Is Google Making Us Stupid? = By NICHOLAS CARR ( 2)= FROM BRANKO POPAZANOV

 
 

 

 

SRPSKA ARMIJA ABLEM

 

SRPSKA ARMIJA JE SRPSKI NAROD!

SRPSKI NAROD JE SRPSKA ARMIJA!

 
 

GLAVNI I ODGOVORNI UREDNIK

SLOBODAN PIVLJANIN

DIREKTOR & IZDAVAC

IRIS DE VRIES

4 JANUARI 194210 JANUARI 2006

  Is Google Making Us Stupid? 

( 2)

 By NICHOLAS CARR 

From: Branko Popazivanov <brpopaz@qlink.ca>
To: Undisclosed-Recipient@yahoo.com
Sent: Sunday, December 7, 2008 9:53:15 AM

 

When the Net absorbs a medium, that medium is recreated in the Net’s image. It injects the medium’s content with hyperlinks, blinking ads, and other digital gewgaws, and it surrounds the content with the content of all the other media it has absorbed. A new e-mail message, for instance, may announce its arrival as we’re glancing over the latest headlines at a newspaper’s site. The result is to scatter our attention and diffuse our concentration.

 

The Net’s influence doesn’t end at the edges of a computer screen, either. As people’s minds become attuned to the crazy quilt of Internet media, traditional media have to adapt to the audience’s new expectations. Television programs add text crawls and pop-up ads, and magazines and newspapers shorten their articles, introduce capsule summaries, and crowd their pages with easy-to-browse info-snippets. When, in March of this year, The New York Times decided to devote the second and third pages of every edition to article abstracts, its design director, Tom Bodkin, explained that the "shortcuts" would give harried readers a quick "taste" of the day’s news, sparing them the “less efficient" method of actually turning the pages and reading the articles. Old media have little choice but to play by the new-media rules.

 

Never has a communications system played so many roles in our lives—or exerted such broad influence over our thoughts—as the Internet does today. Yet, for all that’s been written about the Net, there’s been little consideration of how, exactly, it’s reprogramming us. The Net’s intellectual ethic remains obscure.

 

A bout the same time that Nietzsche started using his typewriter, an earnest young man named Frederick Winslow Taylor carried a stopwatch into the Midvale Steel plant in Philadelphia and began a historic series of experiments aimed at improving the efficiency of the plant’s machinists. With the approval of Midvale’s owners, he recruited a group of factory hands, set them to work on various metalworking machines, and recorded and timed their every movement as well as the operations of the machines. By breaking down every job into a sequence of small, discrete steps and then testing different ways of performing each one, Taylor created a set of precise instructions—an "algorithm" we might say today—for how each worker should work. Midvale’s employees grumbled about the strict new regime, claiming that it turned them into little more than automatons, but the factory’s productivity soared.

 

More than a hundred years after the invention of the steam engine, the Industrial Revolution had at last found its philosophy and its philosopher. Taylor’s tight industrial choreography—his "system;’ as he liked to call it—was embraced by manufacturers throughout the country and, in time, around the world. Seeking maximum speed, maximum efficiency, and maximum output, factory owners used time-and-motion studies to organize their work and configure the jobs of their workers. The goal, as Taylor defined it in his celebrated 1911 treatise, The Principles of Scientific Management, was to identify and adopt, for every job, the "one best method" of work and thereby to effect "the gradual substitution of science for rule of thumb throughout the mechanic arts.” Once his system was applied to all acts of manual labor, Taylor assured his followers, it would bring about a restructuring not only of industry but of society, creating a utopia of perfect efficiency. "In the past the man has been first," he declared; "in the future the system must be first."

 

Taylor‘s system is still very much with us; it remains the ethic of industrial manufacturing. And now, thanks to the growing power that computer engineers and software coders wield over our intellectual lives, Taylor’s ethic is beginning to govern the realm of the mind as well. The Internet is a machine designed for the efficient and automated collection, transmission, and manipulation of information, and its legions of programmers are intent on finding the "one best method"—the perfect algorithm to carry out every mental movement of what we’ve come to describe as "knowledge work."

 

Google’s headquarters, in Mountain View, California—the Googleplex—is the Internet’s high church, and the religion practiced inside its walls is Taylorism. Google, says its chief executive, Eric Schmidt, is "a company that’s founded around the science of measurement," and it is striving to "systematize everything" it does. Drawing on the terabytes of behavioral data it collects through its search engine and other sites, it carries out thousands of experiments a day, according to the Harvard Business Review, and it uses the results to refine the algorithms that increasingly control how people find information and extract meaning from it. What Taylor did for the work of the hand, Google is doing for the work of the mind.

 

The company has declared that its mission is "to organize the world’s information and make it universally accessible and useful.” It seeks to develop "the perfect search engine," which it defines as something that "understands exactly what you mean and gives you back exactly what you want.” In Google’s view, information is a kind of commodity, a utilitarian resource that can be mined and processed with industrial efficiency. The more pieces of information we can "access" and the faster we can extract their gist, the more productive we become as thinkers.

 

Where does it end? Sergey Brin and Larry Page, the gifted young men who founded Google while pursuing doctoral degrees in computer science at Stanford, speak frequently of their desire to turn their search engine into an artificial intelligence, a HAL-like machine that might be connected directly to our brains. "The ultimate search engine is something as smart as people—or smarter," Page said in a speech a few years back. "For us, working on search is a way to work on artificial intelligence." In a 2004 interview with Newsweek, Brin said, "Certainly if you had all the world’s information directly attached to your brain, or an artificial brain that was smarter than your brain, you’d be better off." Last year, Page told a convention of scientists that Google is "really trying to build artificial intelligence and to do it on a large scale.”

 

Such an ambition is a natural one, even an admirable one, for a pair of math whizzes with vast quantities of cash at their disposal and a small army of computer scientists in their employ. A fundamentally scientific enterprise, Google is motivated by a desire to use technology, in Eric Schmidt’s words, "to solve problems that have never been solved before," and artificial intelligence is the hardest problem out there. Why wouldn’t Brin and Page want to be the ones to crack it?

 

Still, their easy assumption that we’d all "be better off" if our brains were supplemented, or even replaced, by an artificial intelligence is unsettling. It suggests a belief that intelligence is the output of a mechanical process, a series of discrete steps that can be isolated, measured, and optimized. In Google’s world, the world we enter when we go online, there’s little place for the fuzziness of contemplation. Ambiguity is not an opening for insight but a bug to be fixed. The human brain is just an outdated computer that needs a faster processor and a bigger hard drive.

 

The idea that our minds should operate as high-speed data-processing machines is not only built into the workings of the Internet, it is the network’s reigning business model as well. The faster we surf across the Web—he more links we click and pages we view—the more opportunities Google and other companies gain to collect information about us and to feed us advertisements. Most of the proprietors of the commercial Internet have a financial stake in collecting the crumbs of data we leave behind as we flit from link to link—the more crumbs, the better. The last thing these companies want is to encourage leisurely reading or slow, concentrated thought. It’s in their economic interest to drive us to distraction.

 

Maybe I’m just a worrywart. Just as there’s a tendency to glorify technological progress, there’s a countertendency to expect the worst of every new tool or machine. In Plato’s Phaedrus, Socrates bemoaned the development of writing. He feared that, as people came to rely on the written word as a substitute for the knowledge they used to carry inside their heads, they would, in the words of one of the dialogue’s characters, "cease to exercise their memory and become forgetful." And because they would be able to "receive a quantity of information without proper instruction," they would "be thought very knowledgeable when they are for the most part quite ignorant. " They would be "filled with the conceit of wisdom instead of real wisdom." Socrates wasn’t wrong—the new technology did often have the effects he feared—but he was shortsighted. He couldn’t foresee the many ways that writing and reading would serve to spread information, spur fresh ideas, and expand human knowledge (if not wisdom).

 

The arrival of Gutenberg’s printing press, in the 15th century, set off another round of teeth gnashing. The Italian humanist Hieronimo Squarciafico worried that the easy availability of books would lead to intellectual laziness, making men "less studious" and weakening their minds. Others argued that cheaply printed books and broadsheets would undermine religious authority, demean the work of scholars and scribes, and spread sedition and debauchery. As New York University professor Clay Shirky notes, "Most of the arguments made against the printing press were correct, even prescient." But, again, the doornsayers were unable to imagine the myriad blessings that the printed word would deliver.

 

So, yes, you should be skeptical of my skepticism. Perhaps those who dismiss critics of the Internet as Luddites or nostalgists will be proved correct, and from our hyperactive, data-stoked minds will spring a golden age of intellectual discovery and universal wisdom. Then again, the Net isn’t the alphabet, and although it may replace the printing press, it produces something altogether different. The kind of deep reading that a sequence of printed pages promotes is valuable not just for the knowledge we acquire from the author’s words but for the intellectual vibrations those words set off within our own minds. In the quiet spaces opened up by the sustained, undistracted. reading of a book, or by any other act of contemplation, for that matter, we make our own associations, draw our own inferences and analogies, foster our own ideas. Deep reading, as Maryanne Wolf argues, is indistinguishable from deep thinking.

 

If we lose those quiet spaces, or fill them up with "content," we will sacrifice something important not only in our selves but in our culture. In a recent essay, the playwright Richard Foreman eloquently described what’s at stake:

 

I come from a tradition of Western culture, in which the ideal (my ideal) was the complex, dense and "cathedral-like" structure of the highly educated and articulate personality—a man or woman who carried inside themselves a personally constructed and unique version of the entire heritage of the West. [But now] I see within us all (myself included) the replacement of complex inner density with a new kind of self-evolving under the pressure of information overload and the technology of the "instantly available.”

 

As we are drained of our "inner repertory of dense cultural inheritance," Foreman concluded, we risk turning into “‘pancake people’‑‑spread wide and thin as we connect with that vast network of information accessed by the mere touch of a button.”

 

I’m haunted by that scene in 2001. What makes it so poignant, and so weird, is the computer’s emotional response to the disassembly of its mind: its despair as one circuit after another goes dark, its childlike pleading with the astronaut—"I can feel it. I can feel it. I’m afraid"—and its final reversion to what can only be called a state of innocence. HAL’s outpouring of feeling contrasts with the emotionlessness that characterizes the human figures in the film, who go about their business with an almost robotic efficiency Their thoughts and actions feel scripted, as if they’re following the steps of an algorithm. In the world of 2001, people have become so machinelike that the most human character turns out to be a machine. That’s the essence of Kubricks dark prophecy: as we come to rely on computers to mediate our understanding of the world, it is our own intelligence that flattens into artificial intelligence.

 

Nicholas Carr’s most recent book, The Big Switch: Rewiring the World, From Edison to Google, was published earlier this year. This article appeared in The Atlantic magazine, July/August 2008 issue.

 

 

 

 

=======================

==================

===

 

DE BOULEVARD VAN GEMISTE KANSEN (2) GENERAL CRVENE ARMIJE 1946 GODINE = GAVRILI PETROV MITRIC HET GROTE KARATE BOEK VAN KARATE BOB LIBERTY OF THE PRESS = ISBN 978-74724-07-4

 

KLACHT DVD

KLAHT - DVD FILM - OF THE IRIS DE VRIES

piva

stah od ravnogorstva - korice 

 GEHEIM-AGENT VAN TITO

TITOV OBAVESTAJAC BY SLOBODAN PIVLJANIN 

  http://sites.google.com/site/latelierdelaliberte/Home/geheim-agent-van-tito-by-slobodan-pivljanin

 

 

 TITOV OBAVESTAJAC BY SLOBODAN PIVLJANIN 

http://sites.google.com/site/srbskaarmija/Home/dr-slobodan-radojev-mitric-ispovest-jednog-razocaranog-udbasa-feljton-u-danas-od-14-aprila-2004-godine-do-10-maja-2004-godine-plagijat-zorana-jovanovica-desimira-tosica 

  TITO'S MOORDMASCHINE

 TITOVA MASINA ZA UBIJANJE BY SLOBODAN PIVLJANIN

 http://internetnovineserbske.spaces.live.com/blog/cns!E927C3A9FB9FF104!9497.entry

 

 NEDERLAND'S MAFFIA

 

OPERACIJA BLIZANCI

 OPERATION TWINS I

http://www.willehalm.nl

 OPERATION TWINS II

  www.willehalm.nl

 

CONFESSIONS OF A DISGRUNTLAD SPY

  www.willehalm.nl

 

HUND=goudentip

 http://www.willehalm.nl/degoudentip.htm

 

===============================================================

 ADD NEWS ON YOUR SITE FREE!!!

 

TRANSLATE

  http://translate.google.com/translate_t?hl=nl

 

ONI KOJI NEZNAJU ENGLESKI JEZIK NEKA KOPIRAJU TEKST MIKI MAUZOM I PRENESU GA NA  

DOLE DOSTAVLJENI PROGRAM..IZABERU  ENGLESKI I ODA PREVEDU ZA NEKOLIKO SEKUNDI CEO TEKST NA HRVATSKI ILI NEKI DRUGI JEZIK PO ZELJI…NAZALOST JOS NEPOSTOJI PROGRAM ZA SRPSKI…

 

 

PREVOD KOMPLETNI TEKSOVI 

  http://translate.google.com/translate_t?hl=nl

 

—————————————————–

—————————————

—————–

 

SVI VASI KOMENTARI BICE OBJAVLJENI – THE SERBIAN ARMY NE PRIPADAJU BILO KOJOJ POLITICKOJ STRANCI – MI SE U SVEMU RAZLIKUJEMO OD PODREPASA, KOJI SU U SLUZBI ILI  ISTOCNE ILI ZAPADNE PETE KOLONE… I KOJI MORAJU PRETHODNO TRAZITI ODOBRENJE MOGU LI OBJAVITI VASE KOMENTARE…

SRDACNO

GLAVNI UREDNIK THE SERBIAN ARMY

DR. SLOBODAN PIVLJANIN

card1

POSALJITE VAS KOMENTAR

the.serbianarmy@hotmail.com

 

This entry was posted in Boeken. Bookmark the permalink.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s