>>>> We currently live in a world where most of those in power are old people who don't know wtf teh internets
No we do not. A person who is now 60 (reasonable estimate age for "old people in power" - Obama is 52, John Roberts is 58, Boehner is 64) has lived in the internet age for almost 20 years, since he was 40. If you assume people can't learn something that is happening before their eyes for 20 years while they are at the peak of their career - you must have ver low and counterfactual opinion about these "old people". It may have been true 15 years ago, but repeating it now, in 2013, makes one sound a bit out of date. Virtually all "old people" now know what the internet is, and have been for years. Proverbial "your mother" now knows how to use the computer and follows you on Facebook. The times where internet was for hip youngsters has long passed, deal with it.
If you assume people can't learn something that is happening before their eyes for 20 years while they are at the peak of their career - you must have ver low and counterfactual opinion about these "old people".
Some things have to be experienced from birth to be truly understood. Knowing what the Internet is and how to interact with it are not the same thing as growing up with the Internet and having it be as much a part of oneself as one's religion or hometown.
That sounds like pseudo-religious baloney. You can't get the Spirit of Internet, you have to be born with it, it has to enter your lungs with your first breath. No, it does not. You can get it just fine in any age. It's just technology, like cars, TVs, mobile phones, microwave ovens or electrical toothbrushes. There's no mystery in it and no sacred spirit that has to fill you from your birth. There's nothing special in being born with it. There's a real lot of nice things about being young, but sorry, this is not one of them.
It's not "just technology", it's a new kind of hometown, a new place of existence, a new appendage of the mind and body. If you don't get it, you probably never will, just like I'll never know what it's like to have six fingers.
No it is not. People are still the same, and nothing much changed in humans since we left the trees for huts and and cows and cereals. Radio was promised to change the world, then cinema, then TV, then internet. All of them did, and none did. People are still the same, only with technology, and saying "you will never get it" does not make your misdirected enthusiasm close to the truth. Yes, internet changed a lot. No, it's still the same old world.
I never said anything about changing the world, only people. Forget the word "religion" in my original post, it was only an example; what I'm alluding to is the set of fundamental assumptions, intuitions, and instincts that affect our perception of and reasoning about the world on an unconscious level; the thought processes that occur before we're consciously aware of them (as demonstrated by fMRI).
As one example, study of color perception has shown that children have to shift color processing from the right to the left hemisphere of the brain as they are educated, and that language has an influence on the shades of colors we are able to distinguish with ease. I'm suggesting that there is a similar fundamental process at work in the brains of people who use computers and the Internet from a young age that makes lifelong users think and feel differently about the Internet in a way that very few older users will understand or experience. It is difficult to imagine that most older lawmakers who lack this understanding will make effective, future-proof decisions about the Internet.
3D printing is not a system for intercontinental information interchange. The Internet is fundamentally different from any other technology (apart from its direct predecessors like BBSes), and cannot be reasoned about by analogy to any other technology. It's another layer of abstraction in human interaction that supersedes all previous layers (e.g. spoken language, written language, printing press, telephone).
Not "understanding" the Internet (as I intended the word "understanding" in my previous post) is like not "understanding" what it's like to be born with an extra arm.
In the same vein, those who will grow up with 3D printing, never knowing a world in which it doesn't exist, will think of it in ways that those of us who already had well-formed views of the world can't fathom.
The claim in the article that "kids and grandkids" could answer how text messaging system works "while sleepwalking" is ridiculous. I am sure more than 50% of HN visitors do not know in details how mobile telephony and SMS works in details, and probably about 99% of the "kids" do not. They know it send the message somewhere and then it arrives, but how exactly it does it? What exactly receives it? How it knows where to send it? What exactly happens if the recipient is unavailable? Where exactly the message is stored and for how long? etc., etc.
Assuming the judge does not know about existence of the mobile service providers is outright ridiculous - even idiot would notice building-size ads on every second road advertising mobile services, or ads on the TV and in the newspapers. And SC judges are not idiots. I think more plausible is that Ashby Jones just didn't understand what it was about. It was about if the message or information about it is stored on provider's systems - which is quite reasonable question, some systems are peer-to-peer, some use dedicated server, they wanted to know which is it because it is highly relevant for the case, which discusses if it is legal for the employer to check on communications of an employee, and if it is then to what extent.
The pager/email matter even more laughable - clearly the question was if the legal implications for pager are different than for email (for which the law is known) and if so, what exactly makes them different. To understand this as if Roberts couldn't figure out what is the difference between email and pager at all is plain silly.
Supreme court judges have to deal with pretty much every aspect of modern life, thanks to over-invasive state. So I am more than ready to forgive them if they ask questions about technology that most people know how to use, but have very vague idea about how it actually works in detail. Unlike their kids sleepwalking, they can not afford to have vague idea - they have to know exactly what they are judging about, and thanks God they are asking questions - I'd be much more concerned if they relied on vague idea in a matter they are not professionals in.
No we do not. A person who is now 60 (reasonable estimate age for "old people in power" - Obama is 52, John Roberts is 58, Boehner is 64) has lived in the internet age for almost 20 years, since he was 40. If you assume people can't learn something that is happening before their eyes for 20 years while they are at the peak of their career - you must have ver low and counterfactual opinion about these "old people". It may have been true 15 years ago, but repeating it now, in 2013, makes one sound a bit out of date. Virtually all "old people" now know what the internet is, and have been for years. Proverbial "your mother" now knows how to use the computer and follows you on Facebook. The times where internet was for hip youngsters has long passed, deal with it.