Switched Archives
June 2012
| Sun | Mon | Tue | Wed | Thu | Fri | Sat |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 2 | |||||
| 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 |
| 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 |
| 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 |
| 24 | 25 | 26 | 27 | 28 | 29 | 30 |
Blackberry 101 | Best Tablets | Best iPhone 4 Case | Color App | Facebook Questions | NCAA Brackets | Lady Gaga at Google | Facebook Deals | Animated GIF | Anonymous | Amazon Appstore | April Fools' Day | Google Blogger | Rebecca Black Friday | Nintendo 3DS | Vimeo iPhone App | Video Game Emulators | Private Browsing | Mark Bao | Julian Assange | What is 4G? | Bronx Zoo Cobra | iPad 2 Review | Google 1 | New York Times Paywall
- Terrence O'Brien
Watching Twitter tonight has taught me one thing, Phillies fans are a bunch of whiny dicks. But it's ok, every tank needs a bottom feeder.
- Terrence O'Brien
And I thought I wanted to hug Johan last week. I think I'm officially in love.
- Warren Riddle
Listening to Ra, glance at the notes and there's @AliveRecords. Nice cover, Mr. Boissel! @TheGloryFires #magiccityjams http://t.co/uT0M77VJ
Gadget News
- Sony to sell downloadable content at GameStops in Europe and Australia
- Corsair Force GT SSDs put through their paces, have graphs to prove it
- BlackBerry Music Gateway goes on sale, brings a little NFC into your life
- Motorola MOTOACTV update adds Twitter and Facebook to keep you company during marathons
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 1)
(Unverified)Dec 30th 2009 10:56PM
Unlike the author of this piece, I am underwhelmed by these findings.
According to the graph, only 9% of the average person's "word consumption" today derives from the printed word, whereas 27% derives from computer usage. Based on the information contained in the graph, this means that consumption of the written word on the computer today roughly equals the consumption of the printed word in 1960.
Herein lies the difference.
An adult interacting with the written word in 1960 likely was reading daily newspapers filled with local and international news, magazines with five-thousand word articles, classic literature, modern novels, historical nonfiction, and perhaps the scripture of his or her religious tradition. Reading was a silent, solitary endeavor relying on sustained attention, intellectual engagement, and few to no visual stimuli.
An adult interacting with the written word today likely is reading short (1000-word) news stories preselected to appeal to his or her interests, puff-piece celebrity gossip articles, and the puerile chatter endemic to social networking sites. The selections are short, the words are simple, the opinions are inoffensive, and the entire package is buttressed with screaming, flashing, interactive graphics competing for the reader's attention.
To be sure, the Web is a vast place, and invitations abound to read serious news, great literature, scriptures from every faith imaginable, and histories of any culture on the planet. However, how many people truly avail themselves of these opportunities? Sadly, very few.
As the author eventually admits, "quantity doesn't always mean quality." In this case, he is right. Turn off the idiot box and go read a book. Challenge yourself. Learn something new. Do your part to keep real literacy alive.
(Unverified)Jan 21st 2010 7:04AM
Are you sure that the average person in the sixties was reading literature, newspapers and their bible? Perhaps some were reading Playboy Magazine, or comic books, or some other type of publication. I do not know the answer to the question either, but just knowing how people are, I would guess they were pretty much the same in regards to their taste in reading material. Besides the physical page turning, I think reading on the Internet is the same as reading anywhere else. It is up each individual to select quality material, or not, as the case may be. I think people are resistant to change and that is why they demonize the Internet. For example, they say how dangerous it is too meet people over the Internet, even citing examples of people who did so and had horrible consequences. I totally disagree. I think if anything, the Internet is a SAFER way to meet people. It allows you to get to know them FIRST before sharing personal information such as your address, where you work, what you look like. When you meet people in person they know what you look like, maybe even what kind of car you drive...With one meeting, they have enough information to hunt you down like an animal if they choose to do so. On the Internet, they do not know anything about you unless you allow them to. While its true that some people are dumb enough to share personal information over the net, those are the same people who would find other ways to get in trouble if the Internet didnt exist,. If people use the same common sense on the Internet that they use anywhere else, their experience will be similar to their experience in life.