No ipod or Google for Ballmer's kids

http://money.cnn.com/magazines/fortune/fortune_archive/2006/04/03/8373041/index.htm

Do you have an iPod?

No, I do not. Nor do my children. My children–in many dimensions they’re as poorly behaved as many other children, but at least on this dimension I’ve got my kids brainwashed: You don’t use Google, and you don’t use an iPod.

What an ogre!

Poor bastards. How will they survive college?

It’s really kind of pathetic. If you have to force your kids to use your product, said product is definitely not cool.

The same way all kids do–by ignoring everything their parents have told them.

If it gets them to use their college’s library and a twenty buck tape recorder, than I’d say they came out ahead from their brainwashing. Search engine “research” is huge vice for students who can’t be expected to recognize a scholar from a crank.

Definitely. I have an entire set of Britannicas, a recent one, within arm’s reach, and what do I do? I got to wikipedia instead, without even thinking about it. It’s ridiculous how lazy the internet makes you.

The same way all kids do–by ignoring everything their parents have told them.

Seriously. The best way to get a kid curious about something is to tell them they can’t do/have it.

I have an entire set of Britannicas, a recent one, within arm’s reach, and what do I do? I got to wikipedia instead, without even thinking about it. It’s ridiculous how lazy the internet makes you.

That’s not being lazy, that’s being efficient. If wikipedia wasn’t faster, easier and more efficient than your paper encyclopedias, you wouldn’t use it. But it is.

You can also churn your own butter instead of buying it at the store, but why would you?

True, but there’s nothing really wrong with Wikipedia, as long as you take everything you find there with a grain of salt. Many Wikipedia articles are a good starting point for tracking down additional information, and some are pretty comprehensive. Of course, I do think the Internet can be a bad influence on young students, who often tend to accept everything they read at face value.

On the flip side, it’s a godsend for real research. I can’t count the number of times googling an article title has turned up the article on an author’s webpage when my school’s library didn’t carry the journal the article appeared in.

It is, however, a waste if you’re not pretty sure of exactly what you’re looking for. I guess SciSearch and other specific area databases still win for that type of research.

Which is funnier - that Ballmer believes his kids, or the reporter believes Ballmer?

Chalk up another vote for “you’re an idiot if you think simply by unreasonably telling your kids ‘NO’ that they’re going to do what you say”. In fact, I’d hazard a guess that his kids will be even BIGGER rebels because of their dad being who he is, perhaps even getting a job at Apple.

If his kids use Google, Ballmer has vowed to “fucking bury them.” He’s done it before and he will do it again!

If dad could offer me a couple million for my birthday to not been seen with an ipod I’d fall right in line.

The irony here is that Britannica was the “lazy man’s research” of the pre-internet day.

This IS how kids are doing research now and how adults will do research when those kids grow up. Using the Internet to do research isn’t a lazy shortcut any more than eschewing the library’s card catalog for the computerized one.

I think it’s only a problem if you limit your “research” to the text box and “I’m feeling lucky” button on Google. Truly sophisticated Internet users capitalize on a variety of tools, including Google, Wikipedia, newsgroups, messageboards, etc. Researchers in academia and business are already doing this, and it’s only going to get more prevelent as time goes on. Some schools are actually even teaching these skills and letting students use them during real tests.

99% of the legal research I do for my job is on the Internet. Gone are the days of massive, dusty law libraries, good riddance.

I participated in an information literacy survey once where the participants were asked to judge how reliable a website was. You evaluate the website based on who sponsored/hosts it, who wrote it, how recently it was updated, what its links point to, whether it has an obvious connection to physical reality, etc. as well as a more subjective content evaluation (does the writer like to present medical facts with LOTS of EMOTION!!!). We looked at some incredibly shady websites, and yet the vast majority of the survey participants saw nothing at all wrong with them. Most people, especially college students, lack the critical sense to really dig any truth out of the internet. Online searches, as mouselook points out, are useful for developing leads to “real” information from organizations, trusted individuals, databases, and published materials and so on, and not so much for primary research sources.