Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

America's View of the Internet

Zonk posted more than 6 years ago | from the just-a-little-bit-sad dept.

The Internet 285

Alien54 writes "It won't make you dinner or rub your feet, but nearly one in four Americans say that the Internet can serve as a substitute for a significant other for some period of time, according to a new poll released today by 463 Communications and Zogby International. The poll examined views of what role the Internet plays in people's lives and whether government should play a greater role in regulating it. The online survey was conducted Oct. 4-8, 2007, included 9,743 adult respondents nationwide, and carries a margin of error of +/- 1.0 percentage point. From the results blog post: 'More than half of Americans believe that Internet content such as video should be controlled in some way by the government. Only 33% of 18 to 24 year-olds supported government stepping in on content, while 72% of those over 70 years of age support government regulation and ratings. More than one in four Americans has a social networking profile such as MySpace or Facebook. Among 18-24 year-olds, it's almost mandatory - 78% of them report having a social networking profile. Americans may love the Internet, but most are not prepared to implant it into their brain, even if it was safe. Only 11% of respondents said they be willing to safely implant a device that enabled them to use their mind to access the Internet.'"

cancel ×

285 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

This American's view of the internet? (5, Funny)

GungaDan (195739) | more than 6 years ago | (#21131981)

I'm still waiting for the fucking images to load.

Dumbledore uses a Mac (0, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21132311)

He dreams of wands.

Re:This American's view of the internet? (2, Funny)

MarsDefenseMinister (738128) | more than 6 years ago | (#21132329)

You've obviously never been married. I envy you.

Re:This American's view of the internet? (3, Interesting)

nyteroot (311287) | more than 6 years ago | (#21132551)

Only 11% of respondents said they be willing to safely implant a device that enabled them to use their mind to access the Internet.


Why not? It'd make http://xkcd.com/333/ [xkcd.com] a lot less awkward..

Internet, Head (5, Funny)

gQuigs (913879) | more than 6 years ago | (#21132015)

I don't like the idea of anyone sticking tubes in my head. Imagine if they overflowed!

Re:Internet, Head (1)

Divide By Zero (70303) | more than 6 years ago | (#21132061)

I've said it before and I'll say it again:

Frag that, chummer. I want my datajack NOW.

...just gotta get the kinks worked out on the virus scanning...

Re:Internet, Head (1)

Knara (9377) | more than 6 years ago | (#21132351)

It'd be interesting to see what sort of thing various different people envision when they think of an "internet implant".

Re:Internet, Head (2, Funny)

Kadin2048 (468275) | more than 6 years ago | (#21132607)

More than that, where would they implant it [fleshlight.com] ?

11% (3, Funny)

RandoX (828285) | more than 6 years ago | (#21132027)

Define "safely".

Re:11% (2, Insightful)

weirdcrashingnoises (1151951) | more than 6 years ago | (#21132107)

If it was safe for implanting AND safe from hacking, then i'd say sign me up, but i doubt that second part is possible.

Re:11% (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21132221)

Why would you want it to be safe from hacking? I for sure would want one of those if I could hack it, and run Linux on it!

Re:11% (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21132277)

Does it run Linux?

Brain implants? (4, Funny)

Naviztirf (856598) | more than 6 years ago | (#21132033)

Why was implanting a device in your brain to control the internet even a question in this survey? Scarier, %11 said they would?!?!

Re:Brain implants? (5, Interesting)

MBGMorden (803437) | more than 6 years ago | (#21132199)

Depends on what method of control they're talking about. If they mean online games (or pr0n), then a neural interface would be absolutely awesome.

Especially simulated reality hooked directly into the brain. We know from dreams that the brain can process things quicker where our sense of time passing is not "real time" (ie, a dream that seems to go on for 30 minutes might take place in a MUCH shorter ammount of real time).

How cool would it be to go on a simulated 2 week vacation to the Bahamas, but only really spend 1 hour running the simulation? Or perhaps it could even be reduced further in time. Why get upset over death when we could live an entire lifetime of extra activites in a single evening (think of that old Star Trek TNG episode where Picard lived an alt life where he was an old man with grandchildren and then upon death reawoke on the bridge, with only 2-3 minutes having passed). Of course, the addiction possibility here would be high. Imagine how much work place productivity would suffer if every time an employee came back to work each morning they've spent a virtual 6-months away in paradise.

Re:Brain implants? (3, Insightful)

MyNymWasTaken (879908) | more than 6 years ago | (#21132349)

We Can Remember It for You Wholesale

Re:Brain implants? (0, Flamebait)

Spudtrooper (1073512) | more than 6 years ago | (#21132357)

GET YOUR ASS TO MARS

Re:Brain implants? (1)

Knara (9377) | more than 6 years ago | (#21132401)

Except that workplace productivity could potentially skyrocket similarly.

Re:Brain implants? (5, Interesting)

blhack (921171) | more than 6 years ago | (#21132501)

I wonder if the brain has a usable life though?
Right now, our brains only last for about 80-100 years.....
I wonder if there would be any strange side effects from giving it 1000 years worth of experience?

If we really did accomplish this, imagine how much faster we could progress technologically......allow devs to drop into one of these things and we could have software that would normally take months to build developed in mere minutes!

Re:Brain implants? (1)

ObiWanStevobi (1030352) | more than 6 years ago | (#21132735)

Nonsense. Once the first "sex with Angelina Jolie" and "sex with Brad Pitt" sims came out, the human race would come grinding to a hault.

Re:Brain implants? (4, Funny)

shigelojoe (590080) | more than 6 years ago | (#21132875)

On the contrary, I think the grinding would never stop.

Re:Brain implants? (1)

pushing-robot (1037830) | more than 6 years ago | (#21132525)

I dunno, I'd think I could be pretty productive at a job where I only had to put in eight hours every six months, and nothing at work changed during the intervening period.

Of course, just like every other time- or labor-saving invention, it wouldn't make our lives easier. It would be adapted for business, and no one would be able to keep up in the labor market without putting in six months of work every night. Such is the price of a free market.

Re:Brain implants? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21132817)

I dunno, I'd think I could be pretty productive at a job where I only had to put in eight hours every six months.

Yeah, until your boss found out. Then you would be expected to work six months every day, and only get paid for eight hours.

Total Recall (2, Interesting)

sm62704 (957197) | more than 6 years ago | (#21132599)

"Hi, I'm Johnny Cab!"

If they mean online games (or pr0n), then a neural interface would be absolutely awesome.

I'd rather have a female R. Jander Panell [wikipedia.org] than a porn implant. "Jandra" wouldn't need a positronic brain, conventional modern robotics (heated and lubricated of course) would do, controlled by a conventional computer like the one you have in front of you.

As to games, I'd rather have a dedicated building with holographs. You have the advantage of getting a little exersise, too, like with the fuckbot.

However, I am a cyborg, and have been since 2006. I have an implant in my left eyeball, my friend Tom calls me "the six thousand dollar man" because of my bionic eye; click my sig for details. But again, I didn't let them stick a needle in my eye without a damned good reason.

-mcgrew

Re:Brain implants? (Picard, TNG, movie) (1)

Laebshade (643478) | more than 6 years ago | (#21132641)

think of that old Star Trek TNG episode where Picard lived an alt life where he was an old man with grandchildren and then upon death reawoke on the bridge, with only 2-3 minutes having passed

FYI, that was the movie, Star Trek: Generations. Picard was caught in the Nexus.

Re:Brain implants? (Picard, TNG, movie) (1)

bytemap (890960) | more than 6 years ago | (#21132713)

I think the GP is referring to this [wikipedia.org] .

Re:Brain implants? (Picard, TNG, movie) (1)

Naviztirf (856598) | more than 6 years ago | (#21132727)

No, it was the episode with the flute... he lived 30 years in 20 seconds.

Re:Brain implants? (Picard, TNG, movie) (1)

Verteiron (224042) | more than 6 years ago | (#21132863)

Actually I suspect the GP was referring to this episode [wikipedia.org] . I know it's one of my favorites.

Have you considered the benefits? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21132337)

Scarier, %11 said they would?!?!

Check out Ghost in the shell [wikipedia.org] for some thoughtful fiction on what a direct mind-machine link to the Internet might be like.

Also check out Transhumanism [wikipedia.org] and the Singularity [wikipedia.org] .

Here are some of my own thoughts, though:

A "thought" can be defined as the firing of neurons within the brain. As such, the depth and complexity of any given thought has a very finite upper cap: one's current neural capacity. However, by directly linking our brains to exterior computational devices, we will be able to raise that limit.

A mind-machine interface will empower humanity to achieve a level of cognition unlike anything this planet has ever seen. The kinds of devices we will be able to create, and the kinds of lives we will be able to live, are beyond our wildest dreams.

When presented with this kind of power, you would rather cling to your comfortable old limitations, as a zoo animal clings to its cage?

Cowards don't evolve.

Re:Brain implants? (1)

magisterx (865326) | more than 6 years ago | (#21132879)

I find it scary that 89% didn't say they would. How much longer must we suffer through using our hands?

One in four say it could replace an SO? (4, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21132037)

I had absolutely no idea that so many people lived in their basements.

Re:One in four say it could replace an SO? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21132521)

I had absolutely no idea that so many people lived in their basements.
If you left your basement more often you would had known :)

Re:One in four say it could replace an SO? (1)

Rolgar (556636) | more than 6 years ago | (#21132815)

Newsweek did an online article [newsweek.com] on this just last week, although their explanation was job fulfillment instead of internet usage.

Significant Other? (5, Funny)

bazald (886779) | more than 6 years ago | (#21132065)

It won't make you dinner or rub your feet, but nearly one in four Americans say that the Internet can serve as a substitute for a significant other for some period of time
You're all I need, Slashdot.

Re:Significant Other? (1)

Grandiloquence (1180099) | more than 6 years ago | (#21132101)

Slashdot mods you -1: Creepy.

My SO (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21132067)

he Internet can serve as a substitute for a significant other for some period of time
What's this "can" stuff?

Re:My SO (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21132207)

> > The Internet can serve as a substitute for a significant other for some period of time
>
> What's this "can" stuff?

Never mind him. He's new here. What's that "substitute" stuff?

(I think I prefer to stay inside...)

Well, it is communication. (5, Insightful)

Penguinisto (415985) | more than 6 years ago | (#21132071)

Problem is, it isn't face-to-face communication.

Sure, you can keep in touch with lots of other people online, but when the (typical) user's entire social interaction is reduced to impassioned debates, downloading pr0n, FPS games, pissing off people on the other side of the planet with sophomoric trolling, and the whole time bullshitting about who you are and what you do in RL?

Gah - almost makes one fear for Humanity's future.

/P

Re:Well, it is communication. (1)

Hoi Polloi (522990) | more than 6 years ago | (#21132173)

The article reads better if you play The Who's "Substitute" in the background.

Re:Well, it is communication. (1)

king-manic (409855) | more than 6 years ago | (#21132513)

Problem is, it isn't face-to-face communication.

Sure, you can keep in touch with lots of other people online, but when the (typical) user's entire social interaction is reduced to impassioned debates, downloading pr0n, FPS games, pissing off people on the other side of the planet with sophomoric trolling, and the whole time bullshitting about who you are and what you do in RL?


But people trust your online qualification a lot less. thus you can say your a Nasa engineer but no one believes you. They'll judge you on what you say and how closely that lines up with what they believe and what they think a Nasa engineer should know.

It shifts the language too. Nuance that used to be conveyed through facial expression and body language will now be replaced by "lol" ":D" ";D" etc... Sure it isn't nearly as good but the next generation has adapted.

Re:Well, it is communication. (2, Interesting)

disckitty (681847) | more than 6 years ago | (#21132829)

> you can keep in touch with lots of other people online

I'll admit its best to get to know the people in your neighbourhood, and if you're not doing that, you should. However, in the increasingly globalized world that we live in, where lots of people and families are travelling, its nice for it to not take 3 weeks to 6 months for communication to arrive (via snail mail) nor be hugely expensive (via long distance charges).

> impassioned debates ... [&] ... pissing off people on the other side of the planet with sophomoric trolling

I'll disagree that this is a negative. I actually think its great that people are actively seeking out debates and conversing. It may not be formal, nor highly intellectual, but its amazing to hear peoples views on things. One of the nicest things about the comments on, for example, Slashdot, is that the article will state one thing, but I learn a lot more by reading peoples' comments (that may or may not be correct, but I can take the time to research them if I really care to confirm it). Further, the fact that we can interact with people on the other side of the planet is incredible, as it allows the potential for increasing contributions for discussions.

pr0n, fps and pretending you're someone you're not (which is actually akin to acting...) aren't so bad. If you want to see some potential issues with face-to-face communication, see how Japan is handling keeping seniors entertained (via dolls). Maybe if the marketplace wasn't so geared towards single-serving sales, and media so fear-oriented, we'd have more face-to-face community. On the flip side, dumb people exist on the internet no differently than down the street. And at least with the internet, you can pick and choose which people to interact with...

This just in (0, Troll)

GammaKitsune (826576) | more than 6 years ago | (#21132077)

The masses are largely idiots. Story at 11.

SUBSTITUTE for an S/O? (1)

VoxMagis (1036530) | more than 6 years ago | (#21132079)

The Internet and a TOWEL perhaps!

Rather misleading.... (4, Interesting)

UncleTogie (1004853) | more than 6 years ago | (#21132087)

More than half of Americans believe that Internet content such as video should be controlled in some way by the government. Only 33% of 18 to 24 year-olds supported government stepping in on content, while 72% of those over 70 years of age support government regulation and ratings.

Now, ask the same question, but instead substitute "TV programs" for "Internet content". I'll bet you the percentage breakdown doesn't change much.

This isn't about "internet content", it's about what standards a work of art is judged by.

Not mentioned: (1)

JK_the_Slacker (1175625) | more than 6 years ago | (#21132099)

Those 11% are all Slashdot readers.

Re:Not mentioned: (1)

Penguinisto (415985) | more than 6 years ago | (#21132149)

No, they're EMACS users...

(I'm kidding, you bastards! Then again, all that key-dancing that emacs requires would become unnecessary w/ some sort of direct brain implant control thingy... )

/P

1% error? (1)

ObiWanStevobi (1030352) | more than 6 years ago | (#21132145)

I'm not to concerned with the margin of error of a poll asking people if they want the internet in their brains. Even if it is safe, what does that even mean? Safe as in security (no one hacking your brain), health (implant doesn't actually damage your brain), or content (Think about a farm and get bombarded with animal sex pictures)?

More than half of Americans believe that Internet content such as video should be controlled in some way by the government? That can only come from a group of people where more than a tenth of them seem to think that internet directly into their brain is a good idea.

Re:1% error? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21132455)

Think about a farm and get bombarded with animal sex pictures


aaaahhhrrrggg... It just happened and I don't even have it wired to my brain.

"Only" 11% want Internet wetware? (4, Interesting)

xPsi (851544) | more than 6 years ago | (#21132147)

Only 11% of respondents said they be willing to safely implant a device that enabled them to use their mind to access the Internet.
Ahh, 11% may be small for a political poll, but 11% seems HUGE for a question like that considering it is supposed to scale up to the population at large. That would be like the entire state of California and Massachusetts together deciding to get wetware WiFi for every man, woman, and child. I expect the number of people actually willing to do such a thing in the US is much smaller than that. Neil Degrasse Tyson made a similar observation about the statistic that 93% of members of the Academy of Sciences doubt or actively disbelieve in the existence of a personal god [stephenjaygould.org] . The 93% isn't really all that surprising. That makes sense. What is surprising to me is that 7% do.

Re:"Only" 11% want Internet wetware? (1)

lordvalrole (886029) | more than 6 years ago | (#21132391)

I wonder how many of the 89% of the American population believe in Christianity. Out of those people, I am sure a lot of them think that putting chips in the bodies is the mark of the beast.

If you have ... why do you need ... ? (1)

140Mandak262Jamuna (970587) | more than 6 years ago | (#21132177)

Just yesterday I asked If you have porn do why do you need a ... [slashdot.org] . And today America is going a step above and says, If I have internet I don't need ...

Thank you, America for a quick reply.

72% of setuagenarians support restrictions (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21132185)

Luckily, Father Time will do his best to lessen their impact over the next few years.

Obligatory link (5, Insightful)

Spy der Mann (805235) | more than 6 years ago | (#21132193)

OUTSIDE [photobucket.com]
The new MMORPG from the creators of the smashing hit "IRL" [wikipedia.org]
FEATURES:
  • no monthly fee!
  • massive world to explore
  • incredible NPC AI
  • over 56,400 character archetypes
  • fully PvP
  • highest resolution graphics

Get Outside NOW!!!

Re:Obligatory link (5, Funny)

xenocide2 (231786) | more than 6 years ago | (#21132547)

* no monthly fee!
I think my landlord would disagree.

Re:Obligatory link (2, Funny)

McDee (105077) | more than 6 years ago | (#21132619)

incredible NPC AI
Sounds like you haven't been outside for a while...

Re:Obligatory link (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21132839)

no monthly fee!

LOL, free to play, but to get any of the cool shit you're going to have to shell out tons of cash. Hell, it's next to impossible to get a place to sleep without paying, and the game is rigged so that you're going to have to buy food and drink on a regular basis or your character gets more and more sluggish.

I give it 3 out of 10, the marketing makes it sound great but once you get started you find out that the marketing is full of half-truths. And half the people playing are all assholes.

The Internet vs. the Wife (1)

PhxBlue (562201) | more than 6 years ago | (#21132209)

It won't make you dinner or rub your feet ...

That's okay, neither does my wife. *Rimshot*

(Actually, she does and she would. I'm a lucky guy.)

Re:The Internet vs. the Wife (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21132639)

Lots of guys know what she does too. *Rimshot*

Re:The Internet vs. the Wife (2, Funny)

homebrewmike (709361) | more than 6 years ago | (#21132685)

She reads Slashdot, doesn't she?

More than half of americans want gov parenting! (2, Interesting)

plasmacutter (901737) | more than 6 years ago | (#21132223)

50%+ want the internet regulated?

Let me guess.. "for the children"?
I mean it has to be, otherwise they would be condoning censorship of political speech or complete corporate takeover of the internet.

I want to know what happened to parents actually, you know, parenting?!

apparently that only happens in my family.

Re:More than half of americans want gov parenting! (1, Insightful)

fredklein (532096) | more than 6 years ago | (#21132427)

Why is it always the OLD folks who want to do stuff 'for the children'? Is alzheimer's that severe in our aging population that they have totally forgotten what it's like to be a child?

Why is it always the old folks? (4, Insightful)

kabocox (199019) | more than 6 years ago | (#21132237)

Why is the always the old guys that are about to die off that enact or get crap passed so that all the rest of us living have to do what they want! If anything, I'd like the vote to be removed from those that retire or above 70 as they are too old and out of date to make decisions for the future. Heck, those under 12 are more likely to make valid decisions for the future since they'll have to live in it.

Re:Why is it always the old folks? (2, Interesting)

140Mandak262Jamuna (970587) | more than 6 years ago | (#21132333)

Respect to the views and opinion of the old people was a good survival strategy. Back in the hunter gatherer days, these people were the storehouse of knowledge. They remember which roots and berries the tribe survived during the last famine etc. So even if they were not pulling their weight in the hunts, others gave them a cut of the leg of the zebra or a woolly mastodon. But now a days, now that we have the internet to serve as the storehouse of knowledge (and much more), yeah, we really need to think what to do with the old people. First I would like to cut their social security off. I mean, come on. How can we go for lower taxes and less onerous government if these old fogeys keep going to the elections and keep voting for either a tax-and-spend Democrats or borrow-and-spend Republicans?

Re:Why is it always the old folks? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21132343)

No class is fit to govern.

-- Lord Acton

(Corollary: no age group is fit to govern.)

Re:Why is it always the old folks? (2, Insightful)

Itchyeyes (908311) | more than 6 years ago | (#21132421)

Have you talked to a 12 year old recently? I barely trust them enough to mow my lawn. The thing is, the reason that the old people pass all the laws is because they are the ones who turn up to vote. If more young people would show up at the polls they would be better represented in our government. The very fact that they don't show up seems to me as evidence that they are in fact less capable of making those decisions.

Or maybe theyre voting "none of the above" (1)

plasmacutter (901737) | more than 6 years ago | (#21132655)

Or that there is nobody actually representing them.

For instance, I have yet to meet a person 14-28 who does not download material off the internet.
It's functionally no different than taping tv or recording off the radio, and yet there is no party supporting legalization.

There is also no party supporting dmca reform, or dedicating a small fraction of military spending toward the many viable options for clean sustainable energy, or even possibly reqiurements for ecological responsibility (why does a 3x1x0.25 inch cell phone need a foot tall package?), or finding a proper strategy to step down from the very expensive and unsustainable position as "american empire", or perhaps even repealing any and all laws which has the government parenting kids rather than their biological progenitors.

No, instead they beat the same dead horse red herring issues which everyone knows are completely impertinent to national and global concerns and will never go anywhere.

It's very logical. If the store doesn't stock what you want, why would you waste your gas and time going there?

Our constitution needs to be tweaked to allow presidential candidates with the most rather than the majority of electoral votes. This would open the door to a multiparty system which would produce more representation for more people, and the competition would result in corruption being exposed and outed more often.

Political parties, just like any other consumed good, have a marketplace. A duopoly is not much better than a monopoly. knock down the barriers to entry and watch political parties which actually serve the people instead of megacorporations take over.

Re:Or maybe theyre voting "none of the above" (1)

Itchyeyes (908311) | more than 6 years ago | (#21132871)

"Or that there is nobody actually representing them."

It's a "chicken and the egg" issue. Do politicians not represent young people because young people don't vote, or do young people not vote because politicians don't represent them? There's no way to know for sure which it is. However, that also means that if more young people voted politicians would represent them better and if politicians would represent them better more young people would vote.

The thing is, why leave it up to the politicians to take the first step? Yeah, the system sucks. But it's not going to change unless people do something about it. If you don't like voting for someone from one of the primary parties then vote for an independent, there's like 5 of them on the presidential ballot every election.

Re:Why is it always the old folks? (1)

Vellmont (569020) | more than 6 years ago | (#21132515)


Why is the always the old guys that are about to die off that enact or get crap passed so that all the rest of us living have to do what they want!

The world changes rather quickly today, and by the time you're past 70, it's so different that some people want part of the world they grew up in back. The world of the 1950s and 60s was a lot more conservative towards sex than it is today.

While I agree with you that these people are out of touch on this issue, and just want to harken back to some kind of golden age that never existed (teen pregancy was a LOT higher in the 40s/50s than it is now, people DID have sex outside marriage, they just didn't talk about it, bawdy talk occurred, just in different places), I don't agree that anyone over a certain age has nothing useful to say. We make too many short sighted decisions these days. People waste a lot of money on a lot of junk. We could probably all learn a lot from some miserly old people.

Re:Why is it always the old folks? (1)

jammindice (786569) | more than 6 years ago | (#21132577)

as stereotypical as this sounds it is right.. we have older uninformed people making laws that govern our society. If you noticed more than half of the people responding to the poll said that the government should regulate pictures/videos on the internet.. why? why do we want the government sticking their nose in our business all the time and why is it so ok for everyone to believe this?
 
I don't even want my isp filtering or snooping my traffic, hell i don't want anything but unfiltered/unregulated/uncontrolled internet, why must the masses (and the old folks making laws) not even understand the rights we citizens are supposed to have.
 
God Damn the USA

*cough* (1)

msimm (580077) | more than 6 years ago | (#21132673)

I wonder sometimes why it is that we (and by we I mean myself) don't value age or wisdom. I don't mean that like a hippie or anything. In our culture I wonder if the strongest and the smartest still survive the longest. I wonder what it is in value that we lack (as society, as elderly). When I look at old people I wonder what I'll be like when I get there. Is our culture juvenile or are our elderly simply uninterested in participation? There is something to be said for the value of lessons which really are only taught by time. Young people are good at spontaneous creativity, passion, learning, lots of things but most all the people I've known missed some fundamental understanding about life.

Re:Why is it always the old folks? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21132785)

Why is the always the old guys that are about to die off that enact or get crap passed so that all the rest of us living have to do what they want!

Because they've got nothing better to do than sit around and collect paychecks from the government. That kind of warps your mind.

Us young people are too busy working, or going to a government-run school.

Brain Hacking (2, Interesting)

halbert (714394) | more than 6 years ago | (#21132243)

I can't wait for brain hacking. Imagine the possibilities! It could give a whole new meaning to zombies. "Need more brains to hack..."

Re:Brain Hacking (1)

Firefly1 (251590) | more than 6 years ago | (#21132375)

I seem to recall this sort of thing showing up in Ghost in the Shell [wikipedia.org] ...

trolll (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21132259)

In defense of Internet SO (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21132267)

Internet doesn't nag, doesn't care what you do, when you do it, how you do it, won't complain about whatever unusual habits you posses, won't get mad at you over something stupid, won't stop you from living however you please, gives you access to an entire world of information, news, and culture, and can be shut off at the flick of a switch. If you can, ahem, transcend 'fleshy wants,' you're set. If you're lonely, play some WoW for awhile. The internet has plenty of forums to figure out how to do anything you can't do, like cooking or whatever. As far as I see it, Internet-1 Spouse-0

old people (2, Interesting)

lordvalrole (886029) | more than 6 years ago | (#21132301)

Old people over 70 should not get a voice on just about anything dealing with technology (not at this present time at least). There always is a gap in thinking between young people and old people in most things (especially technology). Older people have a harder time to grasp concepts of all sorts. Show a 70+ year old person programming, or how to make a website, or make something in 3d and they will just look at you funny. Show a 12 year old the same things and they are intrigued. We are also talking about a generation that think porn is wrong, and considering the amount of porn on the interweb...yeah I am sure they want that to have oversight.

Old people in general should not be in high up places (ie. congress, supreme court, company execs.) Just because you are old doesn't make you wiser....it just makes you old with old ways of thinking.

Re:old people (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21132737)

Apparently you're old enough to have learned how to generalize, but not old enough to think rationally.

My view of the Internet (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21132331)

I like to think of the Internet as a series of tubes.

one word: (1)

circletimessquare (444983) | more than 6 years ago | (#21132361)

TELEDILDONICS

next survey: 110% of americans say the internet replaces their significant other

and i'm sure we can build a foot massaging internet enabled appliance or microwave-refrigerator internet protocol for the dinners if you really think you still need FOOD when you've got the INTERTUBES man!

The Internet as a significant other? (4, Funny)

IGnatius T Foobar (4328) | more than 6 years ago | (#21132363)

I'm not so sure about the Internet being a reasonable substitute for a significant other. Every time I open my email, the Internet tells me that my penis is too small.

Regulating video, and the constitution. (1)

Vellmont (569020) | more than 6 years ago | (#21132373)

It's very interesting that only 36% think government regulation of video over the internet into someones private home would be unconstitutional. (But I bet you'd get a VERY different answer about print media).

For the most part, people are willing to accept what they've always accepted and expect what they've always expected. Broadcast television is regulated.. so therefore the government must have some way of regulating moving pictures.

Of course, this is not the case, and I'd be very surprised if it was legal for the US government to regulate anything short of child porn or snuff videos coming across the internet. The only reason broadcast television was ruled constitutional to regulate was because television is a broadcast media, that's sent into everyones home. The other reason was that television had a limited amount of channels available (as with any radio medium), so the FCC was created to regulate the spectrum.

Neither of these conditions are of course true with the internet. There's essentially an infinite amount of choices, and internet service is a subscription based service. It's FAR more like newspapers and magazines than television. Of course, that doesn't mean we won't need another internet equivalent of Larry Flynt to fight any legislation that crops up.

The fear of course is that we've had government regulation of video for 50 some years now, and people have grown up with the idea that it's OK. That's why the current moves towards more and more surveillance, and all the crazy helicopter parents scare the crap out of me. When generations of kids grow up with every moment planned for them, and watched, they'll just expect this is the normal way of life.

Re:Regulating video, and the constitution. (1)

QCompson (675963) | more than 6 years ago | (#21132593)

Of course, this is not the case, and I'd be very surprised if it was legal for the US government to regulate anything short of child porn or snuff videos coming across the internet.
So far, the only thing stopping Congress from regulating the crap out of the internet (often using kiddie pr0n as an excuse/stepping-stone) has been the Supreme Court. Things might be different now that the Roberts court is in full swing. Of course, you'd think that true "conservative" justices would be more apt to strike down any gov't regulation of the internet, but I bet if you toss the words pornography, children, and deviant around enough they'll be happy to help turn the intertube as we know it into glorified cable-television with email.

The only reason broadcast television was ruled constitutional to regulate was because television is a broadcast media, that's sent into everyones home.
But once wireless networks are more pervasive throughout society... ta-da! Time to regulate!

WTF?? (2, Interesting)

sm62704 (957197) | more than 6 years ago | (#21132381)

It won't make you dinner or rub your feet
Neither would my ex-wife.

...nearly one in four Americans say that the Internet can serve as a substitute for a significant other for some period of time
Well, the internet and Rosie Palm.

More than half of Americans believe that Internet content such as video should be controlled in some way by the government.
Well, I'll agree that government should have web sites and portals. They should control their own sites, as I control my own site. So yeah, that's reasonable (depending on how the question was phrased).

Only 33% of 18 to 24 year-olds supported government stepping in on content
Which supports my previous observation, although again they should control their OWN content

while 72% of those over 70 years of age support government regulation and ratings.
That's not unreasonable, either. My dad doesn't even have a computer, has never been on the internet, and considering that, it would not be unreasonable of him to think it reasonable. Even a lot of younger people think the internet is like a TV set, and even the twentysomethings forget that most of the internet is beyond their government's reach.

More than one in four Americans has a social networking profile such as MySpace or Facebook.

Hell, I have a myspace page (that I haven't logged into in a year or two), a web site (that I haven't updated oin almost two years), a K5 account (that I haven't logged into for over 2 years), and a slashdot account and I'm 55. But I don't look my age. Or act it.

Americans may love the Internet, but most are not prepared to implant it into their brain, even if it was safe. Only 11% of respondents said they be willing to safely implant a device that enabled them to use their mind to access the Internet.

Only a total complete idiotic fuckwit moron would have ANYTHING implanted in their brain without an overriding medical reason. If you would have an internet connection implanted in your brain, WTF ARE YOU THINKING? Go ahead, dumbass, and when I crack your connection I'll control you like a meatware robot.

Holy fuck! If brains were dynamite, most people wouldn't have enough to blow their noses.

Note that a far higher percentage than 11% are mentally handicapped. Even retarded people have more sense than that!

-mcgrew

polls, democracy and republics (3, Interesting)

drDugan (219551) | more than 6 years ago | (#21132393)


I read stories like this and have to, with a wry grin, shake my head and roll my eyes.

The idea that groups determine with a democratic vote how a society functions is both absurd and an essential part of the American dream. By dream I mean just that - a mythical non-reality created to give hope to people who otherwise would not accept the reality they have.

Repeat after me:
America is not a democracy!
America is not a democracy!
America is not a democracy!

America is a CONSTITUTIONAL REPUBLIC. Learn the difference. This means the country has laws first (a Constitution), and the US has a democratic process to elect the people respnsible for upholding and execting the rules of the republic. At no time, and in no way were the opinions of the masses asked for, expected, or accepted in figuring out how the system works - and with good reason: their beliefs were/are easily swayed, grossly under-informed, and as anyone who has tried to decide anything by committee or group: group opinion taking is non-functional.

However, most American dwell in the dream that things in the US are "democratic" - that the way a group, the world, the Internet, or the USA "should" function is that we ask everyone, take a vote, and the highest count wins. Bzzzzt. WRONG. Bad Idea. I see this mentality driving the idea that Zogby should do some poll of the population for what "the people" think the government should do about Internet content. This mentality is extremely wrong, and will get people into a lot of trouble. In America, the answer you get from the masses is directly proportional to what rich, powerful white men craft as messages for the masses to believe.

Strangly, increased capacity for communication will and has made such polling much easier than ever before. It does not make it more valid or more useful in creating policy or a smoothly functioning, successful society.

Aside from the bonehead mentality that we should all vote to determine policy - there is an even simpler issue here. Once one understands how and why this country was formed, and the principles behind it - it becomes obvious that regulating content on huge ditributed computer networks is NOT EVEN CLOSE, not even in the ballpark to what the original intention of the US government was. It is off beyond the outfield, over the green monter, and somewhere off in the bay. It is, in fact, criminal, by all definitions of the term, to distort the function of government so far outside the legal bounds of it's creation.

Re:polls, democracy and republics (2, Informative)

d34thm0nk3y (653414) | more than 6 years ago | (#21132823)

Repeat after me: America is not a democracy!

Main Entry: (from Merriam Webster)
democracy Listen to the pronunciation of democracy
Pronunciation:
\di-mä-kr-s\
Function:
noun
Inflected Form(s):
plural democracies
Etymology:
Middle French democratie, from Late Latin democratia, from Greek dmokratia, from dmos + -kratia -cracy
Date:
1576

1 a: government by the people; especially : rule of the majority b: a government in which the supreme power is vested in the people and exercised by them directly or indirectly through a system of representation usually involving periodically held free elections

My Opinion is that Fools should be Regulated (1)

okmijnuhb (575581) | more than 6 years ago | (#21132395)

'More than half of Americans believe that Internet content such as video should be controlled in some way by the government' My opinion is that fools should be regulated.
Hopefully I'm in the majority.

Give me my implant! (1)

EjayHire (860402) | more than 6 years ago | (#21132407)

I am so ready for the brain implant. This fits pretty well with Wednesday's XKCD cartoon. http://xkcd.com/333/ [xkcd.com] -e.g

Too Much Government Power (3, Insightful)

CodeBuster (516420) | more than 6 years ago | (#21132417)

I am always dismayed, not surprised mind you but dismayed, at the willingness of my fellow American citizens to willingly surrender ever greater powers of control and surveillance even without any clear idea of what is presumably gained by giving up those rights and powers. There are already too many laws, and too much government power, and too much government control and yet people want to give up even more of their independence to the government. The problem is exacerbated, IMHO, by the busy body nature of the religious right, liberal tax and spend left, and generally older people who want the government to run their lives for them and for their neighbor (regardless of what their neighbor wants).

My view of the internet... (3, Insightful)

ackthpt (218170) | more than 6 years ago | (#21132419)

In the 1800's the family dined at the dinner table.

In the 1940's the family dined around the radio.

In the 1960's the family dined around the television.

In the 2000's the family dines around the computer monitor.

No... (1)

petrus4 (213815) | more than 6 years ago | (#21132653)


In the 1800's the family dined at the dinner table.

In the 1940's the family dined around the radio.

In the 1960's the family dined around the television.

In the 2000's, single members of the family eat dinner in front of individual computer monitors in seperate rooms, and communicate via MSN. Either that, or the family doesn't exist at all, and the individual simply eats in front of the computer alone.

Re:No... (1)

ackthpt (218170) | more than 6 years ago | (#21132699)

the individual simply eats in front of the computer alone.

You've been spying on me!

Gawd, did I leave the webcam on again?!?

Umm...online poll? (5, Insightful)

sully_51 (1180181) | more than 6 years ago | (#21132431)

one in four Americans say that the Internet can serve as a substitute for a significant other for some period of time, according to a new poll released today by 463 Communications and Zogby International. The poll examined views of what role the Internet plays in people's lives and whether government should play a greater role in regulating it. The online survey was conducted Oct. 4-8, 2007, included 9,743 adult respondents nationwide
Am I the only one who questions the accuracy of an online survey that indicates this?

Re:Umm...online poll? (1)

JK_the_Slacker (1175625) | more than 6 years ago | (#21132487)

Yes.

Mandatory? (1)

MLCT (1148749) | more than 6 years ago | (#21132449)

almost mandatory...78% of them
Last time I checked 22% isn't an insignificant number of people - mandatory is a little too strong a word.

72% of those over 70 years of age (-1, Flamebait)

unity100 (970058) | more than 6 years ago | (#21132571)

excuse me, these people are kinda already have one foot in the grave. and they really ARE from a long bygone era. their views should not be taken into account when judging the fate of something that belongs to 21st century.

Put a chip in my brain. And I want a pony (1)

jpfed (1095443) | more than 6 years ago | (#21132667)

I'm imagining something like BrainPal from the Old Man's War series (I'm not finished with the series, so no spoilers!). I mean, the question did explicitly state that it would be safe. If the chip were just in my occipital and posterior temporal lobes, then it could stimulate my senses of vision and hearing without having any ability to control my actions.

Sign me up.

Baby and bathwater (1)

TheGeneration (228855) | more than 6 years ago | (#21132669)

More than half of Americans believe that Internet content such as video should be controlled in some way by the government.

This is frightening. Thank god they would have little success in this goal and the only result of regulation would be killing the United States ability to profit from video. As the freezing effect of these regulations took hold more and more foreign companies would find their user shares boosted.

Unless the US were to put in to place a Chinese style firewall they'd have little luck in keeping it's citizens from viewing "objectionable" content.

Social networking sites (1)

Das Modell (969371) | more than 6 years ago | (#21132677)

What's so great about Myspace and Facebook? What can they do that telephones, e-mail and instant messaging can't? If I meet someone and want to talk to them later, Myspace/Facebook doesn't strike me as the best way to do so. But it seems it's quite normal for young people in America to swap Myspace/Facebook addresses if they want to talk later (and as the research claims, 78% have a social networking profile). Social networking sites haven't really caught on in Europe, as far as I can tell.

With apologies to Futurama (1)

Culture20 (968837) | more than 6 years ago | (#21132689)

Don't Date The Internet !

- The Spacepope

Opinions (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21132777)

Fuck people over 70. :>
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>