1. “The mere existence of the Internet will not create researchers or knowledge seekers out of those without the requisite background or skills,” (110). This sentence sums up a key assumption that is often made about the Internet and its beneficial properties. How can the Internet become a more effective medium—or is that the wrong way to look at it? How necessary is it or how integrated is it in our current way of life? Is it more than a tool? A tool used by the dominant? Is it a matter of time until it becomes more diversified?

2. The Simcomputer in India was a good, organized effort to make a simple, inexpensive computer for rural people. It is optimistic, but what about the up and coming generation who are not as removed from new technology. Would they be more receptive and better able to adapt since they may have more exposure? Is this idea still overly simplistic and naïve? Is any exposure, good exposure? Or is it as the skeptics state overly presumptive of us to think that the rural, Indian farmer needs such a tool? Is it a tool or a luxury? If gradual exposure is built, will later technology be easier to integrate and accept?

3. The book pointed out how the Internet became a means to help preserve Hawaiian culture and language. Is the Internet a good preservation tool or more of a communication medium? How permanent is it? One only has to look at the memory hole website to see that there are areas of oversight and it makes one question how permanent online journal and archives are. What kind of lasting record is being created? Most of my questions were spurned from the Library Journal article that Louise Robbins sent out of “The Case of the Disappearing Article,” (http://www.libraryjournal.com/article/CA408331?display=BackTalkNews&indu). Can the Internet be used as a tool of censorship?