Absolutely right,
Let's say they are rigorously trying to peer with a technology that -unfortunately- is only partially developed. The impatience he describes seems to resemble the frustration many of us have with the general acceptance of a networked society, and the principals of information availability. I see a drastic the discrepancy between my ability to "google" me some information or google-cache hack papers or abstracts, and that my parents "generation". Also the ability to filter presented information seems to have a strong base in my "generation".
As of my perception, shared with a broad of my friends, most of our (german) education system seems to reject the wikipedia, which is not of any surprise at all if you take into account, the hostility of mainstream media towards it. Yet the wikipedia, or merely its concept has won everyone i know from my age down to my youngest brother.
It is unlikely that this will change unless something even better comes up. We have already adapted, it would be hard to "fix it". Speaking adaption - Yes, allot of data will have to be moved into our global archives but this is ultimately necessary and makes pretty much sense, because future generations will rely heavily on this kind of technology. But as you said it's an evolutionary step that has to be taken.
At last my mode of operation has changed from the classical autonomous mind - with only temporary access to a general index of information - thus heavily relying on "cached" information, which has to be pre-processed in an unnecessarily lengthy process to a general reliance on the internet. In contrast to the trail and error method used right now, you can reinforce knowledge right at the point of need. Usually you don't look up one piece of information more than twice.
So the lack of ability to process information, that is broadly discussed, in my opinion merely represents the rejection of autonomous operation:) Plainly speaking: The refusal of institutions to let it's students rely on publicly available information at any time.
Ultimately the practice and experience of autonomous confrontation, having to rely on "cached" knowledge is not bad at all. and is still wishful in degree evaluating exams of any kind. But this is certainly an aspect, that has to be addressed in a different way in the future.
Im still surprised to find people exclaiming over the quality of wikipedia articles, instead of participating in the process and fix the faulty information if they can prove their superior knowledge. But this ought to happen fast before there is no one left to challenge the contents and knowledge that is injected into the millions and billions to come. And this is a task for all of mankind.
Slashdot Mirror
Absolutely right,
Let's say they are rigorously trying to peer with a technology that -unfortunately- is only partially developed. The impatience he describes seems to resemble the frustration many of us have with the general acceptance of a networked society, and the principals of information availability. I see a drastic the discrepancy between my ability to "google" me some information or google-cache hack papers or abstracts, and that my parents "generation". Also the ability to filter presented information seems to have a strong base in my "generation".
As of my perception, shared with a broad of my friends, most of our (german) education system seems to reject the wikipedia, which is not of any surprise at all if you take into account, the hostility of mainstream media towards it. Yet the wikipedia, or merely its concept has won everyone i know from my age down to my youngest brother.
It is unlikely that this will change unless something even better comes up. We have already adapted, it would be hard to "fix it". Speaking adaption - Yes, allot of data will have to be moved into our global archives but this is ultimately necessary and makes pretty much sense, because future generations will rely heavily on this kind of technology. But as you said it's an evolutionary step that has to be taken.
At last my mode of operation has changed from the classical autonomous mind - with only temporary access to a general index of information - thus heavily relying on "cached" information, which has to be pre-processed in an unnecessarily lengthy process to a general reliance on the internet. In contrast to the trail and error method used right now, you can reinforce knowledge right at the point of need. Usually you don't look up one piece of information more than twice. :) Plainly speaking: The refusal of institutions to let it's students rely on publicly available information at any time.
So the lack of ability to process information, that is broadly discussed, in my opinion merely represents the rejection of autonomous operation
Ultimately the practice and experience of autonomous confrontation, having to rely on "cached" knowledge is not bad at all. and is still wishful in degree evaluating exams of any kind. But this is certainly an aspect, that has to be addressed in a different way in the future.
Im still surprised to find people exclaiming over the quality of wikipedia articles, instead of participating in the process and fix the faulty information if they can prove their superior knowledge. But this ought to happen fast before there is no one left to challenge the contents and knowledge that is injected into the millions and billions to come. And this is a task for all of mankind.
cherrZ,
anx