South Korea is the most wired country

lmalave · May 5, 2003

http://www.nytimes.com/2003/05/05/business/worldbusiness/05BROA.html?8hpib

Aggressive government involvement is cited as main reason for S. Korea's rapid digital transformation. Suddenly Al Gore's dream of a federal "Information Superhighway" project to match his dad's Interstate Highway project doesn't seem like such a bad idea. And yes people, Al Gore "helped create" the Internet as we know it today. That's all he ever claimed. He never said the word "invent", any more than hid dad "built" the Interstate Highways with his own hands. But that doesn't mean that sponsoring a program in Congress and getting the full might of the federal government behind it isn't a significant contribution. It's huge, and Gore's contribution was huge. He was the only national leader focusing on the internet when most people, including most business leaders, didn't have Gore's vision of the potential of the internet. In fact they thought Gore focusing so much of his energy on a potential "Internet Superhighway" was downright nutty. If Gore's full vision of even more government involvement had been implemented, we'd probably all be better off today.

jelloshotsrule · May 5, 2003

hmm. interesting turn from south korea to praising gore.... ha.

lmalave · May 5, 2003

Originally posted by jelloshotsrule
hmm. interesting turn from south korea to praising gore.... ha.

bait 'n switch

beatle888 · May 5, 2003

Originally posted by jelloshotsrule
hmm. interesting turn from south korea to praising gore.... ha.

hes probably just trying to cover his ass from all the flammers on this board. he obviously knows macrumors members pretty well.

anyway, thanks for the info lmalave

vollspacken · May 5, 2003

Re: South Korea is the most wired country

muharharhar... so, is north korea the least wired country then???

vSpacken

wdlove · May 6, 2003

Originally posted by jelloshotsrule
hmm. interesting turn from south korea to praising gore.... ha.

The Interstate Highway system was actually the vision of President Dwight Eisenhower, he wanted to be able to move military equipment around the US rapidly. It was university professors that had the vision for the internet. All that the Gore's did was to support legislation!

It's interesting that Asia and Europe are far ahead of us when it comes to the use of wireless.

noel4r · May 6, 2003

i'm glad Bush is in office rather than Al Gore. Can you imagine what would've Gore done if he was in office during 9/11? He probably wouldn't have done anything about Al Qaeda. He would have pleaded with them to stop the attacks. "Let's talk about this, Let's talk about peace". Meanwhile, they would've kept bombing and killing our people. And next time, stic k to the topic. If you want to talk about South Korea being the most wired country then talk about it...

hvfsl · May 6, 2003

The main reason Korea is so wired is because it is so densely populated and it is relatively cheap to wire up the country with broadband. They aim to have 20Mbit connections so they can view HD TV over the Internet.

The problem is that countries like the US are not very densely populated so it is quite expensive to wire up the whole country.

lmalave · May 6, 2003

Originally posted by wdlove
The Interstate Highway system was actually the vision of President Dwight Eisenhower, he wanted to be able to move military equipment around the US rapidly. It was university professors that had the vision for the internet. All that the Gore's did was to support legislation!

It's interesting that Asia and Europe are far ahead of us when it comes to the use of wireless.

Well, Al Gore Sr. was the co-author of the bill. Now I agree, that doesn't mean that all the ideas were his. But a congressman that is an author of the bill and a strong advocate is certainly "helping create" something. For example, the McCain-Feingold bill will forever associate those two names with campaign finance reform.

The point I was trying to make was that a taking a simple, relatively vague phrase like "helping create" and turning it into an object of ridicule was just as cheap, distractionary tactic. Al Gore's role in creating the "Internet" out of the Arpanet, etc. that preceded it was one of the achievements he was most proud of, as he should be. And now I feel bad for him because his proudest achievement has been turned into a joke. He should be credited for being years ahead of his time and talking about the potential of the "Information Superhighway" when everyone thought he was a nut.

Oh, and to get even more off-topic, the movie "Love Story" was based on Al and Tipper's college romance. The author of Love Story was Gore's Harvard classmate, and has already stated that his story was indeed based on the Gores.

lmalave · May 6, 2003

Originally posted by noel4r
i'm glad Bush is in office rather than Al Gore. Can you imagine what would've Gore done if he was in office during 9/11? He probably wouldn't have done anything about Al Qaeda. He would have pleaded with them to stop the attacks. "Let's talk about this, Let's talk about peace". Meanwhile, they would've kept bombing and killing our people. And next time, stic k to the topic. If you want to talk about South Korea being the most wired country then talk about it...

And you base this on, what? Clinton's actions? Keep in mind, Clinton did as much as he could under the circumstances against Al Qaeda. He was ridiculed for trying to take out Osama with cruise missiles in a very similar fashion that Bush tried to take out Saddam on the first day of GW2. People said it was just to distract from Monicagate, when the truth was Clinton was very concerned about Osama.

Why were Clinton's hands tied? Because of the reprensible, unprecedented way in which Republicans tried to discredit Clinton as Commander-in-Chief. Never mind that Cheney and Rumsfeld also avoided the draft and Bush couldn't even make a commitment to his cushy National Guard duty. No, to Republicans, discrediting Clinton was more important than our national defense.

Personally, I would be much more secure with Gore at the helm of a battle against terrorism. People internationally would trust Gore, as they did Clinton, as a benevolent American idealist. Bush, on the other hand, is a polarizing figure that people see as an out-of-control drunk-on-power American cowboy. Gore would've represented the best stereotypes of America. Bush represents the worst stereotypes.

noel4r · May 6, 2003

Originally posted by lmalave
And you base this on, what? Clinton's actions? Keep in mind, Clinton did as much as he could under the circumstances against Al Qaeda. He was ridiculed for trying to take out Osama with cruise missiles in a very similar fashion that Bush tried to take out Saddam on the first day of GW2. People said it was just to distract from Monicagate, when the truth was Clinton was very concerned about Osama.

Clinton did as much as he could against Al Qaeda? What happened when our soldiers got slaughtered in Somalia? He pulled them out the next day. What happened when the U.S.S. Cole was bombed in Yemen? He lobbed a couple of cruise missiles in Afghanistan and that's it. Dont forget that we went to Iraq after Bush tried to take out Saddam with cruise missiles. If Clinton was very concerned about Osama as much as he was concerned with Monica, he would've done something about it, like he did with Monica... Bush's hands were tied too, but he did something about it.... How many terror attacks did we have inside this country after Sept. 11?

noel4r · May 6, 2003

Originally posted by lmalave
Personally, I would be much more secure with Gore at the helm of a battle against terrorism. People internationally would trust Gore, as they did Clinton, as a benevolent American idealist. Bush, on the other hand, is a polarizing figure that people see as an out-of-control drunk-on-power American cowboy. Gore would've represented the best stereotypes of America. Bush represents the worst stereotypes.

You'd be the only one more secure with Gore during a war. People internationally (the Chinese) do trust Clinton. Bush is a polarizing figure that people see as an out-of-control drunk-on power American cowboy. That's right, now they're scared, now they're hiding. Al-Qaeda who? Saddam who? Dont forget you can't eliminate terrorism with kindness. You cant reason with these people. Unfortunately, you have to fight fire with fire, not with meetings, not with peace rallies... You should be thankful Bush is in office...

noel4r · May 6, 2003

Originally posted by lmalave
Oh, and to get even more off-topic, the movie "Love Story" was based on Al and Tipper's college romance. The author of Love Story was Gore's Harvard classmate, and has already stated that his story was indeed based on the Gores.

Are you a girl?

lmalave · May 6, 2003

Originally posted by noel4r
How many terror attacks did we have inside this country after Sept. 11?

Anthrax. (though that was probably a domestic group)

The last terrorist attack on American soil by Islamic Fundamentalists prior to 9/11 was the first WTC bombing 8 years earlier. What's your point? That means if there's another attack on american soil within two years that will be a doubling in the rate of attacks. The fact is it's very hard to strike on American soil, especially now (because of our heightened awareness at home, not because of any foreign policy).

Has Al-Qaeda taken a hard hit? Yes. Did they go through a period of confusion and retrenchment? Yes. Has their threat diminished? It's way to early to tell. Right now we've created a target rich environment in Iraq and Afghanistan so that is where they are probably focusing their efforts. Do you watch the news? Our troops are still being attacked in both Iraq and Afghanistan.

lmalave · May 6, 2003

Originally posted by noel4r
You'd be the only one more secure with Gore during a war. People internationally (the Chinese) do trust Clinton. Bush is a polarizing figure that people see as an out-of-control drunk-on power American cowboy. That's right, now they're scared, now they're hiding. Al-Qaeda who? Saddam who? Dont forget you can't eliminate terrorism with kindness. You cant reason with these people. Unfortunately, you have to fight fire with fire, not with meetings, not with peace rallies... You should be thankful Bush is in office...

Talk to Israel about how effective eliminating terrorism with force is. Have the suicide bombings stopped in Israel? Do you think we can do a better job securing our nation and our overseas interests than Israel can do securing their tiny country? The problem is that as long as the motivation exists for people to hate us more than they love their own life, there will continue to be an endless recruiting pool for terrorists. The two things I give Bush credit for are pulling our troops out of Saudi Arabia and restarting the Middle East peace plan. But the whole Iraq thing was a foreign policy disaster in the way that it was done. A leader like Gore that wasn't as polarizing could've united the world to the action that was needed. The Bush administration's problem is one of approach and attitude.

lmalave · May 6, 2003

Originally posted by noel4r
Are you a girl?

How old are you?

rainman::|:| · May 6, 2003

hahaha god you people, can't even have a discussion about the difference in countries' technological progress without it turning into politics.

you should know better. this is the current events forum, not the political forum (at least until it gets moved)...

kind of sad really...

pnw

rainman::|:| · May 6, 2003

Originally posted by wdlove
It's interesting that Asia and Europe are far ahead of us when it comes to the use of wireless.

Very true, from what i understand a lot of Europe was pretty saturated with 802.11b when we were all sitting around going "you can do WHAT wirelessly?"... the way the US is slow to adopt technology like this, i'm surprised we're still considered a leader in technology...

pnw

noel4r · May 6, 2003

Originally posted by lmalave
Anthrax. (though that was probably a domestic group)

The last terrorist attack on American soil by Islamic Fundamentalists prior to 9/11 was the first WTC bombing 8 years earlier. What's your point? That means if there's another attack on american soil within two years that will be a doubling in the rate of attacks. The fact is it's very hard to strike on American soil, especially now (because of our heightened awareness at home, not because of any foreign policy).

Has Al-Qaeda taken a hard hit? Yes. Did they go through a period of confusion and retrenchment? Yes. Has their threat diminished? It's way to early to tell. Right now we've created a target rich environment in Iraq and Afghanistan so that is where they are probably focusing their efforts. Do you watch the news? Our troops are still being attacked in both Iraq and Afghanistan.

why do you keep veering off the topic? this was supposed to be about South Korea being the most wired county then you turned into Al Gore worship thread. i said how many terrorist attacks did we have INSIDE this country AFTER 9/11?

Anthrax - (probably a domestic group) - this doesn't count.

WTC attack 8 years earlier - this doesn't count (AFTER)

Our troops are still being attacked in Afghanistan and Iraq - hello we are in a war and this doesn't count also (INSIDE)

My point was I'm glad Bush was in office when 9/11 happened. If Gore was in office, he wouldn't have known what to do. Something incredibly passive, like peace meetings, economic embargo, etc... When Clinton was in office, what did he do when we and our troops were attacked? NOTHING. And Gore is a bigger p***y than Clinton so that's why I'm glad Bush was in office...

noel4r · May 6, 2003

Originally posted by lmalave
Talk to Israel about how effective eliminating terrorism with force is. Have the suicide bombings stopped in Israel? Do you think we can do a better job securing our nation and our overseas interests than Israel can do securing their tiny country? The problem is that as long as the motivation exists for people to hate us more than they love their own life, there will continue to be an endless recruiting pool for terrorists. The two things I give Bush credit for are pulling our troops out of Saudi Arabia and restarting the Middle East peace plan. But the whole Iraq thing was a foreign policy disaster in the way that it was done. A leader like Gore that wasn't as polarizing could've united the world to the action that was needed. The Bush administration's problem is one of approach and attitude.

Again stick with the topic. You can't compare Israel and US. First, Israel is surrounded by Arab countries that hate Jews. Are there any terror groups in Mexico or Canada? Also you think Israel would be better off having dialogue with these psychos? These people will not respond to such passive behavior. Unfortunately, they only know violence and will only respond to violence. Just because it's not working for Israel does not mean it wont work for US. Imagine Israel with a Democrat president... Hmmm, I wonder if they will have MORE or less terror attacks... Al Gore couldn't have united the world, no way France was going to vote yes on the resolution. They'd only be hurting themselves if they did. Just be thankful Bush is the president now. If not, you can always move to France. You'd like it there, you'd blend right in with the much beloved French.

noel4r · May 6, 2003

Originally posted by lmalave
How old are you?

Old enough. I was just responding to: " Oh, and to get even more off-topic, the movie "Love Story" was based on Al and Tipper's college romance. The author of Love Story was Gore's Harvard classmate, and has already stated that his story was indeed based on the Gores."

Who cares? I'm sure it's a well made film that I have no desire to watch. What difference does it make if that movie was based on the Gore's college romance? Jeez? I could just picture you typing that quote with hearts floating around your computer screen. Who cares? Men, you really love Al Gore. I admire Bush, he's a good war-time president but I dont love the guy. I just think he's doing a good job and I'm glad he's in office now.... Now what about South Korea?

Rower_CPU · May 6, 2003

I'd like to point out that saying "stick to the topic" and then ranting for 2 paragraphs about the off-topic discussion is just a wee bit hypocritical.

Move the discussion to the political forum, or I'm shutting this thread down.

I think the earlier analyses of South Korea's population density and overall geographic size are excellent justification for this. Pair that with the tech jobs we ship overseas and you've got the potential for a very wired country.

Does the article look at "wirage" per capita or by square miles or something?

pseudobrit · May 6, 2003

You know someone's pretty far off the sexism scale when the question "Are you a girl?" is meant as a derogatory attack. That kind of crap makes me sick. If you were a real man, you'd not have to resort to disparaging women to insult a man.

Way to go, you're number 2 on my ignore list, chauvinist!

lmalave · May 7, 2003

Originally posted by Rower_CPU
I think the earlier analyses of South Korea's population density and overall geographic size are excellent justification for this. Pair that with the tech jobs we ship overseas and you've got the potential for a very wired country.

Does the article look at "wirage" per capita or by square miles or something?

Density alone doesn't explain it. As the article pointed out, there was too much cable laid down by the various competing telecom companies. Some absurdly high percentage of the fiber laid down in this country is completely inert (it's at least 80%). Not only that, but none of the companies solved the "last mile" problem very effectively. The contention of the article is that the government involvement in Korea is what made the difference. My contention is that if Gore's vision of treating the "Information Superhighway" as a Federal public works project had been realized, broadband adoption would have been much farther along much faster than it is today. Would it have been costly? Sure. Would there be government waste? Sure. But how many billions and billions of dollars were wasted by the telecom companies laying down fiber that is not being used?

bennetsaysargh · May 8, 2003

Originally posted by wdlove
The Interstate Highway system was actually the vision of President Dwight Eisenhower, he wanted to be able to move military equipment around the US rapidly. It was university professors that had the vision for the internet. All that the Gore's did was to support legislation!

It's interesting that Asia and Europe are far ahead of us when it comes to the use of wireless.

the highway was based from germany's idea i think. they used it for speedy and reliable ways to transport military supplies.it was a couple of chapters ago in my SS text book.

South Korea is the most wired country

macrumors 68000

macrumors G3

macrumors 68000

macrumors 68000

macrumors 65816

macrumors P6

macrumors 6502a

macrumors 68000

macrumors 68000

macrumors 68000

macrumors 6502a

macrumors 6502a

macrumors 6502a

macrumors 68000

macrumors 68000

macrumors 68000

macrumors 603

macrumors 603

macrumors 6502a

macrumors 6502a

macrumors 6502a

Moderator emeritus

macrumors 68040

macrumors 68000

macrumors 68020

Our Staff