You say, Well, because currently the web is still in the transitional period between the days of ARPAnet and purely academic use and acceptance as a medium through which the general public can communicate. And as such, it's still in a state where teething problems overwhelm content.
Well, that might be all well and true. But does that change the fact that millions upon millions of people are using the internet so heavily? That's the basic problem I see with your whole arguement. You argue that it's still not ALL that common, eg: due to money constraints, and you say that most web users are in above average tax brackets. You argue that the study will create divisons in our society, the timeless clash between the "have"s and "have-nots". But that's not the point at all!! You are missing the entire point!! MANY people are using the internet in our society RIGHT NOW. Given this fact, that it has become such an important tool and resource for such people makes it worthy of documenting historically. Why are celebrities documented so much in the media? What percent of the population do they represent? Like 0.01% or something? Do we exclude WWII because it only happened to white Europeans, surely Europeans don't make up the majority of the world's population; does that make it not worth recording?
Of course not. Your argument is inherently flawed, and misses the point completely. The fact of the matter is that the Web is an extremely important factor in a LOT of people's lives right now. Such a technology has never had such an overwhelming impact on a socitey before, EVER. As such, it certainly does deserve to be documented. I hope you see where you went wrong.
Slashdot Mirror
You say, Well, because currently the web is still in the transitional period between the days of ARPAnet and purely academic use and acceptance as a medium through which the general public can communicate. And as such, it's still in a state where teething problems overwhelm content.
Well, that might be all well and true. But does that change the fact that millions upon millions of people are using the internet so heavily? That's the basic problem I see with your whole arguement. You argue that it's still not ALL that common, eg: due to money constraints, and you say that most web users are in above average tax brackets. You argue that the study will create divisons in our society, the timeless clash between the "have"s and "have-nots". But that's not the point at all!! You are missing the entire point!! MANY people are using the internet in our society RIGHT NOW. Given this fact, that it has become such an important tool and resource for such people makes it worthy of documenting historically. Why are celebrities documented so much in the media? What percent of the population do they represent? Like 0.01% or something? Do we exclude WWII because it only happened to white Europeans, surely Europeans don't make up the majority of the world's population; does that make it not worth recording?
Of course not. Your argument is inherently flawed, and misses the point completely. The fact of the matter is that the Web is an extremely important factor in a LOT of people's lives right now. Such a technology has never had such an overwhelming impact on a socitey before, EVER. As such, it certainly does deserve to be documented. I hope you see where you went wrong.
heh why is this post under the topic "Microsoft"? It should really be under, "It's funny, laugh".
at least people are doing useful stuff with their time...