A hilarious article from 1995.
(Thanks Zach.)
*Update*: Link fixed. Also, please no one tell poor Jack Grant about this article, he might die of embarrassment…
Defending the liberal tradition in history, science, and philosophy.
A hilarious article from 1995.
(Thanks Zach.)
*Update*: Link fixed. Also, please no one tell poor Jack Grant about this article, he might die of embarrassment…
{ 14 comments }
gold. closely related (and also shamelessly stolen from andy baio):
this 2001 slashdot comment declaring the ipod DOA.
also i think the link you have points to the second page of the article rather than the first.
In 1995 that wasn’t so silly. The “World Wide Web” was barely even a buzzword then.
Elisha Feger’s last blog post..Update on the Met Opera Illnesses
Link fixed.
Read the article from the beginning.
Elisha:
It was silly no matter when it was written. In fact having been written in 1995 it is far sillier than had it been written in 1985.
The whole thing reads like classis MSM denial to me. Pure and simple. “No editors” indeed. Like we need another layer of biased spin masters spoon feeding us world events.
What killed me was the “salespeople” comment. What a riot! It’s as if this fellow can’t choose which shirt to buy unless someone is tucking it in for him and saying “oohhh… that shirt just SCREAMS Edward R. Murrow!”
What a laugh. I bet this guy is still writing for Newsweek. Or some other dinosaur rag.
CosmicConservative’s last blog post..Bumped off my flight?
Also in 1995 or 1996, the CEO of a major telco (AT&T?) said that the Interenet was no more threat to their L/D voice business than was ham radio.
I do agree with Stoll’s comments about the overselling of computer technology for schools.
David Foster’s last blog post…Mortgage Animation
The commerce bits where pretty hilarious, I’ll admit. But his comments about usenet weren’t that far off the mark, at least in non-moderated newsgroups. Lord knows I was in my share of flamewars back in the day. heh That paragraph about search engines hits pretty close to the mark too, they used to be pretty abysmal.
On the other hand, he showed a decided lack of foresight or optimism. These things could never get better? What? That goes against what’s driven the internet since it started.
Anyway, I’m not saying the article is a masterwork; it’s just more sad than silly.
Though I bet lots of rich business types at the article up when it came off the press, and then cursed their luck at not jumping on the “internets” when the stock bubble started growing out of control and they lost the chance to make even more millions.
Elisha Feger’s last blog post..Update on the Met Opera Illnesses
This isn’t just some Newsweek hack writer, it’s Clifford Stoll, the astronomer who caught a German spy running around U.S. government and military systems. You have to remember, though, that he lives in Berkeley. He published a whole book on this theme titled Silicon Snake Oil.
It’s funny, I’ve read that article before. I especially remembered the line about e-books because I agreed. I still do- give me paper any day. I just don’t remember where I ran across it.
Ryan
RyanR’s last blog post..War- A Failure of Diplomacy?
Hey Ryan, check out Amazon’s new e-book ready, the Kindle.
I haven’t had the opportunity to see one in person yet, but based on what I’ve read, it looks like it’ll address all the advantages that paper books used to have, and then some.
I’ve never seen a kindle, but reading ebooks on my palm pilot was extremely convenient. Not quite as nice as reading a paper book, but there were times when the step-down in reading experience (which wasn’t all that bad) was more than made up for by the abililty to carry around a few dozen books in a 3 oz device that fits in my pocket.
When I read the article noted, I looked at it with the perspective of the times. The kinds of things Cliff talked about were actual concerns then. The Internet had been a 20 year experiment that just turned commercial. Many involved in the business were trying to figure out what to do with it. There were certainly a lot of different views then. Remember “Information wants to be freeâ€. Cliff came from an environment where we were distinctly aware of the limitations of computing and communications. Most of the Internet builders dated from the 60’s and 70’s when the capabilities of the equipment and software were so limited that we learned to think that way as a matter of practicality to let us do our jobs. I believe this of Cliff because I succeeded him as chairman if a special interest group for a computer we both used. He and I had occasion to speak with each other in the 80’s and 90’s. His article is not really that silly for the times he wrote it in.
There are two examples I see that put this into perspective. I was born and raised in Detroit and steeped in its history. In the early part of the 20th century, there were lots of views on what was going to happen to the automobile and how we should use it. Few if any from that time would have seen what we have now. That didn’t stop them from saying what they thought should happen or comment on what was happening. The other example is from the development of the Internet itself. When the idea of packet switching was developed there were meetings with AT&T to describe the new network solution for communications. The old line telephone guru’s couldn’t accept it. It waited until there was a need that could be fulfilled by this new idea.
All I can get out of this is that we as humans like to draw lines in the sand and plant flags in the ground. It’s good to go back and see where they were drawn or planted and then move on based on where we are, fully aware that we will likely draw our own lines and plant our own flags.
ned,
the article isn’t ludicrous for his being slightly skeptical about the hype surrounding the internet circa 1995. it’s ludicrous because he’s wholly dismissive that there could ever be any improvement in technology whatsoever beyond an arbitrary point reached about two days before his article was written. in other words, i find his lack of vision….disturbing.
Zach,
I don’t find his dismissive attitude disturbing. Like myself and others, we knew of technology pretty well but there were only a small number that really understood what technologies were capable of at that time. When Cliff wrote that, we knew many components IT would improve greatly but we also were keenly aware that the idea of using computing for general uses was something that had never been done before. Computers were used for balancing books and aiming telescopes. To some extent, it rested on a small number of visionaries who could see that and the next generation who were unencumbered by history and could say why not. That not disturbing. It’s just human nature.
Comments on this entry are closed.