America's View of 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.'"
This American's view of the internet? (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re:This American's view of the internet? (Score:4, Interesting)
Why not? It'd make http://xkcd.com/333/ [xkcd.com] a lot less awkward..
Internet, Head (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Frag that, chummer. I want my datajack NOW.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Internet, Head (Score:4, Funny)
11% (Score:4, Funny)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:11% (Score:4, Insightful)
You cant hack any of the above so its relatively safe.
Oh and a off switch of course.
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
From what I've heard, few, if any of those who have an autopsy performed on them come out alive.
Brain implants? (Score:4, Funny)
Re:Brain implants? (Score:5, Interesting)
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? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Brain implants? (Score:5, Interesting)
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: (Score:2)
Re:Brain implants? (Score:4, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Of course that doesn't invalidate your point or joke. I'll just go away now....
Re: (Score:2)
DON'T DATE ROBOTS!
(Brought to you by the Space Pope.)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
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?
I'm sub thirty so someone else might be better at this assertion, but, I feel like I was much more productive when I was younger and I think it just has to do with my brain "time-compressing" all the code and projects I've ever done and grouping them together as "when I was young" so now I feel lethargic in comparison, even though I do a lot more AND still have time to dick around on /.
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!
Technological singularity without creating AI? Count me in! Less renegade robots that way and I can drop my Old Glory rob
Whoa... (Score:2)
</KeanoReeves>
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Total Recall (Score:3, Interesting)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
Adding you to my friends list.
Re:Brain implants? (Picard, TNG, movie) (Score:2)
FYI, that was the movie, Star Trek: Generations. Picard was caught in the Nexus.
Re: (Score:2)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Inner_Light_(TNG_episode) [wikipedia.org]
Re:Brain implants? (Score:5, Informative)
Lucid dreaming is to know that you dream while you dream. In dreams, the eye movements we make are also made with our real eyes. As such, they can be used as a way for dreamers to contact people doing experiments on them. What LaBerge did was to monitor the eye's movements, and instruct a lucid dreamer (lucidity can be trained) to count in his dream, and excecute a certain pattern of movement with his eyes whenever he counted to X (probably ten, can't remember).
It turns out that dream-time is just as fast as wake-time, and that the feeling of experiencing a year in a period of 30 minutes probably works like it does in movies. A man jumps into bed, the scene fades, you see the morning light come in and the man wakes up. In reality, a few seconds passed, but the movie gave you the illusion of a night passing. Now add to that that dreams affect all your senses (or at least have the ability of doing so).
Not so strange, eh? (Also, if you want to spend some time experiencing really surreal things, start doing lucid dreaming. It's awesome.)
Re:Brain implants? (Score:5, Interesting)
Personally during this state before I learned to control it I had episodes where I saw chains holding me down, heard grows coming from the hallway, heard footsteps walking around in the house, felt invisible hands clawing into my stomach, and have seen a zombie like face playing peeka-boo at with me at the foot of my bed. This all looks VERY real, because you can look around the actual room, hear everything that's going on, etc. When the brain needn't render the whole environment it seems to be able to do a great job and rendering "spot detail". Luckily, given that it IS a dream, all rules of lucid dreaming apply, and you can control the environment and keep it non-scary if your are aware of it. It's a nice experience if you know to remain calm and unafraid (if your mind starts drifting you can scare the shit out of yourself if you're not careful, especially if you realize the situation and start thinking "Wouldn't it be really scary if . . . ").
This is actually a very good candidate for explaining lots of supposedly paranormal phenomenon that has been experienced throughout the ages. Look back at so many of the alien abduction reports, ghost sightings/reports, etc, and then look at how many occur with the person in bed and unable to move. A lot of them have that trait in common.
Wiki entry on the subject: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sleep_paralysis [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:2)
One in four say it could replace an SO? (Score:4, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Not really...if you mean by SO, a 'long term' commitment, all you need that for is if you want to have and raise kids. Otherwise, you don't really need a significant other. Why be stuck sleeping with only one woman the rest of your life? Get one, enjoy her for awhile, and then trade 'up' for a newer model periodically....and this way, you don't have to give up half you sh*t every few years.
If you want long term relationships...keep l
Significant Other? (Score:5, Funny)
Well, it is communication. (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
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
Re: (Score:2)
>:F
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
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
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Clearly your not into the bar scene.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Of course, face to fac
Rather misleading.... (Score:5, Interesting)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
Most of those cases are already covered by laws not specific to the Internet, but that's besides the point, because th
Re: (Score:2)
1% error? (Score:2)
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
"Only" 11% want Internet wetware? (Score:5, Interesting)
transhumanism (Score:2)
If you have ... why do you need ... ? (Score:2)
Thank you, America for a quick reply.
Re: (Score:2)
What I think this study is saying, more alarmingly, is t
Obligatory link (Score:5, Insightful)
The new MMORPG from the creators of the smashing hit "IRL" [wikipedia.org]
FEATURES:
Get Outside NOW!!!
Re:Obligatory link (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
* huge monthly fees, just for storage and rest
* insane limitations on where you are allowed to explore. Exploring certain areas will get you BANNED!
* most NPC AI is so bad I can't imaging the game maker spend much time on it
Also
* grinding can suck in this game
* character creation screen consists of a single 'random roll', admittedly I got
The Internet vs. the Wife (Score:2)
That's okay, neither does my wife. *Rimshot*
(Actually, she does and she would. I'm a lucky guy.)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
More than half of americans want gov parenting! (Score:3, Interesting)
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: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Why is it always the old folks? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Or maybe theyre voting "none of the above" (Score:2)
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
Re: (Score:2)
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
Re: (Score:2)
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
*cough* (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I'm all for a very low age of consent, say 14. Basically at 14 you're an adult and can do as you please, likewise everybody else treats you as an adult, no separate ages for voting, sex, alcohol etc.
It would stop a lot of the teenage problems if at 14 they had to fend for themselves. This extended childhood so prevalent in the US is giving us children aged twenty five who are unable to function on their own.
As for 12 year olds deciding policy, go and read Lord of th
Re: (Score:2)
Brain Hacking (Score:2, Interesting)
old people (Score:2, Interesting)
one word: (Score:2)
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? (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Regulating video, and the constitution. (Score:2)
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
Re: (Score:2)
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 dow
WTF?? (Score:3, Interesting)
Neither would my ex-wife.
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 (Score:3, Interesting)
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: (Score:3, Informative)
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 exer
Too Much Government Power (Score:4, Insightful)
My view of the internet... (Score:4, Insightful)
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... (Score:2)
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: (Score:2)
Umm...online poll? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Baby and bathwater (Score:2)
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
Internet Implants (Score:2)
Hmm... this made me think. Let's make some suppositions, shall we? So, suppose:
a) You have one of these implants.
b) You are able to install anything you want on it, such as a torrent client;
c) These devices are so advanced that they preemptively start downloading anyth
Lucky (Score:4, Funny)
Fortunately, this happens to match the exact % of the population whose IQ would be improved by having the Internet implanted in their brains.
Biased "survey" (Score:3, Interesting)
Cross Referencing (Score:2)
I'd also like to know how many of the pro-censor people believe the government should censor printed matter. And then I'd like to ignore all those people, but preferably the much narrower fraction who c
Re: (Score:2)
(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... )
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
I can't tell if that's a reference to Douglas Adams or to masturbation. Hopefully not both.
Re: (Score:2)
Those sights allow people to social contact other people with similar interest or friends, read what they are doing setup a contact or not.
People seem to want to do that, and that is difficult and clumsy using the methods you listed.
I don't understand why people would want to do that, but is seems that is the expected norm for people under 24.