Internet Plays A Large Role For U.S. Citizens 170
Homework Help writes "The latest U.S. Census Bureau report suggests that the Internet has become an integral part of the American lifestyle and economy." From the article: "It shows 40 percent of U.S. adults used the Web to obtain news, weather or sports information, a dramatic increase from the 7 percent who surfed in 1997, when the bureau conducted a similar study. The report also found that nearly half of adults, 47 percent, used the Internet to find information on products or services. About one-third reported purchasing a product or service online, compared with only 2 percent who did so in 1997."
WTF? (Score:5, Insightful)
I thought our government was gathering more useful statistics, but I guess not.
The Web Is Not The Internet! (Score:5, Insightful)
To the extent that we have all sorts of just-in-time deliveries to factories, package tracking, widely accessible databases, and all sorts of other efficiency-enabling goodies that rely on internetworking, the thrust of the summary sells it very short. Sure, web/e-mail/IM use by individuals is way, way up from 5 or 10 years ago - but the country's use of the internet, down at the economic and government plumbing level, affects everyone, and in ways that most people don't appreciate until it breaks.
Money! (Score:3, Insightful)
Well, it depends on how much the bandwidth charges cost. In their equation, bandwidth is the only thing that isn't going down in price. Home networking gear, laptops, mobile devices with wireless/GPRS, etc, are all falling rapidly. It's the network connection fees that are prohibitive.
They are claiming that a huge percentage of households will have broadband available to them by 2010 but how many will be able to afford it with restrictions such as required CATV, local phone service, etc? Yeah, the actual Internet connection seems inexpensive until you realize that you have to bundle it w/the other services to get a reasonable rate.
That's what needs to be ended before broadband adoption skyrockets.
Re:WTF? (Score:3, Insightful)
And to digress slightly from the topic, I would bet in 1905, far fewer than 7% of people used cars. Same with your 2005 99% figure. I'd expect it's only about 70%. The same reason for that is the same reason only 40-some percent of Americans use the Internet; they're elderly, or very young, but most of all, many of them are just too poor.
Just-in-Time ... Just-a-Note (Score:2, Insightful)
Not that you carry any of these assumptions, it just needed to be said.
Re:Paper maps (Score:4, Insightful)
Yes, paper maps do exist for both large and small cities. In my area, these maps are mostly free because they are supported by advertising local businesses.
As nice as google maps or other software packages are, its a lot lighter to carry a real map than a laptop, or a lot less expensive than buying a portable GPS map unit.
Re:The Internet Makes You Stupid (Score:4, Insightful)
I love it when people toss about references with no understanding of their origin or meaning. When Marx initially wrote about religion being the opiate, he was actually paying it a (albeit backhanded) compliment, that awareness of a religious idea can steer people toward a more noble life. It makes the oppressed fell better about their condition.
Marx figured religion would become obsolete anyway after the Revolution[tm].
Now even if we take the fully negative context that has been imposed on the quote over the years, your previous statement does not add up:
Seriously, the Internet makes it almost too easy to access information. If I want pizza, I go online and order it. If I want a movie, I go online and order it. To submit homework, I go online to submit it. To get a job, I email applications and lookup company profiles on the internet.
And where's the downside you are seeing? The Marx quote is sometimes applied to television and other mediums that tend to make people passive and distracted. What you describe is a handy and practical tool, and somehow this offends you.
So what's really interesting here is that the Marx quote, in its original context, might actually apply to some extent to the Internet, but not for the reasons you think.
Re:Paper maps (Score:3, Insightful)
Not of small towns necessarily, but of regions and states, sure. I have been using a Garmin GPSMap 76 [garmin.com] with thier Mapsource software and while it is good for trip planning and the occasional re-routing, it take fore thought to load the maps and really doens't give a good overview of where you are, where you are going, and where you will be.
Paper maps are exremely useful if your lost and trying to figure out how to get back to where you need to be. Now you can say with a GPS, you never get lost because you always know where you are (and let's just assume you don't loose signal), that is true. But to get back to where you want to go via roads, not as the crow flies typically means. Zoom out to see where you are and try to figure out where you need to be. Try to mouse over roads to get names (which by the way are often route numbers when locally they are named and vice versa and I have seen this on Mapsource, Streets adn Maps, google, and other mapping applications (is other mapping software better)), zoom in to get better pointer resolution, zoom to get context again, set way points, zoom in ... Well, you get the idea.
Granted the GPSMap 76 wasn't designed to be a guide by wire mapping product, but it does a nice job and has gotten me out of a few jams.
If someone told me I had to make a choice between paper maps and electronic ones for the rest of my life, today, I would go with paper. They are more reilaible on so many levels and useable. Besides, they are fun to toss out the window when you get more lost using them.
Re:I guess that they failed to mention (Score:2, Insightful)
Possibly, but aren't you confusing 'most popular' with 'generating the most traffic'? I suspect there's plenty newsgroups that are just as popular (or more so), but simply lighter on the data pipes.
Same with other types of internet usage. Things like e-mail and IM can take a small share of all bandwidth, but still be among the most popular applications.Re:Emerging Technology (Score:4, Insightful)
Not necessarily. There are plenty of "mature" technologies that are not a part of the average household (own any small planes?). Whether a technology gains widespread adoption depends on the cost and appeal to consumers. The internet could have easily remained just a geeky way of exchanging research information if it had not been adopted for commercial use.
Re:Right... (Score:3, Insightful)
Except that most libraries are, and should be, extensions of the local educational framework. Those are administered, and typically funded by local taxes (usually property taxes) overseen by state legislatures and county councils. The most impoverished, under-educated, high-unemployment areas of the country aren't run by conservatives, they're run - at the city, county, and state levels - by liberals. You'd think that areas (take, say, New Orleans as an example) where Democratic politicians have had their way for decades at the city, county, and state levels, that their policies would surely have resulted in an education paradise by now... right? Or maybe throwing money at the situation doesn't actually make the difference, and it has more to do with a culture of accountability, personal integrity, and parents that actually give a damn about whether their kids are in school and getting their brains in order.
I live just outside of Wasington DC. That school system has one of the highest dropout rates in the country, despite having one of the highest per-capita expenditures per student (over $10,000 per student per year - which would educate three or more students, internet access and all, in most other jurisdictions). The city is full of internet-enabled libraries, churches, and other community centers. But it's also full of families (and more often, single teenage mothers) that don't bother to arrange for anything like a stable home before having kids. It's outrageous that those kids should have to pay the price for their parents not giving a damn, but only parents can keep their kids going to school and paying attention.
Plus, all of the libraries I know require you to show photo ID to get on, which a lot of people don't want to reveal because they may have a criminal record (though have served their time) or bad immigration status.
So, you're suggesting that it's lack of internet access that's keeping someone from getting a good job, but it's their criminal history that's keeping them from getting internet access? If their legal status is that shaky, just what sort of good job did you think that internet access was going to enable them to get? Having a felony on your record doesn't stop you from using public facilities such as libraries. Being a wanted felon does, but again, no legit job is forthcoming then either. And, bad immigration status? So, again, you're hoping that net access is going to get someone who is already breaking the law a good job? If you're in the country illegally, while other people who want to be legal are going to the trouble and time to do so, why should I care to in any way subsidize internet access for you? Willing law breakers are exhibiting a willingness to lie, to abuse the system, and to cheat other people out of a place that those other people are willing to wait for. And you think that internet access should be provided (with other people's money) so that person can look for a "good" job? How do you define "good?" Someone who's willing to hire criminals? At least think about what you're saying, here.
is a horribly slow way for them to access all the moder sites with all their bells and whistles.
And buses are horribly slow ways for people to access the roads, and they only go to certain places - not always the places with all the "bells and whistles." And people pay for bus use, too. Why is it OK to have to walk to a bus stop to use highly subsidized public transportation, but not OK for it to take several seconds longer while your job-search web site loads over dial-up?
Yeah, see, most people of color tend to prefer to spend that on, I don't know, diapers and baby formula.
Why are you so obsessed with thinking that there are no such things as white people that can't afford to blow $50 a month because they also need to buy diapers? It's called personal responsibility... as in, don't have babies if the cost of having
Hang in there, I'm rooting 4 ya. (Score:3, Insightful)
It would also be quite an occasion to see someone admit they didn't think something through before posting.