Should Net surfers be licensed? (1 Viewer)

[ThomasC]

A virus fouls your computer and you haplessly pass it on. Advertising software loads stealthily on your machine. Your password gets stolen because of your neglect. Or the music industry sues you because of something your kids or grandkids did on your computer. Barely a day goes by without someone, somewhere getting stung or stinging others through careless Internet use. Though many of these threats are preventable, relatively few of us take the necessary precautions. So why not institute mandatory education before people can go online? After all, motorists must obtain licenses before they can legally hit the road, and computers are much more complicated.

http://www.msnbc.com/news/965202.asp

 

[Glenn Overholt]

The statement is incorrect. Computers are NOT more complicated, thanks to Windows. (Can we Bill bash?)

Before Windows computers did require that the users knew a lot more, but today, they are almost plug and play.

Is this just part of the dumbing down of America?

Glenn

 

[Eric_L]

States don't want to license internet use, they want to tax it.

It would seem to me that before they license internet use, they should license free speech..... (sarcasm intended)

 

[John Watson]

The home computer as brought to us by Microsoft is the greatest agency of social chaos (narrow casting, niche generating, infobabble overload), and of social control (somebody knows what you're doing, and your up to your eyeballs in these klutzy high-maintenance machines, so you have no time for more important issues) that the world has ever seen

As for educating and licencing us, futile. Just look at what the SOB's with licences are doing out on the highways :frowning:

 

[Holadem]

So why not institute mandatory education before people can go online?

Why is there always some idiot who wants to control and regulate stuff?!

--
H

 

[Ricardo C]

Small penis syndrome.

 

[AllanN]

Is this just part of the dumbing down of America?

As far as technology goes I don’t think people are getting dumber. It’s just that technology has to be at a cretin level of user friendliness before the general public can handle it. People will always have the same level of comprehension. The technology is what needs to be "dumbed down" before people can use it. When I first got the internet, connecting to it was easy, just a simple phone number plugged into a terminal program. Now after I typed in a username and password, it was a different story. Someone without some UNIX knowledge would be completely lost back in the day, although I still have only enough *NIX knowledge to be a dangerous user.

 

[Justin Lane]

This article is a joke. I am sure the companies even mentioning such licensing would be the first ones in line to offer a training course for $99.99 to help you pass the licensing test.

This country was founded on individual freedom, namely "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness". It seems like every proposal now of days wants to more and more control our lives, reducing our freedoms, and hampering what the founding fathers considered inalienable rights.

J

 

[Jack Shappa]

Let's not go getting all elitest. People have different interests. I happen to enjoy computers and have since before the days of 300baud BBS systems, when I wrote and maintained my own Commodore 64 1-line BBS (whew ancient). To someone who wasn't into the hobby, it would be much more of an investment of time and energy than they'd ever want to put out. This doesn't make them dumb or cretins, anymore than you'd be a cretin for not being an expert in a different hobby. You're good at what you enjoy. Computers have finally reached a level where about anybody can use them, which is great. A computer savvy person can still get MUCH MUCH more out of a computer system than someone who is not, but remember mainstream acceptance gives us all many more choices at lower prices...

- Cryo

P.S. Ever go help a friend/neighbor/relative with their computer and it looks to you like a weedpatch would look to a gardener? No defragging, orphan files everywhere, START BAR that is 100 miles long with crap they don't even use, spyware installed, etc etc.

 

[AllanN]

I’m sorry if I came off as elitist. But that just seems to be the way with technology at least. The geeks and the early adopters are the first ones on the scene because they want to know how something works and will take the time to learn the ins and outs of a certain technology. Once that technology get to a level where it can be used without much effort, then the majority of people who are not as technically adept for whatever reason will start using it. This could be lack of interests or education. With the Internet it’s the fact that there are technologies (Windows, MacOS) that make it easier to get on and use the Internet. However technologies to protect non technical users have not evolved to a point where they are extremely user friendly yet. My point is that early adopters are usually more educated about technology because it is there passion. As technology evolves to the point where a user does not require much training to use it, what comes next is a mix of people who are just as intelligent but don’t care about that technology and people who are ignorant and stupid. I’m not saying that everyone that does not share a passion with technology is stupid, there are however just dumb people out there.

P.S. Ever go help a friend/neighbor/relative with their computer and it looks to you like a weedpatch would look to a gardener? No defragging, orphan files everywhere, START BAR that is 100 miles long with crap they don't even use, spyware installed, etc etc.

Yes, ive seen this many times before.

 

[John_Bonner]

I'm glad you don't have to know how a car works before you can get your license else I'd never be able to drive. I can and have built pc's from parts bought and/or lying around but when I look under the hood of a car I just scratch my head.

My next door neighbor is a mechanic. An excellent mechanic. Yet his pc looks like the "weedpatch" you guys mentioned. I was over there last Saturday installing Ad-Aware and Popup Killer since his machine was full of crap. He's amazed when I come over and fix things on his pc that has him in fits. I'm amazed at when there's something wrong with my or my wife's car he can diagnose and fix it in 15 minutes.

Different strokes for different folks I guess.

 

[JamesHl]

What idiocy.

People need to educate themselves. I haven't had a single problem with a worm or a virus ever, not even with the widespread infections as of late.

Periodically patching your computer isn't that hard. Running virus scanning software is free and easy once you install it. There's no excuse for this. Instead of licensing or any of these other insane suggestions, the best method would probably be to follow what many schools are doing, which is suspend the account of a person known to be infected with a worm/virus until they can show that they've had it fixed, so it doesn't spread to anyone else. Put the burden on the user. Perhaps they won't be so careless in the future, and will put pressure on developers (aka Microsoft) not to release software with these glaring security holes.

No legislation is required, except perhaps for the prosecution of virus/worm authors, of course.

 

[Christ Reynolds]

a computer savvy person acting as an elitist? i never thought i'd see the day.

as far as the licensing is concerned, it is just another way to bring in more money. do you really care who sees what you are on the internet for? as long as my personal info isnt in jeopardy, then i dont care who sees what i do. i dont have anything to hide. i get a kick out of the people who complain about their personal information being accessed by 'big brother', but these are the same people who want the author of the latest and greatest virus to be captured immediately. well, if we had our basic info accessible to the govt, then maybe we could track down the bad guy faster. or maybe i have no idea what i'm talking about, which is most likely the case

CJ

 

[Ricardo C]

as long as my personal info isnt in jeopardy, then i dont care who sees what i do. i dont have anything to hide.

I don't have anything to hide, either. Yet what I do online is none of your (or anyone's) business. Where's the contradiction?

That reasoning you just used is what dictatorships (past and present) have always used: "If you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to worry about". Scary thinking.

It's not about "not having anything to hide". It's about having the RIGHT to withold the info I want, no matter how trivial and innocent.

Edited because my grammar sucked :p)

 

[Justin Lane]

i get a kick out of the people who complain about their personal information being accessed by 'big brother', but these are the same people who want the author of the latest and greatest virus to be captured immediately.

You do realize the government in the U.S was established by the people to serve the people, not vice versa. The role of government is not to monitor and keep track of the actions and behavior of every individual surfing the net.

I am not exactly sure which people you are talking abot though. I don't want "big brother" to have anymore information than required, but on the same token I update my antivirus software regularly. As a matter of fact, I dont know anyone who complains about the capture (or lack thereof) of a virus' creator either. Guess that kind of blows your generalization.

J