7 ms·

Bad predictions about the internet

78 points by prismatic 10y ago

vacri 10y ago
Well, it's still true that CD-ROMs [or rather, 'digital lessons'] actually don't take the place of a competent teacher. Some autodidacts can go very far with digital materials, but for Jane and John Q Public, teachers are better than digital lessons. They're just more expensive, is all. Plus, of course, there are particular topics that are much better suited for one style or the other, but in general, a competent meat teacher is better than a competent silicon one.
- keithwhor 10y ago
  "a competent meat teacher is better than a competent silicon one" ... for now, and even then I'm not so sure. Edit: And what about a competent teacher that records one lesson and broadcasts it to millions?
  - meric 10y ago
    By better, he means better excluding quantity. For a particular individual, a competent meat teacher is more valuable than a competent silicon one.
  - vacri 10y ago
    Teaching is a two-way communication - a good teacher can pick up on how well the student is doing, and raise or lower the pitch of the lesson to match, or observe simple (or complex) misconceptions early[1]. A digital broadcast can't do that. In theory, we can get AI that can dynamically adapt to their students, but we're a very long way from that. [1]A simple example - I self-taught myself guitar using online resources. I wasn't great, but I seemed to be doing what all the various resources were saying to do. Eventually I got tired of always being terrible, and shelled out for a teacher. In the first couple of weeks, he had fixed half-a-dozen tiny issues with my technique, which added up to make a terrible cacophony. I'd never be able to do that with the online resources. Another example, from when I was a practical class demonstrator for a biology-based class in the '90s. There was a hue and cry about how all lessons of the future would be digital and no more lab animals would have to die (toads, for us). I countered with "how are you going to have a video show you how it feels to tie a ligature too loose or too tight?". Likewise, David Attenborough's documentaries are sterling, but they're not as good as going to the place and experiencing it in person. Physical skills like the above are clear examples, but even for a standard lecture, human beats video-of-human - how many of us have been in a lecture when someone asks a 'stupid question' that clears up a misconception for everyone? Good digital lessons are great for scale, but a good meat-based teacher is better. Of course, bad versions of either can be downright destructive...
- simula67 10y ago
  There are also very small number of high quality teachers to go around. Being from India, I had pretty bad teachers in college. If it wasn't for MIT opencourseware, and other videos I found online, I wouldn't have learned anything at all.
- mseebach 10y ago
  > in general, a competent meat teacher is better than a competent silicon one That's true, but it's one that has to be observed modulo the availability of competent meat teachers (skilled in the relevant subject). These are in short supply, certainly in the developing world -- but even in the schools and universities of the developed world, the availability of teachers in any subject is generally limited to a few hours a day, and for enrolled students only. I think they should be seen a complementary, especially for younger students, but the availability of a competent silicon teacher in any of a wide range of subjects, for anyone, anytime, anywhere is huge.
- alanwatts 10y ago
  >teachers are better than digital lessons. What about a combination of the two[1]? I.e. recording digital lessons and then using a community question and answer forum to fill in the gaps. [1]https://laracasts.com https://laracasts.com
ultramancool 10y ago
I actually think the CBC guy has some validity still. Certainly civility falls apart quickly in large groups like Reddit or Twitter where most interactions are one-offs, but in small ones (irc channels and forums), even where there are major political disagreements I've seen surprisingly good handling. Even the worst of those horrible terrible trolls/harassers/cyberbullies/<other bullshit here> often has somewhere they're more accepted and accepting.
wpietri 10y ago
Those fond of the genre should pick up a copy of Laura Lee's "Bad Predictions", a great compendium of all sorts of now-foolish statements: https://www.amazon.com/Bad-Predictions-Laura-Lee/dp/0965734595 https://www.amazon.com/Bad-Predictions-Laura-Lee/dp/09657345...
derekp7 10y ago
I've often wondered how much the Web as we know it depends on the current level of technology (bandwidth, resolution, processing speed, storage), vs how much it depends on the fact that it has a critical mass of people using it? Sure, sites such as Youtube would have a hard time over a 28.8k modem (not to mention low resolution/low color displays and slow CPUs). But things like Facebook or other community sites could still essentially exist and perform most of their function. Or is it that without current bandwidth, that even basic items (such as sharing low resolution pictures) would limit it to those who have enough patience? And how much of the ability to design modern web app interfaces is responsible for drawing in the masses? Is the eye candy what actually sells the net to the average person (in order to obtain critical mass)?
- chrismcb 10y ago
  Usenet and bbses existed for years. But something like Facebook would not have received critical mass with video and pics. Of course suicidal media on general wouldn't have gotten critical mass without a smart phone.
  - kbenson 10y ago
    > suicidal media Now there's an interesting typo. (Or was that intentional?) Strangely fitting, even.
  - TeMPOraL 10y ago
    Interesting. When I was first using Facebook, I think nobody I knew had a smartphone. Most people may browse social media from their phones now, because it's convenient and the sites have streamlined their experience for that - but before mass adoption of smartphones, people did fine with a desktop browser.
- et-al 10y ago
  When you talk about the web as we know, are you talking aesthetics, or ecosytems? I'm having trouble drawing the comparison between technology vs critical mass of people. How the web looks has definitely changed with technology as we progressed from HTML -> Flash sites -> HTML5 and single-page web app sites, and of course now we can have streaming video that works as opposed to Quicktime or RealPlayer movies. And when you think of Twitter's rise, it's essentially blogging shrunk to one-liners, but what made it different was the ability to aggregate everyone's stream of consciousness to a single feed as opposed to browsing through a newsgroup, blog ring, or RSS reader. This couldn't happen without technology (though I guess a parallel could be forum threads where everyone posts their clipboard contents at that moment). In terms of ecosystems, I feel like they haven't changed too much. I checked Alexa's Top Sites and was able to draw parallels to most of them except for Wikipedia and to a certain extent YouTube. Collaborative editing of a collective source of (arguable) truth is definitely something of the 21st century, and YouTube's celebrity videologgers didn't quite exist unless you count the old Justin.tv (and that still required technology). > And how much of the ability to design modern web app interfaces is responsible for drawing in the masses? I would say the ease of expression is what brings in the masses. People may seem passive when they consume information now, but they still want to interact, and they do now do that through re-tweets or comments. I do think long-form content is diminishing because of our medium.
tedunangst 10y ago
Counterpoint to Stoll being wrong: http://www.latimes.com/business/hiltzik/la-fi-mh-actually-that-offbase-20150227-column.html http://www.latimes.com/business/hiltzik/la-fi-mh-actually-th...
- PhasmaFelis 10y ago
  Yeah, every time someone trots out that article, I think that he was wrong about a lot of details and right about a lot of the broad implications.
  - davidiach 10y ago
    Wasn't his broad implication that the internet was massively overrated and not really that big of a deal?
    - PhasmaFelis 10y ago
      He was wrong about a lot of the specific business applications, mainly because the problems he cited were all things that could be (and were) engineered around once there was enough profit to be made. He was right about most of the social/utopian applications; educational software, government websites, and social networks are all useful tools and have been more financially successful than he predicted, but they have never revolutionized education or government, nor given us something better than face-to-face contact, as we were promised.
Animats 10y ago
I had a Minitel account in the 1980s. France Telecom rolled out Minitel in the US, although almost nobody noticed. Minitel had much of the functionality of the Web in a primitive form. There were online stores which accepted credit cards. Traffic maps of Paris. News and chat. Phone directories. Text porn. Social and dating sites. (One had to be able to write good poetry in French to get noticed.) Even paid sex chat ("tenderness service"). Most of the functionality of the Web was there, except images and video. Minitel was a pay service; almost everything cost. The big surprise on the Web was that ads alone would pay for so much and that bandwidth would become so cheap.
- cantrevealname 10y ago
  > The big surprise on the Web was that ads alone would pay for so much Another huge surprise was that people would create so much content (including really good content) for free. Can you imagine telling someone 15 years ago that the Web would have a free repository of all human knowledge, in hundreds of languages, thousands of times bigger than Encyclopedia Britannica, that was created by random people and experts around the world almost entirely without payment. Of course I'm talking about Wikipedia above, but that's just one of thousands of outstanding Web resources that people created for free. I can just imagine the people's reactions 15 years ago: Why would anyone do that for free? Wouldn't the government shut it down? Who would pay to run the servers? Anything anyone would write for free would be garbage. You might get a few random people to write, but no subject-matter expert is going to waste their time.
  - et-al 10y ago
    > Another huge surprise was that people would create so much good content for free. Can you imagine telling someone 15 years ago that the Web would have a free repository of all human knowledge.. This wasn't too much of a leap for me. Microsoft Encarta shifted its information from CDs to the internet. And when you think about the whole premise of the internet, it was a tool for researches to share information. Remember all the university hosted sites packed with information? Now give all these people an easier place to publish their information while also reaching a wider audience. One of my favorite pages from this era is probably this tide chart by someone at University of Nevada, Reno: http://wolfweb.unr.edu/homepage/edc/tides/2016/sfgg_fr16.html http://wolfweb.unr.edu/homepage/edc/tides/2016/sfgg_fr16.htm... And Stanford CS guys publishing their outdoor excursions: http://theory.stanford.edu/~rvg/arroyo/ http://theory.stanford.edu/~rvg/arroyo/
scrollaway 10y ago
"In fact, the web is so pivotal to modern life that two months ago, the UN declared internet access a basic human right." This doesn't sit right with me. It's certainly not being treated as one. I keep encountering "free wifi" hotspots - unencrypted, slow networks asking you to get your credit card out for more than 5 minutes of their time. I was just in germany last week. In a public airport, the wifi was so monetized I felt like I was in the iOS port of a facebook game. Had the choice between that, or some even worse sitekiosk locked down piece of crap. I wonder when this will change. When wifi will be as abundant and accessible as water in a city. (Although Germany is a terrible example for this - good luck getting a glass of tap water there). It's funny-sad to contrast the wonders of the internet, to the unending shithole that is internet access in 2016.
- NhanH 10y ago
  You overestimate how the "basic human right" is treated. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights has 30 articles, almost every single one was and is being trampled on everyday.
  - mseebach 10y ago
    Well, an alternative (and more charitable) reading is that these are negative rights. Having the right to internet doesn't mean that someone else has a duty to provide you with a (free) internet connection, it means that forcibly preventing you from procuring an internet connection is not allowed (as opposed to, say, drugs, which you CAN be forcibly prevented from procuring). Compare freedom of expression: Nobody can forcibly prevent you from expressing yourself, but also, nobody has a duty to enable you to express yourself.
    - emodendroket 10y ago
      It doesn't seem to be constituted that way according to this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right_to_Internet_access https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right_to_Internet_access
  - madaxe_again 10y ago
deleted 10y ago
[deleted]
williamgb 10y ago
I think the author is being quite unfair regarding John Allen's "prediction" on anonymity. First and foremost, it wasn't even a prediction. Second, his comments concerned anonymity within groups and communities, not general demographics, i.e. all users of Twitter. The referenced study linked to by the Guardian (statistically illiterate as ever) article also fails to demonstrate anonymity as a primary cause of abuse, as the author seems to imply, albeit in a passive-aggressive manner.
castell 10y ago
Another interesting prediction was Bill Gates' "The Road Ahead" (1995) book. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Road_Ahead_(Bill_Gates_book) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Road_Ahead_(Bill_Gates_boo... The Microsoft Network (MSN v1, MSN dialup) failed spectacularly and the WWW won, Bill Gates rewrote the whole book in less than a year, the paperback edition already featured the WWW instead of Information Super Highway and MSN/Microsoft Network. Windows 95 shipped with MSN integration, an addon "Plus" CD shipped Internet Explorer 1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MSN_Dial-up#Early_history https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MSN_Dial-up#Early_history
grecy 10y ago
Slightly related, I think it's a foregone conclusion that in 25 years we'll poke fun in the same way at current thinking about electric cars, self driving cars, solar power, etc.
80801 10y ago
Couldn't read it. Website wanted me to disable malware protection in my browser.
ihaveahadron 10y ago
How are those "rights" working out? Lol rights
emodendroket 10y ago
Give Clifford Stoll some credit; his predictions about low quality online discussions and questionable value in educational software have some merit.
rocky1138 10y ago
I think this author is confused between what the Internet is and what the WWW is.
zbyszek 10y ago
The author says "the least likely element of this scenario is that Kellogg's will bring back free gifts". I have at home a bunch of squashy balls, eagerly sought by my son, from Kellog's Frosties from the time of Six Nations Rugby tournament this year. Does she know something I don't?

78 points by prismatic 10y ago

vacri 10y ago

Well, it's still true that CD-ROMs [or rather, 'digital lessons'] actually don't take the place of a competent teacher. Some autodidacts can go very far with digital materials, but for Jane and John Q Public, teachers are better than digital lessons. They're just more expensive, is all. Plus, of course, there are particular topics that are much better suited for one style or the other, but in general, a competent meat teacher is better than a competent silicon one.

keithwhor 10y ago
"a competent meat teacher is better than a competent silicon one" ... for now, and even then I'm not so sure. Edit: And what about a competent teacher that records one lesson and broadcasts it to millions?
- meric 10y ago
  By better, he means better excluding quantity. For a particular individual, a competent meat teacher is more valuable than a competent silicon one.
- vacri 10y ago
  Teaching is a two-way communication - a good teacher can pick up on how well the student is doing, and raise or lower the pitch of the lesson to match, or observe simple (or complex) misconceptions early[1]. A digital broadcast can't do that. In theory, we can get AI that can dynamically adapt to their students, but we're a very long way from that. [1]A simple example - I self-taught myself guitar using online resources. I wasn't great, but I seemed to be doing what all the various resources were saying to do. Eventually I got tired of always being terrible, and shelled out for a teacher. In the first couple of weeks, he had fixed half-a-dozen tiny issues with my technique, which added up to make a terrible cacophony. I'd never be able to do that with the online resources. Another example, from when I was a practical class demonstrator for a biology-based class in the '90s. There was a hue and cry about how all lessons of the future would be digital and no more lab animals would have to die (toads, for us). I countered with "how are you going to have a video show you how it feels to tie a ligature too loose or too tight?". Likewise, David Attenborough's documentaries are sterling, but they're not as good as going to the place and experiencing it in person. Physical skills like the above are clear examples, but even for a standard lecture, human beats video-of-human - how many of us have been in a lecture when someone asks a 'stupid question' that clears up a misconception for everyone? Good digital lessons are great for scale, but a good meat-based teacher is better. Of course, bad versions of either can be downright destructive...
simula67 10y ago
There are also very small number of high quality teachers to go around. Being from India, I had pretty bad teachers in college. If it wasn't for MIT opencourseware, and other videos I found online, I wouldn't have learned anything at all.
mseebach 10y ago
> in general, a competent meat teacher is better than a competent silicon one That's true, but it's one that has to be observed modulo the availability of competent meat teachers (skilled in the relevant subject). These are in short supply, certainly in the developing world -- but even in the schools and universities of the developed world, the availability of teachers in any subject is generally limited to a few hours a day, and for enrolled students only. I think they should be seen a complementary, especially for younger students, but the availability of a competent silicon teacher in any of a wide range of subjects, for anyone, anytime, anywhere is huge.
alanwatts 10y ago
>teachers are better than digital lessons. What about a combination of the two[1]? I.e. recording digital lessons and then using a community question and answer forum to fill in the gaps. [1]https://laracasts.com https://laracasts.com

ultramancool 10y ago

I actually think the CBC guy has some validity still. Certainly civility falls apart quickly in large groups like Reddit or Twitter where most interactions are one-offs, but in small ones (irc channels and forums), even where there are major political disagreements I've seen surprisingly good handling. Even the worst of those horrible terrible trolls/harassers/cyberbullies/<other bullshit here> often has somewhere they're more accepted and accepting.

wpietri 10y ago

Those fond of the genre should pick up a copy of Laura Lee's "Bad Predictions", a great compendium of all sorts of now-foolish statements: https://www.amazon.com/Bad-Predictions-Laura-Lee/dp/0965734595 https://www.amazon.com/Bad-Predictions-Laura-Lee/dp/09657345...

derekp7 10y ago

I've often wondered how much the Web as we know it depends on the current level of technology (bandwidth, resolution, processing speed, storage), vs how much it depends on the fact that it has a critical mass of people using it? Sure, sites such as Youtube would have a hard time over a 28.8k modem (not to mention low resolution/low color displays and slow CPUs). But things like Facebook or other community sites could still essentially exist and perform most of their function. Or is it that without current bandwidth, that even basic items (such as sharing low resolution pictures) would limit it to those who have enough patience? And how much of the ability to design modern web app interfaces is responsible for drawing in the masses? Is the eye candy what actually sells the net to the average person (in order to obtain critical mass)?

chrismcb 10y ago
Usenet and bbses existed for years. But something like Facebook would not have received critical mass with video and pics. Of course suicidal media on general wouldn't have gotten critical mass without a smart phone.
- kbenson 10y ago
  > suicidal media Now there's an interesting typo. (Or was that intentional?) Strangely fitting, even.
- TeMPOraL 10y ago
  Interesting. When I was first using Facebook, I think nobody I knew had a smartphone. Most people may browse social media from their phones now, because it's convenient and the sites have streamlined their experience for that - but before mass adoption of smartphones, people did fine with a desktop browser.
et-al 10y ago
When you talk about the web as we know, are you talking aesthetics, or ecosytems? I'm having trouble drawing the comparison between technology vs critical mass of people. How the web looks has definitely changed with technology as we progressed from HTML -> Flash sites -> HTML5 and single-page web app sites, and of course now we can have streaming video that works as opposed to Quicktime or RealPlayer movies. And when you think of Twitter's rise, it's essentially blogging shrunk to one-liners, but what made it different was the ability to aggregate everyone's stream of consciousness to a single feed as opposed to browsing through a newsgroup, blog ring, or RSS reader. This couldn't happen without technology (though I guess a parallel could be forum threads where everyone posts their clipboard contents at that moment). In terms of ecosystems, I feel like they haven't changed too much. I checked Alexa's Top Sites and was able to draw parallels to most of them except for Wikipedia and to a certain extent YouTube. Collaborative editing of a collective source of (arguable) truth is definitely something of the 21st century, and YouTube's celebrity videologgers didn't quite exist unless you count the old Justin.tv (and that still required technology). > And how much of the ability to design modern web app interfaces is responsible for drawing in the masses? I would say the ease of expression is what brings in the masses. People may seem passive when they consume information now, but they still want to interact, and they do now do that through re-tweets or comments. I do think long-form content is diminishing because of our medium.

tedunangst 10y ago

Counterpoint to Stoll being wrong: http://www.latimes.com/business/hiltzik/la-fi-mh-actually-that-offbase-20150227-column.html http://www.latimes.com/business/hiltzik/la-fi-mh-actually-th...

PhasmaFelis 10y ago
Yeah, every time someone trots out that article, I think that he was wrong about a lot of details and right about a lot of the broad implications.
- davidiach 10y ago
  Wasn't his broad implication that the internet was massively overrated and not really that big of a deal?
  - PhasmaFelis 10y ago
    He was wrong about a lot of the specific business applications, mainly because the problems he cited were all things that could be (and were) engineered around once there was enough profit to be made. He was right about most of the social/utopian applications; educational software, government websites, and social networks are all useful tools and have been more financially successful than he predicted, but they have never revolutionized education or government, nor given us something better than face-to-face contact, as we were promised.

Animats 10y ago

I had a Minitel account in the 1980s. France Telecom rolled out Minitel in the US, although almost nobody noticed. Minitel had much of the functionality of the Web in a primitive form. There were online stores which accepted credit cards. Traffic maps of Paris. News and chat. Phone directories. Text porn. Social and dating sites. (One had to be able to write good poetry in French to get noticed.) Even paid sex chat ("tenderness service"). Most of the functionality of the Web was there, except images and video. Minitel was a pay service; almost everything cost. The big surprise on the Web was that ads alone would pay for so much and that bandwidth would become so cheap.

cantrevealname 10y ago
> The big surprise on the Web was that ads alone would pay for so much Another huge surprise was that people would create so much content (including really good content) for free. Can you imagine telling someone 15 years ago that the Web would have a free repository of all human knowledge, in hundreds of languages, thousands of times bigger than Encyclopedia Britannica, that was created by random people and experts around the world almost entirely without payment. Of course I'm talking about Wikipedia above, but that's just one of thousands of outstanding Web resources that people created for free. I can just imagine the people's reactions 15 years ago: Why would anyone do that for free? Wouldn't the government shut it down? Who would pay to run the servers? Anything anyone would write for free would be garbage. You might get a few random people to write, but no subject-matter expert is going to waste their time.
- et-al 10y ago
  > Another huge surprise was that people would create so much good content for free. Can you imagine telling someone 15 years ago that the Web would have a free repository of all human knowledge.. This wasn't too much of a leap for me. Microsoft Encarta shifted its information from CDs to the internet. And when you think about the whole premise of the internet, it was a tool for researches to share information. Remember all the university hosted sites packed with information? Now give all these people an easier place to publish their information while also reaching a wider audience. One of my favorite pages from this era is probably this tide chart by someone at University of Nevada, Reno: http://wolfweb.unr.edu/homepage/edc/tides/2016/sfgg_fr16.html http://wolfweb.unr.edu/homepage/edc/tides/2016/sfgg_fr16.htm... And Stanford CS guys publishing their outdoor excursions: http://theory.stanford.edu/~rvg/arroyo/ http://theory.stanford.edu/~rvg/arroyo/

scrollaway 10y ago

"In fact, the web is so pivotal to modern life that two months ago, the UN declared internet access a basic human right." This doesn't sit right with me. It's certainly not being treated as one. I keep encountering "free wifi" hotspots - unencrypted, slow networks asking you to get your credit card out for more than 5 minutes of their time. I was just in germany last week. In a public airport, the wifi was so monetized I felt like I was in the iOS port of a facebook game. Had the choice between that, or some even worse sitekiosk locked down piece of crap. I wonder when this will change. When wifi will be as abundant and accessible as water in a city. (Although Germany is a terrible example for this - good luck getting a glass of tap water there). It's funny-sad to contrast the wonders of the internet, to the unending shithole that is internet access in 2016.

NhanH 10y ago
You overestimate how the "basic human right" is treated. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights has 30 articles, almost every single one was and is being trampled on everyday.
- mseebach 10y ago
  Well, an alternative (and more charitable) reading is that these are negative rights. Having the right to internet doesn't mean that someone else has a duty to provide you with a (free) internet connection, it means that forcibly preventing you from procuring an internet connection is not allowed (as opposed to, say, drugs, which you CAN be forcibly prevented from procuring). Compare freedom of expression: Nobody can forcibly prevent you from expressing yourself, but also, nobody has a duty to enable you to express yourself.
  - emodendroket 10y ago
    It doesn't seem to be constituted that way according to this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right_to_Internet_access https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right_to_Internet_access
- madaxe_again 10y ago

deleted 10y ago

[deleted]

williamgb 10y ago

I think the author is being quite unfair regarding John Allen's "prediction" on anonymity. First and foremost, it wasn't even a prediction. Second, his comments concerned anonymity within groups and communities, not general demographics, i.e. all users of Twitter. The referenced study linked to by the Guardian (statistically illiterate as ever) article also fails to demonstrate anonymity as a primary cause of abuse, as the author seems to imply, albeit in a passive-aggressive manner.

castell 10y ago

Another interesting prediction was Bill Gates' "The Road Ahead" (1995) book. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Road_Ahead_(Bill_Gates_book) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Road_Ahead_(Bill_Gates_boo... The Microsoft Network (MSN v1, MSN dialup) failed spectacularly and the WWW won, Bill Gates rewrote the whole book in less than a year, the paperback edition already featured the WWW instead of Information Super Highway and MSN/Microsoft Network. Windows 95 shipped with MSN integration, an addon "Plus" CD shipped Internet Explorer 1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MSN_Dial-up#Early_history https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MSN_Dial-up#Early_history

grecy 10y ago

Slightly related, I think it's a foregone conclusion that in 25 years we'll poke fun in the same way at current thinking about electric cars, self driving cars, solar power, etc.

80801 10y ago

Couldn't read it. Website wanted me to disable malware protection in my browser.

ihaveahadron 10y ago

How are those "rights" working out? Lol rights

emodendroket 10y ago

Give Clifford Stoll some credit; his predictions about low quality online discussions and questionable value in educational software have some merit.

rocky1138 10y ago

I think this author is confused between what the Internet is and what the WWW is.

zbyszek 10y ago

The author says "the least likely element of this scenario is that Kellogg's will bring back free gifts". I have at home a bunch of squashy balls, eagerly sought by my son, from Kellog's Frosties from the time of Six Nations Rugby tournament this year. Does she know something I don't?