Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
News

Govt Says: Internet Is Popular 249

Posted by Hemos from the well-duh dept.
michaeld writes "The U.S. Dept of Commerce reports that more than half of the nation is now online. In September 2001, 143 million Americans (54% of population) were using the Internet -- an increase of 26 million in thirteen months. 2 million more go online each month. Between August 2000 and September 2001, residential use of high-speed, broadband service doubled--from about 4 to 11 percent of all individuals, and from 11 to 20 percent of Internet users. ZDNet has commentary as does Reuters, while the government has the Full report."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Govt Says: Internet Is Popular More

Govt Says: Internet Is Popular

Comments Filter:
  • The government recently noted that 54% of the population likes to eat.

    Sheesh, you reckon it's popular?

  • Your slow in the US (Score:3, Interesting)

    by lexcyber ( 133454 ) on Wednesday February 06, 2002 @09:14AM (#2960950) Homepage
    We are some 80% in .se that has used the internet
    and some 60% that does it on a regular basis.

    Did I tell you we have digital cellnetworks and use
    sms ALOT. etc. Been a while since the US was in the techno-fronteir?

    This was not a flamebait. This was just to pointout
    how utterly uninteresting statistics like that is.

  • Apparently by 2010 there will be 359 million Americans online.

    Lies, damn lies and statistics :-)

    • Re:2 million a month? (Score:1, Funny)

      by Anonymous Coward
      And 50 percent of them will be overweight, middle-aged men posing as young teenage girls.
    • "Apparently by 2010 there will be 359 million Americans online."

      You're assuming it's linear ... it is possible that the 2M/month data is a linearized case of a more accurate statistical projection.

      But then again, as we all know, 85.1% of all statistics are crap.

  • ...the online advertising revenue model collapsed, and the total content (fresh, updated content) has imploded to a fraction of what it was 2 years ago, with many sites that were vibrant not placeholders or shells.
    • At the same time, independent publishing has never been doing better. Thousands of well designed, fresh sites are being run by people with a passion for what they're writing about. All in all, I think the internet is much healthier now than during the 'let's get as big as we can, IPO then take the money and run' period.

  • Al Gore (Score:1, Funny)

    by JohnHegarty ( 453016 )
    Al Gore must be very proud... with inventing the internet and all

  • Duh! (Score:3, Funny)

    by jamirocake ( 456380 ) <mgarcia2&binghamton,edu> on Wednesday February 06, 2002 @09:17AM (#2960965) Homepage Journal
    I don't know if 80 000 000 people on AOL is really "on line". It's sad to see that as technolgy advances 'the people' remain in obscurity (ie.: in the hands of companies like AOL and MS) and it the comptres are still mystical boxes not to be tampered with. It makes me think that this headline in a dark ages newspaper would be: Church says God is popular.
    • A lot, if not most of them are in fact "on line". My wife had an AOL account when I met her and years later still uses it for email. She has so many AOL buddies that the path of least resistance is to keep it. We have a cable modem so dialing up to thier modems isn't an issue.

      But at the same time she uses IE, Netscape, Eudora, ICUII, CU-SeeMe, and an bunch of pure internet applications to do the things AOL doesn't do so well.

      I've had an AOL account since '89 and while I don't use it very often, it definately has uses. The searchable member database is unmatched for finding people who share certain interests with us in our area (in fact, that's how I met my wife).

      AOL accompanies our internet experience but in no way rules it.

    • Re:Duh! (Score:3, Insightful)

      by RazzleFrog ( 537054 )
      comptres [sic] are still mystical boxes not to be tampered with

      Do you have to be able to tamper with your computer in order to be online? Do you have to know how to use Gopher, FTP, Newsgroups, and Telnet to be online?

      How about another approach? Do I have to be a musician to enjoy music? Do I have to be a chef to enjoy food? Do I have to be a mechanic to drive my car? Do I have to hunt if I want to eat meat? Do I have to be a carpenter to sit on my chair?

      I think you get the idea. Just because people are not technically inclined it does not make them any less online. Your elitist attitude will not serve you well when dealing with regular people.

      • You are right... (Score:2, Insightful)

        by gfxguy ( 98788 )
        But I will say that: knowing how your car works can make driving a more enjoyable experience, knowing how to cook can make dining a more enjoyable experience, knowing carpentry can help you appreciate the work that went into the chair you are sitting (and perhaps appreciate it more).

        I think that knowing more about the technical side, even if not being a guru - just being a step above "Duh...", can make computing a more enjoyable experience. I think people who blindly use MS (and Mac) and AOL, for example, may be missing out - they may not realize the potential that their computers and the internet are actually offering them. They're living their computing lives with blinders on.

        Before anyone jumps on me, note that I DID NOT say that if you use MS or MacOS or AOL that you are NOT realizing what more you can do, I'm saying there are a good number of people who aren't.

      • Re:Duh! (Score:3, Interesting)

        by dswensen ( 252552 )
        You don't have to be a mechanic to drive a car, but it is helpful when driving a car to know how the car operates.

        When learning to drive a vehicle, people usually don't flap their hands and refuse to learn anything about how it works, claiming "oh, I'm just no good with cars," and then, after driving it into a telephone pole, exclaim "but it should have worked! Why didn't it to what I want?" Yet I see this kind of philosophy all the time when it comes to computers.

        Also, people who own vehicles usually don't drive it for years, refusing to put in gasoline or oil, or have any routine maintenance performed on it, even when danger signs start cropping up, then express amazement and disgust at Bill Gates when the thing finally breaks. Yet, again, I see people treat their computers like this. These aren't stupid people, either; these were the Ph.Ds I worked with at my school.

        You don't have to be a musician to enjoy music; however, it does help to know how to operate a CD player. And it doesn't matter how idiot-proof it is, some people just do not have what it takes.

        I know plenty of people who aren't "technically inclined" who function perfectly well with their computers and their Eudora or AOL. I also know people who aren't "technically inclined" who can't resize their browser window without calling the help desk -- every time. Yet, they refuse to learn. This isn't elitist, it's just the way things are.

      • Re:Duh! (Score:2, Insightful)

        by jamirocake ( 456380 )
        How about another approach? Do I have to be a musician to enjoy music? .... Do I have to be a carpenter to sit on my chair? "

        That is just rethorics, we all know that the answer is of course not. But is it helpful to have musical education to appreciate music, yes. Is it important to know the basics of how your car works so you do't get ripped off by a mechanic: yes.
        I don't believe in being elitist (nor in judging people by a single post of being one!) I belive in KNOWLEDGE, I belive that if we all have to learn to read and to write and to how to use a car and how to deal with other people and how to behave in specifuc situations we all have potential to learn.
        And big institutions depend on the limited knowledge of the indivudal. That is why each time i stumble with a person that needs help with a PC, insetad of just fixing the problen i try to teach them not only how i did it but WHY the problem occurred. That's why each time I reply to a post attacking my character I try to be polite and not judge the other person at the end of the line. PS I _volunteer_ at a local high school as the tech administrator and i do training for teachers, just so you know more about myself before making up your mind....
  • No wonder the cable companies are trying to limit/charge people who use too much bandwidth.

    It's probably a massive conspiracy by the RIAA/MPAA trying to stop those evil "pirates".

    Enough conspiracies for today anyways.

  • What they don't tell you... (Score:5, Funny)

    by ckd ( 72611 ) on Wednesday February 06, 2002 @09:18AM (#2960967) Homepage

    The Internet isn't really that popular; someone at Microsoft just got confused about the subject of the poll, and sent out some email to the entire company claiming that the government was trying to measure the popularity of .NET.

  • Knowing how quickly our elected representatives recognise and take advantage of new technologies, how long before we get campaign ads as pop-under and flash ads, or spam? I realize there was some smearing going on in the last presidential primaries, via email, but I expect a bigger role for internet mediums in the upcoming presidential election, perhaps this years congressional elections. I can barely stand this stuff on the TV and radio, the deluge so relentless, how long before I'm hounded on the 'net, too?
    • Knowing how quickly our elected representatives recognise and take advantage of new technologies, how long before we get campaign ads as pop-under and flash ads, or spam?

      The 2084 Presidential Election. At the earliest. Hell, Strom Thurmond's still trying to figure out the telegraph.

      --saint
  • The interesting thing to me is the extent to which Internet connectivity is (rightly) viewed as an unsupportable luxury in so many households. What I hope to see in the near future is the "normalization" of internet service, to the point where it is included as part of your utility bill. The government could help this along by promoting the idea of, and provideing incentives for, Internet access as a basic right on the level of shelter and food. It's a fascinating time to be alive....
    • It will be considered invasive, creeping Socialism (or Communism) by RW fringe groups and be shouted down at every corner. Like Flouride in water was during the middle of the last century.
      • Ironically, Russia (then the USSR) introduced Flouride into their water at about the same time as the US did. Over there the fringe groups were screaming that it was a capitalistic conspiracy to pacify them. Funny how crazed minds think alike. :)

    • Re:Connectivity as a basic right (Score:5, Insightful)

      by mESSDan ( 302670 ) on Wednesday February 06, 2002 @09:50AM (#2961072) Homepage
      Maybe I shouldn't troll, but I consider this a silly idea. Internet is a basic right on the level of shelter and food? What about phones? Are they a basic right? No, not even close. What about television? Again, no. What you see on TV is for the most part only there because an advertiser paid a network exec for time. What about electricity? Basic right? No, I still get an electric bill every month, and they don't hesitate to turn it off if I miss a payment.

      The person who dubs the internet as any sort of "basic right" probably needs to go without for a few months just so you will find that yes, you can survive without internet access. The internet in no way affects your quality of life.

      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        by account_deleted ( 4530225 )
        Comment removed based on user account deletion

      • Re:Connectivity as a basic right (Score:4, Insightful)

        by foo fighter ( 151863 ) on Wednesday February 06, 2002 @10:04AM (#2961126) Homepage
        I would disagree with your stating the Internet doesn't affect my quality of life. I'm much better informed, more politically active, and make more money becuase of the Internet. I have new friends, and am able to better keep in touch with geographically distant friends and family. I have seen and read things online that I never would have been exposed to had it not been for the Internet.

        While it is not a basic right, it does affect the quality of life.
      • > No, I still get an electric bill every month,
        > and they don't hesitate to turn it off if I
        > miss a payment

        Bzzt, check local regulation. It's different from state to state but in a couple places I've lived, "basic" utilities are required to grant a grace period before deactivating service. Power is one of them. I think it was in Oregon where they were not allowed to shut off your power for 15 days after serving you a warning that you hadn't paid the bill.

        Note this would be a period in addition to the normal "detection" period, that month or two it takes them to realize they aren't getting money from you.

        Certain utilities are considered a basic "right". Though I do agree that internet access is not one of them. ;)
      • admittedly phones aren't a basic right currently. I think they should be. When I was 15, my parents got a divorce. My father cut the phone line and it took a couple of days to get the service started again. In that time, our garage caught fire. The closest neighbor I had was a mile away. That is when I thought phones should be a basic right. Maybe not extra features, but I needed to call 911 and couldn't.

        Maybe not now but I can see a day when the same thing with the internet will need to happen. Communication should be a basic right. All of our services revolve around it. (i.e. fire deptment) If you base society around a certain technology then that technology becomes a basic right.
      • The internet in no way affects your quality of life.

        Well besides the obvious "helps me find better deals when shopping" the Internet has done a lot to improve the quality of my life:

        • Through the Internet (Yahoo Chat Rooms, specifically), I met my wife. We lived 200 miles apart when we met, so without the 'Net we never would have met. This certainly has improved the quality of my life.
        • I'm a web developer. Thus, working with the Internet provides me with a paycheck without which my quality of life would seriously suffer.
        • Through the Internet I've met people I would have never met before. This has introduced me to viewpoints and ideas I would have never considered and has broadened my horizons.


        Based on those three points alone, I'd say that the Internet has improved my quality of life.
      • Actually phones *are* somewhat guaranteed by the government. It's usually called Universal Lifeline service, read all about it here [universalservice.org]. Basically the govt. says that phone service is a necessity of modern life and that it is an important goal to provide telephone service at a reasonable cost to all Americans.
    • Three problems with this, IMO. I disagree that internet connectivity is similar to a human right as food or shelter, thus equating somewhat wealthy people that live in rural areas to homeless people. It should be seen as something that ought to be as ubiquitious in the States as possible, such that in areas where one cannot necessary get good connectivity, a local school or library can provide that facility.

      Second, unlike, say cable, phone, or electricity, there is a rather large initial cost of ownership that one needs to invest in (the computer) in order to take advantage of the service. The poor to lower-middle classes won't be able to enjoy such services and would be mightly upset to find that they had to pay for that utility despite not using anyway.

      Finally, the internet market still has no rules; it's unregulated, and yet it's not hard to find places where monopolistic-type systems are appearing. Some providers that also control other parts of the pipe want to do everything for you (AOLTW envisions >$200 monthly bills for people that use their cable for TV, movies-on-demand, phone, and internet connectivity). Local players are still getting the run-arounds from ILECs in trying to service customers that they are supposed to be able to by law. Let's work out the last mile mess first before we start pushing the idea of a internet connection in every home, otherwise, we could end up with a second MaBell-like monopoly.

    • I'm not an elitist. Far from it actually. The first time I saw the nonsense about the digital divide I was furious. Just another way for the government to spend my money on something that people will vandalize and not care for. If you don't work for it, you don't value it.

      I'm sorry but computers are not a necessity. I see Internet Access like I do Cable. Its nice but you don't need it to survive. I work for a local ISP and I sure as hell don't want the government getting involved in how we do our pricing/marketing/etc. And if I had to help every idiot on the planet I wouldn't do this job. Computers knowledge doesn't seem to correspond to income level. I've even met Cisco Engineers who were stumped by a dialup connection. I've had problems with every ethnic group out there. Foreign born and made in America. Age has some importance but not much. At least older people listen to you and will talk to you!! The only group I can swear seems to have NO brain at all are liberal arts majors still in college. These are the same people screaming for internet access for all because they feel guilty that they can afford it.

      I grew up poor. I'm not afraid to talk about that. And my only access to computers (Macs and Apple IIs) was at school until 1992 when my engineer uncle gave us his 1981 IBM PC after he bought a 386. It was upgraded as much as you could. We had a 300 baud modem that we used to call the local bbs and did email with it. I did all my high school math assignments on the computer by writing the programs in basic. This was allowed as you had to know how the formula worked in order to write the program for it. I just had to submit the program with my homework and one problem done by hand. My parents saved up and bought a 486 almost 2 years later. The relic was given to a friend of mine who was also in a bad financial place. He's now a Computer Animator and finished school a few years ago. Apparently the computer was better for him than me cause I'm still working through school. ;)

      If a private, non-profit were to start up and refurbish old computers and give them away, I'd definately volunteer my time/money/effort for them. Just don't use my tax dollars to fix something that not only isn't broken but doesn't exist.
    • The government could help this along by promoting the idea of, and provideing incentives for, Internet access as a basic right on the level of shelter and food. It's a fascinating time to be alive....

      Let me guess.... you haven't been alive for very long.
      Humans, on average, can survive a few days without water, a few weeks without food, and around 70 years without internet access.
    • Just as with anything else, I have the right to try to acquire Internet service.

      The problem with calling "connectivity" a right is because it creates an obligation on someone else to provide it to you.

      If someone is obligated to provide you with their labor, that is called slavery.

      Freedom means that you might not get what you want all the time. That's your problem, you must provide for your own success. If you don't, and you loose "connectivity", don't blame someone else for your lack of foresight.

      Bob-

  • Isn't this really saying that taking a random sample, an individual either does, or does not have access to the internet?
  • Though that number _includes_ the 33 million AOL users, I think...

    So maybe the real number is somewhat less than half?

    Seriously, it's obvious at this point that a large number of the population is online to some degree or another, just as it is obvious that broadband use has increased highly in the last couple of years (though not enough to stave off a slew of bankruptcies). The Internet has, for better or worse, gone from just being a playground for those "in the know" to a part of popular culture, with all the dumbing-down that goes along with the change. We just have to deal with it.

    We're also probably getting close to the saturation point - I think there will always be about a quarter of the population that doesn't have or necessarily want anything to do with the Internet. So other than people moving to broadband for a few more years, I'd say the days of explosive growth are long gone.
    • I don't recall AOL being exclusively US. I've done a bit of eBay buying and selling and have found these people to be pretty much everywhere in the world.

      Though a good percentage would probably be US.

  • That if you DON'T use the InterWeb, that you are supporting Terrorism?

    You know, with all these people on the Web, somebody might be able to figure a way to sell things to them. Just think of the possibilities! We could develop products that cost nothing to deliver! 100% profit! All you'd need is some money to fund the development effort. But I'm sure people would want to get in on the ground floor. This could be BIG!

  • 54% means popular??? (Score:1, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward
    With the same logic, George Bush jr. won the election by a landslide.
    54% is nothing.
    The subject should read "Almost half of the US population have yet to discover the Internet".
    • If I remember correctly, GWBjr lost the popular vote and only won the electoral college vote by a narrow margin. Though, according to the latest recount by the media, even that is in debate. :)
  • Do you think they've realised that 'Tv' (Television) and the 'car' are also popular, maybe someone should tell them. What a bunch of twats.

  • Hmmmmmm..... (Score:5, Funny)

    by MrBandersnatch ( 544818 ) on Wednesday February 06, 2002 @09:29AM (#2961005)
    The U.S. Dept of Commerce reports that more than half of the nation is now online

    No wonder its so damn laggy today ;)
  • So is 143 million is 54% of the population then the total population is around 265 million, and given 2 million more apearing on the net every month, that is a monthly increase of approx three-quarters of a percent per month. After a bit of analasys this gives the disturbing figure that in about 195 years over 200% of americans will be on the internet.

    Perhaps we should speed up the introduction if IPv6 to compensate for this.

    :offtopic: A state of mind usually reserved for friday afternoons.
  • Okay, while I accept that giving everyone access to the Internet is a good thing, we all recall days when the Internet just seemed unfairly slow, and pages just wouldn't load even on cable modems.

    My question is just how able are we to keep up with this increase in usage? The more large video clips are downloaded, and sites with tons of pretty graphics, and the latest quake 3 patch are put up, the more the rest of us feel the strain.
    • More people=more money=more infrastructure. Of course the old timers have been proclaiming "DEATH OF THE INTERNET! STORY AT 11" for years based on the same suppositions as yours. Having said that, pardoxically with the more people, the free content has largely dried up: You can't stream those Adcritic ads any more, and download sites have clamped shut or imposed limits, and just the general amount of broadband accessible content has diminished. I'd wager that the average Internet user downloads significantly less today than they did 2 years ago.

  • 50%+, soon to be 100% (Score:4, Interesting)

    by Ubergrendle ( 531719 ) on Wednesday February 06, 2002 @09:32AM (#2961011) Journal
    Conclusive proof that the internet is becoming all pervasive. It would also be nice, now, if the government could help facilitate future growth via funded expansion of shared infrastructure. Broadband access is apparently become less readily available and more costly, right at a time when demand for access is increasing. Just as there is a federal highway system, it would be nice to see a federally funded mega-sized inter-state backbone that would ensure bandwidth needs are met in future. The auto industry was the bellweather of the american economy for 50-75 years, but that industry was not responsible for funding the deployment of roads and highways. Similarly, software companies and internet services would greatly benefit from a shared, open infrastructure that ensures all Americans have access. Of course, I'm a Canadian so what do I know? ;)

    • It would also be nice, now, if the government could help facilitate future growth via funded expansion of shared infrastructure. Broadband access is apparently become less readily available and more costly, right at a time when demand for access is increasing.

      As long as you are talking about extremely local governments, or even stuff smaller than governments at the community level, that's fine. But you don't really need government at all. Government is the lazy man's solution, an attempt to get someone else to pay for it. Look at that neighborhood fiber network in Sweden [acc.umu.se] or the Coop in Colorado [coop.net] and you'll see that the problem can be solved just by having people get off their asses and doing something about it. And if we're not willing to spend the money directly and efficiently in our own communities, how dare we ask that it be done indirectly with federal taxes by unaccountable fund-siphoning middlemen beaurocratic grifters? (Oops, I think my anti-fed bias is showing. ;-)

      We don't need no stinking federal network. The only problems are with the "last mile". At higher levels above that, the private sector can very easily handle the job.

  • US Government (Score:2, Insightful)

    by rogerl ( 143996 )
    Leave it to the US Government to state the obvious is some special report that they spent millions on.

    Who cares.

  • Taking it to the next level... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by PoiBoy ( 525770 ) <brian.poiholdings@com> on Wednesday February 06, 2002 @09:37AM (#2961022) Homepage
    54% of Americans are now online, and that's certainly a Good Thing(tm).

    A non-trivial proportion of those people get their internet access via 56k dial-up modems, and certainly their surfing experience would be vastly better with a broadband connection. In addition, 46% of Americans do not yet have access to the internet. While with most forms of technology, not everyone wants to get online, I'd wager that a fair portion of that 46% would like to learn how.

    I think there are several things that we as the richest nation on Earth should focus on going forward:

    1. Making internet access available to those in the remaining 46% who cannot afford but wish to have access. Perhaps a large campaign to recycle used computers and 56k modems and then donate them along with free monthly access to poor people would be a good start.

    2. Improve the broadband experience for those who have gone through it thus far. By this I mean a concerted effort to reduce the delays in getting DSL service and the fiascos related to the @home collapse.

    3. Make broadband live up to its claims. Currently, many if not most cable modem users suffer from network congestion and slower-than-advertised download speeds. For me personally, while still much faster than a modem, the frustration I have in the evening when things seem to move at a snail's pace make me yearn for a modem; at least then I can't complain about the service. Probably the best solution is a two-tiered pricing scheme in which light users pay a lower monthly fee but are guaranteed a speed of, say, 768kbps down and in which heavy users (say, over 2 gigs a month) pay a much higher fee. There is little doubt that a small proportion of broadband users slow down cable networks for everyone; and they should have to pay for their heavy usage.

    4. Do everything possible to support open standards on the internet. In other words, make web pages browser-agnostic. Avoid using proprietary services such as Microsoft's .NET offerings until the protocols are publicly known and other software vendors (or open source providers) have had a chance to develop products with a compatible feature set.

    5. Do not use Microsoft .doc and .xls formats as the basis for document interchange. Not everyone uses Microsoft products, and because of their proprietary nature other software packages cannot offer 100% portability. If a document does not need to be modified, use a PDF file; if it does, use RTF or some other standards-based document type that can be processed by other software. For spreadsheets, use a basic CSV format if it is sufficient or use WK1, which all spreadsheet packages can handle.

    Enough rambling. Time for breakfast.

    • Re:Taking it to the next level... (Score:5, Interesting)

      by Sodium Attack ( 194559 ) on Wednesday February 06, 2002 @10:57AM (#2961319)
      In addition, 46% of Americans do not yet have access to the internet.

      No, 46% of Americans do not use the internet. The report is about usage, not access.

      1. Making internet access available to those in the remaining 46% who cannot afford but wish to have access.

      I'd wager that a large portion of the 46% do have access to the internet, if they want it--many public libraries now offer free internet access for their patrons. For those who don't currently have access even at their local public libraries, the public library is an ideal place to get them access.

      Perhaps a large campaign to recycle used computers and 56k modems and then donate them along with free monthly access to poor people would be a good start.

      Donating them to public libraries which currently don't offer internet access would probably be a more efficient use.

    • Probably the best solution is a two-tiered pricing scheme in which light users pay a lower monthly fee but are guaranteed a speed of, say, 768kbps down and in which heavy users (say, over 2 gigs a month) pay a much higher fee.

      2Gb per month is heavy usage? I push more data than this in a day, admittedly I've got a T3 running straight into a 100Mb/s LAN, but none the less if "working from home" is ever to be practical for me I'd need the same sort of bandwidth. I don't really regard any of the current broadband offerings to be really that, especially since most of them can't guarantee quality of service.

      Al.
    • I think there are several things that we as the richest nation on Earth should focus on going forward:

      The richest nation on Earth is actually Switzerland.

      1. Making internet access available to those in the remaining 46% who cannot afford but wish to have access. Perhaps a large campaign to recycle used computers and 56k modems and then donate them along with free monthly access to poor people would be a good start.

      Are you going to man the helpdesk? Giving away PC's is one thing, support afterwards is another...
      • >> I think there are several things that we as
        >> the richest nation on Earth should focus on
        >> going forward:

        > The richest nation on Earth is actually Switzerland.

        GDP per capital for 2000 (est.), from the CIA Factbook: US--$36,200, Switzerland--$28,600. Try again.

        Chris Mattern
        • The CIA factbook is dead wrong.

          1 Switzerland $38350
          2 Norway $32880
          3 Japan $32230
          4 Denmark $32030
          5 USA $30600

          Not even close...
          • The CIA factbook is dead wrong.

            Maybe there is more than one definition of richest nation on earth? Perhaps I define richest as percentage of population with a net worth of one million dollars or more? Or maybe it's not a percentage, maybe it's the number of people worth X amount of dollars or more. In both of those cases, the US is likely to be the richest nation. All depends on if you define richest nation as per capita income. In that case, wouldn't the sovereign nation of Sealand (population of 3-5) have a higher average?

            • Maybe there is more than one definition of richest nation on earth?

              According to the World Bank it's annual per-capita income.

              Perhaps I define richest

              I think i'll take my definition from the World Bank instead. They actually have knowledge about this stuff.

              All depends on if you define richest nation as per capita income. In that case, wouldn't the sovereign nation of Sealand (population of 3-5) have a higher average?

              No. The World Bank doesn't count countries with fewer than 1,5 million residents, such as Liechtenstein, Luxembourg and several sultanates. Good thing too or the US would be even lower on the list...

              But anyway. This is getting rather off-topic and pointless...
          • > The CIA factbook is dead wrong.

            I'll trust the CIA factbook over figures that apparently come from thin air. Source, please?

            Chris Mattern

    • Re:Taking it to the next level... (Score:4, Interesting)

      by Tenebrious1 ( 530949 ) on Wednesday February 06, 2002 @12:31PM (#2961718) Homepage
      . In addition, 46% of Americans do not yet have access to the internet. While with most forms of technology, not everyone wants to get online, I'd wager that a fair portion of that 46% would like to learn how.

      Look at the report before making comments. On Page 89 of the report, of those who do not have internet at home, 53% of those them "Don't Want It". 25% claimed "Too Expensive". Which comes down to about 12.5% of the US cannot afford the internet in their homes- 25% do not want it. That's a surprise to me.

      Do not use Microsoft .doc and .xls formats as the basis for document interchange

      Like it or not, they are the defacto standards for files. Forcing the masses to change is not going to happen. If you can't open .DOC and .XLS, .PDF, then you're in a pretty distinct minority, one that's vocal but seen as a bunch of raving fanatics by the general public.

      Another point. Maybe you haven't looked at a default Windows installation, but users don't see file extensions. They only see "My Filename", not "My Filename.DOC". Telling them not to use .DOC files is futile because THEY HAVE NO IDEA WHAT A .DOC FILE IS. Trying to get people to do a "Save As" and selecting "Rich Text Format" is so foreign to most Windows users it's never going to happen.

      Yes, push open source where we have openings. But don't beat your head against the wall concerning .DOC and .PDF files. Just accept that battle as lost and put your energies to fight on a different front.

      • Look at the report before making comments. On Page 89 of the report, of those who do not have internet at home, 53% of those them "Don't Want It". 25% claimed "Too Expensive". Which comes down to about 12.5% of the US cannot afford the internet in their homes- 25% do not want it. That's a surprise to me.


        Doesn't surprise me. I'd like to see a demographic breakdown. My 80-something grandparents could care less about being online. Same with everyone in their mobile home community.

        In my promotions job, I recently walked around a night club talking digital photos of people for a web site. Two young women declined, saying that they didn't want to take their clothes off. I imagine they were joking somewhat, but they said that they didn't have computers and weren't online, and thought the only stuff available online was pr0n.
      • ~default Windows installation, but users don't see file extensions.

        I'd like to think that if MS would default this "feature" to show all hidden files and extensions, then many of the common, stupid viruses out there would mostly go away...

        Nah...

    • "Do not use Microsoft .doc and .xls formats as the basis for document interchange. Not everyone uses Microsoft products, and because of their proprietary nature other software packages cannot offer 100% portability."

      Forget other software packages... I've never even seen Microsoft acheive 100% portability between two machines running Windows! And both with Office 2000 installed...

  • Remember when Slashdot was not the popular site it is now? (well, most people won't remember this, that's kind of the point, but bear with me ...). Now scale that up, project it nationally, Internet-wide ... The mind boggles ...

    Maybe this is horror, not humor, but I must laugh here else I'll cry.

    Sig: What Happened To The Censorware Project (censorware.org) [sethf.com]

  • broadband users doubled in about a year then why are all the broadband companies dying? I'm not trolling. Just asking.

  • interesting report (Score:4, Interesting)

    by f00zbll ( 526151 ) on Wednesday February 06, 2002 @10:03AM (#2961117)
    a tiny annoyance, the page doesn't display correctly in Netscape because of a missing closing table tag. One interesting fact from the DOC report:

    Evans pointed out that households headed by single mothers with children under age 18 are increasing their Internet usage faster than any other type of household. Five years ago, about 15 percent used the Internet; that percentage has tripled.

    The fact by itself is interesting, but what is the cause of the rise? Another interesting fact from the full report:

    Computers at schools substantially narrow the gap in computer usage rates for children from high and low income families.

    It's good to see all the money spent on wiring schools is having some measureable impact, though it would be nice to know both the qualitative and quantative effects. The importance of providing access in schools is important, but there's still alot of data needed to assess the effectiveness of current public policies reguarding schools and technology.

  • DEBUNKED - Al Gore "invented" Internet smear (Score:4, Offtopic)

    by Seth Finkelstein ( 90154 ) on Wednesday February 06, 2002 @10:09AM (#2961142) Homepage Journal
    Sigh, maybe it's time to burn a karma point or two. This may be mistaken to be flamebait, but hopefully the references below will redeem it.

    The story that Al Gore claimed to have invented the Internet has been thoroughly debunked by Phil Agre in http://commons.somewhere.com/rre/2000/RRE.Al.Gore. and.the.Inte.html [somewhere.com] and rebutted further later [syr.edu]
    That meme was a creation of Declan McCullagh, a "reporter" for Wired News who is politically a dogmatic Libertarian [lycos.com] so extreme that he managed to get a book chapter using him as a poster-boy for Libertarian ideologues [code-is-law.org], and a different book chapter using him as Libertarian joke-fodder [g21.net].

    If you think this is flame-bait, the aspect of his fabricated story being a Liberatarian hit-piece on Al Gore was extensively discussed in a debunking by Salon [salon.com]

    After Declan McCullagh was repeatedly taken to task for his hatchet-job, over more than year, by everyone who was there, from Dave Farber [interesting-people.org]to Robert Kahn and Vinton Cerf [interesting-people.org], Declan finally grudgingly retracted the "story" [wired.com]

    But people still repeat it, because urban legends never die.

    Sig: What Happened To The Censorware Project (censorware.org) [sethf.com]

    • Why spew all the hatred of Libertarians? I'm not particularly a fan of their philosophy in all ways, but all that frothing about it just undermines your point.

      In any case, no one seriously believes that Al Gore "invented" the Internet, or even claimed he did. It's funny, because of Al Gore's personality.

      Sheesh, lighten up.

      • The Libertarianism aspect is a key element of the story. The following are not my words. They are from the debunking by Salon [salon.com]:
        Libertarians typically believe that the government can't do anything right, and they prefer to forget or ignore the part government has played in the Net's triumph. Giving Gore credit means admitting the government's role; distorting and mocking his claims helps deny it.

        McCullagh, who is outspoken in his libertarian views, argues that, though he didn't use the word "invent," it is "a not entirely unreasonable paraphrase of the vice president's remarks," and suggests that the pro-Gore comments from Cerf may have a partisan basis: ...

        (n.b., the word "invented" was used in Declan McCullagh's SECOND [wired.com] article)

        Again, this isn't me. This is Salon [salon.com]. The Libertarian politics is interwoven all throughout the events, from origin to resistance to eventual retraction.

        Sig: What Happened To The Censorware Project (censorware.org) [sethf.com]

        • Check out this reply [slashdot.org] to your post. Now, I don't know if this story is true or not, but let's say it is. It implies that McCullagh's motivations are not political, but career-oriented ("yellow journalism", as the poster said it).

          I would assume you would agree that stories about copying DVDs would probably not be related to Libertarian politics.

          This just underscores the danger of making assumptions about someone's motivations. Your point would have been much stronger if you had just stuck to the facts, and not make assumptions about something you have no evidence for.

          • I'd like to keep the replies down, since this can go on forever, so I'll combine two here and may not reply to all responses:

            You seem to think that if someone is a Libertarian, then any criticism of a pro-government figure must be politically motivated. Sorry, but that's simply not logical.
            The above is a straw man [intrepidsoftware.com] logical fallacy [intrepidsoftware.com].

            I think that if:

            a) Someone is a dogmatic, extreme, Libertarian
            and
            b) Knows some of the best technical sources,
            but
            c) Ignores them, and derides them, in favor of political sources which state exactly what a dogmatic, extreme, Libertarian wants to hear

            THEN, inductively, they are politically motivated.

            Indeed, this seems like a sound chain of inductive logical reasoning to me.

            Please do not reply with trivial counter-arguments, such as the idea that we can never fully know the contents of a person's mind, and thus no statement about their motivations can ever be proved in an absolute sense.

            [Combining replies]

            It implies that McCullagh's motivations are not political, but career-oriented ("yellow journalism", as the poster said it).

            Correction: It implies for that LiViD article series, his motivations were, etc. You've incorrectly imputed to me the logical fallacy of hasty generalization.

            Look, can I point out you haven't made one focused rebuttal? That is, every response is either to something I didn't say (a straw man, or imputed hasty generalization), or the trivial objection that an induction can't be absolute like a deduction.

            Sig: What Happened To The Censorware Project (censorware.org) [sethf.com]

    • Declan McCullagh also lurked in the LiViD newsgroup during its early days, writing a wired story about "rampemt DVD piracy software" with the full knowledge that DeCSS and cssauth were being used to develop a GNU/Linux DVD player and that absolutely no pircacy was going on, anywhere (at that time). This was before burnable DVDs, before DivX, in short, before such piracy was even technically feasable even with easy decryption (without a $4000 DVD burner that could copy DVDs without decrypting them ... unlike later models following the start of the DeCSS court case). His actions were directly responsible for legal troubles by numerous early developers, some of whome were forced to drop out of the project and discontinue their work.

      If you do not believe me, feel free to perus the LiViD mailing list archives. The entire ugly incident is well documented in the public record. His behavior was appalling and reprehensible, and very destructive to a number of free software volunteers. Yes, we now have free players galore, but at some great personal cost to a number of volunteers thanks to Declan's yellow journalistic tendencies.

      What is even more interesting is the number of articles on slashdot that, when posted, mentioned Declan McCullagh as the author by name (effectively promoting his fame), in direct contrast to nearly every other article posted on slashdot then and now. Clearly, for a time at least, he had a cordial relationship with some influencial folks at slashdot despite his reprehensible behavior vis-avis the LiViD project, and despite posts and emails by myself and others trying to get the word out about his behavior wrt LiViD (and quite likely others). Hopefully this has changed, but for the public record, I feel it is important the free software enthusiasts know about this little chapter in LiViD's history, and the casualties and personal losses that resulted.
    • I was there when he said it. He immediatly correct himself, and everyone whjo heard it knew he misspoke.
      He was an advocate for turning it over to the people.
  • So Bush's art of simplicity is trickling down to government reports that "People Use Internet".

    Seriously... I voted for Bush, and think he's doing quite a good job (not perfect, but compared to slick willy... excellent).. it's titles like this that question his administration's competance, though ;)

  • News (Score:5, Funny)

    by 3ryon ( 415000 ) on Wednesday February 06, 2002 @10:35AM (#2961242)
    In related news, the Government also declared that the Sky is Blue, Bill Gates is Rich, and that Governments spend money on obvious surveys.
    • In related news, the Government also declared that the Sky is Blue, Bill Gates is Rich, and that Governments spend money on obvious surveys.

      I'm sorry to disappoint you, but the Government has really done research on blue sky [nasa.gov]. Don't speak to louder or they might reconsider extending their clue finding process on why Bill Gates is so rich [senate.gov]. :D

  • Popular, because its essential (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Little Dave ( 196090 ) on Wednesday February 06, 2002 @10:44AM (#2961271) Homepage
    I sat down the other day and thought about the internet and its part in my life and I realised, maybe for the first time, how utterly indispensible its become. I mean, its the first invention or "fad" in my lifetime that has generated interest and worked its way into my life in such a way that I would genuinely have difficulty if it was taken away. Nothing else has done this: not sega game consoles, or compact disks, or satellite tv or whatever.

    Its in everypart of my life: I communicate with it, I play on it, I shop on it, I learn from it, I work with it.

    It is uniquely useful - you can learn entire programming languages, and probably spoken languages, from deja. The other day I found a page which listed streaming russian tv stations for my homesick wife. Almost any piece of information you can think of is a google search away. And you can even publish your own brand of idiocy for (potentially) every person on the planet to read!! Good god. The idea of life without the internet frightens me...

    Is there any wonder its becoming so popular.
  • At least 90% of the people that I know use the internet. I'm sure many of you would say the same. I think it would therefore be logical to conclude that there must be a number of communities in the US where 10% or less of the people use the internet.

    If we want to make further gains in percentage connectivity, it would probably be useful to focus on these communities where internet use is virtually nonexistent.

  • Seriously, folks... (Score:3, Interesting)

    by jpellino ( 202698 ) on Wednesday February 06, 2002 @11:19AM (#2961404)
    This is good to know. This is a number that you need if you're thinking about Doing Something On The Internet - half the US can *possibly* get to you. This is not trivial info, though I doubt we had to wait for the Gummint to tell us this.

    Frinstance - you want to open a bookstore. 50% of the people you want to sell to can click into your store. 100% of the people can head thru the door of a meatspace store. Your call. Jeff? Jeff? Anyone? Anyone?

    If you hang around techie sites long enough, you'd think everyone who matters has it, and anyone who doesn't is a mouthbreathing fool. T'ain't so. Apparently upwards of 100 million first-world citizens get along just nicely, thank you very much without direct access to the net.

    Though I get paid to deal with it on an hourly basis, I can easily see going back to 1970's time by removing my cell, laptop, fax, and voicemail, and pretty much not only living a full life and probably getting more of the 'real' life things done too.

    Sounds vaguely luddite, but it's really only a reality check.

    Of course, if I weren't online, I'd be muttering all this rant to the cat. Sad. Especially for the poor cat.

    And remember - there are more houses with televisions than telephones, cuz you have to pay for the phone once it's in - and ditto^2 online access. Anyone have a good reason why an internet box of any sort would ever move up from third place?

    • Frinstance - you want to open a bookstore. 50% of the people you want to sell to can click into your store. 100% of the people can head thru the door of a meatspace store. Your call. Jeff? Jeff? Anyone? Anyone?

      But, what percentage lives close enough to actually bother to head to your store? 1%? Less? What percentage of internet users is bothered about how far away the .com store is (or even if it's in the same country)?

    • Frinstance - you want to open a bookstore. 50% of the people you want to sell to can click into your store. 100% of the people can head thru the door of a meatspace store. Your call. Jeff? Jeff? Anyone? Anyone?

      Show me a 'meatspace' store where 100% of the US population has the ability to go into it, EVER, let alone any time and without leaving their home.

      Unless you include Starbucks, nothing even comes close. Add the duplication and waste in setting up several thousand copies of the exact same store.. you're talking apples and oranges.

  • Everyone knows that 82% of all statistics are made up on the spot.
  • Did the 'net get SlashDotted today?

    Oh, maybe not; I think they forgot to include a URL for this Internet thing. I'll post the "root URL" here:

    http://

    Don't everybody visit at once.

    -me
  • and in other news the head of the FBI stated that "wrestling is fixed", and a former member of the baywatch cast was heard, while referring to Pamela Anderson, state that "they arn't real!".
  • are hopefully using the Internet to look at porn.

    Being a computer geek is an act of terrorism, so you can't go looking for security notices. Working on Open Source is Unamerican, so you can't be off browsing CVS trees. Listening to Indy Artist X's music before buying tickets to their concert is Piracy, so you can't download MP3's either.

    Looking at smut is about the only moral use of the Internet, according to the media.
  • Comment removed based on user account deletion

Slashdot Top Deals

Say "twenty-three-skiddoo" to logout.

Close