Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Why the Web Won't Be Nirvana (1995)

newsweek.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 69 posts

Re: Why the Web Won't Be Nirvana (1995)

#51

Post by mjolk »

m3talsmith wrote: post #47
mjolk wrote: post #10

I hope others don't take too much away from an article that contains the gem: "So how come my local mall does more business in an afternoon than the entire Internet handles in a month?" Human contact is nice and can't be replaced by our current technology. Don't let this one, easy-to-make, statement let the rest of the contrarianism seem correct. Mr. Stroll's vision for the future of the internet was short-sighted an…

I beg to differ: $61 billion gross for 2012 - http://techcrunch.com/2013/11/13/jeff-bezos-believes-aws-cou...

In what way do you beg to differ? You're just linking me to an article about AWS profits.

Re: Why the Web Won't Be Nirvana (1995)

#52

Post by derleth »

periferral wrote: post #27
pekk wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Wikipedia is a great place to publish your views with little real oversight, as long as you get seniority, make a few external sites to link to, and squat the relevant pages. The best part is that your message can be taken up well because even adults think they can rely on it (no adult relies on Britannica for anything, few own it anyway). Maybe you were wrong and your father was right.

and yet it accurately states facts in a majority (if not all) matters I've looked up in recent years.

What's more, Wikipedia gets better the more contentious the topic. For example, the Evolution article is well-cited, due to constant bickering, and constantly policed, because it would otherwise be taken over by religious people who are utterly convinced that T. rex fossils were planted by God to test the faith of the masses.

(The Talk pages are a hoot and a half if you're in the mood for that sort of thing; some people get really annoyed when NPOV means "We put the scientific consensus front and center, because that's what the reliable sources state.")

Re: Why the Web Won't Be Nirvana (1995)

#53

Post by WoodenChair »

rohansingh wrote: post #39

There are two things to take away from this. The first is Clifford Stoll's own comment when his essay resurfaced over in 2010. The whole thing is worth reading [1], and it ends with: > Now, whenever I think I know what’s happening, I temper my thoughts: Might be wrong, Cliff… Secondly, while Stoll is wrong on many points in this essay, what's amazing is that he hits on things that were definitely broken or deficient…

I don't find pointing out the obvious "amazing". Anyone who looked at a CRT in 1995 knew they didn't want to read a book on it.

Re: Why the Web Won't Be Nirvana (1995)

#54

Post by WoodenChair »

dicroce wrote: post #36
pekk wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Wikipedia is a great place to publish your views with little real oversight, as long as you get seniority, make a few external sites to link to, and squat the relevant pages. The best part is that your message can be taken up well because even adults think they can rely on it (no adult relies on Britannica for anything, few own it anyway). Maybe you were wrong and your father was right.

I use Wikipedia nearly every day. I have learned a great many things that I am able to immediately apply in my work (recent example: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boyer_moore )... I guess its just a coincidence that this false information had the exact same running time complexity as the real thing (O(n+m))?

It might be an incredibly useful tool for learning new information, but that still doesn't mean it's something I would rely on when publishing a non-fiction document.

Re: Why the Web Won't Be Nirvana (1995)

#55

Post by asveikau »

smegel wrote: post #17

> The cacophany more closely resembles citizens band radio, complete with handles, harrasment, and anonymous threats. Fascinating.

Anyone else bothered that he spelled "cacophony" wrong? "Cacophony" as in "bad sounds"? Going by the Greek roots this is roughly equivalent to writing "telephane".

Re: Why the Web Won't Be Nirvana (1995)

#56

Post by jimktrains2 »

WoodenChair wrote: post #54
dicroce wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I use Wikipedia nearly every day. I have learned a great many things that I am able to immediately apply in my work (recent example: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boyer_moore )... I guess its just a coincidence that this false information had the exact same running time complexity as the real thing (O(n+m))?

It might be an incredibly useful tool for learning new information, but that still doesn't mean it's something I would rely on when publishing a non-fiction document.

You mean in the same way you shouldn't rely on any encyclopedia when publishing a non-fiction piece?

Re: Why the Web Won't Be Nirvana (1995)

#57

Post by Peaker »

WoodenChair wrote: post #53
rohansingh wrote: post #39

There are two things to take away from this. The first is Clifford Stoll's own comment when his essay resurfaced over in 2010. The whole thing is worth reading [1], and it ends with: > Now, whenever I think I know what’s happening, I temper my thoughts: Might be wrong, Cliff… Secondly, while Stoll is wrong on many points in this essay, what's amazing is that he hits on things that were definitely broken or deficient…

I don't find pointing out the obvious "amazing". Anyone who looked at a CRT in 1995 knew they didn't want to read a book on it.

The deepest insights are often obvious in hindsight.

Re: Why the Web Won't Be Nirvana (1995)

#58

Post by apolymath »

18 years later... Google has singlehandedly organized vast amounts of data on the internet, along with wolfram alpha, thousands of hand-crafted infographics, youtube & vimeo, twitter, and a handful of other services. The internet is not only a nirvana but a way to simultaneously empower entire nations of people against the veils of corruption that have befallen civilization throughout human history.

Re: Why the Web Won't Be Nirvana (1995)

#59

Post by apolymath »

wehadfun wrote: post #32

Baloney: telecommuting workers - WRONG Baloney: interactive libraries - CORRECT Baloney: multimedia classrooms - CORRECT Baloney:electronic town meetings- CORRECT Baloney:virtual communities - WRONG Baloney:Commerce and business will shift from offices and malls to networks and modems - HALF CREDIT (they both exist) Baloney: freedom of digital networks will make government more democratic - CORRECT (Governemts just c…

I have to disagree with your comment about how CD ROMs aren't keeping kids off the streets. That would be equivalent to saying video games don't keep kids off streets. Kids these days don't sell drugs or commit crimes on the streets, or even PLAY in the streets anymore, they sit in their room or friends room and play video games all day. This is a common fact. Unless you're talking about 3rd world countries where most people don't have a PC or internet or even electricity.

Re: Why the Web Won't Be Nirvana (1995)

#60

Post by 6d0debc071 »

apolymath wrote: post #59
wehadfun wrote: post #32

Baloney: telecommuting workers - WRONG Baloney: interactive libraries - CORRECT Baloney: multimedia classrooms - CORRECT Baloney:electronic town meetings- CORRECT Baloney:virtual communities - WRONG Baloney:Commerce and business will shift from offices and malls to networks and modems - HALF CREDIT (they both exist) Baloney: freedom of digital networks will make government more democratic - CORRECT (Governemts just c…

I have to disagree with your comment about how CD ROMs aren't keeping kids off the streets. That would be equivalent to saying video games don't keep kids off streets. Kids these days don't sell drugs or commit crimes on the streets, or even PLAY in the streets anymore, they sit in their room or friends room and play video games all day. This is a common fact. Unless you're talking about 3rd world countries where mos…

I never saw kids selling drugs on the streets. In schools on the other hand....
Post reply on HN