1 edit
Originally posted by FreakyKBHSince Americans have only small problems with firearms, they should have even less with the internet.
Is the question that difficult for you?
If a tool has utility (for better or worse), the users are obviously changed as a result of its invention. If a tool has no utility, it is discarded and no change is realized.
edit: 4 for
Originally posted by Phil HillWith pluses and minuses added up it is still plus. Besides terrorists learning to make bombs, there are those deeply involved with ways of detecting such activity. We get better and better at detecting smaller and smaller amounts of deadly material, whether it's explosives or biological warfare material.
Just to throw a wrench in the works, are we still better off when some psycho or psychos decide to learn how to build a thermonuclear bomb with plans they downloaded off the internet and to make matters worse they set it off in the city you live killing the entire population? As I said, tools can be used for good or for bad so the question is phrased badly ...[text shortened]... hands of a psycho it can be a great tool for bashing in a skull. Do hammers make us better off?
Originally posted by FreakyKBHThe only thing it is good for is chess and maps.
Had this discussion the other day with my wife; curious to see what direction folks herein would choose, given the option.
Considering all that is available on the internet, from the good[hidden]education, medical, religious, etc.,[/hidden] to the bad [hidden]http://www.buzzfeed.com/reyhan/how-child-porn-and-the-other-awfulest-things-ever[/hidden], are we better off having the internet?
Originally posted by FreakyKBHYou don't need to do a poll on RHP. Just look at how many people use the internet and how many are boycotting it. I guess one could argue that boycotting it won't stop all the bad stuff, but still, if there were a lot of people against the internet you would think they would at least be making some noise about it.
For 3.
Against 0.
