, hopefully not a difficult task.
Though I think that the $10,000/yr income family mentioned has more problems than net access - like finding a place to live.
The enemies of Democracy are
There's a big difference between being computer literate and being a highly skilled engineer. Why should I feel threatened by the masses being computer literate? I'm an engineer, and a damn good one (IMNSHOBIK). I'm going to be in high demand no matter how many people know how to use FrontPage or Excel.
I'd even go so far as to say that high-paying jobs whose skill requirements read "computer literate" are exactly the kind of negative fall-out of the technology gap that Jon is talking about. Its about time mere literacy wasn't enough to land a high-paying job.
Katz may not make money in tech, but he has a better view than you think. After all, ENGLISH literacy is much more accessible than computer literacy. Everyone has access to public libraries where they can not only increase their literacy, but learn by example and tutorial how to write more effectively.
But Katz isn't worried about how he's going to lose his job to the literate masses. Why? Because he's better than most people at writting. He has a skill that distinguishes him from others, and makes him desireable. So should it be in the technology industry.
The enemies of Democracy are
And here was me thinking we had enough Americans running around the net telling us what we should be doing already.
*Sigh*
During my first two years of high school (this was 2 years ago, I just graduated), bus tokens were only given out to the "minority" students, as opposed to those living the farthest from the school. I didn't see anyone complain beyond a half-whispered "that's pretty stupid". Had the rule been the opposite, there would be 10 lawsuits for every black student in the school. By the way, I think the rule is still in effect - I just went to a different school for the second two years.
Many colleges are now offering scholarships for "minority" students only. Of course, how could I forget mentioning affirmative action.
It seems to have become acceptable to favor minorities simply because of their race, which is what the minorities were fighting against not so long ago. If race really doesn't matter (which is my opinion, BTW) then these statistics are pointless, right? So why pay attention to them?
</rant>
---
Look at VCRs. To program it, all you have to do is set the date and time when you want it to record whatever it is you want to record, and the channel it will be on. Still, most people have trouble doing this - the endless jokes are evidence.
TVs and VCRs are fairly simple to use. How do you expect an average person to use a computer? Maybe things like the iToast will solve this, but today's computers aren't for everyone.
Also, most people who have never even seen a computer, except on TV, see them as something complex and something that is beyond their ability to understand.
Another obstacle is all the articles about some naive girl meeting someone she talked to on AOL and getting raped and/or killed. "I don't want my kids on the Internet with all those psychos around."
Here is more proof. Make sure you read the users' comments.
This is why not everyone is on the Net yet. Just give it some time, though - we'll get there eventually.
---
Laissez-faire capitalism isn't about bailing out industry. I am a capitalist in that vein, but I think that government intervention on the behalf of corporations is *worse* than government intervention on behalf of the underpriveleged -- after all, whatever your political philosophy, the corporations *already have* resources to donate to their own causes, and poor families certainly don't.
I don't think that it's the responsability of the rich to support the poor, but it is certainly NOT the reseponsability of the government to support the rich. I can see both sides of the issue on whether or not it's the govt's responsability to support the poor, but it's only hypocritical republicans, not actual capitalists, who would support subsidizing corporations over subsidizing measures to decrease unemployment.
I adhere to objectivist epistomology, but I'd agree that those that call themselves "objectivists" (especially on the web) have issues with reality.
Just because social darwinism is wrong (and you're right -- it's just wrong, pretty much no discussion there) doesn't mean that those who have acquired wealth through legitimate means don't have the right to enjoy that wealth. After all, most rich people aren't hoarding their money, they're spending it, and recirculating it into the economy! Even Big Bill donates a ton of money to charity every year.
Glyph Lefkowitz - Project leader, Twisted Matrix Labs
Writer, Programmer - Not a member of the TSU
Well, I can't speak for the original post, but here are my 2 cents...
It's not just minority cultures in America that have a poor attitude towards education, it's most of America. Black, white, Slashdot-green, whatever. That's why we face some of these problems. As one example, consider how people are perfectly willing to have their tax dollars spent on new sports stadiums, but not on better education for their children. Society in recent times has been putting a lot of emphasis on sports at the expense of intellectual pursuits. Sports are great, but unless you're one of the exceptional few who make it pro you aren't going to make a good living doing it; getting a good education on the other hand gives one much better prospects in life. Yet, the role models in our country are predominantly pro athletes. What kind of message does that send to our children?
That said, each culture does have its own stumbling blocks. Asian-Americans are often cited as the "model" minority. Did anyone ever stop to think why the Asians in this country tend to do much better academically than other races? It's because Asian cultures tend to emphasize the value of hard work and education, whereas many of the other groups in this country simply do not value education as highly. I remember reading a newspaper article a while back, where they mentioned that young black kids who worked hard and did well in school were taunted by their classmates, saying they were "acting white" by studying hard. Attitudes like that are a real impediment to learning. And don't think it's limited to blacks or other minorities. White kids who do good in school get this kind of crap too, the taunts may differ but the message is the same: education isn't cool.
Until America thinks education is "cool", I don't think we're going to see very much progress.
damn straight.
All new technology has early adopters. All new tech companies target the rich with time to spare. It has always been so.
"Studies" like this always annoy me, with their attitude of early adopters being to blame for not sharing. Or some such rot.
10, 20 years ago it was undoubtedly even more weighted towards the rich and powerful. Things even out. What with "free" PCs and $200 PCs now, it won't be long before PCs are as common as TVs. Then the dogoodies will whine about the next fancy hi tech toys.
--
Infuriate left and right
And if you did screw up and can't afford it, your kids should suffer? How biblical! "For I am a jealous economic system, visiting the sins of the fathers upon the children unto the seventh generation."
You will not drink with us, but you would taste our steel? - Walter Matthau, The Pirates
Actually, you are allowed to shout "Fire!" in a theatre. If the theatre is burning, then it's probably a very good idea.
Even when it's not actually on fire, you still can shout the words. But you must deal with the consequences. The same applies to libel.
The point is, neither of them actually prevent you from speaking out; they impose penalties for wrongful and harmful use of this ability. The central idea is that you have freedom, but with it comes responsibility.
This is different from censorship, which prevents the speech, rightful or not, from even being assessed. You can't shout "Fire" in a theatre if you've been gagged as a matter of course. Even if it's burning down around you.
Don't confuse laws that punish misuse for laws which prevent use. That way lies repression.
~Orinoco
Jeremy Lee | Orinoco
Alas, even Katz falls prey to the malaise common to US. Citizens. He quotes Licklider on The Network: "the boon to humankind would be beyond measure." but makes the assumption that "humankind"="The good 'ol US of A"
The demographics of net use in the US is irrelevant. Pretty much everyone there has available access, limited only by personal interest and choice. If you want it really bad, you can get it. There are free access orgs, programmes, charities, friends and friends of friends.
Think upon the demographics of South Africa, Mozambique, Tibet, Papua New Guinea. The argument still rages: is it better to give them sewage systems and electricity, or net access? Maybe it's the same as asking whether you give someone a fish or a fishing line. The net can be a voice to the mute, letting them say "Help us!" and letting us hear.
And even though we're drenched in technology and information, we're still poor in wisdom and culture. Poor in information about things, sometimes bad things, happenning in places out of our sight.
I say, parachute ten thousand ruggedized solar-powered palmpilots with satellite links onto Tibet. Smuggle thousands of the things into East Timor.
That really would be a boon to humankind beyond measure.
Jeremy Lee | Orinoco
We have reached the point in the evolution of the human race where its continued existence depends on our children being smarter than their parents. As simple proof, I offer the mere existence of a list of Environmental Protection Agency SuperFund sites.
Jon's word count it back up, 1343 this time.
Last article was a clear, concise 442.
Besides, democratizing access and sublimating porn are disjoint subjects. Any bum^H^H^Hfinancially challanged citizen can walk into a public library and start reading, but you won't likely find a 'Hustler' there. As the web media becomes more of a force in economics and politics, it is essential that anyone who wants to has affordable access, and Linux has a natural place in that vision, like free libraries in a democracy.
Chuck
try { do() || do_not(); } catch (JediException err) { yoda(err); }
This may sound racist, but I assure you I am not. But I do think there are CULTURAL differences that tend to lie on racial lines.
One major cultural difference I see is the emphasis different cultures place on education. Why is it that so many Asians tend to do well in school? I assure you it is NOT because we're smarter.. which we're not. It's because of the (over)emphasis on education in Asian culture.
Take a trip to any far east country some time. From richest to poorest, nearly everyone there puts tons and tons of emphasis on education. In fact, I think it goes too far, and children are far too overstressed.
Here in the US, I think it is very possible that cultural values.. specifically insufficient emphasis on education, is a contributing factor to the statistically poor educational performance of blacks and latinos. I mean, I know some very academically successful black and latino people (again, the best way to destroy a stereotype is to have someone as a friend) who for some reason had decided as children to put a great deal of effort into education. I also have some bright childhood black friends who ended up in gangs and other such crowds and stopped doing well at school.
Among poor people in the Asian population, there are far more people who fall into the former category.. people who decide that since they are poor, they'd try to do better through education. And I think this is in large part due to their parents' emphasis on education.
Notice I've never said money isn't a factor. I do definitely believe it's easier to do better in school if you're NOT poor.. since you don't have to have an afterschool job, try to support your parents instead of go to college, etc. But more Asian poor people do well academically than black and Latino poor people, and I think it's cultural, not genetic. I see no other explanation for that.
So again, it comes down in large part to parental support.
Okay, so this is a little off-topic, but I think we need computers set up so kids can pop the hood and look around. (And a multi-user system makes sure they can't mess up dad's email) I want to see more kids think "this game is boring, I want to write my own that does this and this and that!" - and then lets them do it on their own.
Okay, I'll get back on topic now :)
Ita erat quando hic adveni.
Here we are , another week older and yet still another airball piece richer by Jon Katz.
Whats Jon's Cause de jour?
The Net Haves And Have Nots
-----------------------------
Have you looked in the librarys around the country and seen the computers there for use by ANYONE? Have you looked at the shelters and clubs for kids where computers are now part of the standard drill? Do you even acknowledge the fact that with in 20 years of thier creation more people than EVER THOUGHT POSSIBLE are using computers and the net?
Does the fact that in the few decades computers have been in place MORE poepl are using them then were able to read a century ago? That by going to a library or school, or a $500 home computer and a $9 a month net account if you are a "privalaged few", you can tap into more information that was available to most professors and high thinks 50 years ago?
Did you stop to think this was an evolving situation and that in the 20 some odd years of home computers, and the bearly 10 years of commercial net acces, we as a society en masse are light years ahead of most science fiction works of the 60's?
No, you went for the standard arguement starting flamebait. Short sighted weak tea and stale cookies Jon, and its getting obvious your not up to regular commentary of worth.
Yes folks, Mr Katz was probably strapped for text this week so he went back to Raving Rant Tract number 23 and replaced the word Money with The Internet.
What he does is another boring old tired rant on how there is disparity of users and non users, how we using the Net should be ashamed because there are those who cant.
Jon, even for you this rant was weak. I liked it better when you at least tried to but some creative umph in the verbage, but this was like you listened to some NYU student on a drunken rant in some hip village bar as they spent thier parents money on drinks for every one from the SDS.
Your main thrust is that of some vague shame I should be feeling for being where I am in my life. Well I feel no shame in it at all. I am where I am for a reason. Im a kid from the Bronx who loves computers.
NO shame from me, only pride that I am part of something that is gorwing to make the globe a place of knowing and maybe help the people of the world read stuff like yours and think "what primative mind made this noise?"
I can only vebture to guese what Jons next article will be about...maybe Slavery in the Digital Age or A Declaration of Netizens.....buzz buzzz buzzzword man making all a buzzz word can.
Poor little clams! Snap! Snap! Snap! Poor little clams! Snap! Snap! Snap! Poor little clams! Snap! Snap! Snap!
Historicaly speaking you are right on target.
There is always a portion of those that are not of a group, just as there are some who are. This duality of cause upsets the Fanaticaly Caregivers, the ones who will fight hard to save baby seals from radioactive waste in chernobyl.
There is a growing class of people with free time an resources who feel some sense of guilt for being in a place and time they think has gotten More than its "fair" share. So they seek to assuage thier guilt by "saving" those who cant save themselves.
If you step back a bit its damn amusing.
Now, rather than actualy create avenues of recourse or solid methods to help those without, more often than not these folk seek to undo gains or take back from those with too much; they seek a destruction so that a balance can be had.
This is the true test of a causes worth. Does it create or destroy, does it seek to better a thing or lessen it?
If you want to bring education and net access to those without, get them to a library, set up a leanring center where there are none. Do, rather than do not.
Your post also speaks to the age old problem of those who simply Do Not Want to learn, or read, or better themselves. The library system in this country is underused by the very people who should be using it. Why? Is it because they cannot get to them? No, there are branches all over the place. Is it because they are not let in? No, the branches are open to all.
Once again it is a problem that gets back down to the responsibility of the parent to raise each child to the best of thier abilities. If there is any crime that should be punished hardest it is the crime of bad parenting.
It all starts in the home, for better or for worse.
--all misspellings go out to my personal anonymous spell checker----
Poor little clams! Snap! Snap! Snap! Poor little clams! Snap! Snap! Snap! Poor little clams! Snap! Snap! Snap!
So lets see
Australia Censoring the net feeds is an american problem?
China filtering its feeds...let me guese..america again?
Germany doing the littel censor blooper a few years back...america?
Before You start jumping around on the same old tired "america is the r00t of all evil" rant, look around. You think your country is so pure?
Yea, America is fucked up, but that is not a problem with just America.
Global babby, you just cant get around that.
Poor little clams! Snap! Snap! Snap! Poor little clams! Snap! Snap! Snap! Poor little clams! Snap! Snap! Snap!
It all comes down to natural selection. Whenever there is a paradigm shift in technology (i.e. technological revolution) there are people that are unable, for whatever the circumstances, to adapt. If you cannot adapt the necessary skills, for whatever reason, that are necessary to survive, then you die (or at least have a hard time).
Any time there exists something that offers an advantage to people it will always create a disparity between people who can adapt to it and those who can't; and that disparity will widen and the lines will constantly be redrawn.
It's happened before (industrial revolution) and it will continue to happen. It's a natural process and no matter how much we want to remove the disparity, you can't save everyone.
We evolve with technology or we become extinct.
Simple rule. Self evidently true.
********************************************
Superstition is a word the ignorant use to describe their ignorance. -Sifu
I think most people /do/ want a single-family detached home instead of a massive apartment or condo complex where people are packed together like ants.
Those who rail against suburbia have some valid points, but I see more anti-suburbia negativity than I see positive advocacy of the alternative. I suspect this is because the alternative is unpalateable to many.
I think the negative things people attribute to suburbia are at least partially created by our own fears. We have somehow been trained to fear other people instead of loving them. I think if we were trained to love, suburbia would be a friendly place. But since we're trained to fear, suburbia becomes cold and sterile. Packing a lot of people in one place isn't going to fix society. Look what happened to high-rise housing for the poor - they were such horrid places to live they were abandoned or blown up.
(I will admit that I hate the kind of suburb where the laws of the subdivision don't allow you to change one brick of the house you supposedly own. But that's not a characteristic of suburbia itself - check out the Hollywood Hills and you'll see single family detached homes, each one unique).
D
----
To use the net successfully, you have to do two things: read and write. I know that we have all kinds of pretty pictures now, but if you want to communicate or find stuff, reading and writing are vital.
The most popular medium in the country is television, because it doesn't require any form of thinking. You don't need to read to understand TV; you just need to watch and listen. A bestselling book attracts less than a million readers; a popular TV series attracts 50-100 million viewers. I think this gives you an idea of the disparity between people who like to read (natural net users) and those who like to watch (people who may never master the net).
I'm not sure what, if anything can be done about this. My gut feeling is that only sharp people are going to put the effort it takes to use the net. And I don't think people who aren't sharp will ever be more than a peripheral part of net culture.
But frankly, so what? People who aren't smart enough to use the net aren't going to do well with all those new jobs anyway.
Of course I've always been a bit of an elitist, personally. But that doesn't mean I'm wrong.
D
----
Um... are you seriously telling me that sysadmins are going to take over the world? Even if we accept for a moment that whites will get all the tecnology and others won't I still don't see how that leads to a medieval society. There are still lots of non-computer-literate jobs out there.
And as a previous poster pointed out, technology starts out with the rich, who pay a premium and fund the initial R & D, and it spreads out as the technology matures. I can now get a telephone, a TV, a stereo, a VCR, and a microwave for a total of about $500. 40 years ago, that would've set you back thousands of dollars.
The same will happen with computers. The iMac and other similar computers are starting to show the trend, as are the "free" and sub-$500 PC's. Computer makers have hit a ceiling on the high-end market, and are now gearing up to get a piece of the 50% of the population that still is without a computer. Within 5 years, I predict that computer ownership will be up to 60 or 70 percent, and you'll be able to get a full-fledged PC from a major name for under $500. At that point it will be less a matter of money and more a matter of willpower: the people who still go without will do so because they are intimidated by the technology.
Five years after that, low-end computers will be down in the $200-$300 range, as PC-on-a-chip technologies make it possible to produce an entire motherboard for under a hundred bucks. Internet access prices for a megabit connection will be available for the same kind of money as phone access. That's within the reach of even the poorest Americans.
So even if there is a disparity now, that disparity will close in the near future. You don't see any hand-wringing about the gap between the rich and the poor in TV ownership, or VCR ownership, or microwave ownership. This is because prices are now so cheap that literally anyone can afford them. The same will be true of computers. Computer makers will continue to find cheaper methods of computer-building, and the result will be a steady increasing in access for all Americans.
Well, I meant motherboard + processor + memory + graphics card, etc. I don't think you can get this with any kind of quality for less than several hundred bucks. A low-end Pentium II or K6 by itself costs more than $50.
All of us who are responding on this forum are
part of a net elite. We are smart or lucky enough
to be on the internet and knowlegeable enough to
be using slashdot as a resource. What about the
kids (black/white/asian/indian/hispanic/etc.) that
are not lucky enough to be on the net. They can
not be here to respond to our critisims and boasts
to give us the REAL side of the story. Whether you
like it or not we know something they do not and
we have access they do not. That really hurts the
credibility of this forum. 33% of white americans
relative to 19% or so of black americans may be on
the net but those numbers are PATHETIC no matter
which category you may be in. This does not even
include a world wide study. The numbers are even
more disgusting. We may complain that more asians
are on the net but they too are an elite few in
comparison to those who live in China, India, and
other third world areas. Many people complain that
affirmative action is unfair and wish they recieve
scholarship like all blacks and hispanics do. For
those people I want you to check your school's
statistics for how many blacks and hispanics you
have in your school. You will be lucky to see 18%
of each. We should count our blessings and
think about how lucky we are to be in front of a
computer today. We should also encourage people of
all races to make sacrifices to get on the net
and gain computer skills. But sadly we are here
complaining about race A having more privileges
than race B.
You have a good point, black and hispanic cultures
may not be as accepting of technology as other cultures may be. Many African Americans try to fill in cultural holes by accepting a mixed bag of ancient African cultures and interpolating it into a general culture but that can hinder acceptance of future ideas. This could hurt the acceptance of
technology amongst African American cultures. Many
Asians have an idea of there cultural identity so
accepting future ideas may not be as much of a
problem.
Sadly in today's political climate I don't think
your point will be accepted. :
"By saying "open the floodgates" to pornography, with no ability to do blocking, you have circumvented the ability of communities and of families to make and enforce their own decisions about what constititues community and family standards."
Who cares what "communities" think about what arbitary "standard" they are going to try to enforce this week? Who cares what parents think about what obscene material they're afraid their 16 yr old will try to see this week? Why not let the children have their own damn life for once?
Why not think about the INDIVIDUAL, who is the one that is actually CHOOSING what he or she WANTS to see? Blocker software is bullshit for that reason..it means that the individual is being blocked from what he or she believes his or her standards are. If I choose to view pornography, despite what some idiotic bible belt person thinks, I am NOT affecting a 82 yr old granny down the hall who doesn't want to see it. If I am FORCING her to see it, then I should be arrested for that COERCIVE action, not because I am violating "standards". Child Porn should be illegal because it was a COERCION of the children to pose for the pictures, NOT because they are obscene.
I say that communities do NOT have the right to "enforce" their own standards, because I refuse to allow some hypocritial idiot to remove my freedom to view what I want to so he can make a big political issue out of it (See Simon Leis).
"Community Standards" is a THEOCRATIC idea, and should be discredited as such. *ALL* young people see porn, and then most of them stop searching for it or start searching for better quality, less crass versions of it. If companies are really scared that their employees are going to look at porn during working hours, then they have a MORALE problem, not a porn viewing problem.
All you're saying by "Community Standards" is that someone who holds pathological and bizzare ideas about what is natural (such as sex) can dictate me or coerce me if I happen to live in the same community.
"If you don't like the standards of the community you're in you can always change the standards or simply leave."
/."
/. could put me in jail.
Lets see.
1) Change the standards. Hmm, I'll have to deal with 10,000 maurading Christians walking around and picketing, appealing to parents who are afraid to allow their "baby" to date at age 35. Standards are simply selective enforcement, so people aren't really worried about getting caught until they get screwed by the government with an ulterier motive. So I'll get 10,000 social conservatives fwapping me on the head with shovels and voting NO and no one will bother voting YES, and I'll be the one with a "ruined reputation" and shovel marks and footprints on me. Won't work. No one wants to admit IN PUBLIC that they want to watch porno, now do they?
2) Leave. There are idiots like this EVERYWHERE, and these people want to enforce their stupid laws (and morals) on EVERYONE.
"Furthermore, if a community can't set its own standards and expect people to abide by them there can be no such thing as government, law, or
Umm, I don't think that
Government does not NEED these local obsenity standards. All they need to know is if someone is being coerced or not. But they LOVE these standards because it allows them to hold the glove of selective enforcement over you. Piss someone off in government, they will be SURE to "catch" you the next time you are having oral sex with your lover and haul you off to jail for "sodomy".
The whole IDEA of community standards is BULLSHIT. If someone near by me watches porno, I do NOT have to watch it because they did. If someone voluntarly pays someone for sex, that doesn't mean that the whole neighborhood will. The people who want community standards want to make people believe that if one person does something untasteful, that EVERYONE will do it. It is absolving individuals of their responsibilities.
This is how we are losing the bill of rights. Because of idiotic people who want these "standards".
There are some people in this world and in any society who no matter what will not jump into the opportunities available. Take for example the fact that public libraries are ubiquitous in this country, even in poor neighborhoods. Yet many blacks and Hispanics don't use them. Why is it that immigrant Asians and other groups that have come to this country with the same economic disadvantages as Hispanics and blacks, yet they have managed to succeed in much higher rates, even higher than whites? Because they value education, prosperity, and hard work.
Face the facts people. There are some people in this world who are not going to do anything no matter what, even if you beat them with a stick to do it.
When you see people buying expensive stereos and TVs, when they could easily put their money away to buy a computer to learn skills and gather useful information tells you what they value. Let people live by their values and suffer the consequences.
I just ***hope*** you're not trying to imply us poor minorities are less interested in technology as "white America" (whatever that is).
... what are you really saying here ? And what cultures are you talking about ??? I'd like to know what "minority" culture does not have a good attitude toward education and learning. Specially, when in my University, our CS grad program had over 50%-75% total minority students in it. Please be more clear !
> It's also about attitudes toward education and
> learning, which frankly is very poor in most
> inner city environments, and among certain
> cultures within America.
Humm
- sigs are for wimps.
> I'm not sure what "poor minority" you were
> including yourself in above but I know the kids
> in my neighborhood.
I'm Hispanic. Born in Panama.
> A lot of the people I live around are 1st
> generation immigrants from Central America and
> Mexico. In the world the parents grew up in
> there was no attitude towards education at all.
> It was so far out of the possible that it never
> entered their minds. The economies in many of
> these countries is pretty close to Medieval
> Feudalism.
Hey, I'm from Central America, the Medieval Feudal society !!! Education in Central and South America is *very* important no matter what social class you belong to !!!!!!
Yes, access to the best education is an issue, but I don't remember any poor parent in my country saying "I don't want my kids to have education, forget about that crap!". When you graduate from the University , you are called a "licensiado" and people respect that. I would say their attitude about education is *VERY* good. Some just don't have the means to go to school , or the time (have to work to eat).
- sigs are for wimps.
You can use any computer to access the internet. I used an 8086 with a 2400bps modem to dialup both a university server and the local freenet for several years, because my parents couldn't buy a new computer. A couple of years ago, I bought a 486 and a 33.6 modem, and got access with that. Although now I'm using a 350MHz machine with cable, this should show that my internet access had and has everything to do with incentive.
>Percent of US households using the Internet, by race/origin and income. White Americans earning
>less than $75K/year are about twice as likely to be using the Net as black Americans in the same
>income bracket. Why...?
Looking at that chart, I would bet that much of the answer is that the income distribution curve for blacks and hispanics is skewed lower than for whites, so within the $30k - $45k bracket, proportionally more whites are near $45k, and more blacks are near $30k. I wonder what those charts would look like if they broke down the income more finely. Also - the non-white population is less suburban. $30k doesn't go as far in a city, even in low-income neighborhoods, and rural poor are probably _much_ less likely to have net access, even if they have a computer.
There are probably also some cultural differences - most web content is in English, which will lower use among Hispanics, and there are aspects of black (lower-class) culture which will depress net use.
> So what will be The Sixth Wave?
Very good question indeed. Here are my guesses for 6th wave emergent technologies:
Biotech
Nanotech
Space
Ocean
If you look at the report you will see that asian minorities have the greatest percentage of net users at ALL income levels.
why is this? Asian cultures are generally VERY open to technology, thus they will adopt the newest stuff much more quickly than anyone else. I really haven't much experience in black and hispanic cultures, are they more technophobic than white and asian? Is this necesarrily a bad thing?
Q.
send all spam to theotherwhitemeat@ropine.com
send all spam to theotherwhitemeat@ropine.com
Excuse me, but if you are a single mom (for whatever reason) without skills working at Target or K-mart and making $8.00 per hour, you can ill afford to spend $17 per month on something as frivolous as internet access.
And besides, what low income parent-to-be thinks "Hey, I can't afford internet access--I better not have any kids!"
And of course, the Microsoft deal requires a CREDIT CARD, something that the middle class can take for granted. . . . .
Blacks and other minorities were making good money at these jobs, and who did they vote for but Bill Clinton, a leading advocate and implemtor of free trade policies.
America espouses "free trade" only when it suits. Recent protectionism for US lamb producers means it will be more difficult for you Yanks to get quality lamb from countries like Australia.
I agree that taking care of your own future is the only way. However, the notion that Internet access or lack thereof will fundamentally change the world is an illusion that only the Katz's of this world and others trapped in the '60s would choose to beat up. None of the various "technological revolutions" of this century (or any other) have done much to bridge the gap between haves and have nots, and there's no reason the net should be any different.
The poor and the third world will have internet access, like they have TV, phones, motorcycles and cars, just as soon as some clever (probably Yank) bastards find a way to make money out of it.
Eagles may soar, but weasels don't get sucked into jet engines.
Well, I lumped family and community together because I didn't want to take the time to make the two cases separately.
As you say, the family right to screen is part of the natural perogative of the parent in attempting to raise children to the point that they have a healthy and independant judgement. You seem to think I'm arguing that local communities have the same right in loco parentis. This is not what I meant, and if I seemed to say that, I apologize for the confusion.
It seems to me that the right of a community to set community standards is simply part of community self-determination. In a free and democratic society, this should be liberating, not oppressive. As I noted, the right to set a community standard regarding obscenity is a right that has been held by the Supreme Court to not be in violation of free speech rights (if you know of a Court case that contradicts this, please let me know). It is this right that Katz's essay disparages.
Now most modern freedom is at root fear. It is not so much that we are too bold to endure rules; it is rather that we are too timid to endure responsibilities. -- G. K. Chesterton, "What's Wrong With The World"
Now that I've gotten your attention with the subject line ... :^)
The issue of access and class/race stratification is an important one, and I'm glad that Jon Katz chose to highlight it for /. However, while he makes a good start at outlining the issues, he then muddies the water by using equitable internet access as a springboard for some unrelated rants about pornography on the internet and blocking software.
Here are some issues where Katz is clearly missing the point or just doesn't get it:
Sex on the Internet is a legitimate issue . Please remember that the First-Amendment, free speech rights are not absolutes. You can't shout "fire!" in a crowded theater, you can't slander or libel without being liable, and you can't distribute obscene materials. Obscenity laws have, in general, been upheld by Supreme Court review (IIRC, particular obscenity laws have been struck down for various reasons, but the concept itself has been upheld as Constitutional). The test is normally "community standards" and "redeeming social value."
The only difficulty that the internet brings to this situation is that the definition of obscenity (and enforcement of obscenity statutes) varies from place to place. When dealing with distribution of physical media, this isn't that much of a problem. You simply end up with results such as Playboy being sold in city A while not being available on shelves in city B. But with the internet, by making something available on the web (or via FTP download), you've managed to "publish" simultaneously in cities A and B (and even countries X, Y, and Z). Which leads directly to the next point ...
Blocker software is about empowerment, not censorship . People like to talk about how "decentralizing" the internet is, but in reality it centralizes in some very key ways. By saying "open the floodgates" to pornography, with no ability to do blocking, you have circumvented the ability of communities and of families to make and enforce their own decisions about what constititues community and family standards. That doesn't look like empowerment to me. If the only possible standard I can apply is the lowest common denominator of the entire world, and everyone needs to apply that standard everywhere, it looks pretty centralized to me.
There are other problems with Katz's essay, such as the relative importance of internet access among problems facing teenagers today, and the lack of mention of how free software can make a difference in providing internet access (such as Mexico's decision to use GNOME rather than some proprietary company's software for their schools, so that they could actually afford to get computers into the classroom. But I don't have time for that today, hopefully someone else will pick up the slack.
Modern broad-mindedness benefits the rich; and benefits nobody else. -- G. K. Chesterton
Interesting that you take this "Basically, all households, black and white, will soon be saturated by computers." away from the Cato article, because while it makes that assertion, it really does nothing to substantiate it.
The cato article states "Families that do not have computers now are going to have them in a few years. " but the evidence it gives does not support this conclusion.
Rather, it gives evidnce to support the idea that *many* Families that do not have computers now will have them in a few years. They try to show that the gap will close, but the truth is, they only show that there will be fewer people on the Have-not side of the gap than some doomsayers indicate.
You say "The government did not have to give away telephones and service or TV sets to have this staples of modern life become ubiquitous.
What you appearantly don't know is that the government has intervened in a variety of ways to make telephones as ubiquitous as possible, including forcing phone companies to operate unprofitable offices in exchange for the right to operate at all.
I know less about television, but I wouldn't be suprised if various steps were taken to trade transmission to remote areas for permission to operate, and possibly, for some protection from competition.
If you can't prioritize your spending to afford $17/mo on your kids, then you shouldn't be having kids in the first place.
So, what other criteria should we employ when deciding whether people should have kids, eh, SpinyNorman?
Interlibrary loan. Oh, wait, wednesday? Forget it. My advice is to go to the library, find something there's a lot of books about and change your report's subject to that.
-bonkydog
Quid rides? Mutato nomine de te fabula narratur. -Horace, Satirae
I wonder how the chart on Internet usage by race and income can be particularly meaningful. Without adjusting for other variables such as education, geographic location, family status etc, this breakdown is not useful in determining a causal relationship. Beware collinearity: two variables may seem statistically related, but do not have a causal relationship. Collinearity can come from, to take one example, the proportion of the race having one-parent families: we know from elsewhere in the report that this is a strong determinant.
Mentioning the statistical disparity between blacks and whites here seems to be deliberate race-baiting. Considering that the "Other non Hispanic" group tops all other races in all categories, why beat up on the whites?
I submit that free access to information is quickly becoming a necessary component of our rights. As citizens of a democracy (actually a republic, but why quibble), we make decisions (via our votes) that determine the course of our government. As individuals, we live in a society which is rapidly increasing in complexity - you need access to information to be able to deal with it. Of what possible benefit would it be to have a section of our population making it's decisions without access to the relevant information? Some would say "They want information, let them work for it!". I truly don't know what to say to such people.
On a related note, the posts here give me the feeling that we're being overrun by Libertarians who believe that a person's worth is measured by their bank account, and if they're poor, well, then there must be something wrong with them..... they aren't really people like you and I. And a fine little slippery slope that attitude is.
wants to be the first monkey to touch the monolith
Good point. You can watch TV without being literate. Heck, you can watch it in a foreign language and still get the gist of it. But if you can't read, you can't get anywhere on a computer, unless your idea of fun is playing those educational games for 3-year olds.
-Imperator
Gates' Law: Every 18 months, the speed of software halves.
Great, you've increased the number of people who can get into college. That really is a good thing, IMHO. But these people are already in the running for college admission. These aren't the illiterate masses, the vulgus profanum watching football games and lottery advertisements. These are the people who are forming the lower class, and these are the people who are being failed by the educational system. Yes, there are cultural issues. But these aren't excuses for a genuine lack of opportunity.
-Imperator
Gates' Law: Every 18 months, the speed of software halves.
is anyone actually surprised about statistics relating computer ownership percentages to levels of education?
honestly here, those who've received college educations are more likely to won a computer, be connected to the net, etc.
despite the often worth attempts of mac, aol, and now m$ to bring computers/net to the (m)asses,
(no offense to aol or mac users, some of which are very knowledgable, but you know the stereotypes, which _are_ based on fact),
is still takes some level of logic, analytical thinking, or at least an iq over 3 to use a computer effectively.
these are also the types who are more likely to attend college, and do well.
aside from that even,
i'm GLAD the net is more occupied by those with a little more than average ticking up top.
my greatest attractions to the net and web are the exchange of ideas, the ability to discuss with others of similar intellect, and the chance to learn.
if every uneducated, useless member of society had a web page, an email, and a desire to forward every chain letter, and download every useless page on the web, the web would be simple hell.
many of the backbones and major hubs are straining as it is, the big-name servers are saturated anyway. i like this being an elite society. not the social status it grants some, but the real knowledge involved.
the web is nice and pretty, but the real power behind it, the unices and linux, are fine just in the hands of those that know what they're doing.
spread the web to the world?
why bother?
-Tannin Kal
yes, i admit, i made a typo.
you're not immune either: "more educated that anglos."
and i'm still curious as to why every racial group you mentioned gets capitalized except anglos? "Asian" is not a proper noun.
what am i going to do about this?
nothing.
i don't have a problem with uneven spreads.
i think getting computers into schools will help balance out what is seen as an unfair skew, but only if done properly. does anyone seriously think it would be the deep inner-city schools to get the computers first? nope. so the imbalance would be amplified.
might get attacked for this one,
but who's to say that,
given the societal and environmental influences prior to this "mixing bowl," as it were, every man, woman, and child, of every race, gender, and creed, are equal anyway?
give everyone an iq test at the age of 8 or 9,
before too many external pressures have warped them, and i think some trends would be very obvious,
many of which could NOT be explained by the first 8-9 years of life, and would thus require another explanation.
would be fun results to see.
-Tannin Kal
yes, i admit, i made a typo.
you're not immune either: "more educated that anglos."
and i'm still curious as to why every racial group you mentioned gets capitalized except anglos? "Asian" is not a proper noun.
what am i going to do about this?
nothing.
i don't have a problem with uneven spreads.
i think getting computers into schools will help balance out what is seen as an unfair skew, but only if done properly. does anyone seriously think it would be the deep inner-city schools to get the computers first? nope. so the imbalance would be amplified.
might get attacked for this one,
but who's to say that,
given the societal and environmental influences prior to this "mixing bowl," as it were, every man, woman, and child, of every race, gender, and creed, are equal anyway?
give everyone an iq test at the age of 8 or 9,
before too many external pressures have warped them, and i think some trends would be very obvious,
many of which could NOT be explained by the first 8-9 years of life, and would thus require another explanation.
would be fascinating to see those results.
-Tannin Kal
it is a government's responsibility to take care of it's citizens.
i firmly believe this.
i think that should be the goal towards which the government aspires in all things.
i do NOT believe it is the government's responsibility to take care or illegal aliens within the country,
or the citizens of other countries.
if a valid global government were to be established ,
it would need to assure a minimum quality of life for ALL it's people.
i don't see that happening,
except that the US is attempting to do just that,
and in my opinion is way out of line.
so, no, i don't think we should help the underprivelaged children in other countries,
just not for the reason you assumed.
if a private organization wishes to,
well,
they can spend their money any way they see fit.
-tk
-Tannin Kal
if they come in to our country legally,
and through the front door,
sure, why not.
they'd be citizens,
and i already said that was important.
if they won't do that,
they have no business here.
-Tannin Kal
My mother (who was a primary school teacher when she was younger) told me once that the reason that schools in America were so awful was because of the increased econimic liberties of women. Teachers, if they took their degrees and went into the workforce, would make many times more money. When the only jobs women could commonly get were secratarial work, nursing, and teaching, we go many talented and intelligent women in teaching. However, the pay is awful, my mother had to leave teaching and go into bookeeping/administrative duties, so that we could live in NYC (where my dad worked and where my sister and i went to school)
I'd presonally love to be a high school teacher, but the salary is so riduclous. Raise the salary to nearly the same level as college proffessors and you will get better teachers -- i think.
maybe, I'm entirely off base, but that's my base...
------- Oh damn.... the Sigfile escaped... -Great OM
I hate to see Internet access drug right along with telephone and broadcast as needing to be subsidized by the government for everyone to benefit. Surely, with the advent of WebTVs, those $199 boxes from Microworkz, and even Free PCs you can get on the Internet somehow. The telephone system is crappy and rapidly approaching useless because of the complacency that government subsidies have brought on.
This also shouldn't be a racial issue. I will not be responsible if a black person chooses not to get on the Internet. This country (United States, and others I imagine) is about free choice, and we should not be attempting to show someone "the light" or magic of getting on the Internet. As we do, the message will sound more and more forced and not unlike religious zealots which will turn more people away then it will entice to join.
Absolutely!!! I mean come off it North America! For crying out loud you ignore your kids, expect TV to raise them, don't instill any values in them, and you don't force your school boards to teach the essentials of literacy, history and mathematics and now you complain of the disparity! Get real! Quit smoking. Quit drinking. Spend some time with your kids. Get your priorities straight. And when the kid can't read, do simple long divisionin or write a legible sentence in long hand in the first place, regardless of colour, a computer isn't going to help until they can. Technology is wonderful but you have to have the mental tools to know how to use it in the first place. And why, can someone tell me, is the internet required for research today? Are there no libraries anymore? No newspapers? What gives? Or am I a Luddite?
If what I said is nonsense,
I'm making a point with it.
If what I said makes perfect sense,
you obviously missed the point.
till, we have an amazing capacity for upwards mobility in this country. If you apply yourself you can succeed.
Although that's the image that many people have of US society, that's really not the case. A lot of books have documented how US society is pretty stratified with significant barriers to movement between classes. Otherwise why do so many lower class people remain in the same class for their entire lives? Please don't tell me that they're so lazy that they want to live without basic utilities. Some of them work 10+ hours a day for 6 days a week but get paid very little. I wouldn't conisder that lazy at all.
"When you sit with a nice girl for two hours, it seems like two minutes. When you sit on a hot stove for two minutes, it
However if the government interferes with other foreign governments to the extent that people are forced to become refugees, I do think the government has a responsibility to take care of these refugees.
The US government has done this in several countries(Vietnam, Laos, Cambodia, Nicaragua, El Salvador, Chile, Argentina, etc.). So in large part, I think the government is responsible for the immigrants from these countries that were affected by government actions.
"When you sit with a nice girl for two hours, it seems like two minutes. When you sit on a hot stove for two minutes, it
Anyone who mentions the whole race thing in
connection to the Internet should really
think hard about what they're doing.
It's not like there's a login screen asking
for your *race* when you connect to the
'Net.
It's all about income and the ability to own
a computer. If more blacks and hispanics
are "not on the net", than it's because more
blacks and hispanics have less disposable
income than others. That's it. Don't you
dare try to tell me this is related to
disrimination or anything. It's just an
interesting social demographic...
Just thinking...
--- witty signature
Somebody's already mentioned the truism that here on the net, nobody knows you're a dog. So as far as the NET is concerned, we have two major groups, the Wired and the Un-Wired.
. .
Amongst the Wired, it's pretty much, IMNSHO, a meritocracy. Write good code, design good websites, whatever: if you're good, you get noticed, if you don't, you're in the discard bin. As it should be: life is to short for sucky code or sites that suck.
As for the Un-Wired, they don't play in our world, yet they can, whenever they get off their loathsome, spotty behinds, and decide, that they, too, should be amongst the Wired. So why is this an issue in the first place ?? Perhaps because, in meatspace, all too many people feel they deserve cash, accolades, recognition, etc. .
WHETHER THEY HAVE EARNED IT OR NOT.
And perhaps they feel threatened by our burgeoning cyber-meritocracy. And so, perhaps, they want to stop it, by bringing it down to the lowest common denominator, by getting everone online, whether they want to or not. .
Not saying that this absolutely IS the case, but I'd argue it over a few beers. . .
And I just discombobulated an AC!!
The death of one man is a tragedy; the death of a million is a statistic --Joseph Stalin
Could someone please explain why people have a grudge against Mr. Katz? Is the style of writing too logical? I find that I would give my eyeteeth if I could paint a picture of something logical enough that people all over the world would actually read it (several thousand). What he has to say are points that most people don't really care about. If I ever actually get an ip to my machine there will be some pretty cool things pretty soon howver I have inferior communications hardware and do not have the easy access to cash to remedy this. Basically most people take for granted things that they have without taking a look at the other half. I am reminded of a book called "How the Other Half Lives" published at about early 1900's where the conditions of the people were displayed in graphic deteail so that people could understand it is nice to see a person address such a topic. What I would just wish is that communication rates could be the same for anything like my 2400bps AT compatable modem so that I could connect instead of having to have to deal with people complaining about their OC3 not having enough bandwidth. Some people wouldn't have enouth even if they owned their own telephone company.
The death of one man is a tragedy; the death of a million is a statistic --Joseph Stalin
Well where I come from the libraries mainly suck. For example I am searching for something on Brain Cancer and I found 2 count them 2 books in the library both of which are totally useless discussing about pediatric tumors and some tear jerker stories of little children getting these things: very little of substance. This report is due Wednesday and I have little to go on. Although the pickings are slim and I have little to go on the internet has helped some.
If anyone can assist me with some useful links from the web (or other sources) that I can get (fairly detailed) info about barin cancer and tumors in the brain I would be most grateful.
The death of one man is a tragedy; the death of a million is a statistic --Joseph Stalin
I actually know intuitively about this. I would come from a background that one could label poor. And even the relative inexpensive nature of technology can be a problem.
The death of one man is a tragedy; the death of a million is a statistic --Joseph Stalin
Try a search engine... and try doing you own homework too..
DrLunch.com The site that tells you what's for lunch!
Whenever people decide we need more taxes, or fewer freedoms, they like to justify it by crying about "the children" and the minorities. That's all this is. We need a new tax to run free internet connections to rural and innercity houses. The whole thing about throwing race in there was to distract the issue. If people want to buy a t.v. instead of a computer, that's their choice. But I can't even buy my self a new machine, I don't want to buy someone else one (particularly not if he makes as much money as I do). This whole 'cry for the children and minorities while I try to liberate you of a bit more of your pay-check or freedoms' thing is growing old. If this sentiment keeps up, just wait till we get new Gore Tax's that are actually voted and passed by congress.
The louder he talked of his honour, the faster we counted our spoons. -- Ralph Waldo Emerson
I hate hype. Pundits, marketeers, and congressfolks, however, have the disturbing ability of extruding bushels and barrels of hype from mere teaspoons of data. Here is a wonderful example. Given a few bits of real information ("you can look up stuff online" and "white middle-class kids are more likely to use the net"), a pundit can create a screaming tirade against the injustice of the system, calling for the immediate execution of the King.
Sometimes I think that there should be a 30 day waiting period on posts by pundits, to force them to think over what they're about to say (heh--myself included).
I just want to offer a few questions to ponder.
Is the Internet helpful in the education of children? How helpful is it in teaching children how to read? How many people do you know who learned arithmetic on a website? Is there any information that exists solely on the web that will teach children how to think critically?
Of course, since a significant number of children who pass through American schools never learn these skills, perhaps the Internet is just as good as traditional schooling.
In my heretical opinion, there is no call for including computers in elementary education. It is far better to teach children how to learn and how to think logically than to teach them how to point and click.
That's "Mr. Soulless Automaton" to you, Bub.
I say that communities do NOT have the right to "enforce" their own standards, because I refuse to allow some hypocritial idiot to remove my freedom to view what I want to so he can make a big political issue out of it (See Simon Leis).
/.
If you don't like the standards of the community you're in you can always change the standards or simply leave. Furthermore, if a community can't set its own standards and expect people to abide by them there can be no such thing as government, law, or
As for politicians making an issue out of non-issues... well, it takes two to make an issue : the person who speaks and the person who reacts. And I'd place the greater blame on the person who reacts without learning the facts.
-c
I have discovered a truly remarkable proof which this margin is too small to contain.
from Katz (quoting a commerce department study):
Ownership of computers is still closely linked to income. Families with incomes over $75,000 were more than five times as likely to own a computer at home and 10 times more likely to have Net access than families who earned less than $10,000.
Well Duh!!!
Humm... Let's compare other things between family's who make greater than 75K vs less than 10K.
Which group owns more cars?
Which group owns more houses?
Which group owns more model trains?
Which group owns more beer?
My point is, 10K is well below poverty. They don't own stuff. It makes no point comparing them to the top 10% of the country.
Quack
Unfortunately, our culture (American culture that is) thrives on mass media, and mass media thrives on people who don't think and just act on impulse. The World Wide Web was a reversal in that trend... suddenly a mass medium that challenged you and made you a part of a community, rather than a spoon-fed society! But the reversal has reversed again, and we're going back to dumb mass-consumerism.
/. posters, etc who know the *net* (not the web) as an interactive medium, but now, most of those big companys, AOL in particular, are just trying to get people who watch TV into eyeballs for there service.
well, really it never changed. There are some of us,
some people don't want to be nothing but eyeballs, but many people don't mind (or so it seems)
fortunetly for us, the "old" net will never go away.....
_
"Subtle mind control? Why do all these HTML buttons say 'Submit' ?"
ReadThe ReflectionEngine, a cyberpunk style n
Um....
minoritys are already literate, I'm sure you relized that
now we need to get them computer literate.
literacy may be great, but it won't get you a good education, and nither will computers
_
"Subtle mind control? Why do all these HTML buttons say 'Submit' ?"
ReadThe ReflectionEngine, a cyberpunk style n
If you barely make 10,000 a year or are on welfare then DON'T HAVE KIDS damnit... It's not that damn hard
damn, your stupid. you can't get on welfare if you don't *already* have kids.
I don't know why people feel that they should form opinions when there obviosly stupid... of cource, they are probably to stupid to figure that out on there own.....
_
"Subtle mind control? Why do all these HTML buttons say 'Submit' ?"
ReadThe ReflectionEngine, a cyberpunk style n
true laiz-fair capitalism has *never* worked
_
"Subtle mind control? Why do all these HTML buttons say 'Submit' ?"
ReadThe ReflectionEngine, a cyberpunk style n
Ever heard of genetics? Stupid, lazy parents have stupid lazy kids. Explains quite a lot doesn't it?
Your first paragraph is *amazingly stupid* the amount of education a person has has been proven to effect there IQ as much as 70%
there's no evidence that 'laziness' is a genetic trait, and if you looked at real statistics, you would see that most poor people, (and yes, this includes minorities) are *not* lazy, they often work jobs that you or I would never consider, and don't get paid shit. There not lazy, they are just *uneducated.
Of course, in your second, paragraph, you seem to imply that creationism has some merit, invalidating your ideas for about 95% of educated people
_
"Subtle mind control? Why do all these HTML buttons say 'Submit' ?"
ReadThe ReflectionEngine, a cyberpunk style n
most people *already* have phone access, and a second line usualy only costs about $12/mo, not 60.
as far as electricty, $45 a month??? how the hell did you get *that* figure. a kwatt hour is like $0.12 or somthing. it dosnt' cost much to run one computer
_
"Subtle mind control? Why do all these HTML buttons say 'Submit' ?"
ReadThe ReflectionEngine, a cyberpunk style n
$80 TV tuner cards....
_
"Subtle mind control? Why do all these HTML buttons say 'Submit' ?"
ReadThe ReflectionEngine, a cyberpunk style n
my god, you are a pathetic person
_
"Subtle mind control? Why do all these HTML buttons say 'Submit' ?"
ReadThe ReflectionEngine, a cyberpunk style n
um, you can buy a good super7 mother board for about $56, and a slot one for $80.....
_
"Subtle mind control? Why do all these HTML buttons say 'Submit' ?"
ReadThe ReflectionEngine, a cyberpunk style n
you're so lucky, asian chicks are **so** hot...
_
"Subtle mind control? Why do all these HTML buttons say 'Submit' ?"
ReadThe ReflectionEngine, a cyberpunk style n
well, in order to play doom, you are going to at least know *somthign* about computers.
this isnt' the case anymore, however. as computers get increasingly easy to use, people lose the requirements of computer literacy to operate them.
you can just put in a quakeII CD and be off, without learning anything about the computer, and that's to bad
_
"Subtle mind control? Why do all these HTML buttons say 'Submit' ?"
ReadThe ReflectionEngine, a cyberpunk style n
hrm... I think you're missing the subtle diffrences between porn, and pr0n.
porn is clearly labled as such, and usualy has a "are you over 18" link or somthing, so you never see it.
pr0n on the other hand is everywhere, its as bad as spam, some pr0n sites even index with words like "autos" and "SUVs" in attempts to get as much linkage as posible. if you look for words like "pictures" or "girls" or "teens"... you get pr0n. it really sucks. I personaly think serach engens should drop any pages that contain the text "hot cum sluts".
I don't want to legislate morality, but all the pr0n out there is getting *really* irritating, especaly if your looking for "real" porn...
_
"Subtle mind control? Why do all these HTML buttons say 'Submit' ?"
ReadThe ReflectionEngine, a cyberpunk style n
VCRs are so fucking easy to program. It's quite pathetic that most people can't. it dosn't have anything to do with what humans in general are capable of, its just the computer, electroics phobia that about 1/2 of babie boomers seem to have.
anyone could program a VCR if the took the time to read the manual, the fact is, theres almost no real need to do it. most people arn't that patheic that they "need" to watch whats on TV when they can't be there.
my mom is the worst computer user ever, but she checks her email on the univercity's UNIX server every day.
Kids synaptic pathways arn't sealed off yet, they can learn just about anything
_
"Subtle mind control? Why do all these HTML buttons say 'Submit' ?"
ReadThe ReflectionEngine, a cyberpunk style n
the Japanese are internet freaks man, you don't see most of the stuff, beacuse its mostly in the *.jp domains, and there web pages don't even show up right in most american versions of browsers
_
"Subtle mind control? Why do all these HTML buttons say 'Submit' ?"
ReadThe ReflectionEngine, a cyberpunk style n
its not the government's fault.
The US government has a near monopoly on education in this contry. if it provides a shity education, then it *is* its fault.
just like its microsofts fault when the computer crashes when its running the OS that came with it
_
"Subtle mind control? Why do all these HTML buttons say 'Submit' ?"
ReadThe ReflectionEngine, a cyberpunk style n
I am thoroughly dissapointed at how naive and ignorant most of the posts have been here. Katz is not saying that The Man is stopping minorites from getting on the net. He is saying that something is preventing them and nobody can quite figure it out. Race is pretty much a non-issue for using the net, so why the disparity in the numbers? The answer lies deep within the cultures involved here and has common threads with every other racial issue in recent times. A white person has the same number of hours in the day as a black person, so what is the black person doing with the hour or two the white person is spending on the net? Making an assumption would be nothing short of racist, so research must be done.
And for those of you that think these complex rebate offers are an economic emancipation, you are sorely mistaken. First of all, they will do a credit check, and most poor people have poor credit. Rebuilding an old 486 and finding old hardware and whatnot is not an option, because the people that can do that already have computers. These people work (often several jobs) and have families to raise and do not have time to mess around with computers so they can trade stocks the don't own and read the same news they get in the paper.
Though there is no easy solution here, keeping computers in the schools is the single best strategy at this point. The net has only been a reality at the cultural level for a few years, which is not enough time for it to be adopted. Luckily this is also not enough time for it to have developed strong negative trends. As most slashdot readers know, once you get the hang of computers they are alot easier than they seem (and don't think this is because you have some innate gift, they are actually pretty simple at the consumer level). If a child grows up with computers and learns to use them to improve his life and the life of those around him, he will prioritize it when he gets to the point in life where he has to make a decision. This is probably why white families have more computers, because white schools have had more computers for years, which leads to more computers at home. I think have have all been blinded by the bright flash or growth that has been burning and we must simply strive to make reasonable and sensible decisions about the next 25 years.
This is not the greatest sig in the world, this is just a tribute.
Again, read the top line of my orginal post. If lower class people could walk around with fistfuls of $50 bills, you dont think they would? Try raising a family on $10/hr (thats 8 $50's a week pretax). People do it, and they do it by not wasting thier money on computers and instead buying food and heat. They also do it by growing up, maybe you should try it.
This is not the greatest sig in the world, this is just a tribute.
There are some variations by race or cultural groups. Last year I heard a lecture by Jorge Reina Schement of Penn State that discussed differences in usage of computers among whites, hispanics, and blacks. He said that his research showed that hispanics, blacks, and whites have different reasons for getting a computer (for example, as a tool for work vs. for the kids), he also noted that groups spend their dollars differently. For example, blacks were much more likely to spend their money on premium cable than on computers. (Probably, because cable keeps your kids inside at home)
While I agree that Income is Totally the Biggest factor, it doesn't explain everything. Moreover, I agree that these are generalizations, but they may held in an aggregate analysis.
(Is it me or is slashdot getting faster?)
I'm not sure what "poor minority" you were including yourself in above but I know the kids in my neighborhood.
A lot of the people I live around are 1st generation immigrants from Central America and Mexico. In the world the parents grew up in there was no attitude towards education at all. It was so far out of the possible that it never entered their minds. The economies in many of these countries is pretty close to Medieval Feudalism.
They take great risks and expenses to move to L.A and work their butts off to keep a roof over their heads and fed. They *all* want a better life for their kids. They want a good education for their kids, but its not easy. Many have no education at all. Most have no education beyond ~3rd grade. The kids learn english and go to school The parents can often encourage them, but can't help with the homework. Dad is out of the house working (maybe a couple of jobs). Mom is there, but very often she is the one with no education at all and zero english (and has also been raised to be what we would consider pathologically shy).
Plugging in a computer is going to add what exectly? They are in many ways jumping directly from the 14th century to the 20th. There's a lot of "bootstrapping" that goes on. Spanish language TV, bad as it seems to us, is darn educational. It's exposure to things that may be totally new - in a not threatening way. In a larger family the oldest child is the first to learn english well and teaches the younger ones. Even of he/she is considered a D student by the school by 4th grade he/she can help the 1st grade kid with homework. The 1st grader typically will achive much better grades. Fast forward a few years (or to now in the case of those starting the process 10 years ago) and computers and the net become possible and useful things. Too early in the process and the computer becomes a doorstop that may be used to play Doom - maybe not even that. The above is in may ways an "ideal" situation. Throw in a few monky wrenches (Dad gets sent to Mexico by the Feds and looses his job before he can get back, etc) and it gets even more difficult.
The computer is just a tool. It's a great tool, but not the answer to all problems. Same with the net. In some cases it's a power tool and we are wondering why people without electricity don't find it useful....
garyr
-- your Web browser is Ronald Reagan
And if you did screw up and can't afford it, your kids should suffer? How biblical! "For I am a jealous economic system, visiting the sins of the fathers upon the children unto the seventh generation."
What's wrong with this? If your mother took thalidomide, you turn out deformed. If your parents are poor you don't get to go to DisneyWorld every summer. If your parents are famous you have to put up with having a public life and being the target of every two-bit terrorist group around. That's called life.
Net access is not a right. It is something which should be earned and payed for, just like food, clothing, transportation, luxuries and everything else in life. A right is something which doesn't cost the rest of the world: free speech, fair trial, arms bearing, lack of torture. Those are rights. Net access is a privilege.
Of what possible benefit would it be to have a section of our population making it's decisions without access to the relevant information?
I hate to break it to you, but they're not going to use that information anyway. The vast majority of the population of any country are sheep who will blindly follow any leader who catches their interest. I don't trust anyone to make decisions who has not been born, bred, raised, trained and educated to do so. That's why I support a hereditary aristocracy. Not that it'll ever happen. I just think that it'd work better and more cleanly.
The Libertarian viewpoint is that in a properly formed society, the only ones who are poorly-off are those who have done it to themselves. Why feel sorry for the lazy? I recognise that in the current situation this is not so. Still, we have an amazing capacity for upwards mobility in this country. If you apply yourself you can succeed. But how many do so? Very few; most are content to coast along in life, getting away with as little actual work as possible.
I myself plead guilty to that particular vice. I'm just lucky in that so little is demanded of me that I can exceed expectations. Sad, eh?
And don't get me started about so-called 'corporate welfare,' farm subsidies, Social Security, Medicare, health insurance or any of the rest. It's all harmful to the functioning of a proper free market, which is the only system capable of successful practice.
And then you have the various pseudo-monopolies like the utilities, Microsoft, the airlines (did you know that most flights are paid for purely by cargo; passengers are 100% profit) &c. The free market in this country has been given hardly any chance. And then the socialists try to claim that the free market doesn't work. Of course it doesn't when their programs are tacked onto it.
Not that free markets work for everything. There is such a thing as a market failure. This is (obviously) the proper domain of gov't.
To get back to the topic at hand: Net access is not a right any more than owning a printing press is a right. If what you say is worth hearing, you will find a way to be heard somehow, if you apply yourself. Even the poorest people can make their voices heard.
That said, I think that terminals in libraries are a good idea, for some of the same reasons that libraries themselves are a good idea. That something is not a right does not mean we cannot grant it freely. I have little against public net access. I have a lot against any scheme that tries to buy a computer for every household. Who decides what model? What OS? Which apps? It's incredibly prone to corruption.
I worked a minimum wage 32.5 hour/week work-study job in the summer when I was at college, and was able to live off of it -- barely. I had no car at the time, and was renting a room the size of a large closet for $100/month plus utilities from some friends of mine. It's not an experience I would care to repeat.
The summer after my freshman year I worked 40 hours a week at minimum wage. I too had no car. Yet I managed to live very well, sharing a $600/month plus utilities house with 2 others in the middle of a Texan summer. I received no money from my parents, no help of any sort from anyone at all, and yet I managed to do pretty well. You wouldn't be able to support a family on that sort of money, but it kept me alive, happy, well-fed and out of the rain. I even saved enough money to pay for my books the next two semesters and keep my bar stocked. It is doable, if a bit tight.
I would never say that blue-collar workers are lazy. I would say that all men are lazy. Everyone wants something for nothing, a free lunch. I know I do, that everyone I know does, that the entire history of the world points in that direction. Everyone wants to maximise return while minimising expenditures. Among other things, that's called budgeting.
Hmmm... They've had those before. France, England, China, Japan. They have all now ditched them. I'm assuming of course that you have yourself in mind for this aristocracy. Sounds like you have little or no real life experience, ( that .edu in your addy is a dead giveaway )
Actually, those were more monarchies. I am thinking of a decentralised hereditary government. Something along the lines of Rome, only decentralised. Not that it'd nec. work, but it'd be better than this ridiculous republic we have. The only way a man can be trusted to run a government is if he has been trained for it from birth. The idea that any Joe Schmoe (or, more accurately, lawyer) can suddenly aquire the wisdom of Solomon upon being sworn in is utter folly.
Aristocracies in place in countries like Brunei, Saudi Arabia, etc. are rife with corruption, nepotism and human rights abuses.
I submit that this is due more to cultural reasons. Read up on Saxon history for an example of mostly fair, mostly decent kings. No system is perfect. Monarchy is to susceptible to malevolent kings; democracy to susceptible to stagnation under complacent citizens. Oligarchy is a happy medium. An aristocracy, properly structured, can be a quite functional oligarchy.
I cannot say if capitalism requires that there be poor people. I know that the free market does not. Naturally, there are those who are not as well of. This, in a perfect market, would be because they or some ancestor were foolish/lazy/gullible/dissolute or for some other reason never did well. It happens. I will never be rich. But, with the proper amount of work, I may arrange it so that my children will be comfortable and that, assuming that my kids are intelligent, my grandchildren will be wealthy.
True, the rights came at a cost. But the now cost us nothing. It costs me naught at all to let my neighbor speak freely. It hurts me not one bit if I refuse to torture him. It doesn't interfere in the slightest with my life if I allow him to bear arms.
That is what I mean by rights. They may cost money to win, but the rights themselves ar free. Food, for example, is not a right; it must be earned. If I give you food, I no longer have that piece of bread, or fish, or filet mignon or whatever.
This actually ties back to computers. One can argue that software is a right precisely because it costs nothing for me to give it to you. This is one of the FSF's points, I believe.
Apathy is the mind-killer. I've got relatives that glaze over when I talk about something I saw on the Internet or email. I try to set up everyone I know that has a PC but no access with NetZero (www.netzero.net), but you can't make them use it. Most are just afraid they will break the damn thing.
Here's a suggestion. Donate your old PC to your local school district. Even a 386 can run command line Linux. And I just read about a GUI suite of tools by a company called New Deal for 286 on up that runs on DOS and it's slick New Deal Inc. Check it out and make that old PC new again for a friend. It's only $50 and Linux is FREE. Beyond this we can't help the helpless and those that don't want to learn.
--Somewhere there is a village missing an idiot.
Microsoft's offer was a free PC in exchange for 3yrs MSN signup at $17/mo, and others have similar deals. If you can't prioritize your spending to afford $17/mo on your kids, then you shouldn't be having kids in the first place.
I believe it's already been explained why it's different, but just for kicks:
TV is a passive medium, a PC is not.
TV is content-regulated to the extreme, the Net is not.
TV['s content] is owned by advertising, the Net['s content] is owned by a mass of individuals.
These are big differences. HUGE differences. MONUMENTAL differences.
You refer to class conflict. That's Marx.
And no one has a "solution" since there isn't a perfect one as long as human systems aren't perfect.
whatever
There are probably also some cultural differences - most web content is in English, which will lower use among Hispanics
What on earth are you talking about??? The the net is not solely an American/British phenomenon, as your ethnocentric statement seems to assert. If you speak Spanish you can get plenty of Spanish language content from Spain, Mexico and Central and South America. Also, you discount the fact that many American Hispanics speak English.
No, the main reason American Hispanics don't use the net is MONEY!!! Not because we can't afford to buy computers but because we can't afford to send our kids to elite private schools (many with a with one-to-one computer-kid ratio) so we have to send them to crappy public schools (with a 1:50 or 1:100 computer-kid ratio). That is if they even have computers at all.
Economic racism is a bitch...
A man who wants nothing is invincible
We must make government legally color-blind so that it will stop using racial bias to continually expand government. Without government promoting division between the races, these divisions will eventually disappear.
And I suppose you believe in Santa Claus and the Easter Bunny too? The government does not make the divisions up, it just categorizes and counts them and uses them to make equitable policies. Have you ever read the Constitution? It is called equal protection under the law.
If you are color blind, then you are ignoring the fact that I have color, i.e., you turn me into a white person. If you ignore the fact that I speak Spanish also then you treat me like I speak English only, i.e., like an average white person. In essence you completely ignore WHO and WHAT I am and turn me into what YOU want me to be. Like the guy in Repo Man sez: "Bullshit on that!"
If you want proof look at the political parties and their respective conventions. The Republicans believe in color-blindness and if you were to go to one of their conventions you would see the 1950's all over again -- old, straight, rich white men with a few token Blacks and Hispanics.
The Democrats, on the other hand, believe in, nay, celebrate diversity so if you were to go to one of their conventions you would see a slice of 1990's America. So not only will you see substantial Black and Hispanic representation, you will see women, the young, gays, and even some poor people.
I don't know about you but the America I live in is not composed only of old, straight, rich white men, but you wouldn't know it by reading the opinions of some of the fools who post to slashdot!
A man who wants nothing is invincible
I don't deny that Whites are on the net much more
than minorities. But Americans from minority/lower-income groups are increasingly joining ranks.
A couple months ago, I was in a computer superstore located in a fairly wealthy suburb. The place was *packed* with african-american families. The checkout lines were crowded, and most of them were buying the same thing: one of those "free" PCs you get after signing up for 2-3 years of net access.
Now, out of 10 inner-city kids who gets a new computer, a certain amount will use it just for games, another for mostly homework. But maybe 1 out of 10, or maybe 1 out of 20, will really get into the technology. I expect a new generation of minority programmers, coming from lower-class neighborhoods. And look who is doing it: corporatations. It doesn't take a government handout; Micro$oft realizes that giving free computers seeds future customers. Everyone wins.
I don't know about a "grudge" against Katz, and I don't speak for everyone, but this is why I have problems with his writing:
/. posts, including mine :) ) and a reasonably well-thought-out opinion can find an audience on the Net. If you feel strongly about something, write it up. Send it to /., post it to your own website and submit the link to search engines, etc. That's what the Net definitely does do: make free speech a reality for everyone.
Essentially, he is a technological "me-tooer". That is, while I'm all for non-technical people getting involved in geekspace -- everyone started out somewhere -- I am not for such individuals choosing to remain non-technical, and just morphing their "wow! lookee! tech!" attitude into a self-righteous, "This is the way it should be because this is the way I want it to be" philosophy.
As for having your opinions read by other people: Anybody with some communication skills (and that doesn't necessarily mean good grammar, as evidenced by many
I strongly support Katz' right to vocalize his opinions, and I appreciate the fact that many of the features he posts generate discussion, because that's what democracy should be all about. I just don't usually agree with him -- and that's also what democracy is about.
"You can never have too many elephants on your team."
For every person who tells me "socialism doesn't work" I find at least one Dutch or Canadian person (just for two examples) who has pretty damn good evidence that it does, in the right dosage. While I disagree with the AC's post to which bil's is a reply, I don't think bil's response has the right tone to make the point that needs to be made.
Notice that "socialism" isn't the view that every industry is under direct central control. Kids, centralized, socially-based planning built your roads, probably educated you, and even if it didn't do so directly, it made it possible for the people who did do so to pay for it out of their own pockets by providing a society and infrastructure that makes the amassing of wealth by an individual possible.
Notice that, even according to recent mythologies, a centralized, government-appointed (granted, not elected) board has been implicated in the continued financial success of the US (Big Al Greenspan and the Fed), and on some of those occasions the commitment of public funds was necessary.
So here's the deal: I'll lay off the comparisons to Scrooge for people who think that free markets and their attendant inequalities are, in the right context and dosage, a Good Thing if those who don't think unfettered socialism is the be-all and end-all lay off comparisons to totalitarian regimes for those who advocate a governmental role in some industry or other.
Hint: that's because neither caricature is true.
And hey, let's be careful out there.
"Oh, I hope he doesn't give us halyatchkies," said Heinrich.
Hmm... "Among families earning $15,000 to $35,000, more than 33 per cent of whites owned computers, but only l9 per cent of blacks did." Does this tell you something about digital discrimination (HA! Yeah, right) or does this tell you about money management? And did anyone even think about the fact that the government hates the internet? I'll give you two reasons why: 1) The government cannot control people's movement on the internet and, thus, cannot tax it, and 2) the government cannot regulate the flow of rational thought like they can the liberal media and, therefore, cannot better their position relatively unchallenged. Face it, government studies just don't cut the mustard when it is about something they desire to regulate. Period. Anybody else's synapses firing out there? Loopus Maximus
I didn't learn computer literacy till I was...gee...13...I didn't get onto the net until I was...18. I'm 21 now. I sincerely doubt that I would be disadvantaged as a child if I didn't have net access (I do agree we shouldn't be so overmoralistic towards it tho)
If a kid can't read, no job period. All the net training in the world would not make a difference if a child cannot read.
Yes, I know that "obscenity" is not legally protected under the First Amendment. Who doesn't?
However, bear in mind the things that obscenity laws have been invoked to stop: information on birth control, AIDS awareness sites, gay teen support groups, images of classical artwork, even pictures of breastfeeding mothers! Oops, was there a baby in that bathwater?
Furthermore, is a kid honestly going to be traumatized-for-life by a couple of nasty pictures? I've never understood that "logic", which is what Katz seems to be complaining about the most, anyhow. I saw old copies of Playboy and Hustler in the fire station bathrooms on a Girl Scout field trip (of all things!), and I don't think it damaged me.
And if all blocking software had a design similar to SafeSurf or RSACi, which allow for customized description of content and varied blocking levels, I'd say go for it. But when we've got crap like CyberSitter out there, which is blocking sites that have nothing to do with explicit sex or violence or intolerance (let's see
"Somebody exploded a letter-bomb today
... the Hellmouth. Remember?
It's Not Cool to Be Smart.
Even among the "gifted and talented" it's still not considered cool to really have an interest in something intellectual. To an extent, this goes away by college (depending on what college you're at), but even then you can still run into it in more subtle forms.
And how many times have those of you who have gone as far in school as you care to for the forseeable future heard, or said, "I'm not in school anymore; why should I stretch my brain?"
"Educational" and "fun" are still supposed to be oxymorons in this country, and in pseudo-attempts to combat that, people say and do the damndest things
*sigh* It's funny, but it's horribly depressing at the same time. And until the culture as a whole gets some respect for education, we're not going to see much improvement. The lifestyle that the underclass wants to move up to tends to be brainless middle-class ignorant suburbia anyhow. (Yes, I'm bitter -- look at my
"Somebody exploded a letter-bomb today
What you have to understand is that with all of the "Red scares" in this country, the mass media became very allergic to ANY talk about class at all. The lessons of McCarthy sunk in a bit too well in some cases.
Race made a handy metaphor for class, and it's been used and abused in this fashion. And you better believe it pissed me off when a black student whose family makes more money than mine (and I don't exactly come from poverty) is getting scholarships that she doesn't need, while my parents scrimped and saved and rearranged priorities such that I didn't need to be on financial aid.
That's because Americans don't want to talk about class, and those who try get "You godless Commie!" screamed at them for their troubles. The exception is academia, but this does WHAT exactly to fix the problem? Nothing, really. It mostly becomes a concern to those who have access to higher education in the first place.
And there is something wrong with not asking the have-nots precisely what it is that they would like to have. Admittedly, you and I aren't likely to like some of the answers (as I've posted elsewhere, most of them seem to want white-bread suburbia to start with). But it would make a good starting point.
It's sort of like what happened to the feminist movement in the 1960s -- Betty Freidan made a huge tactical error that had all sorts of race and class bias tucked away into it: Women can't possibly be fulfilled by the "domestic arts," so hire a cleaning lady and live out your life the way you were meant to. Um
I'd like to stay that other social movements (including those that try to advance education) have learned from this mistake, but I'm not so sure.
"Somebody exploded a letter-bomb today
And again, I find it ironic that I see someone griping about the very existance of the minimum wage on
Here's a clue: Someone who works minimum wage jobs for 40 hours/week makes just over $10K in a year. Perhaps this person holds two min wage jobs (since most such jobs are reluctant to give overtime), both for 30 hours a week (so the employer can say the employee is "part-time"), thereby making about $15K in a year.
I worked a minimum wage 32.5 hour/week work-study job in the summer when I was at college, and was able to live off of it -- barely. I had no car at the time, and was renting a room the size of a large closet for $100/month plus utilities from some friends of mine. It's not an experience I would care to repeat.
I also just love the assumption that blue-collar workers are lazy. Here I am slacking off a bit on the job as an entry-level tech. writer. And over at Toys R Us, there's my boyfriend working on a remodel project, carrying heavy things around for 7.5 hours/day and getting paid $3.25 less an hour for it. I freely admit that I'm the lazy one here, but the default assumption is exactly the opposite.
"Somebody exploded a letter-bomb today
People who are good in their jobs don't need to worry about more competition, so why should you? With some 100,000 jobs being created each year there's ample room for new people in the IT sector.
Besides, the more computer literate people there are, the more need there is for computer related jobs. This is not a zero sum game.
As other posters said, I think a Library is a perfect place for poor people or ANYONE for that matter to use the Internet. The ones that say Library's don't have enough information as the Internet? Well a lot of Library's are getting Internet connections. In my little town of 85,000 people our Library has connections to other Library's in the state, even to other colleges. They got some weird name for it, but any how, say you're looking for a certain magazine or book and the library you're at doesn't have it, but the one 300 miles away has it, they'll ship it to the library local to you. It takes about a day or two for it to happen but you get it. PLUS you get the additive bonus of having Internet access as well.
:)
Some Library's don't have Internet connections yet, I know this, but do you expect this to happen over night? I'm sure if we look ahead 5 years from now Internet connections in Libraries will be quite common. I believe it'll be as common as books are too.
So honestly I really don't see an issue here at all. If you're someone who doesn't know anything about computers, why not take a class at a local Technical College? They offer them here pretty cheap, like $100.00 a semester plus about $50.00 in books. If that costs too much for the person then they can apply for finical aid.
This whole issue to me is bogus, since if you really WANT to use the Internet you can do it. It's just a matter of whether you want to or not. Perhaps these people feel like there's no point in them buying a computer and using the Internet? Perhaps these people just don't want to use the Internet. Perhaps these people have better things to do. Perhaps these low-income families are too busy working and raising their kids to use the Internet. Either way you look at it, it isn't because they're stupid and surely isn't because of racism.
According to that article 133 million Americans will have Internet access soon. Just a few years ago it was something like 20 million or 30 million or so? So say we have 133 million people using the Internet, that means about half the United States population will still be Internet less in their home. Maybe the reason why they don't have Internet access is because half the US population doesn't have it either? Everyone's still catching up with this whole thing. I think it's a bit absurd to start throwing racism or because they're poor or anything out right now. Just think 10 years ago hardly anyone used the Internet. Now 10 years later half of the people in the United States have Internet access. Pretty good for a 10-year surge don't you think?
So really I don't see a problem here, wait see how things go, and honestly I really don't give a fling flip if someone isn't using the Internet. It's really up to them and there is nothing holding them back from using it, whether you're poor, black, white, green, pink, purple, gray, yellow, Klingon, Romulan, or all those other aliens you see on TV but never really see.
- lakdjfalkdj - cuz all the good nicks were taken:)
Remember that "gods and clods" theory presented on South Park? Well, this is gods and clods in action. But what Katz misses is that there isn't anything to hold people back from computing. There are tons of ways for ANYONE in this country to get online, as long as they WANT TO. We all know about the poor "insert nonwhite race here" kid who busted ass to get into a good college on scholarships and do something great with his/her life. And the net works the same way, nothing will hold you back if you really look.
America has always been a country where anyone willing to find a way can do anything he or she wants to. And there are plenty of ways for the poor, or minorities to get onto the net. But for some reason there is a disparity between the motivated poor/minority/etc and whites. Imagine that. Kinda like that whole disparity in college attendance.
I don't know why folks, and I can't say I like it, but to me it just seems like this is the way America is always going to work out. The net just makes the split more obvious because it is so new and growing so fast, being the center of so much attention. But overall it is the same old thing. There will be those with great jobs living wonderful lives enhanced by the net, and those who get paid to say "you want fries with that?" And if the split happens to be along a "racial line" (who defines race anyway? think about it. Race can NOT EVER be signifigantly defined due to human differences, which makes this whole argument invalid. There are NO RACES. PERIOD.), well, then so be it.
For some reason or another the US seems to always confound racial inequality with class inequality. The fact of the matter is, Blacks are generally worse off in this country because Blacks are generally poorer because of this country's history and because in this country if you are born into poverty chances are you will die in poverty. If you do not believe this last point, just take a trip to an urban poor area and figure out how these kids are going to survive without basic utilities.
Btw, if you are planning on dying ever, you better have money. I worked at the county home for six-months for one of my pre-medicine classes, hospice is death with dignity, for those who cannot afford it, you die bed sore ridden, malnourished, and overseen by a staff without adequate education. But then again, you probably don't know any of those people.
I find it very interesting that proponents laize-faire capitalism are all for subsidizing, helping out, and bailing out US industry, but go into conniption fits when a suggestion is made that we should try to bring the bottom third of the country out of the third world. State protection for the rich, tough love for everyone else.
But wait. The reason you have had so many opportunities and such an easy life is because of your obvious genetic superiority, "they" are all just plain lasy and stupid. In order to make this trite accusation one must first have no working knowledge of modern Darwinian evolution or genetics. Will the man touting social Darwinism please pick up a book on biology! Then again, who am I to ruin your self-promoting psychological justification.
If the objectivists would only come down to reality, they would realize that capitalism is an extreme, like communism, that can never really exist off of paper in a pure form. The market must have safe guards to protect us from unwanted effects and privatization should only be used in situations suited to market competition.
I'm not entirely convinced computers are all that important.
They are for me, but that's my own choice of career and obsession.
Yes, there are some basic computer skills that just about every job and college require. And you can pick those up in a few hours at the library. The complicated stuff is specific to the company or school.
And my kids get good use out of my machine, looking things up and writing papers. But the web research they do is slow and the results are unreliable. Writing papers with a pencil is still not only viable but a good idea much of the time.
I'm starting to consider the idea that being unwebbed might, like being off TV, be an advantage. Yeah, I'm a hypocrite, being unwebbed is an advantage that I'm suggesting for others, not me. The web is my job and my personal problem.
I'm not saying I'm right, here. I'm asking a question that I think we've missed. I'm willing to entertain the idea, and I'm willing to be convinced, that every kid should be wired in. But I'm not taking it as given.
Fear my wrath, please, fear my wrath?
Homer
We apologize for the inconvenience.
I don't think that's accurate at all. You pretty much have to be able to read to get along in society at all--just think, if you can't read, how in the hell are you going to be able to make sense of TV Guide or the Prevue Channel? That's incentive enough to get folks reading.
The true problem is that people don't read. TV/video games offer far more in the way of instant gratification than sitting down with Moby-Dick or even Salem's Lot. If there were some way to get people thinking that reading was exciting and instantly gratifying, literacy rates would skyrocket. (Yeah, right.)
If a kid can't read, no job period. All the net training in the world would not make a difference if a child cannot read.
Last time I checked, an awful lot of the info on the WWW was still in good 'ol text format. And don't forget E-mail, either. It's quite possible that the Net/WWW would get people interested in reading--how could you use IRC/message boards/ whatever without being able to read? (This'd also give kids practice in decoding 31337 t3xt and stuff, but I digress...)
The Net is a tool, yes--probably the most widespread and complex tool humans have built yet. Asking large groups of people to use it responsibly and well without training is like expecting a chimp to pilot a 747. I think we'll get there eventually, but there will always be pr0n, 31337 kiddiez, and virtual illiterates using it--just as there are plenty of horrible drivers polluting the interstates. C'est la vie.
Give a monkey a brain and he'll swear he's the center of the universe.
It all comes down to the old phrase, teach a man to fish and he will eat for a day etc... Some people just do not value the importance of the internet. This is not a new idea. Industrialization of society was scoffed at by the learned artisians, persons during the Dark ages were activitly discouraged from learning by those in charge. This happens whenever a wholesale shift in the fabric of society happens. As cruel and heartless as it sounds, we can make access available to everyone, but we cannot make them use it. The old horse and water cliché.
On the subject of the corrpution of children, every form of mass media has been blamed when it was new. You don't think that the baby boom generation (those in power now) invented the phrase, Vast Wasteland, and Nattering Nabobs of Negativism, do you? No, that was invented by the radio generation. Before that, corruption came in the form of smutty books, talkin' pi'tures and so on right back to cave drawings, no doubt.
"You just can't go around drawing bison on the walls! Think of the children!"
I can just see it now. Another massive federal program to give a computer to people who most likely don't want one. I've got news, the train is leaving, either be on it, or stand on the platform.
Do you folks know that there are organizations trying to help people get access, get literate, get wired, fix up old computers, and so on?
My organization, Oregon Public Networking, helps people in rural Oregon get wired. We train them. We fix up old computers. Sometimes we help teach them to read and write, too. Sometimes we help them find social services, on or off the net.
There's probably a community network, or community technology center near you. If not, I can help you start one.
Now, I'm not talking to the free market libertarian crew, here. I'm talking to the people who believe in equity of opportunity, and that people want to help themselves but don't know how.
Even as staunch a capitalist as Carnegie knew that when he funded public libraries and turned them into a given of the American landscape -- in the past hundred years. Horace Mann did that when he started free public education, less than 200 years ago in this country.
Where would y'all have been without libraries and schools? Well, public networking, and access to computers is the next thing like that. It's our generation's gift.
So check out the material at Oregon Public Networking, especially the part with real stories of how people help themselves with net access, and check out my inet99 paper on public policy and the digital divide.
And if you'd like to help me, I could use some help putting together a slash-based community at digitaldivide.org, as a more friendly space to discuss how to help the people who *aren't* making money on this gig.
The net is empowering. If you want to keep it to yourself, that's your option, but I think it's selfish and fearful. There are a lot of us who believe that everyone should have the opportunity to make the most of their life, and we should all be helping each other live better.
Peace,
Shava Nerad
shava@efn.org
Um, newsflash? The 'net hasn't been government supported or regulated (and whose government do you mean, anyway? it's an international entity) for quite some time, early nineties or so. NSI/ICANN are not government-affiliated (contractors, max). NSF funding for the 'net stopped years 'n years ago.
Oh, and the gubmint paying for everyone to have access is a *terrible* idea. Not only is it a stupid use of funds that are, like all funds, extracted under what's basically threat of deadly force (men with guns will come and take your shit if you don't pay taxes -- try it sometime), but it opens the floodgates wide, way wide, for government information stranglehold.
China, for example, tightly regulates I-net access and content -- it's not universal access, but it's single-point. If you have 'net at all in China, it's through the official Chinese gubmint or you're in deep kaka (dunno what the dilly-o with things in the HK is -- anyone got some info on that? HK-net vs. China-net, and freedom thereof, that is).
Before the Cox report, I would have argued that our gubmint is pretty different from China's. Now, of course, the differences seem to be, ah, not so deep.
Minority access to the 'net is a self-correcting problem, or it would be left to itself. Nonwhites have about the same random distribution of intellect as whitefolk; they'll catch on to what the pretty flashing lights coming from the mysterious boxes are all about, I promise.
gomi
Could you concisely and unemotionally explain to me how taxing cable and tv sets to pay for books and libraries will increase black literacy? I'm afraid I don't see the connection.
Now, school vouchers, so people could send their children to good schools, instead of into the killing floor/sewer system/jail of current public education, that might help a bit.
gomi
I am really getting tired of hearing from people that (for the most part) have had the choice to have a computer and/or the internet available to them from the get-go talk about how "obviously" the people that don't have those things don't want them. That isn't true. Those people can't get them as easily as you did, or they would have them.
As someone pointed out earlier, it is quite silly to read a bunch of technologically-minded people talking about others who aren't. I agree that the internet and home computing are still in their infancy, but that doesn't mean we should "let nature take its course" like it has before, with TV, electricity, and running water. In fact, it took heavy government intervention to get TV's to be everywhere. In the first part, they gave away airwaves to the Big Three networks, and on the second part, local governments got community antenna's and called it 'cable TV'.
Now, I believe that anything we (the technologically savvy) can do to help others to realize the power available to them through the use of the internet and/or home computing is warranted and even mandatory, should we want to call ourselves Good People (TM). To that end, free local computer labs with good (T1 or better) connections to the internet should be provided, with better technology in the schools, and this should be done in the urban areas first because they are, statistically, more in need than suburbs, and have higher population densities than rural areas.
Also, a good media campaign (a la Drug Council ads) targetted at those who are least likely to spontaneously start using computers needs to take place. The main reason people that I know who don't use computers/internet don't use them is that they can't percieve the use of them. This is most likely the case for our less connected countrymen, as well.
Although I've proposed some solutions here, the main purpose of this post is to impress upon the readers here that it is a great fallacy to believe that others have had the same opportunities, background, motivations, etc. as you. In fact, most people (prepare to be shocked) have had lives entirely different from yours. As such, in order to appreciate the things you take for granted as being 'good,' they must sometimes have it explained to them why, in fact, it is good. If you grew up in downtown Chicago or Detroit (or any other decaying urban area), and had to walk through gang-controlled playgrounds to get to school every day, and had to eat government food, sleep on soiled, beat-up mattresses, and wear ratty, third-generation clothes, do you believe, seriously, that you would have had the 'motivation' to pull yourself to where you are now? If you do, you are either the single most motivated person in the world, or a self-important idiot.
It is completely unfair to ask two runners of otherwise equal ability to compete when one has to start from one mile back, carrying 150 pounds of dead weight, and hop on one foot to finish, but for some reason the other racer always favors this situation. Strangely enough, he never goes back to help his fellow, though he would want that help were their situations reversed.
William Hughes
ristoril AT iname DOT com
You aspire to be a spell-bot. Why not just write one and free yourself to go outside for some fresh air? Or are you just trying to foster tolerance?
-- thinkyhead software and media
A few hundred years ago in many cases minorities (natives) were forced to speak English and were beaten if they used their native language. They wanted to assimilate the natives into their culture "for their own good".
My question is: is there any difference between advertising blitzes trying to coerce minorities into getting computers for their own good and forcing them to speak another language for their own good? Isn't it racist to say that what these "minorities" are doing on their free time isn't worthy, and that they should be spending time online instead?
I love computers. It's a hobby, it's my major, and it's my job. I definitley have benefits to having a computer at home. However, should some kid who really loves to say, build model airplanes give up his free time to a computer when all he really wants to do is build airplanes in real life? It would have little or no benefit for him compared to his current hobby.
I got sucked into the computer world, and if not for computers I would still probably want to be a marine biologist. I would have never wasted so many hours online that I have, instead reading books or actually getting outside.
Sure, computers are nice for research reports and typing up essays, so by all means have all schools allow access to computers for their students, but it is not necessary to have them in every household.
I'm 19 years old, I have no credit. If I walk into bestbuy or compusa with a big handful of 50 dollar bills why are they going to check my credit? It's not that hard to amass a little cash.
Kintanon
Check out JoshJitsu.info for Brazilian Ji
But does a black family, in the same income, find it as easy. This isn't a payout of the U.S., my own country (Australia) does not do very well on this score at all.
The fact remains that ajust by reading the postings here I can tell a black person attending university would be assumed to be receiving some form of assistance, and that a lot, (I'm not saing all) people would assume that this is wrong.
I don't think many people whould argue if I said you were more likely to go to Uni if your parents also went to uni. While you can say that now, a black person would not be stopped from going to uni, was that true a generation ago?
So there are a lot of these so called "minority groups" whos parents didn't study? and because of this overt discrimination a generation ago, people are disadvantaged now, even though the overt discrimination is no longer there.
This is just a theory, but in my country a black person in much less likely to finish university then a white person. This would indicate that these is something discouraging them from continuing.
I think that this assistance should be given out to the most disadvantaged. Who in your society fits into this category?
Democracy isn't about no one telling you what to do. It's about everyone telling you what to do.
Lickleider's fine sentiments are fine, but the net was built to build better bombs.
Actually not so much to make the bombs but to allow them to be deployed after a pre-emptive strike.
Loads of people are not using the internet as much as white americans: Japanese, Europeans, Mexicans. Maybe its because most of the content is aimed at white americans at the moment.
It's not a racist thing, it's a cultural thing. Perhaps minority americans have better things to do than surf the web.
This whole "issue" seems to be a case of trying to apply the old Racism template to a new venue. The problem I have with this is that there are other limits and barriers to universal net access. Some people, some of them even wealthy people, have no interest whatsoever in sitting on a chair pecking at colored buttons.
There is also a geographical issue. My parents have retired up to Grand Marais, Minnesota. There is only one internet provider in town there, and any of the 'national' services are a long distance call. A friend who lives in Brainerd has the same problem. There isn't a means of reasonable access for many people for reasons such as this.
Also, online discussions like this are inherently slanted, in that the people who have no interest in playing on the internet don't have a voice. I don't buy the notion that they are all luddites or technology haters. Maybe they'd rather be out in the power boat or flying a plane. Maybe they're in the darkroom developing their latest roll of nature photographs. Maybe they're getting more done on their embedded programming project or the home control system they are building because they don't have a bunch of distractions on their computer like a web brower and net connection. We'll never know, of course, because we only talk to ourselves.
I don't believe the charts for percentage of US households by race/origin are not a very useful indicator...
What is the distribution within the income brackets? Those salary ranges are pretty wide and if most minorities fall towards the lower end and most whites fall towards the upper end (which I believe to be the case) you have your answer.
How many people are in these households? If the minorities average a greater number of kids than the average white household then that's also a big factor.
I'm not sure if this is a large enough factor to skew the stats but how many of these people have home offices or are in a position which requires them to own a PC?
I don't doubt that whites are more likely to own a PC than blacks or hispanics in equivalent situations, but I don't think the stats tell the whole story.
And not promoting non "opensourced" books here, he might have the bright conclusion that hey. We don't want every American in this country to be computer literate. In fact, It guarantees high salaries for the people that actually read slashdot.
Katz might not have been clued enough to come to this conclusion because well, he writes books for a living. Katz doesn't exactly have to worry about what he will be doing for work in twenty years.
I on the other hand have the concern that this boom market of jobs may be sated in the next ten years by the outsourcing of most IT labor from countries such as India and Pakistan. My future job might just not be economically viable one day for an employer faced with the opportunity of cheap technical labor from developing nations.
Katz doesn't consider these things, though. Who would expect him to? It's easy for an Author with his head in the clouds to preach equal opportunity for all, but the fact of the matter is if everything was "equal" the way he wants the world to be, the only people that would make money would be stock holders of large public corporations, and of course, the authors that would continue to write books about them.
This country is about initiative. It's not about total exposure. Anyone who lives in America today has the ability to use a personal computer if they choose to do so. I could safely even go a step further and say that ownership of a personal computer is financially plausable for any tax paying citizen in this day and age. Katz's opinion is nothing more then scare tactics that sell his next book, except it's just not the sixties anymore.
I dare Katz to cancel his publishing contract and put his book out for free online. Then donate all profits to the charity of his choice. Given the amount of socialist utopian bullshit he preches, this should be the kind of action that should be expected of him.
And thanks to the person here who posted additional links. I take the Digital Divide very seriously, experiencing it first hand as a columnist and an individual. I suggest the nay-sayers here walk in a mile in my shoes.
RA
There is a key fallacy in what Kratz is pushing:
That things should be equal.
No, I'll break the political correctness and say things had damn well better stay unequal. There has to be someone sweeping the floor. If thats a black or hispanic fine. If thats a white person thats fine too. I never care as long as its swept.
Computers require literacy to function. That rules nice segment of the country right off the top. In fact that rules out a sizable portion of the world. If you can't get someone to the point of reading and writing, complaining that they don't have a computer isn't going to help.
Computers can be had for litteraly free these days if you agree to view advertising. It can't get much cheaper than that. What would people like to do? Pay people to have a computer to make the stats look nice? What does that solve? Not a thing. You haven't addressed the basic problem and that is the people's own choices.
The stats themselves indicate that incomes being equal blacks and hispanics aren't spending their money on computers like the whites. If they're screwing themselves, its apparently their own choice. CompUsa doesn't care if you are purple or green, as long as your money is good they'll sell you anything you like. Someone would have to have their heads in the dirt deeper than any politician not to have heard of the internet and all the "glories" of it (in quotes since its only as good as you use it for, more on that soap box in a minute). So people are making a choice that the 'experts' don't agree with. Deal with it. Thats life. Trying to 'solve' it is another way of saying you're going to force your views down someones throats. They tried that during the Crusades. I would have hoped the world had progressed further in its attitudes, but apparently not yet.
The internet is basicly a tool. You can make it whatever you like. If you're into pictures of 11 year old girls getting fisted then you can see it. If you're into reading the latest on quantum mechanics you can get that too. However neither use is avaliable if you don't know how to do the basic research and neither is useful at all unless you know how to apply your knowledge. As such handing it to the poor is almost useless. They are poor for a reason. Typically because they aren't that well educated. I'll say two things: First I'm damn glad there are some poorly educated people in the world. Otherwise I wouldn't have someone to clean up the trash and like. I could do it myself but why bother when I can have someone else do it. Second a computer in of itself can't teach a thing. You have to have the desire, ability and resources to spend time using it to leverage actual information that can teach you. The computer and internet is a card catalog system. It can show you where the books are but it sure can't read them for you and dump the info into your head.
In summary my opinion is obviously don't dork with the system. Those who will advance using the computer and internet will do so, those who won't, won't. There will always be haves and have-nots. Fact of life is there is limited resources and that means if one person is a have the guy next door may very well not be. Since stores aren't discriminating about selling computers to people then its not a society issue but a personal issue within those making their own decisions. I say deep six the report and let the world turn without micromanaging.
It will anyways.
The Commerce Department, like all governments, is concerned with justifying the need for increased government programs. This is generally done by fragmenting the population into groups and then creating programs that are alleged to benefit small groups while distributing the cost to other larger groups. The actual primary beneficiaries of these programs, where most of the money goes, are the government employees paid to administer them.
Because of the political sensitivity which means that racial issues are non-debatable, race is often used as a criterion by which to group the population on the assumption that it is an independent variable, when in fact it should not be so assumed.
An obvious question based on the report is whether or not the disparity between urban and rural households accounts for much of the "racial" differential. Since, according to the report, rural households are less likely to be connected, does this explain the racial disparity when the differences in population are taken into account?
Looking to race as an explanatory variable should occur only when all others have been eliminated. But government does not behave this way because it knows that apparent racial bias doesn't get rationally debated and so the "need" is accepted on emotional grounds.
We must make government legally color-blind so that it will stop using racial bias to continually expand government. Without government promoting division between the races, these divisions will eventually disappear.
How many of you, before hopping on your favorite ideological high horse, took the time to figure out what it would cost to actually SOLVE this problem? If spendthrift Big Government hands each of the 100 million households in the US $300 for a basic Net-ready computer, that will cost (whip out those calculator tools, you thought-enhanced Net cognoscenti!) just 30 billion dollars. Limit it to households below the median income ($35,000) -- a whole $15 billion: less than 1% (calculators again!) of the $1.8 trillion Federal budget, or the cost of 9 B1 bombers. Only capitalism could make today's Net world possible. That doesn't mean there is no place for government action to hurry this offspring of ARPA and NSF further down the learning curve. The payback would be massive. Examples: - Pass out a few more $billion in grants to put curriculum material for every level of education online. Many schools will benefit, far more than if the same amount had been spent on conventional aid. - If most Americans fill out their tax forms and suchlike online, that alone will repay the Government for this program over and over each year. - Housebound elderly and physically handicapped people can bank, shop, interact with medical resources etc., lessening their dependence on scarce aides in a time of cutbacks. - Poor people without cars or access to malls can buy at suburban prices, handle their finances safely, get information, and organize politically. (BTW contrary to the racist nonsense in many of these postings, experiments that provided ghetto families with adequate support and computer equipment found they assimilated the Net beautifully; see Nardi and O'Day, _Information Ecologies_, MIT Press 1999, Ch 12.) Bright people will find Net resources as useful in their own escape from poverty as brick-and-mortar libraries and schools were to their parents' generation.
It seems to me that internet-censorship is a specific american issue. Nearly no one cares in Europe. If a 13 year old boy wants to see bare breast let him go. It hasn't harmed mosst of us so it will neither harm him.