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

61–69 of 69 posts

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

#61

Post by hexagonc »

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…

> Baloney: multimedia classrooms - CORRECT

Khan Academy says "hi!"[1]. I'd only give half credit for this, considering the success that Khan Academy has had in schools and with individual learners.

[1] https://www.khanacademy.org/coach-res/case-studies

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

#62

Post by Nicholas_C »

>Logged onto the World Wide Web, I hunt for the date of the Battle of Trafalgar. Hundreds of files show up, and it takes 15 minutes to unravel them—one's a biography written by an eighth grader, the second is a computer game that doesn't work and the third is an image of a London monument. None answers my question, and my search is periodically interrupted by messages like, "Too many connections, try again later."

Wow, we've come a long way. I just pressed Ctrl + T, typed in "Battle of Trafalgar", hit enter, and had the answer immediately. (21 October 1805)

Interestingly, if you type "Battle of Trafalgar date", Google gives you a different date! It says 1824, which is the date when the painting titled "Battle of Trafalgar" was completed. I suppose we may have a little ways to go.

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

#63

Post by dragonwriter »

Nicholas_C wrote: post #62

>Logged onto the World Wide Web, I hunt for the date of the Battle of Trafalgar. Hundreds of files show up, and it takes 15 minutes to unravel them—one's a biography written by an eighth grader, the second is a computer game that doesn't work and the third is an image of a London monument. None answers my question, and my search is periodically interrupted by messages like, "Too many connections, try again later." Wo…

> Interestingly, if you type "Battle of Trafalgar date", Google gives you a different date!

OTOH, if you search Google for "When was the battle of Trafalgar" you get the correct answer ...

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

#64

Post by mathattack »

gaius wrote: post #6
mathattack wrote: post #3

Clifford Stoll's writing should be required reading. He missed some of the technological leaps of the past 18 years that improved adoption (this was pre-pre-Bubble) but the many of the ideas of human contact do ring true today. I was very surprised when I read this the first time around. He elaborated more in Silicon Valley Snake Oil, also from 1995. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Silicon_Snake_Oil and http://www.amazo…

SSO should be required reading for the current crop of "teach everyone to code" types.

I think they tell different stories, no?

SSO is about spending too much time online. "Teach everyone to code" is about giving people marketable skills, and adding computer programming to the mathematics curriculum. Why not?

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

#65

Post by argumentum »

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.

“To see what is in front of one’s nose needs a constant struggle.” - George Orwell

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

#66

Post by drdiablo »

I think there is something very important that clifford Stoll doesn't talk about. It's the power of having all our brains connected at one point, like solar panels targeting light towards a sensor to multiply the amount of heat transfer. We are all together in this thing called in the internet, and anyone who has a good idea can share it. Anyone who likes someone else's idea can go and help the person who had the idea. Most of all, people can combine ideas together to make the most brilliant things and very act of combining ideas I call it creativity. Ok fine the internet might not look so bright right now, but let's remember that thanks to the internet, we were able to invent things that would've never thought of, simply because the ideas weren't all there at the same place, easy to combine.

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

#67

Post by WoodenChair »

Peaker wrote: post #57
WoodenChair wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Yeah but what I'm saying having used the web in 1995 is that his insights were obvious then too.

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

#68

Post by Peaker »

WoodenChair wrote: post #67
Peaker wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The deepest insights are often obvious in hindsight.

Yeah but what I'm saying having used the web in 1995 is that his insights were obvious then too.

It isn't enough that they are obvious when they are pointed out explicitly.

If they were obvious, you'd find other articles/authors explaining the same issues?

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

#69

Post by WoodenChair »

Peaker wrote: post #68
WoodenChair wrote: post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah but what I'm saying having used the web in 1995 is that his insights were obvious then too.

It isn't enough that they are obvious when they are pointed out explicitly. If they were obvious, you'd find other articles/authors explaining the same issues?

I'm not going to go look it up for you, but there were plenty of skeptics in the mid 90s of eBooks, online banking, and the accuracy of search engine results. In fact it was probably the prevailing opinion of established business interests, hence why the web took much of the old guard by surprise. I'm not sure what you're arguing? Do you think the majority were visionary?
Post reply on HN