Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system


Forgot your password?
Back for a limited time - Get 15% off sitewide on Slashdot Deals with coupon code "BLACKFRIDAY" (some exclusions apply)". ×
The Internet United States

U.S. Home Internet Access up to 75% 345

waytoomuchcoffee writes "Over 200 million U.S. residents now have access to the internet at home, or 3/4 of the U.S. population. This is quite a jump, as only 51% of U.S. homes had access to the internet in August of 2000. Interestingly, among age/gender groups, internet access is highest among females 35-54."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

U.S. Home Internet Access up to 75%

Comments Filter:
  • by Phoenix-kun (458418) * on Thursday March 18, 2004 @03:39PM (#8602756) Homepage
    So all those email solicitations I've been getting lately from lonely housewives were real?
  • Not surprising (Score:5, Insightful)

    by YanceyAI (192279) * <> on Thursday March 18, 2004 @03:40PM (#8602763)
    Interestingly, among age/gender groups, Internet access is highest among females 35-54.

    Surprising to male /.ers perhaps, but not us girls...I spend eight hours a day on a T-3 at work and five nights a week on my cable connection at home. Typical home activities include updating my Web page, trolling forums, email/messaging friends, playing competitive leagues Counter-Strike, and shopping. At work, when I'm not /.ing, I'm a communications coordinator (writer & designer). I use the 'Net for research, purchasing, and communication with my colleagues.

    You guys keep being surprised, but women make up half the work force where we spend a lot of time on computers. We buy more than half of all electronic devices and more than half of all computer games (and no they are not all for our spouses/children).

    Wake up boys. This is no more news than females voting and driving!

    That said, I've noticed the net is slowing down at home and at work. Do we have the infrastructure for all of America to be online (and with blazing connections)?

    • by darth_MALL (657218) on Thursday March 18, 2004 @03:42PM (#8602794)
      Wait a minute...Women have the VOTE!?
    • by rjelks (635588) on Thursday March 18, 2004 @03:46PM (#8602848) Homepage
      I hope there was a scientific poll done for this. If they relied on asking people their sex in AOL chatrooms, they may have to downgrade that number. /jk
    • Re:Not surprising (Score:3, Interesting)

      by Phoenix-kun (458418) *
      This is true. One of my good friends is female and does very much of what you have listed, forums, email, web mistress, etc. In fact, she is, by far, the best competitive game-player I have ever had the pleasure to know, male or female.
    • What's this?
      A girl on slashdot?!?
    • Re:Not surprising (Score:5, Insightful)

      by prgrmr (568806) on Thursday March 18, 2004 @03:52PM (#8602921) Journal
      That said, I've noticed the net is slowing down at home and at work. Do we have the infrastructure for all of America to be online (and with blazing connections)?

      I don't think it's the infrastructure or lack thereof so much as the viri, spyware, spam, pop-ups, pop-unders, and poor configurations and security. We need to do more to improve the signal-to-noise ratio.
    • Re:Not surprising (Score:4, Interesting)

      We buy more than half of all electronic devices and more than half of all computer games...

      Are you sure about that? I would find it surprising if that were true--especially the games part.

      Anyway, it doesn't surprise me women use the internet more. That is something I always expected would happen. First of all, there are more women than men so women will have slightly more numbers. Second, internet has great potential to replace or complement social relationships. Women seem to be more into "social stuff" than men.

      Having said that, I think most geeks will be men. So tech-oriented websites, for example, will be dominated by men. It remains to be seen if I'm right...

      Sivaram Velauthapillai
    • Re:Not surprising (Score:3, Interesting)

      by SnappleMaster (465729)
      "You guys keep being surprised, but women make up half the work force where we spend a lot of time on computers."

      In some sectors maybe. In "hardcore dev"... I've worked at 3 companies in my adult life (plus 4 more companies as an intern). The male/female ratio has been and remains approximately 10:1. My graduating class (Comp Eng) consisted of 80 or so guys and *zero* females.

      Now don't get me wrong. I sure wish there were more chicks around. OTOH if I go across the street to marketing the ratio is more li
      • Re:Not surprising (Score:5, Insightful)

        by YanceyAI (192279) * <> on Thursday March 18, 2004 @04:11PM (#8603132)
        It doesn't say most hardcore developers, it says most Internet users...

        Also consider that women do most of the desk work in the US, using computers to do their jobs...

        Get out of your tech-hole and realize most people use the Internet daily for work and daily for entertainment and staying in touch. Women slightly more than half the population.

        And actually, I would guess hardcore developers aren't on the Net when they are at work. Aren't they are coding???

  • computers (Score:3, Insightful)

    by bsharitt (580506) * <bsharitt@gm[ ].com ['ail' in gap]> on Thursday March 18, 2004 @03:40PM (#8602764) Homepage Journal
    I didn't know computer ownership was that high
  • by StrandedOrg (664681) <matthew AT stranded DOT org> on Thursday March 18, 2004 @03:41PM (#8602778) Homepage
    "internet access is highest among females 35-54" So thats why there are 3 girls registered on the OSDN Personals instead of the one that had her pic put in the banner. That would account for the huge jump =)
  • In December 2003 (Score:5, Informative)

    by prostoalex (308614) * on Thursday March 18, 2004 @03:42PM (#8602793) Homepage Journal
    In December 2003 only 126 million Americans were online []. Also, interesting to note that 66 mln use the Internet on a daily basis.

  • by myownkidney (761203) on Thursday March 18, 2004 @03:43PM (#8602798) Homepage
    M / F 2 - 17 49,078 63,270 77.60%

    Going by all the trolls on ./, I think the distribution must be close to the 2-year old end.

  • by Parsa (525963) on Thursday March 18, 2004 @03:43PM (#8602806) Homepage
    It's probably single woman trying to find a single man...

  • Hope! (Score:3, Funny)

    by activesynapsis (706402) on Thursday March 18, 2004 @03:43PM (#8602812)
    Interestingly, among age/gender groups, internet access is highest among females 35-54

    There's hope for the male geeks yet! (Assuming you don't still live in your parents' basement. You don't, do you?)

  • useless report (Score:2, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward
    I ceased to take this seriously as soon as I realized that whoever wrote this POS didn't seem to understand that "internet" != "web".
  • by spidergoat2 (715962) on Thursday March 18, 2004 @03:44PM (#8602822) Journal
    Why am I still getting these freakin AOL disks?
  • by ziondreams (760588) <> on Thursday March 18, 2004 @03:45PM (#8602835) Homepage

    I've recently dropped my phone line at home therefore dropping my home Internet access as well. Our household has 2 cell phones, I get plenty of Internet at work/college, and I can't quite afford broadband. I wonder how many others are in similar situations?
  • by DR SoB (749180) on Thursday March 18, 2004 @03:45PM (#8602839) Journal
    So it's 25% from the "great tech bubble", I wonder if that means that now would be a good time to start buying YHOO shares again? Although the tech bubble burst, it could almost be considered underrated, the issue was all the money thrown into the internet at one time caused the over-value, now it may be near corrected or even undervalued, so as the internet grows, so will tech stock.
    • That's true... but the other thing is... there was a lot of infrastructure laid during the "dot com" era so it may still take a while for the tech companies to recover. In other words, there may be overcapacity... When I say this, I'm not necessarily talking about telecom, networking, or related companies. The same applies to other areas of the internet. For example, there are probably "too many" web design companies and too many ISPs (that were all started during the boom). Will these companies be attracti
  • And yet... (Score:4, Interesting)

    by ParadoxicalPostulate (729766) <{moc.liamg} {ta} {dapaas}> on Thursday March 18, 2004 @03:46PM (#8602841) Journal
    3 out of 4 people will not be able to tell you what bandwidth is.

    I'm wondering about this "easy to use" business. It's true that it will get us more users in the short run...but if the system was such that you would be forced to acquire at least some understanding of what you were doing, eventually you would get similar number of users, only they would be a little bit more aware of what is going on.

    It astonishes me that people don't care to learn about something they use every day, for perhaps hours on end.
    • Come off it.

      9 out of 10 slashdotters can't give you a proper definition for bandwidth. Why would joe-sixpack end user even care?
    • Re:And yet... (Score:5, Insightful)

      by glpierce (731733) on Thursday March 18, 2004 @03:53PM (#8602935) Homepage
      " 3 out of 4 people will not be able to tell you what bandwidth is."

      3 out of 4 people will not be able to tell you what frequency their phone uses.

      3 out of 4 people will not be able to tell you what DVD region they are in.

      3 out of 4 people will not be able to tell you what the RIAA is...or the MPAA...or the FCC...

      ...I think you get my drift.
    • But this so depends on what you mean by 'learn'. They learn to do what they want to / need to use the net for. They think they have sufficient understanding of this. Do they need more in-depth understanding? Do you take the time to learn about exactly how your computer's CPU is architectured?
    • It astonishes me that people don't care to learn about something they use every day, for perhaps hours on end.

      For better or worse, the only way that a technology can really take off to this extent is for it to become "easy to use". In the long run you get near ubiquitous diffusion not by having to be aware of something, but by it becoming invisible. How many drivers can repair their cars? How many people really undestand how the elecricity in their house works? When people can use something without car
    • Because they don't care, and computers are very dynamic. Once someone figures out how their DVD player and TV work they always know, it's a static UI. PCs on the other hand can change continually, and for those that use it for one specific thing, or just as a tool it remains confusing. I've spent a great deal of time over the last 8 years on a computer, and most of that time on the web. With that much time under my belt, and that fact that I care about computers/programming/internet I can adjust when things
    • Re:And yet... (Score:5, Insightful)

      by cK-Gunslinger (443452) on Thursday March 18, 2004 @04:01PM (#8603030) Journal

      What about driving? I put about 15,000 miles per year on my car, but I have no idea how an automatic transmission works. I'm pretty sure I'm not the only one.

      Because of this, I try not to get too riled up when I talk to people who get pop-ups and viruses, or don't know their CPU/System specs, or want to buy a P4 3.2GHz to play games with, but still use the onboard video. I wouldn't want my mechanic to constantly belittle me because I don't know how to adjust my own timing belt or the optimum gap on my spark plugs.

      We can't all be experts at *everything.* There's just too much technology we interact with on a daily basis. That's why it *is* the manufacturer's responsibility to produce "easy to use" systems. Otherwise, we'd all be sitting around 24-hours a day, reading the owner's manuals to our new DVD player's remote.

      • Re:And yet... (Score:2, Insightful)

        You know, I choose to view people who get viruses and pop-ups as equivalent to people who can't figure out how to check their oil and refill their washer fluid.
      • Re:And yet... (Score:3, Insightful)

        by Srin Tuar (147269)

        >We can't all be experts at *everything.*

        I'm sorry, but not knowing what bandwidth is is like a driver not knowing what his speedometer measures. And heck, most people figure out how to set the time on their microwave or alarm clock.

        Why should it be any different with computers?

        Sure, we can't all be experts, but can we all not be drooling idiots at least?

      • Yea, I'm in the same boat with my car, but I don't go around installing new mods to my engine each week. I also take my car into the shop 3-6 times a year for oil and other maintenance. The analogy just doesn't work beacuse normal users don't respect the machine or maintain it.
      • Anything which has a user's manual which we try not to have to read.
      • Re:And yet... (Score:3, Insightful)

        Big Differences:

        -Your car can do ONE thing plus some comforts, your computer can do many many things. Therefore it behooves a user to learn how to apply the computer to many different tasks. The car.. you just drive it.

        -People don't expect to be able to call somebody on the phone and get walked through an oil filter change - a simple thing. But they do expect a help desk to be able to "just fix" their computer over the phone, automagically. Their ignorance causes their frustration as much as anything.

    • Re:And yet... (Score:5, Insightful)

      by SecGreen (577669) on Thursday March 18, 2004 @04:09PM (#8603120)
      >> It astonishes me that people don't care to learn about something they use every day, for perhaps hours on end.

      Quick, answer these questions:

      How many tumblers are in the lock on your house/apartment door. How about in your car door? Your ignition?

      What voltage is on your home phone line? What's the ring voltage? What's the max ring current?

      What frequency is your favorite TV channel transmitted on? What is the bandwidth? Modulation scheme? How about the encoding for the IR your remote control sends to your TV to turn it on?

      If we required users of all these devices to understand them the way us "geeks" understand computers, no-one would use cars or telephones, watch TV, or lock their doors.

      People who understand things like computers often have a mistaken perception that understanding them is easy, and that everyone should. It's generally a position taken by people who want to belittle others (the "lusers") and make themselves feel better.
      • Bad analogies. (Score:3, Insightful)

        by metalhed77 (250273)
        There's a fundamental difference between computers and these things. Computers are interacted with on a low level. I've used locks my whole life and will never have to open one up. A computer is so complex that even the simplest tasks can cause problems. For instance, few people have a decent grasp of the directory structure. Yes, the simple directory structure. This is a constant problem when they want to open a file with something other than the program that saved it and that program has a different defau
        • There's a fundamental difference between computers and these things. Computers are interacted with on a low level. I've used locks my whole life and will never have to open one up. A computer is so complex that even the simplest tasks can cause problems.

          And should it be like that? No.
      • Re:And yet... (Score:5, Insightful)

        by Kiryat Malachi (177258) on Thursday March 18, 2004 @04:26PM (#8603318) Journal
        And yet, half the "geeks" out there can't tell me how CMOS works.

        They can write Perl and PHP, but ask them what a transistor is and their faces go blank.

        Then you ask the EE who designs low-level CMOS VLSI designs how the electrons move inside the transistors, and he probably gives a decent explanation, but if you ask him why, blank look.

        So you go talk to the physicist. Who can probably explain why the electrons move around the way they do.

        But I bet he can't write perl scripts.
      • by Srin Tuar (147269) <> on Thursday March 18, 2004 @04:28PM (#8603345)
        Better analogies:

        How many digits are in a phone number?
        How much gas does your tank hold?
        What's your car's top speed?
        How many minutes are on your cell phones calling plan?
        How much milk comes in a typical jug?

      • Re:And yet... (Score:2, Interesting)

        by Brad Mace (624801)
        The difference is that you can use any of those things just as well without know how they work.

        People who *don't* understand computers also seem to have some misconceptions about their simplicity. They treat computers like a fancy TV, ignorant of the complexity and the risks. Not surprisingly, these people do nothing to maintain or protect their computer.
      • Does not knowing the voltage on my home phone line allow telemarketers to use my line to make more calls to other people?

        Does not knowing the frequency and bandwidth of my favorite TV channel mean that script kiddies can use my TV to knock TV stations off the air?

        Noone cares if you don't know these things because your lack of knowledge does not negatively affect other people.

        But when someone gets their brand new Dell on the internet and doesn't know not to hit 'no' when IE asks them if they want to inst
      • by boarder (41071) on Thursday March 18, 2004 @04:54PM (#8603653) Homepage
        Does your lack of knowledge about the number of tumblers in your door lock make it easier for a thief to crack? No. Will I ever, EVER need to know how many tumblers or even that there are tumblers in order for me to use a lock? No. The exact same questions can be asked about your other stupid analogies.

        In the past couple weeks I've had to act as phone support for friends trying to configure their IP address to use their network. To even USE a computer for what it is designed you need training. I can't tell you how many times my friends who use computers everyday have tried to email me an mp3 and have only sent their winamp playlists... or told me all of their files were deleted when Word or Excel couldn't find a file that was in the recent docs list.

        These are basic tasks that can't be performed without knowledge of how the computer works. BASIC tasks. Do you need a manual to use your phone, TV, or remote? No. Do you need a manual to program phone numbers in memory, add new devices to a remote, hook up 20 cables for a home theatre system? Yes (for non-geeks). Advanced tasks are the only times when you need training. Basic tasks for a computer require training. If you don't know the modulation scheme for your TV or the ring voltage of your phone, can a hacker come in and destroy it? No. Just using a computer opens it up for malicious activity.

        Even worse is the analogy people use with car engines. Sure, I don't know what the tension is supposed to be on my old cable clutch, or how much pressure is in the hydraulic clutch... but does that hinder my ability to use it how it was designed? No. Can you just put a 12 year old in the driver seat and expect that kid to a) know how to operate the vehicle, and b) not kill people when they do? No. You have to be trained to use a car for its basic function to be usable. Same with a computer. Its basic function is complex and requires knowledge to use correctly and responsibly.
  • by bl8n8r (649187) on Thursday March 18, 2004 @03:47PM (#8602857)
    ever been to
  • by cda (750377) <> on Thursday March 18, 2004 @03:47PM (#8602865) Homepage
    Since I'm from Romania here we see this like:

    go to US plug your cable in the wall and the broadbad flows.

    Now this is something I envy you for. Low rate decent speed access. Since here a 64/128 kbit goes around $100-$150 and the minimum wage is around $75 monthly ... you do the math.

    But at least we cand get some online clients from US. The more ... the best
  • Inevitable (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Mr. Certainly (762748) on Thursday March 18, 2004 @03:48PM (#8602868)
    How can we not be "connected"? Its become narly manditory (if not already so) for secondary schools to teach internet skills. It's only a natural thing to have the students ask their parents for an internet connection: "We need to do our projects" is often the case. Granted, teens do use it for many other things, but that's not the point. How many state websites have money saving online forms for Car Registration, etc? If you do it via hardcopy, you often have to pay X number of dollars to process it. But it's less online more than not. Want more information about a product or service? Check out the company's website! Want to play the latest game or get a new pc part? You better have the internet, since the company may not have bothered to send the correct drivers with the product, check their online driver download section! You might be lucky if they have an option for you to buy the update CD and pay for shipping for a 6-8 week later delivery. It's becoming more and more difficult to use the "I don't have internet" excuse. It's not a merely sending email and for up and coming companies to use the web. It's invaded our everyday lives. For better or worse, we need to conform or perish.
  • by MooseByte (751829) on Thursday March 18, 2004 @03:48PM (#8602879)

    "Interestingly, among age/gender groups, internet access is highest among females 35-54."

    And you thought mom was busy balancing the checkbook online....

    Now all you teenagers now get to face the fact that 'HotChick69' you've been eagerly getting busy with in the chat rooms may in fact be just down the hall.

    The horror... the horror...

  • Issues (Score:5, Insightful)

    by torinth (216077) on Thursday March 18, 2004 @03:49PM (#8602889) Homepage
    #1) This is a press release. It is in the interest of the Nielsen group to exaggerate these figures. The more people who they show as on the internet, the more advertisers who will buy their data.

    #2) The data was collected using random-digit dialing. Obviously, the people who don't have phones are more likely to not have internet access too. I wouldn't discount this factor.

    #3) It's very vague what question they actually asked people. Does it include "is there a library within 50 miles of you that has internet access?" Given their natural bias towards inflating the numbers, you can't discount them incorporating those results into their totals.

    It's great if more people are online, but these figures and percentages need to be taken with a grain of salt.
    • Re:Issues (Score:5, Informative)

      by Nakito (702386) on Thursday March 18, 2004 @03:58PM (#8603000)
      #2) The data was collected using random-digit dialing. Obviously, the people who don't have phones are more likely to not have internet access too. I wouldn't discount this factor.

      Good point, but it's already accounted for in the survey. If you look at the definition of the base "population" (i.e., the denominator in the ratio), Nielsen defines it as "Total persons in the U.S. aged 2 and above, living in households equipped with a landline phone." So they are saying, in effect, that three-quarters of telephone-equipped households have online access.

      Also remember that the national Do Not Call registry has an exception for telephone surveys, so Nielsen can still call just about anybody to conduct these surveys. The more interesting question is whether the very small subset of people who actually agree to participate are typical of the population as a whole.
      • Re:Issues (Score:3, Insightful)

        by Cthefuture (665326)
        The more interesting question is whether the very small subset of people who actually agree to participate are typical of the population as a whole.

        From personal experience I'd say no. I'm willing to bet it's 35-54 year old females.
  • by Mycroft_514 (701676) on Thursday March 18, 2004 @03:51PM (#8602909) Journal
    Their method of counting internet access is flawed. Their method would count me four times, and my wife three.

    And then you count my mother-in-law and while she has "access", she has never been online. Her access is just to get e-mail.

    So there you have it. 6 accounts out of 8 counted that are not valid. How many more of them are not valid as well?
    • How is getting (non-local) email not "online"? What internet related activities would you consider use to define being "online"?
      • Having access is not the same as using it. She knows how to get e-mail because I set it up. I tried to walk her through going online one, just to get a e-card I sent her. I had to do it for her, because it made no sense to her.

        It raises the question, what level of usage equates to "online"?
        • Yes, it raises the question of what it means to be "online". Personally, I think that sending and receiving email should count as being online. Sending email across the internet is using the internet. Obviously there's quite a bit more out there that you can do online past email. I think that any use of internet-related services should count, otherwise it is too hard to decide where to draw the line.
    • by zx75 (304335)
      Just an aside to your statement (which is indeed valid), your grandmother is in fact 'connected' even though you do not regard her as such. Email does require internet access, and though she may not 'surf the web' she is indeed connected to it. Limited usage is still validly classified as usage.

      For example, if I own a radio, but only turn it on to check the weather for 30 seconds each morning, I would still be classified as someone who 'listens to the radio' though the time spent is negligable (sp?).
    • Clearly, you did not RTFA.

      They call people and ask them if they have internet access. They would only call you once, hence you would only be counted once.

      True, these statistics do not count how long someone is online. If your mother-in-law checks her email and is online for 5 minutes a day to do so, she is counted the same as someone who is on for 8 hours a day surfing the web. However, your mother-in-law still has internet access at home, so I believe it is valid that she is counted.

      These statistics
    • she has never been online. Her access is just to get e-mail

      Uh - hello? Flawed: what's the all-time killer app?

      Otherwise I agree. 'There's lies, goddamned lies, and statistics', said your author Mr Clemens I believe.
  • by Sylink (763414) on Thursday March 18, 2004 @03:51PM (#8602913)
    Your mom is so fat she takes up the largest age/gender group of internet users in the United States!
  • Quite a Jump (Score:4, Interesting)

    by jbrader (697703) <> on Thursday March 18, 2004 @03:54PM (#8602957)
    Perhaps the real story isn't that the percentage of Americans online at home has grown about 25% in the last 4 years. I think the fact that we've gone from almost nobody being online in the early nineties to having 3/4 of the population on the net in only a decade is the really impressive figure.
    • Re:Quite a Jump (Score:3, Interesting)

      by spun (1352)
      Hmm, it is a big thing. I googled 'history of the telephone' and read a bit from some sites. Bell invented the telephone in 1875 and patented it in early 1876. Telephone usage didn't begin to get big until the late 1890s, and by 1910, there were over a million telephone users hooked into the Bell system. Bell had a clear cut patent, but he had to spend a lot of time and resources defending it in court. The Internet was developed by the US Defense Agency, then built up by Acedemia, then adopted by Busin
  • Hello desktop toys (Score:4, Interesting)

    by Colonel Angus (752172) on Thursday March 18, 2004 @04:02PM (#8603040)
    From what I've seen through my work, it's exactly that 35-54 group that are keeping me in business. I have seen more junk running on these older ladies computers than I even knew was out there. A cat the falls down the screen, walks out a little cat door has been the highest offender. But other things such as "cute" screensavers (likely spyware), comet cursor's "cute" pointers and the like are just as popular.
  • It's strange that only 70% of homes in the USA have an Internet capable computer, yet 75% of homes have the Internet?

    Maybe WebTV is an explanation, but it could be something more sinister. Perhaps these figures are wrong?

    I'd bet the figures are wrong, as I've just made up the "70%" stat. Sorry if I had alarmed you there for a moment...
  • EverQuest (Score:2, Interesting)

    by WyerByter (727074)
    Wasn't there a story here a couple weeks ago, that stated the largest group playing MMORPG was that same group.
  • These figures are impressive but they seem fishy to me. If I'm not mistaken this overtakes cable/satellite/etc television (anyone have the tv figures handy?) I find that hard to believe. I can't think of a single person who has internet but no cable television (not counting students and people moving/transiting/etc)

    Sivaram Velauthapillai
  • I can't help but wonder if the increase of internet users, with most being in the female 35 and up range, has anything to do with the rise of match making web sites like in the last few years. Seems like I've read somewhere that the US population has 5 million more females than males, which could lead to more women looking for Mr. Right on the PC.
  • Table 2: Nielsen//NetRatings Internet Access Penetration (U.S., Home)

    well, duh. no wonder it's highest among women.

  • It's all about eBay (Score:4, Interesting)

    by realmolo (574068) on Thursday March 18, 2004 @04:58PM (#8603703)
    I work for a cable ISP in a town populated with mostly older people (retirement age and up). And I swear, they ALL buy/sell stuff on eBay. They all bought digital cameras to take pictures of the stuff they are selling on eBay. They all upgraded from dial-up so they could bid faster on eBay. In fact, retired people dig eBay so much, I'd bet that many of them would trade their Social Security and Medicare for high buyer/seller ratings. We could cut the federal deficit by billions! So, that's my platform. Vote realmolo in 2004. Contributions accepted via PayPal.
  • Doubtful (Score:4, Insightful)

    by gtrubetskoy (734033) * on Thursday March 18, 2004 @06:34PM (#8604598)
    I find these numbers a bit hard to believe. I'd much rather see how many people have personal e-mail accounts than "access to the internet". If I regularly visit the library or the mall and have once or twice browsed the web on one of those public kiosks - does this mean I have access to the Internet? I think according them it's a yes.

    There are 4 people living in my house. I definitely have access to the internet, my wife doesn't care about computers and my kids are too young to understand it. So in our house it is 1 out of 4 people, and I know people who do not have any kind of Internet access in their home because they don't even own a computer.

    So I'm a bit skeptical about these numbers. I'm guessing there is probably about 200 million actually capable of using the internet in this country (of the whole population, some are too young, some too old, some are unable for other reasons - ill (mentally or otherwise), in jail, etc.).

How many Bavarian Illuminati does it take to screw in a lightbulb? Three: one to screw it in, and one to confuse the issue.