Internet--who needs it?

Discussion in 'NZ Computing' started by Lawrence D'Oliveiro, Oct 25, 2006.

  1. 44% of UK households have no Internet and see no point in getting it
    <http://www.theregister.co.uk/2006/10/24/uk_broadband_survey/>. In the US
    the figure is 36%
    <http://www.theregister.co.uk/2006/02/27/us_net_usage_flatlines/>.
    Lawrence D'Oliveiro, Oct 25, 2006
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. Lawrence D'Oliveiro

    steve Guest

    Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:

    > 44% of UK households have no Internet and see no point in getting it
    > <http://www.theregister.co.uk/2006/10/24/uk_broadband_survey/>. In the US
    > the figure is 36%
    > <http://www.theregister.co.uk/2006/02/27/us_net_usage_flatlines/>.


    More proof you do not know what you do not know.

    More proof not everyone is curious or enjoys reading / learning via
    computer.

    I can't see how i could live without it as I can - in seconds - find the
    answer to pretty much any question i can think of.

    But heaps of people probably never think of any questions and could care
    less.
    steve, Oct 25, 2006
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. Lawrence D'Oliveiro

    ~misfit~ Guest

    steve wrote:
    > Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
    >
    > > 44% of UK households have no Internet and see no point in getting it
    > > <http://www.theregister.co.uk/2006/10/24/uk_broadband_survey/>. In
    > > the US the figure is 36%
    > > <http://www.theregister.co.uk/2006/02/27/us_net_usage_flatlines/>.

    >
    > More proof you do not know what you do not know.
    >
    > More proof not everyone is curious or enjoys reading / learning via
    > computer.
    >
    > I can't see how i could live without it as I can - in seconds - find
    > the answer to pretty much any question i can think of.
    >
    > But heaps of people probably never think of any questions and could
    > care less.


    I agree with everything that you said there except the use of that
    bastardised term you finished with.

    It's *COULN'T* care less.
    --
    Shaun.
    ~misfit~, Oct 25, 2006
    #3
  4. Lawrence D'Oliveiro

    Craig Shore Guest

    On Wed, 25 Oct 2006 16:07:51 +1300, Lawrence D'Oliveiro
    <_zealand> wrote:

    >44% of UK households have no Internet and see no point in getting it
    ><http://www.theregister.co.uk/2006/10/24/uk_broadband_survey/>. In the US
    >the figure is 36%
    ><http://www.theregister.co.uk/2006/02/27/us_net_usage_flatlines/>.


    Wonder what it would be in NZ? Probably much lower, lots of people have net
    access here.
    Craig Shore, Oct 25, 2006
    #4
  5. Lawrence D'Oliveiro

    Guest

    ~misfit~ wrote:

    >
    > It's *COULN'T* care less.
    > --
    > Shaun.


    Shouldn't that be couldn't ?

    Regards
    Miguel
    , Oct 25, 2006
    #5
  6. In message <453efd79$>, ~misfit~ wrote:

    > steve wrote:
    >
    >> But heaps of people probably never think of any questions and could
    >> care less.

    >
    > I agree with everything that you said there except the use of that
    > bastardised term you finished with.
    >
    > It's *COUL[D]N'T* care less.


    ....and your next mission, should you decide to accept it, is to go after
    those who use the phrase "head over heels".
    Lawrence D'Oliveiro, Oct 25, 2006
    #6
  7. T'was the 25 Oct 2006 01:21:25 -0700 when I remembered
    saying something like this:

    >> It's *COULN'T* care less.

    >
    >Shouldn't that be couldn't ?


    It's always a slippery slope correcting other people's English,
    especially since other people will then be watching yours like a Hawk.

    I've set Forte Agent to automatically check my spelling before
    posting, though it's set to American English, I don't mind.
    --
    Cheers,

    Waylon Kenning.
    Waylon Kenning, Oct 25, 2006
    #7
  8. I can't even remember what life was like before the internet.)The
    greatest invention ever!!!

    steve wrote:
    > Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
    >
    > > 44% of UK households have no Internet and see no point in getting it
    > > <http://www.theregister.co.uk/2006/10/24/uk_broadband_survey/>. In the US
    > > the figure is 36%
    > > <http://www.theregister.co.uk/2006/02/27/us_net_usage_flatlines/>.

    >
    > More proof you do not know what you do not know.
    >
    > More proof not everyone is curious or enjoys reading / learning via
    > computer.
    >
    > I can't see how i could live without it as I can - in seconds - find the
    > answer to pretty much any question i can think of.
    >
    > But heaps of people probably never think of any questions and could care
    > less.
    aldrin fabricius, Oct 25, 2006
    #8
  9. Lawrence D'Oliveiro

    Phil Guest

    steve wrote, On 25/10/06 6.50 p:
    > More proof not everyone is curious or enjoys reading


    You are aware that printed books still exist and libraries are still
    standing?

    -Phil
    Phil, Oct 25, 2006
    #9
  10. Lawrence D'Oliveiro

    impossible Guest

    "steve" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
    >
    >> 44% of UK households have no Internet and see no point in getting
    >> it
    >> <http://www.theregister.co.uk/2006/10/24/uk_broadband_survey/>. In
    >> the US
    >> the figure is 36%
    >> <http://www.theregister.co.uk/2006/02/27/us_net_usage_flatlines/>.

    >
    > More proof you do not know what you do not know.
    >
    > More proof not everyone is curious or enjoys reading / learning via
    > computer.
    >
    > I can't see how i could live without it as I can - in seconds - find
    > the
    > answer to pretty much any question i can think of.
    >
    > But heaps of people probably never think of any questions and could
    > care
    > less.
    >
    >


    A breakdown of these numbers by income level would be more revealing,
    I think. I seriously doubt that there are many people today who would
    choose to NOT have access to the internet, all else equal. But above
    and below the median income level for any given country -- or
    comparing the bottom third to the top third -- I suspect you'd find
    dramatic differences.

    In any case, interpreting the distribution of internet access as a
    proxy for the diustribution of intellectual curiosity is just plain
    wrong, IMHO. Consider what many people do with their time on the
    internet: shop, watch porn, watch uTube videos, pass along personal
    messages/photos to family & friends. Those are just virtual
    adapatations of some very ordinary things that people do. Not really
    much intellectual content there, and I suspect the
    intellectual/entertainment quotient is dropping like a rock
    everywhere.
    impossible, Oct 25, 2006
    #10
  11. Lawrence D'Oliveiro

    -=rjh=- Guest

    Phil wrote:
    > steve wrote, On 25/10/06 6.50 p:
    >> More proof not everyone is curious or enjoys reading

    >
    > You are aware that printed books still exist and libraries are still
    > standing?


    You're correct, of course, but internet expands that considerably,
    partly because of its immediacy. Another factor is serendipity,
    stumbling upon things by chance.

    I read books *a lot*, but I cannot think of any scenario using books and
    a library where (as an example,) I would have stumbled upon just who
    Henrietta Lacks was, and why she is so important to cancer research
    today, or (another example) The Rapture Index - currently at 158, up 1
    from yesterday :), scary stuff indeed.

    But I agree with impossible, most people's use of internet probably
    mirrors their previous use of other resources, and probably little of it
    is about asking questions. Somebody who rarely reads books is unlikely
    to suddenly start reading just because they have access to the internet.
    -=rjh=-, Oct 25, 2006
    #11
  12. Lawrence D'Oliveiro

    Blue Guest

    On Wed, 25 Oct 2006 16:07:51 +1300, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:

    > 44% of UK households have no Internet and see no point in getting it
    > <http://www.theregister.co.uk/2006/10/24/uk_broadband_survey/>. In the US
    > the figure is 36%
    > <http://www.theregister.co.uk/2006/02/27/us_net_usage_flatlines/>.


    Right then, in large cities, cars, which households needs them?
    Blue, Oct 26, 2006
    #12
  13. Lawrence D'Oliveiro

    steve Guest

    ~misfit~ wrote:

    > It's *COULN'T* care less.


    Of course. How silly of me. :)
    steve, Oct 26, 2006
    #13
  14. Lawrence D'Oliveiro

    steve Guest

    Phil wrote:
    > steve wrote, On 25/10/06 6.50 p:
    >> More proof not everyone is curious or enjoys reading

    >
    > You are aware that printed books still exist and libraries are still
    > standing?
    >
    > -Phil


    I am.

    and I go regularly, once or twice / year. :)
    steve, Oct 26, 2006
    #14
  15. Lawrence D'Oliveiro

    steve Guest

    -=rjh=- wrote:

    > But I agree with impossible, most people's use of internet probably
    > mirrors their previous use of other resources, and probably little of it
    > is about asking questions. Somebody who rarely reads books is unlikely
    > to suddenly start reading just because they have access to the internet.


    I tend not to include entertainment reading as one doesn't need the
    Internet to do it. You can go buy a book.

    The Internet is hugely useful for finding out about stuff - either on
    purpose or by accident on the way to some other answer.
    steve, Oct 26, 2006
    #15
  16. Lawrence D'Oliveiro

    ~misfit~ Guest

    wrote:
    > ~misfit~ wrote:
    >
    > >
    > > It's *COULN'T* care less.
    > > --
    > > Shaun.

    >
    > Shouldn't that be couldn't ?
    >
    > Regards
    > Miguel


    Aye, I knew it didn't look right but I find it hard to read stuff in all
    caps. Thanks.
    --
    Shaun.
    ~misfit~, Oct 26, 2006
    #16
  17. Lawrence D'Oliveiro

    ~misfit~ Guest

    Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
    > In message <453efd79$>, ~misfit~ wrote:
    >
    > > steve wrote:
    > >
    > > > But heaps of people probably never think of any questions and
    > > > could care less.

    > >
    > > I agree with everything that you said there except the use of that
    > > bastardised term you finished with.
    > >
    > > It's *COUL[D]N'T* care less.

    >
    > ...and your next mission, should you decide to accept it, is to go
    > after those who use the phrase "head over heels".


    Indeed. We all know it should be "Arse over tit".
    --
    Shaun.
    ~misfit~, Oct 26, 2006
    #17
  18. Lawrence D'Oliveiro

    ~misfit~ Guest

    steve wrote:
    > ~misfit~ wrote:
    >
    > > It's *COULN'T* care less.

    >
    > Of course. How silly of me. :)


    :) Indeed. <g>
    --
    Shaun.
    ~misfit~, Oct 26, 2006
    #18
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. unholy
    Replies:
    10
    Views:
    3,956
    unholy
    Aug 23, 2005
  2. Monte Grant

    D-Link wireless PCI needs rescan every boot

    Monte Grant, Dec 21, 2004, in forum: Wireless Networking
    Replies:
    3
    Views:
    653
    Monte Grant
    Dec 22, 2004
  3. David Ellis
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    407
  4. Bob Fleming
    Replies:
    6
    Views:
    16,095
    slumpy
    Oct 5, 2003
  5. Morph

    Internet connection ALWAYS needs a password ?

    Morph, Jan 25, 2005, in forum: Computer Support
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    401
    Governor Swill
    Jan 26, 2005
Loading...

Share This Page