Rogers Internet Quotes

Doing research on the Web is like using a library assembled piecemeal by pack rats and vandalized nightly.

Truth arises by an invisible hand from our many errors, and both error and truth must be protected. The heretic, however, is now exposed to public intimidation and abuse on a scale inconceivable before the invention of the internet. Of course, we have moved on a bit from the Middle Ages. It is not the man who is assassinated now, but only his character. But the effect is the same. Free discussion is being everywhere shut down, so that we will never know who is right - the heretics, or those who try to silence them.

2001’s production notes contain a number of startlingly prescient glimpses of the world we live in today. As of mid-1965, approximately the same time that the US Department of Defense was conceiving of the internet’s direct predecessor, ARPANET (Advanced Research Projects Agency Network), Kubrick’s intrepid band of futurists had seemingly already visualized important aspects of the new technology’s implications. One document sent from Tony Masters to Roger Caras on June 29 listed matter-of-factly—under a letterhead replete with the roaring MGM lion—nine props that he asked Caras to help him with. Number one was “2001 newspaper to be read on some kind of television screen. Should be designed television screen shape; i.e., wider than it is high.

In this modern day and age America`s newest slogan is: Mom, apple pie and high-speed Internet. They say you can live two weeks without food, a day or so without water but take someone`s smart phone away, and that person won`t last five minutes.” - Will Roberts

Zeynep Tufekci, the UNC scholar who is one of the world’s foremost experts on the impact of emerging technology in politics, has observed that internet platforms enable the powerful to affect a new kind of censorship. Instead of denying access to communications and information, bad actors can now use internet platforms to confuse a population, drowning them in nonsense. In her book, Twitter and Tear Gas, she asserts that “inundating audiences with information, producing distractions to dilute their attention and focus, delegitimizing media that provide accurate information (whether credible mass media or online media), deliberately sowing confusion, fear, and doubt by aggressively questioning credibility (with or without evidence, since what matters is creating doubt, not proving a point), creating or claiming hoaxes, or generating harassment campaigns designed to make it harder for credible conduits of information to operate, especially on social media which tends to be harder for a government to control like mass media.” Use of internet platforms in this manner undermines democracy in a way that cannot be fixed by moderators searching for fake news or hate speech.

But this time, if and when discontented Americans like Amy and Sarah do reengage with democracy, it’s by no means clear that they will vote to stick with the capitalism part of the American model. The 1970s represented the first protracted stumble after the recovery from the Great Depression, with two oil-price shocks and a nasty recession mid-decade. Had recovery from those challenges been as strong as that in the late 1930s and 1940s, no doubt faith in the system would once again have been vindicated. Instead, as the data shows, the post-1970s decades have been, for Americans like Amy and Sarah, a slow drip feed of disappointment and frustration. In this environment, a more sinister narrative about capitalism has been taking root. Capitalism is no longer unambiguously about everybody working hard and getting ahead—it is about the benefit of overall economic growth flowing so disproportionately to rich people that there just isn’t enough left for average Americans to consistently advance. If the little that does trickle down isn’t enough to keep Amy and Sarah afloat, then sooner or later they will wonder why they trust the management of the economy to Wall Street CEOs and Beltway politicians and policy wonks. And then they will surely reengage with the democratic part of the US system—probably with dramatic and potentially harmful results. To be sure, it is always tempting to look for a clear, easily identified whipping boy—a bad president, an atrocious piece of legislation, callous Wall Street, venal hedge funds, the unfettered internet, runaway globalization, or self-absorbed millennials. While no one of these can be held responsible for the yawning inequality of the US economy and the alienation that it engenders, many actors have played a role. It has taken almost half a century of both Democratic and Republican presidents and houses of Congress to get us to the current point. And if numerous actors are in part responsible, then we have to ask—given all that the data shows—whether there may be a fundamental structural problem with democratic capitalism. If so, can we fix it?

Roger Hangarter, a biology professor at Indiana University, maintains “Plants in Motion,” an endearing online library of plant movement videos in the style of the early internet.

O filósofo britânico Sir Roger Scruton diz que, se você não lê (livros, que fique bem claro), se está preso apenas à televisão e à internet, se só vive o tempo presente,e se desconhece sua história pessoal e a História da sociedade onde vive, então seu passado vira um porão escuro e desconhecido, que guarda coisas das quais você jamais poderá desfrutar. Para ele, ao viver apenas na ignorância do presente, você está irremediavelmente escravo de uma ditadura terrível. Tal como os camponeses da Idade Média, condenados a apenas existir e trabalhar sem parar até a morte.

Virtually every presentation piles long incoherent drifts of typo-ridden text onto images randomly stolen from the Internet without a thought for crediting the source. Some presenters even turn their backs on the audience to read straight from the screen. This is bad enough in class; in a client meeting, it would be disastrous.

The drumbeat of American accusations against Chinese Internet device manufacturers was unrelenting. In 2012, for example, a report from the House Intelligence Committee, headed by Mike Rogers, claimed that Huawei and ZTE, the top two Chinese telecommunications equipment companies, “may be violating United States laws” and have “not followed United States legal obligations or international standards of business behavior.” The committee recommended that “the

The only writer of the Middle Ages to describe cryptography instead of just using it was Roger Bacon, the English monk of startlingly modern speculations. In his Epistle on the Secret Works of Art and the Nullity of Magic, written about the middle of the 1200s,

(Although the early Internet thrived on anonymity, platforms thrive on identity.)

As a survey of what the overall consensus looks like on a movie, Rotten Tomatoes has a purpose. But a lot of readers see that number and take it as some kind of objective measurement of quality, not what it really is: a calculation of the overall number of critics who recommend something. And everywhere you look online, you can see numbers that supposedly represent reader reviews and customer grades. People rate the toothpaste they buy on Amazon and pan the restaurant that served them cold soup on Yelp. Netflix users can rate the films they watch with a thumbs down, a thumbs up, or two thumbs for something they absolutely love. All of this bears Gene and Roger's influence: they democratized criticism, turned it into mass entertainment, and brought it to millions of people all over the country for decades. And now the internet has given everyone an outlet to practice it in public, for better or for worse.