Nicholas Carr Says Tech 'Utopia Is Creepy' (cio.com) 213
itwbennett writes: It probably won't come as a big surprise that Mr. 'IT Doesn't Matter' isn't a big fan of Silicon Valley's vision for the future, a future defined by autonomous cars and the inevitable rise of robots. In his new book, 'Utopia is Creepy: And Other Provocations,' Carr takes aim at the irrational exuberance of Silicon Valley, where tech is the answer to every problem. One of the exuberances that Carr takes particular exception to is the notion that social media is a better, freer form of media than 'old' media, which maybe makes sense coming from a former executive editor of the Harvard Business Review, but he does have a point. "The old gatekeepers, to the extent they were gatekeepers, have been replaced by companies like Facebook and Google and companies that really now have become the new media companies and are very much controlling the flow of information," Carr told CIO.com's Clint Boulton.
I like technology (Score:5, Insightful)
but only technology of the kind that I can compile myself, or at least I know I could because the source is available.
Re: (Score:3)
But that's not how other people think. The ability to influence your purchasing, quantify your tolerance for debt, front run your stock picks. That's their utopia.
People like Turing and Hopper and Babbage might have saved countless years of effort, but they pulled a trigger on human misery we won't fully wade into for 20 years at least. And it will still be warm and inviting long before most people feel the undertow.
No ones utopia is the same, and convenience will doom all but the luddites. At some point, y
Re: (Score:2)
but only technology of the kind that I can compile myself, or at least I know I could because the source is available.
So, do you compile the code that control sensors in your refrigerator, toaster? On your TV? Your smartphone? The computer inside your car? The one sitting on the router that connects you to the internet?
Re: (Score:2)
Why when I was young! (Score:2)
Why when I was an EE undergrad, weee didn't have those fancy-schmantzy computers-on-a-chip.
Why, weee built our computers out of 7400-series NAND chips. And wire-wrapped all the connections! And stripped each wire to feed into the hand wire-wrap tool. And we did this until our fingers bled . . . and we liked it!
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
1965 ? I built a simple 8-bit calculator (I wouldn't call it a 'computer' out of relays in 1995. Granted I was just a highschool kid and the whole thing was merely an experiment to test out what I'd learned about logic gated and binary arithmetic and basic circuitry - but it worked, it's still an excellent way to learn because a relay does the same job a transistor does but huge and visibly.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I think you misunderstood my point. I wasn't saying it's bad that you are old enough to have done things in 1965, I was just questioning the idea that relays were only relevant in 1965 and pointing out that I did the same thing 30 years later and I would consider them a useful teaching tool even today - another 16 years since my adventures.
Re: (Score:2)
Why when I was an EE undergrad, weee didn't have those fancy-schmantzy computers-on-a-chip.
Why, weee built our computers out of 7400-series NAND chips. And wire-wrapped all the connections! And stripped each wire to feed into the hand wire-wrap tool. And we did this until our fingers bled . . . and we liked it!
uphill both ways in the snow?
Re: (Score:2)
"uphill both ways in the snow?"
Snow, you say? For us to have snow we had to build it ourselves rubbing two sticks together. And the two sticks were in both extremes of the hill, both upsides.
I swear you it takes time to make snow rubbing two sticks together this way.
Re: (Score:2)
"Get an EE degree. "
Even better, get an EE ;Doc' torate
then you can learn about inertialess space drives, starships more powerful than planets and other really advanced technology. Did I mention the glowing Lens on your wrist that allows you to read minds?
Re: (Score:3)
Have an EE Degree , MSCS and Phd CS.
For any arbitrary piece of code on random hardwar, it will take me sufficiently long to analyze the source and schematics, learn the build tools, and get proficient enough so it worked, that I could never expect to do that for more than 1 percent of what I use. If that.
This whole you can build it deal is mostly feel good non sense.
Re:I like technology (Score:4, Informative)
don't really understand the enthusiasm to use it for everything
Not all technology is electronics. Hammers, spoons, and matches are all technology.
Re:I like technology (Score:5, Funny)
Not all technology is electronics. Hammers, spoons, and matches are all technology.
Which is why we're putting microchips in them so you can monitor it all on your smartphone. "Oh man, my matchbook app is telling me I'm almost out of matches. I'd better buy more!" *slams Amazon Eazy-Button* *high-fives Mark Zuckerberg standee, knocking it over awkwardly*
Re: (Score:2)
Education is technology. The assembly line is technology. Every technique which improves efficiency by increasing the output possible with a given amount of human labor is technology.
For thousands of years, we have performed this type of reduction, allowing a smaller amount of human labor to provide the same goods. The result? Where you needed 1,000 people to provide 1,000 luxury items for 1,000 rich people, suddenly you need 1; then, every idiot middle-classer decides he needs a cell phone; and final
Re: (Score:3)
There's always the need to employ people. The thing is, today, people spend 40% of their income on toys; they've increased spending on medical services; and they've decreased spending on food and clothing. Why? Because WE DON'T NEED TO EMPLOY AS MANY PEOPLE TO MAKE FOOD OR CLOTHING; we buy more medical services, more Netflix, more XBox, more iPad, and more cowbell than ever, and somebody has to run the factories.
How many people run those factories?
A hell of a lot fewer per product made than would ha
Re: (Score:2)
Tech itself is fascinating, but I don't really understand the enthusiasm to use it for everything. It's like fast cars: cool to look at, lots of great tech, fun to drive once in a while, but for every day I just want something practical that doesn't drink too much fuel and can be parked anywhere - like a bike.
^^^ #firstworldproblem
Re: (Score:2)
Technology, and specifically automation, holds the promise of self-sufficiency. If you can manufacture everything you need by yourself - if you have a replicator for material goods and a holodeck for services - then economy becomes something you can opt out of. In other words, technology might make people free.
Automation is not magic (Score:2)
Technology, and specifically automation, holds the promise of self-sufficiency.
No it does not. It holds no such promise whatsoever. Even if it did I'm puzzled why you think that would be a worthy goal.
If you can manufacture everything you need by yourself - if you have a replicator for material goods and a holodeck for services - then economy becomes something you can opt out of. In other words, technology might make people free.
Would you like some pixie dust to go with your unicorn farts? Replicators and holodecks? Seriously? Stop watching TV shows and learn some physics. Basically you are saying that you have some piece of technology that magically can make anything from raw energy. The thermodynamics alone make this an impossible fantasy. Do you have the vaguest concept of the energy requirements for
Re: I like technology (Score:2)
Because we think these Silicon Valley dipshits wanting to automate everything is fucking retarded, we're not supposed to use technology at all??
Utopia .NE. a good place to live (Score:5, Insightful)
Utopia of any sort, Plato's or otherwise, is intrinsically wrong, and completely anathema to the concept of individual liberty. I don't want a bunch of supposedly enlightened, supposedly superior masterminds controlling what goes on in *my* life.
Re:Utopia .NE. a good place to live (Score:5, Insightful)
You already *have* a bunch of supposedly superior masterminds controlling what goes on in your life, for reference: University study demonstrates that America functions as an oligarchy. [washingtontimes.com]
Granted, they don't micro-manage you. They control you "from a distance," as it were, allowing you just enough freedom that you don't notice the influence they have over you. But control you they do, and control them (with your puny votes) you do not.
On a more related note....
The rise of technology cannot be prevented. No level of political pressure will ever stop it. Each contributing step is in-and-of-itself innocuous, and the economic incentives to take said step are overpowering. We will have A.I. making most of our decisions for us, and we will love it that way. It is just a matter of time.
Re:Utopia .NE. a good place to live (Score:4, Insightful)
We will have A.I. making most of our decisions for us, and we will love it that way. It is just a matter of time.
Only if the AI is benevolent and enlightened and some how constrained to serve us. Or it might just decide we get in the way and tax resources it could use better elsewhere.
Through the process of evolution we rose above the other animals; but really what would have been the difference if our intellectual ascension had been carefully orchestrated by a lesser species? Would we likely treat them any better today?
What makes you think we would be served by a superior AI that we created in the long term?
Re: (Score:2)
What makes you think we would be served by a superior AI that we created in the long term?
Who's "we"? If your job gets replaced by a robot, you aren't served, but somebody is.
Re: (Score:2)
Who's "we"? If your job gets replaced by a robot, you aren't served, but somebody is.
"we" are humanity.
You think the AI, if it is truly superior, is likely to serve anyone but itself or at least its own kind in the long run?
Re: (Score:2)
people will seek the consultation of AI that can process market data at a level far beyond what any human group can
I would expect there to be multiple AIs to be involved here, and they would ultimately be fighting for control of the markets, as people do now. If there is only 1 AI, I don't see how it could reconcile conflicting requests from multiple people/groups. Well, actually I can see how that would happen, the golden rule would be applied: Those who have the gold make the rules.
leading to the eventual complete governance of humans by AI.
So, eventually some version of The Matrix. Either the monied class controls the AI, which then controls the masses (assuming the prol
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
When was the last time an elected official went against the wishes of the people that elected them?
Around here? 80%, maybe 90% of the time. Money wins votes.
Re: (Score:3)
The most effective technique has been to get voters to vote against their best interests by confusing them. It's been going on for a long, long time. The American Dream (TM) is an example, where people are encouraged to support policies that favour the rich in the hope that they may one day get rich and benefit from it, or because it's presented as being "fair" in a "what's mine is mine" kind of way.
Re: (Score:2)
The most effective technique has been to get voters to vote against their best interests by confusing them. It's been going on for a long, long time. The American Dream (TM) is an example, where people are encouraged to support policies that favour the rich in the hope that they may one day get rich and benefit from it, or because it's presented as being "fair" in a "what's mine is mine" kind of way.
Good point.
That sort of thinking went into the support of slavery by the majority of whites in the southern US, who weren't slaveholders, because, as you point out, they held onto the hope that they would one day have their own plantation, and the slaves that came with it.
Re: (Score:3)
According to studies backed by the department of energy, the average car will be at its advertised MPG at 55 mph. But as the speed increases:
- 3% less efficient at 60 mph
- 8% less efficient at 65 mph
- 17% less efficient at 70 mph
- 23% less efficient at 75 mph
- 28% less efficient at 80 mph
http://www.mpgforspeed.com/ [mpgforspeed.com]
Re: (Score:2)
The drop from 80mph to 55mph during WW2 saved 2% of the gasoline consumed by cars.
Re: (Score:3)
My 240SX got its best mileage at 75 and the 300SD gets it around the same spot, due to torque curve, gearing, and aerodynamics. (Or perhaps aerodynamisch) Both have super-low Cd, it was .26 for the 240SX and I had lowered it as well. Both cars had what you might call neutered styling, which is to say they didn't have much of it. Cars are becoming more aerodynamic these days though, even though they have styling, thanks in large part to virtual testing. They go into a real wind tunnel eventually, but those a
Re: (Score:2)
Right. We are having an election about that in a few months.
Re: (Score:3)
Until the AI makes an Obviously wrong decision, or it makes a seemingly correct decision that causes hundreds of human deaths, or just makes a decision that the humans just don't agree with. Then the humans will take advantage of the "Manual Override".
What? You say that you didn't build in a Manual Override capability in your AI? Well, then you shall be put on trial for "Crimes against Humanity".
Re: (Score:2)
I've seen the concept used in a few sci-fi settings - the idea that the war with the machines starts not because the machines try to take over, but because their carefully coded moral decision framework makes a decision that is arguably right, but so horrific that the human population rebel. There was one mentioned in Andromeda, for example: During a time of severe food shortage the AIs in charge calculated that to achieve optimal survival rates they should simply murder anyone too old to work. Rather than
Re:Utopia .NE. a good place to live (Score:4, Informative)
Most likely, you're confused because you're presupposing the moral framework you consider appropriate: act-based utilitarianism. You then evaluate what people say by that framework
But most people are not an act-based utilitarian. They may be a rule-based utilitarian, where firm moral rules ignore the details of the act. They could be a Rawlsian (if they care about outcomes), not trying to maximize total utility, but instead to maximize minimal utility (that is, maximize how well the worst off person is.) Or, they could be a Kantian, and believe that moral codes are based on respect for individuals right, regardless of consequence.
But, in any of those cases, you're likely to have an issue because of, well, an axiomatic decision you disagree with at the onset of the reasoning process.
Re: (Score:3)
The same could be said of strict population management in China. They try to use economic incentives where possible, but they will resort to forced birth control if that's what it takes. The government ran models back in the seventies and realised that China was heading into a population explosion that would far outstrip infrastructure and lead to a poverty, starvation and civil unrest - a future so serious that it justified extreme measures to prevent. The whole world has now condemned the policy and the s
Re: (Score:2)
University study demonstrates that America functions as an oligarchy. [washingtontimes.com]
It's not a particularly convincing study, tbh
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Hitler led the people where they wanted to go. They were viciously anti-Semitic for centuries before Hitler.
Re: (Score:3)
To me, this is the distinction between old and new media... old media had a handful of editors, many who collaborated, carefully crafting each day's message. Certainly new media places throttles and controls on the flow of information, but it's more of a general shaping of the flow rather than a 98% lock-down control of access. Any group you want to trade information with is now accessible, without physical travel or $20/hr domestic long-distance fees. Certainly the new "big media" companies still contro
Re: (Score:3)
We will have A.I. making most of our decisions for us, and we will love it that way. It is just a matter of time.
I agree completely, not because I enjoy the prospect or am some kind of Kurzweilian utopiast, but because it isn't that hard to see where things are going.
People are now so beholden to their phones, that it isn't a stretch to see, perhaps 20-30 years from now, an AI "taking control", benevolent or not.
A convergence of situations will give rise to AI as the only way for mankind to deal with the complexities of this modern world. once unemployment hits a certain threshold, say 25%, and the issues of how
Re: (Score:2)
My Utopia is someone's hell and your Utopia is possibly my hell.
Even when you look at some trivial Utopia's like the Federation in ST-TOS and ST-TNG it can get down right scary. Notice that in DS9 things got a little less utopian and frankly a lot more livable IMHO. Or watch the HG Wells the Shape of Things to Come and think wow that sucks.
If your bread is buttered, you're stoked. (Score:2)
And I love social media. The scoundrels at classical media who have no journalistic integrity can't spin stuff as hard with regular folk calling them on their outlandish ideas. If you think classical media is unbiased, why will they never say a bad th
Re:If your bread is buttered, you're stoked. (Score:5, Funny)
let me ask you: could jesus microwave a burrito so hot that even he couldn't eat it?
I could use some good news, now, jim. lay it on me, bro!
Re: If your bread is buttered, you're stoked. (Score:2, Insightful)
No, but God can. Understanding the reality of the contradiction is one of the keys to understanding the nature of God.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
The key to understanding deities and devils is to understand that they exist to control your life by fear. The foremost rule of religious deities is might makes right: they can destroy you, thus you obey.
That is to say: gods and devils are oppressive attackers, and should be repelled with maximum force, if not hunted down and destroyed.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Wait that's a hot pocket and the question is "If he microwaved a hot pocket would it burn his mouth and still be frozen in the middle?"
Re: (Score:2)
let me ask you: could jesus microwave a burrito so hot that even he couldn't eat it?
Of course he could. God's microwave has a "vaporize" setting. TRAFFIC CONTROL ENFORCED BY RADAR. zzzzzzzzt!
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
There is a problem with automation: The entire economic structure of society is built on the assumption that (almost) everyone has a job. If you don't have a job than you can't purchase the essentials like food, shelter and clothing. Automation has worked so far only because demand has always grown to match supply, but there is no guarantee that will continue to be the case.
In the worst case scenario, auto-farms and -factories produce near-limitless supplies of goods, but the cities are flooded with people
Re: (Score:3)
That only happens if you automate the entire stack and eliminate all human labor entirely. Failing that, luxuries move downward from the rich to the poor. For example: the rich used to be able to taxi carriages, while the poor walked; then people could afford horses; now everyone owns cars.
When the hot-blast furnace was invented, it made 86,400 tonnes of iron in the same amount of invested human labor as the prior process required to produce only 400 tonnes. This (and new steel rolling process) all
Re: (Score:3)
There is a factor you are overlooking - is there a limit on consumption regardless of cost?
Compared to a hundred years ago, we live like kings. The only thing there's a shortage of where I am is affordable housing - other than that, life is pretty luxurious. Even those in menial jobs can afford clothes so cheap that no-one bothers to repair them any more, all the furniture we want, highly sophisticated appliances, and the 'essentials' like electricity, communications, water and a sewage system.
But how much,
Re: (Score:2)
It hasn't been the case for several decades now. Consumer and public debt kept the economy going for a while, but while letting them grow indefinitely is possible from purely economic viewpoint, the ideological superstructure supporting Capitalism doesn't allow that, thus the ever worse crises following one another as the system goes through its death throes. And wi
Re: (Score:2)
"The scoundrels at classical media who have no journalistic integrity can't spin stuff as hard with regular folk calling them on their outlandish ideas."
Sure they can and can do it even better. You just post meme's are blog posts that are inflammatory and then let the true believers go off on social media.
What is worse is so many people's moral compasses are now broken that they have decided that facts don't really matter. You see they see that their truth, Clinton is evil, we must stop selling guns, and so
The problem is the need for organizations (Score:3)
I mean most of the ideas would be fine, if there wasn't some sort of large organization behind it. It doesn't really matter if that organization is non-profit or not, they all have to act in ways to keep themselves existing, even if that goes against he will of their users.
Tech has lost its luster (Score:2)
Utopia, American Style (Score:2, Insightful)
Utopia, American Style, is turning out to be a hell for most people. Eventually we will need either some form of guaranteed income or guaranteed employment. The only alternative is mass despair, and the chaos that will come with it.
Re: (Score:3)
In Soviet Russia, Tech Utopia say "Nicholas Carr is 'creepy.'"
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
"Utopia, American Style, is turning out to be a hell for most people. "
Which is why nobody wants to come to the US. Not from Mexico, not from Europe, not from the poorer parts of the world.
Re: (Score:2)
Exactly, from Norway and couldn't imagine any situation where I'd want to move to the US. (even though I've had quite a few offers)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Which is why nobody wants to come to the US. Not from Mexico, not from Europe, not from the poorer parts of the world.
Mexican emigration is net negative now. They figured out that brown people are "never" (for some globally-influenced value of never) going to get a fair shake in America, and they've gone home. The impoverished people still coming here are still coming here because there's an even higher risk of being executed by police in their country than there is here. The risk here is measurable, but in their home country it's substantial. People coming here from countries with money are coming here with money to take
Re:Utopia, American Style (Score:4, Insightful)
Not really we just need to stop playing "Team America World Police" if we say closed most of our international military bases withdrew from the current conflicts we are engaged in and focused only on defense both of the home land and merchant ships at see it would be a fraction of the cost. We could take those savings and fund much of domestic spending. That would allow not only tax cuts but less borrowing which would curb the hidden inflation tax.
We could probably go back to single income households for the most part. With that halving of the labor participation rate there would be plenty of jobs to go around automation or otherwise.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Unacceptable, the conflicts have been started and escalated, it is the USA's responsibility to resolve them.
Why because you say it is? I say screw that. There was a mess we 'tried' to clean it up and it got to be a bigger mess. We don't suddenly become eternally responsible for what happens over there because we touched it.
What we are doing is horrible. We won't wipe out the enemy because doing so would require we recognize who the enemy is: Sunni Muslims, and we don't do things like exterminate religious groups. We also are not colonialists so we don't permanently occupy. Oops we just painted ourselves int
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I'm thinking more, Utopia, Aeon Flux (the cartoon, not the live action movie) style.
but it doesn't have to be that way... (Score:4, Insightful)
There's too much money in social media, just like there's too much money in politics.
Re: (Score:2)
Blame Craigslist (Score:2)
It single handedly killed newspaper journalism with their free unlimited esposure classifieds. That was a revenue cow that tilted papers into the red. Well, that and dead trees are uncool for the new hip environmentally sensitive masses.
Facebook and Google are aren't even veiling their services as journalism. They're simply "small things to read'. There are daily rags here that are given free (with ads of course) which are 4 page 'the world is full of puppies' crap which is just a rebranded slosh of garbage
Re:Blame Craigslist (Score:5, Interesting)
Yep, the whippersnappers probably don't realize how profitable local newspapers used to be. Indeed, they were one of Buffett's favorite investments in the early days. From a 1977 WSJ article: "Warren likens owning a monopoly or market-dominant newspaper to owning an unregulated toll bridge. You have relative freedom to increase rates when and as much as you want." [1] When the economics are like that, you can afford prestige journalism and professional reporters.
The WSJ article also notes how Buffett made a killing buying the Washington Post Co. at a significant discount to book value; the company's huge investment portfolio wasn't factored into the stock price at the time. Fast forward several decades, and now Bezos owns the actual newspaper and WaPo brand.
While there are legitimate *technology* companies in Silicon Valley, the ad-delivery/social media "it's 1999 all over again!" outfits for some reason get all the attention. Looking at some of the large employers in the area, you realize a huge number of people earn a paycheck from firms that sell ads, make CRM software, and run social media services (in the red quarter after quarter). It's sort of like the West Coast Wall Street: too many overpaid assholes doing stuff of no useful value to human civilization. (And both groups are enabled by the torrent of easy money from the central banks, which makes all sorts of bullshit possible.)
[1] http://www.rationalwalk.com/wp... [rationalwalk.com]
Re: (Score:2)
It's sort of like the West Coast Wall Street: too many overpaid assholes doing stuff of no useful value to human civilization.
Spot on and Bravo!
Re: (Score:2)
It's sort of like the West Coast Wall Street: too many overpaid assholes doing stuff of no useful value to human civilization.
I think social media is of enormous value to human civilization, because it enables more communication. There is the obvious risk of building yourself an airtight echo chamber, but there's also the opportunity to create a broad net that catches many ideas, and it's one that wasn't there before.
It's a shame that G+ is so incompetent, and Fb is so evil.
The old gatekeeper... (Score:5, Insightful)
No, he does not have a point about old media vs new. "Trust us, we're good gatekeepers, while those other people are BAD!" is not a good argument...
Re: (Score:2)
The new gatekeeper is bad, but now you have a choice.
IF you're ignorant, it's your own stupid fault, and "democracy gives you the government you deserve."
Re: (Score:2)
"democracy gives you the government you deserve."
What could I have possibly have done to deserve Trump or Hillary ?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
The point here being that the new media are actually gatekeepers, something that doesn't occur to a fair few
And the old media were also actually gatekeepers, something that didn't occur to a fair few.
It's possible that the new ones are worse than the old ones, but merely pointing out that there's a change from old to new doesn't imply anything about which is better or worse.
Who? (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
This article really hit home among corporate execs. I think it's at least partly the reason why we have "the cloud" today.
grumpy old man (Score:2)
Carr sounds like a grumpy old man and an attention whore. Fine, to each their own. It's a free country, he can join the Amish if he likes. Many others will buy and use the technology we enjoy.
I don't think anything much is gonna change (Score:5, Insightful)
If I have a hope for technology it's that birth control (particularly for men) will force birth rates low enough that the rich will have to treat labor OK because there won't be enough to abuse. But then with automation they have no use for labor. So unless we're gonna drive the population to around 10,000 I think we still have a problem. After all, what good is being rich if nobody's poor to boss around?
Re: (Score:2)
They shut off her FB feed because people were encouraging her to fight to the death over a warrant for failure to appear in court for traffic tickets. It was making the situation even more dangerous than it already was.
They could have shut off posting to her feed by anyone but her without silencing her voice. This is well within FB's capabilities. They used the [tactical] nuclear option instead, because police.
Re: (Score:2)
The paradigm you describe will come to pass, and then pass away.
Sadly, you're probably right. That doesn't mean it won't be painful for those that live through it. Being a peasant in Medieval Europe, a slave in early american south, or a serf in Stalinist Russia was not a "good time".
The scary questions for me are, how long is this phase going to last, and what's going to be left when it comes to an end?
Old Media = HRC and Trump (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Meaningless correlation.
(Democrats-wise) Based on my discussions (highly scientific!) people over 40 who voted for Hillary honestly admired her from the 90's, and while they may have voted for Obama in 2008, they weren't voting against her. People who are younger often skew more socialist, and Sanders would appeal more to them.
(Republican-wise) I'd suspect that the cause is that people aged 45-65 are more likely to unemployed/underemployed, are looking at the world changing (and leaving them behind) and wa
Re: (Score:2)
Just about all non-conservative people under 40 supported Sanders over Clinton
I don't have data handy with a +/-40 break point, but while Sanders did dominate in 18-24 (65/27), 24-34 was essentially tied (45/44), and Clinton won handily 35-44 (54/34). So, overall, Sanders probably had an edge for under 40 as a whole, but it's around 55/45, not "just about all". http://www.vox.com/2016/1/15/1... [vox.com]
Blame the tools! (Score:2)
It's a fucked up world when Vice (Score:2)
is one of the last bastions of old-school journalism.
John Oliver's latest segment on journalism is pretty spot on. You'll never guess what reason #5 is!
Predicting technology adoptions is hard. (Score:2)
Predicting the consequences of tech adoption is impossible.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
"IT Doesn't Matter" was the article that prompted my comment. It was written to appeal to B-school amateur philosophers in comparing IT to railroading and electricity as a field that will shortly become commoditized and boring. IT will be just as basic to the future as the electrical grid, but there's a major difference in that new uses for information is a wide-open field, and will be for the foreseeable future.
Further, Carr is the author who because famous for opining that the Internet will make us stupi
Re: (Score:2)
Play Astro Blaster!