Why is the internet broken?
Justin Lilly
What do you use the internet for?
What would you like to see different about this service/product? What would make this product worth more to you? What would make you want to use it more?
Is there something that doesn't exist yet that you wished did?
thanks!
-justin
--
Justin Lilly
University of South Carolina
http://www.justinlilly.com
Zura Beth
information and products that make my life easier, more fun or make me
more knowledeable.
What I'd like:
More organization...easier to find the information that is available.
I'd like to see less garbage.
I'd wnat to use it more if there were more consistency between web pages.
Maybe one username and password to enter the internet then never have to
enter them or sign up for anything.
Zura
MsBlueBells
Wikispaces. I like my Google groups. I feel like a net citizen first.
I love the anarchy and the organization. I like the free speech. I
like the low cost barrier to entry. I like getting opinions fresh not
recycled like TV. I like the creativity. I love instant messaging
especially for my work and that I can tell when other people are
available. I like Creative Commons. I like Stumble that just finds
you a great web site at Random. I like interacting with people all
over the world. I like things not being all nicely packaged, glossy.
Rather a little rough around the edges. I like the spontaneousness of
it and I like the self documenting history of a lot of it.
emuelle1
all backgrounds and statuses can come together to collaborate, share
information, and hold an occasional flame war. There are some seedy and
rough neighborhoods, but on the whole it's very easy to collaborate and
share with like minded people in so many areas of interest. Ever since
I've joined this and a few other GTD/productivity groups, my inbox is
flooded daily with great ideas.
I will normally use the internet to gather news and information, to
research, and to communicate. I have no idea what I would do without it.
Bryan Ewbank
I think this is terribly naive statement. The internet is an
equalizer, it's a filter. Untold numbers of people are simply not
represented (or even interested), or cannot afford it. As more and
more sites add pictures, simple dialup isn't enough either - gotta
have hi-speed to make it "the internet". Once again, those with ways
and means make the required ways beyond the means of those without.
Yes, I agree that there's quite a bit "interesting" or "useful" about
the internet; however, calling it an equalizer is naive. It is not
ubiquitous, much as it might seem to be as we sit at our keyboards
frantically clicking and keeping up with the buzz.
- Bryan
Pitch
> > "The internet is a great equalizer"
>
> I think this is terribly naive statement. The internet is an
> equalizer, it's a filter. Untold numbers of people are simply not
> represented (or even interested), or cannot afford it.
Bryan, I don't think he said "Everyone now has a computer and
broadband." He said it's an equalizer. I think that means that more of
us humans can connect with more of us humans. I speak daily with a guy
working out of his tiny apartment in New Delhi. He helps me with my
website, and I help put his child through a better school. He has
stated repeatedly that he's pretty clear that wouldn't have occurred
without the Internet. I IM with a small group of kids who live in a
fairly isolated village in Nepal that I visited in the mid-90s. There's
no way that would have happened without the Internet.
Will we all eventually all make the same exact amount of money, and all
own the same tangible items and everything will just be great because
of the Internet? I sure hope not, but I do think it makes the world a
better place.
How would I improve it? Speed. That's the only thing I ever moan about.
When the Internet is as fast as phones and TVs, I'll be happy.
William Neumann
Yes, but those who do have access to it (even over low speed links, or
text based browsers, like the one I am using to post this message
now), have access to so many more resources and people than they could
have ever hoped to have had before. I was listening to an interview
with Carol Queen a little while ago, and in it she was talking about
how much better equipped people (and particularly young adults) are
these days when it comes to learning about human sexuality (her
field). As she put it, when she was growing up her public library had
just one book on the subject, and it was never on the shelves. Now
there are plenty of places, such as www.sfsi.org, scarleteen.org, and
so on where you can learn and ask questions (anonymously, if you need
to).
Now duplicate that access across most fields of interest and you can
see that in some sense it is an equalizer. No, the internet is not
ubiquitous. But it has spread its resources out over a far wider area
than ever before, and it continues to spread as time goes on. Hell,
it's only been about a decade since the idea of the internet hit the
public consciousness, and it's already more accessible than most books
are, and that medium has had a few thousand year head-start...
teri.p...@gmail.com
a difference between choosing to use your limited dollars for something
like tv and truly being to the point where you can barely buy food. I
won't say that there aren't people out there like that, but I do think
this is a smaller number than you would think. And I'm not convinced
that having internet access is something critical to your development
as a human being.
I access the internet on a Mac beige G3 that I picked up for $125
dollars. Monitor was $50. My husband's computer is one that we spent
$500 on almost 10 years ago. Still runs Win95 with 64MB of RAM and a
monitor that I paid $13 for at Goodwill. I've accessed the internet on
Macs that weren't power macs. I've stayed on dialup because I've had
too many people tell me that if you go with broadband, you can't go
back to dialup. I don't want the internet to assume that sort of
importance in my life.
I do tech support and I talk to all kinds of folks. I talk to some who
really shouldn't have a computer and to some who should never venture
beyond AOL. I talk to some folks who are brand new at this and are
really excited to finally get to learn how to use a computer. I'd
rather talk to those folks any day of the week than some know-it-all.
I'm amazed at how humble and apologetic they are that they don't know
how to use a computer or the internet. I hope that the internet, in the
long run, turns out to be more useful and entertaining than television.
Television has become a despicable medium, one that discourages thought
and jades the senses.
David Douthitt
> Untold numbers of people are simply not
> represented (or even interested), or cannot afford it. As more and
> more sites add pictures, simple dialup isn't enough either - gotta
> have hi-speed to make it "the internet". Once again, those with ways
> and means make the required ways beyond the means of those without.
Fantastic rant!
Someone mentioned the text browsers - some websites are unusable via
text browsers. In fact, an association of the blind sued Target and
others over the accessibility of their websites under the American ADA law.
And I would still argue that there are a lot of people without
high-speed access to the internet - what percentage of the American
public has access to high-speed internet versus those that do not? I
would suggest it is a big number....
And even the idea of the Internet being an equalizer is being challenged
- Verizon is pushing for differing charges for different users based on
their requirements - so Google pays outrageous fees and Mom n' Pop goes
out of (web) business if they can't pay the new "upgraded" fees for
their growing business....
Vicki Brown
> As more and
> more sites add pictures, simple dialup isn't enough either - gotta
> have hi-speed to make it "the internet".
A frightening thing about broadband access... the US is, apparently, way
behind the curve.
China will pass the US in total broadband subscribers by late 2006 to become
the largest broadband country in the world. The US has fallen to 19th overall
in household broadband penetration, and is in danger of being passed by
Slovenia in early 2007. Israel leads all Middle Eastern and African
countries, and is the third country overall in broadband penetration. Hong
Kong leads the Pacific Rim, with a broadband penetration rate of over 73%.
Meanwhile, in December 2005 the US passed 65% in broadband penetration among
active Internet users.
http://www.websiteoptimization.com/bw/0601/
--
- Vicki
ZZZ
zzZ San Francisco Bay Area, CA
z |\ _,,,---,,_ Books, Cats, Tech
zz /,`.-'`' -. ;-;;,_ http://cfcl.com/vlb
|,4- ) )-,_. ,\ ( `'-' http://heatercats.com
'---''(_/--' `-'\_) http://cfcl.com/vlb/weblog
emuelle1
to post before I've finished a cup of coffee. The internet is an
equalizer of information. My apologies; I was not being considerate of
the untold millions or billions without access due to interest,
economic situation, or lack of equipment and especially without high
speed access. I find your assumptions of my motives to be a little
naive, but it was my fault for rushing off a post early in the morning.
Some members of the group did seem to understand what I meant.
As it pertains to information, the internet does a great job of
equalizing. No, it doesn't equalize economics or politics or even
equipment. Thanks to the internet, the distribution and sharing of
information is possible on a wide scale that was unimaginable 20 years
ago. Information is not limited to small groups. Yes, there is a lot of
bogus or sensational gunk out there, but for the most part, if you want
to find something, you can.
I did take for granted that I've pretty much had high speed since about
'97 except for a few times when I moved into an area that did not have
high speed yet, but that is far from the intention of my original post.
Justin Lilly
David Douthitt
> China will pass the US in total broadband subscribers by late 2006 to become
> the largest broadband country in the world. The US has fallen to 19th overall
> in household broadband penetration, and is in danger of being passed by
> Slovenia in early 2007. Israel leads all Middle Eastern and African
> countries, and is the third country overall in broadband penetration. Hong
> Kong leads the Pacific Rim, with a broadband penetration rate of over 73%.
> Meanwhile, in December 2005 the US passed 65% in broadband penetration among
> active Internet users.
Not only that, but apparently US broadband is actually *slower* than
much of the rest of the world.... but putting that aside...
Be careful of the stats - notice that these stats are refering to active
Internet users (as you mentioned at the last). Perhaps a better
comparison would take into account the broadband penetration into
population centers - the US, like Russia, is quite spread out compared
to countries like Austria, Germany, and Japan. Perhaps a comparison of
broadband penetration into the populace at large compared to the number
of rural citizens would help?
Robert Lynch
> This is a very simple question I would like to extend to the group that has,
> what I expect to be, a very complex answer.
From the turnabout-is-fair-play department: Why do you ask?
> What do you use the internet for?
I use the Internet for a variety of things:
-- Reference/Research: Instead of trying to dig into books to find
information, I can go to my search engine of choice and find
information online. Error codes, language references, phone numbers,
that sort of thing. This is also where various blogs, news sites, and
hobby lists sit, I guess.
-- Amusement: I'm a too-voracious consumer of random information, and
the Internet can be seen as a firehose of random information. I can
waste far too much time clicking "random link" at Wikipedia and seeing
what interesting stuff comes up.
-- Social Contact: I'm an e-mail list with a group of local friends,
and we chat about whatever comes to mind or whatever happens to us.
(One guy had an appendectomy this week.) Each week, we hash out where
to have Friday dinner.
-- Self-Improvement: This is where the 43F group comes in, among
other things. Through discussions on topics like GTD,
procrastination, and lifehacking in general, I hope to learn to do "my
thing" better. Being involved in these discussions helps keep me
aware of things I should and should not be doing.
These days, I probably spend more of my online time at Gmail and
Bloglines than anywhere else.
> Is there something that doesn't exist yet that you wished did?
An "off" switch? :)
Really, I think my biggest want is the ability to let go, get away,
and not worry that I'm going to miss something. Some of this is just
psychological, but some of it may have product-development potential
in terms of intelligent filtering.
Just as you can train a spam filter to recognize what's spam and
what's real, maybe someone could invent a trainable filter to digest
sources and extract the things I would find most interesting? Imagine
a sort of "custom newspaper" metaphor, where I could get the things
that really interested _me_ without having to sort through the chaff
that interests other people.
Or is there such a thing? If so, please point me in an appropriate direction.
--
Robert Lynch
robert...@gmail.com
Do you procrastinate? http://groups.yahoo.com/group/TheNowHabit/
Justin Lilly
On 2/9/06, Justin Lilly <justi...@gmail.com > wrote:
> This is a very simple question I would like to extend to the group that has,
> what I expect to be, a very complex answer.
From the turnabout-is-fair-play department: Why do you ask?
emuelle1
misunderstandings. One thing I do miss about snail mail is the trip to
the mailbox sometimes gave you time to think about whether or not you
wanted your letter to go out. With an instantaneous text interface,
it's easy not to give proper consideration to a response. I apologize
for the sharpness of my last post.
Karl Vogel
> Just as you can train a spam filter to recognize what's spam and
> what's real, maybe someone could invent a trainable filter to digest
> sources and extract the things I would find most interesting? Imagine
> a sort of "custom newspaper" metaphor, where I could get the things
> that really interested _me_ without having to sort through the chaff
> that interests other people.
>
> Or is there such a thing? If so, please point me in an appropriate direction.
You could probably use a Bayesian filter for this. I did a little
experiment: I grabbed a few entries from the del.icio.us RSS feed on
the tag "organization", converted each item to an email message, and
stored half of the messages in a folder called "boring" and the other
half in a folder called "nifty".
Then I ran my favorite Bayesian classifier, ifile
(http://www.nongnu.org/ifile/) on both folders. The results weren't
stellar because I only had a few messages making up the sample, but I
was able to (roughly) classify new messages as "nifty" or "boring"
based on the stuff I already had. The point is to collect a *bunch* of
stuff in those folders, and then use them to classify new material.
I got this running under Unix with a few perl scripts. If you're
interested, send me a message at vogelke+...@pobox.com
--
Karl Vogel
Robert Lynch
> I got this running under Unix with a few perl scripts. If you're
> interested, send me a message at vogelke+...@pobox.com
Maybe Justin's working on a Bayesian-filtered RSS reader as we speak. :)
I'm on Windows, and I'm not willing to take the time to roll my own
solution. (Hey, at least I admit it.)
When I was describing what I wanted, my first thought was Bayesian
filters, too. If my life had gone a different direction, I might have
hacked together my own system... but I'm apparently not the hackish
fellow I used to be. I'm not even subscribed to Slashdot's RSS feed
anymore...
David Douthitt
> When I was describing what I wanted, my first thought was Bayesian
> filters, too. If my life had gone a different direction, I might have
> hacked together my own system... but I'm apparently not the hackish
> fellow I used to be.
I tried a Bayesian-filter based RSS reader (shareware) for MacOS X
recently called Shrook - but it doesn't seem to have a lot of the
features that are usually considered typical of RSS readers. The first
one I missed almost immediately was the lack of support for folders used
in OPML imports. Many readers don't support nested folders, but Shrook
doesn't support any - it lumps everything together.
Nevertheless, the use of Bayesian filtering is interesting - it also
appears to be across *all* of the feeds, rather than just a select
grouping of them.
Shrook also has a way of "collecting" all of your feeds together so you
can get them from anywhere with any browser using shrook.com. Here's
the website for the Shrook RSS feedreader:
> I'm not even subscribed to Slashdot's RSS feed
> anymore...
Slashdot seems to have the stuff "for nerds" that you won't find
anywhere else - stuff like finding a 10th planet, rats that replay a
solved maze memory in their heads (backwards!), and tabletop room
temperature fusion by students at UCLA - all recent true stories.... I
love the tech, but the nontechnology stuff keeps me glued...