View Full Version : The shift from TV to the Internet
Gardenarian
2-18-14, 7:50pm
I was thinking today about how my library used to do "TV Turn Off Week" and how that has become almost meaningless in a world where people are absorbing electronic media from their computers, pads, and phones.
I think it is really difficult to assess the impact of this because everyone uses their devices in their own way.
Does commercial TV still have a big influence on the world? I haven't watched any in years. I know quite a few people watch sports, but do people still tune in the way they used to?
My internet use is mainly checking email, reading a couple of blogs, spending time on Pinterest, reading and contributing to this forum, looking up stuff I need to know (maps, how to fix stuff), and using proprietary library databases. When I was bedridden, I did watch a couple of TV shows on Hulu ("Kingdom" and "Doc Martin") which had ads - just like old fashioned TV.
But other people have news feeds on their phones, and Twitter, and facebook. My daughter does a lot of online chat and photo/art sharing with friends (she knows the rules about that.) Some people have Netflix which I guess is like renting DVDs. Other people read ebooks and listen to music, create stuff online, write blogs...
I guess what I'm trying to say is that it is not so easy to get away from commercialism by saying "Turn Off The TV!" It's difficult to set screen limits - for kids or adults - when the options for how the screen is being used are so varied. It's more like setting life limits. I can't work on my novel without a screen (a dumb computer works fine, but still, a screen.) My husband does all of his music arranging and composition online, and gives music lessons via Skype.
I think it is cool that we can do so many things we couldn't, but it's kind of worrying that people have a screen all the time.
This is a hard subject to even talk about because this whole world of opportunities has opened up to us in the past decade.
The days of the passive television viewer are over, but what's happening now?
Just kind of thinking out loud here, and wondering what your thoughts are.
Gosh, I hope not. I just bought a television. Well, I bought it early last month and I have every intention of taking it out of the box at some time, but it would kind of stink if regular TV stations stopped broadcasting any time soon.
I do not watch anything on the computer, except webinars for work. The only thing that has influenced me is finding one of the criminal investigation programs whenever I have time to just sit and passively enjoy myself. I really like that a lot.
As far as commercialism is concerned, I really doubt that the majority of people (if not nearly all) are held in thrall to whatever is advertised or broadcasted. I think that people, maybe some people :), use the bugaboo of commercialism as an excuse for whatever needs excusing in their lives. That viewpoint pretty much puts me in the minority, but I truly cannot think of anything that I wanted because I saw it on television, in the paper, or even on-line. However, I am not counting travel programs, especially the ones on PBS. Totally love those.
I'm reminded of an article I read a while back (sorry I don't remember the source) by a guy who decided to quit the internet for a year because he feared that it was making him lazy and unproductive since he spent so much time doing 'nonproductive' things like chatting with friends, going on facebook, etc. At first he pursued things he'd always wanted to put more time in since he wasn't blowing so much free time surfing the net. After a couple of months though he slipped back into his old time wasting patterns, just not online. He found as many other ways to waste time and was soon no more productive then he had been when he used the internet. By the end of the year the conclusion he came to was that his laziness was more a function of his personality, not his internet use and that that was where he needed to look to make changes.
Thinking about the OP's concern regarding screen time I have to wonder if when books first became popular whether there were naysayers worried about the effects of the new technology saying things like "oh my goodness. if everyone can get their information from books they won't want to have face to face communications anymore. Pretty soon everyone's nose will be buried in books and no one will talk to each other. This is a horrible technology!"
Interesting, as that reminds me that I read the same things about video games, cell phones and other stuff. Rock & Roll. Paperbacks. Portable/transistor radios (from my own childhood). E-books.
I did think of something that television convinced me that I needed. I remembered when I was cleaning the kitchen this evening. The product is Mr. Clean Magic Erasers.
...
As far as commercialism is concerned, I really doubt that the majority of people (if not nearly all) are held in thrall to whatever is advertised or broadcasted. I think that people, maybe some people :), use the bugaboo of commercialism as an excuse for whatever needs excusing in their lives. That viewpoint pretty much puts me in the minority, but I truly cannot think of anything that I wanted because I saw it on television, in the paper, or even on-line. However, I am not counting travel programs, especially the ones on PBS. Totally love those.
I'm bemused by that attitude, too. If I were easily swayed by TV advertising, I'd have Aflac, Geico, and that insurance whose name I can never remember whose spokes-character is called Flo. I'd have bought any one of a number of cars that are shown serenely driving along lonesome roads--apparently after the apocalypse, there's so little traffic. I think I bought a mascara I saw advertised on TV once, and I do like Daisy sour cream--even if their jingle is an annoying ear worm.
I never saw the Daisy sour cream commercial, but I do buy it if it on sale.
After seeing the daisy commercial 5,000 times we now put sour cream on every single thing we eat. It makes us just as happy as the people in the commercial.
The progressive insurance commercials (Flo) make me sad. We don't own a car so they won't sell us insurance. :-(
ToomuchStuff
2-19-14, 1:58am
The library's turn off tv week had less to do with commercialism, and more to try to get people to read and use it's services. (trying to stay relevant in their communities and keep being funded the same or better) Even the libraries themselves, provide digital content now (ebooks, internet access, etc). I miss how you connect those two idea's of a screen and commercial's with the library.
Commercial's have been in print, on tv, and on the radio. When very successful, they become a jingle one remembers or a word that one associates with a product (Kleenex for example). Just because the mediums have evolved, doesn't change that. What these "tabulation machines" have done, is speed up the capabilities, to make sense of the data they get back. It is a several BILLION dollar industry that is getting better and better at figuring out what your wants and needs are, and marketing products to fit those. While they use these tools to get into your brain, these tools can also be used to stop the flux of "information" (spam). While I can't attach a trash can to a mail box for third class mail (I could, but the post office won't use it), I can run adblocking/ghosting/proxy software, in multiple ways on multiple machines. I can and do, change the channel on a radio station when I hear something that isn't a song, or turn it off. You even have the choice when you read a book, to not read something, or turn spotting a commercial that is inserted into a show, into a game. (and use it to explain to the kids the influence)
It hasn't ever been easy to be a parent, or an adult, why would it be? To get out of our society, where the culture is a CONSUMER driven culture (more so then a customer driven), one would have to move, or join something like an Amish society.
I pulled the plug on tv some time ago. What little I watched, was pretty easy to find online, without commercials. Several of those commercial eliminating sites, have gone away, while the broadcasters, realized they need to control how it gets out and broadcast it themselves, online, with commercials. (still doesn't help my not broadcast in my country stuff)
Opportunities are like man. They change, adapt, evolve, and can be good or bad, or both, at the same time. My two cents.
ApatheticNoMore
2-19-14, 3:32am
I think at present it's remarkably easy to avoid the advertising aspects of the internet. Just use ad blocking software. Problem solved. And sure you can also use the internet for explicitly commercial purposes. Go online, buy stuff, but then whose fault is that? :) There's a gray area in sites supported by advertising wondering how much that affects content, but that's not exclusively an online issue (and most sites I frequent are not primarily ad supported). I know the direction the powers that be want the internet to go in is more commercial, but it's not there yet.
I'm reminded of an article I read a while back (sorry I don't remember the source) by a guy who decided to quit the internet for a year
jp1, I remember reading the same article! Here (http://www.theverge.com/2013/5/1/4279674/im-still-here-back-online-after-a-year-without-the-internet) it is. I found it a very interesting read.
Thinking about the OP's concern regarding screen time I have to wonder if when books first became popular whether there were naysayers worried about the effects of the new technology saying things like "oh my goodness. if everyone can get their information from books they won't want to have face to face communications anymore. Pretty soon everyone's nose will be buried in books and no one will talk to each other. This is a horrible technology!"
To borrow a page from bae:
http://i59.tinypic.com/16kq71y.jpg
I'd credit it, but I don't know who took the picture.
I don't see the problem as a tech issue but a matter of conscious thoughtful effort to make choices that align with your values. Have you (generic you) defined your values and principles of living so clearly in your mind that you can make thoughtful choices that use your time and attention in ways that meet 'your' needs and interests?
I have a TV and watch shows, DVD's occasionally. I have the internet and use it daily for information and contact with others but I choose the time and place.
I was listening to a radio (what's that?) talk show on the way in and they were interviewing a local doctor about the non-stop drug commercials that are on TV. The doc said that personally the ads scare him when they list all the side effects. Why would anyone want to take them in the first place? The reality though is that a high percentage of his patients ask for these drugs by name because they have been swayed by the ads. I think media is in the middle of some generational changes and therefore many educated young people don't sit around watching TV anymore. They get their marketing nudges from other media sources whereas folks over a certain age are more likely to be watching TV. We watch a little TV but mute the ads when we do. I wish most of us were aware enough to know that we are constantly being sold to no matter the source.
To borrow a page from bae:
http://i59.tinypic.com/16kq71y.jpg
I remember that technology! It was a terrible technology though. The worst part about it was that 60-75% of the viewing space was filled with ads. And the person that invented the ad blocker hadn't been born yet so we had no choice but to look at the ads. Life is definitely much better now.
I was listening to a radio (what's that?) talk show on the way in and they were interviewing a local doctor about the non-stop drug commercials that are on TV. The doc said that personally the ads scare him when they list all the side effects. Why would anyone want to take them in the first place? ...
Yeah--why would they. I find the drug commercials hilarious, especially the obligatory list of side effects ("death has occurred"). Kind of like "mistakes were made, but not by me." Probably 90% of the drugs prescribed are unnecessary, and could be avoided if a competent doctor suggested alternatives to a receptive patient.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yLR2OKesTw0
Gardenarian
2-19-14, 3:08pm
The library's turn off tv week had less to do with commercialism, and more to try to get people to read and use it's services. (trying to stay relevant in their communities and keep being funded the same or better) Even the libraries themselves, provide digital content now (ebooks, internet access, etc). I miss how you connect those two idea's of a screen and commercial's with the library.
Yes, TooMuchStufff, that's absolutely correct. I was getting off track trying to parse this out in my mind. Thank you for the clarification. It's not the commercialism, it's the form of media.
Libraries were saying "the medium is the message." Is this no longer true?
Thank you all for your feedback.
My local library will be doing screen-free week and it gave me pause. How does screen-free work when the majority carry a screen in their pocket, which acts as pocket watch, telephone, calendar, alarm clock, camera, radio, music source, e-reader, and mail & message service? (But, is also used frequently for more mind numbing purposes...)
What is the sense of having screen-free when the library itself offers so many e-materials, as well as DVDs? (and why are public libraries even shelving materials like "Dharma & Greg"?" - but that's another post.)
Of course there is a qualitative difference between watching re-runs on Hulu and doing deep research on JSTOR. But they use the same technology and look, at a glance, the same.
Yes, we need to decide for ourselves how to most judiciously use our time.
And parents have to decide what is best for their kids.
I'm trying to figure out how all this works with library policy and programming.
It seems that a positive (Read more books!) rather than a negative (Screen time is bad!) stance makes more sense...at the moment.
Many libraries are trying to become the interface between their patrons and the internet by providing a home page that will direct people to reliable, safe and authoritative sources. An Internet Nanny, if you will. A noble goal, but, for the most part, a dismal failure. The interfaces are generally cumbersome and inelegant and have a way of sucking all the fun out of the internet.
I approve of the idea of an Internet Nanny type interface for kids (if it actually worked) but adults find this sort of thing, rightly, condescending. (The kids probably do too.)
Over the past three decades we've moved steadily from a "push" model (where content providers push out content when they chose, and you could take it or leave it) to a "pull" model (where you can get pretty much whatever you want whenever you want it). Overall the latter is preferable, I suppose, but change of this kind always involves a vague feeling of loss. When I was a kid, media choices were much more limited--we all watched more or less the same TV shows, listened to the same music, etc. There was some comfort in that greater simplicity. Remember when to go to the movies, you had to actually go to the movies? I was a big movie buff as a teen and college student, and I still recall the thrill of going to see a rare film at some out-of-the-way art house, or of driving for hours with my friends to see a movie in some other city. Things are a lot more convenient now, and I wouldn't have it any other way, but "progress" is always a two-edged sword.
Gardenarian
2-19-14, 3:20pm
Oldhat - thank you, I hadn't considered this in push vs. pull terms. That adds another dimension to things; very interesting.
I agree about the movies.
ToomuchStuff
2-20-14, 12:34am
The medium being the message, has evolved. The medium being text instead of a book (can be shown on different devices), and part of the reason for that is the technology evolving as well as legal requirements (ADA). Libraries can now be more of a benefit to the blind and handicapped and as that is mandated, it does affect their views and actions.
I would say ask them about their screen free week. But I would expect it to be a push, to get more people to use physical books. I've heard some debate about the costs of loaning digital books, as well as the costs of storing all those physical books, and the heating, a/c, etc. I think the libraries are kind of playing a guessing game, trying to figure out, when they can evolve to a point where they may take up the size of a typical living room. (small, energy efficient servers, powering digital loaning, no books, less heating and a/c, etc).
Besides the ADA requirements (digital media), what should they do with their digital content, for that 1 week, out of 52 weeks? People still have choices, they can't force the screen free week on anyone, nor will everyone choose to participate in something at the same time. (if the waiting list was paused due to screen free week, and people left something I wanted to watch, why not move my week, to another one?)
What about other time crunches? If you can take a digital book and listen to it, via text to speech, while on the way somewhere, you can keep learning.
I kind of think it may be too late for a truly screen free week. My phone has a screen. Everything I do for money has a screen. All of my research takes place on a screened device. All of my daily spiritual reading happens online or on a Kindle app. "Screen" is not the opposite of "reading" at all anymore. Maybe in the '70s when "screen" might have meant video games or TV only, but not any more.
Maybe a "read for pleasure" week or "enjoy a novel" week, whether Kindle, audio or physical books.
I remain baffled by the concept that ads (in any medium) can make me buy stuff. I know what I need, I know what I want, I know I have very little money and I spend it on what I need. Maybe people with too much money find an outlet for it by buying advertised products. Occasionally a pizza commercial may awaken a dormant pizza craving. Then if I have money I order one and if I don't I don't. Many of the activities, games and blogs I enjoy online are advertising supported, so I can't really be all opposed to ads. Sometimes ads help me get something I need at a reduced price. I don't think that advertising is ipso facto evil.
Yeah--why would they. I find the drug commercials hilarious, especially the obligatory list of side effects ("death has occurred"). Kind of like "mistakes were made, but not by me." Probably 90% of the drugs prescribed are unnecessary, and could be avoided if a competent doctor suggested alternatives to a receptive patient.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yLR2OKesTw0
By law, they have to provide the side effect information. As far as direct-to-consumer pharmaceutical advertising goes, it's a fairly new phenomenon--the FDA only started allowing it in 1998. Pharmaceutical companies spend billions on it. There have been questions about how effective the advertising has been, but there are some real success stories out there, such as Claritan's "blue skies" campaign years back. The ACA will probably have an impact on advertising to consumers, simply because it won't matter how much the consumer wants a brand, the doctor won't be able to prescribe them, and the consumer's insurance company is going to make them really hard to get.
As far as feeling superior and above the influence of advertising, so maybe you don't see pretty pastoral fields with cows and then go out and spend more on sour cream than you normally would--but branding does work, and marketing works.
If nothing else, if not the one-on-one relationship between the brand and the customer, the whole gestalt of being bombarded with images and advertising messages designed to up your desire for stuff impact our value system as a culture.
I think the internet changes drastically how marketers gain access to the customer and changes the language with which they speak to us, but they'll figure out a way to keep us spending. (Maybe not you, Jane, or many of the rest of us more "enlightened" simple livers ;) but don't be too flip about the ability for corporations to dictate culture through their marketing efforts. One man got millions of women to start smoking early in the last century, will very little work on his part. It's scary.)
This is such a thought-provoking thread for me. It is making me think about how essential technology is for my work. Not my life, although it does make it more entertaining. Six weeks ago I moved from a Trak phone to one with unlimited talk, text and data. I have used it for calls, but I just checked and I have not used a single text or any data, not even to check work e-mails. I am more than a bit surprised.
The photo of train/people/newspapers reminds me of my first job, right out of high school. It was for a magazine publisher (technical education publications) and I was assistant to the advertising manager. It was a cool job for someone so young and I learned a lot, but the one thing that sticks with me is that we would do the layouts for the ads and then filled in the empty spaces with articles. What I learned is that the purpose of a magazine is to have a place to distribute the advertising and the articles were the vehicle to do that.
The magazines were, in actual content, excellent, and interesting enough that I often read them. I do not read magazines these days except in the waiting room at the dentist, but I am guessing that whilst reader interest focal, they still exist to promote the ads.
OK, a little off-topic, but to continue the point about advertising and marketing.. I don't know how many of us got or gave a diamond engagement ring--probably disproportionately less than the general public--however we can agree that most people do honor this tradition. Here's a great 4-minute video on why
http://www.filmsforaction.org/watch/why-engagement-rings-are-a-scam-here-are-the-facts/
the whole gestalt of being bombarded with images
I think about this as it relates to fashion trends. Young women, in particular, are easily swayed to change their wardrobes every few years just through marketing. At the university where I work, skinny pants and ballet flats or riding boots might as well be a uniform even though it is not attractive on many...that is until the next style invades their consciousness to follow the trends.
...
As far as feeling superior and above the influence of advertising, so maybe you don't see pretty pastoral fields with cows and then go out and spend more on sour cream than you normally would--but branding does work, and marketing works.
If nothing else, if not the one-on-one relationship between the brand and the customer, the whole gestalt of being bombarded with images and advertising messages designed to up your desire for stuff impact our value system as a culture.
I think the internet changes drastically how marketers gain access to the customer and changes the language with which they speak to us, but they'll figure out a way to keep us spending. (Maybe not you, Jane, or many of the rest of us more "enlightened" simple livers ;) but don't be too flip about the ability for corporations to dictate culture through their marketing efforts. One man got millions of women to start smoking early in the last century, will very little work on his part. It's scary.)
I'm glad Pharma has to list their numerous side effects in commercials--truth in advertising, after all--and that, along with their unpronounceable monikers--concocted of random letters by computer programs--and the made-up diseases, soft-focus photography...I suppose I shouldn't laugh.
I buy Daisy because it's relatively unadulterated (Ingredients: Grade A pasteurized cream), not because of the commercials. If I should come across a no-name brand with the same ingredients, I'd buy it. I have very little brand loyalty.
I understand that corporations need to make money and to do that, advertise their product as skillfully as possible. As a reasonably informed adult, I'm free to take or leave the bait. I buy my share of stuff, and sometimes my choices are emotional (Ooh! Shiny!), but most of the time I read reviews, compare prices, and weigh choices.
Unless they are misrepresenting their product in some way, I'm OK with advertising--even if the constant barrage of ads/commercials/click bait is tiresome.
Oh, I live for the pharma disclosures. possible-side-effects-include-fatigue-flushing-and-death. do-not-take-if-you-are-in-any-way-sick-already. ask-your-doctor-if-you-are-healthy-enough-to-have-sex. Yes, I'll be sure to check in, should that be each time or is once a week ok? Maybe you should set up a hotline I could call for $35 each time I have sex, just in case.
I wonder .... Pinkytoe talked about young women and fashion. It seems to me that the older I get, the more immune to trend and adverts I become. I know that will make me look like a fire hydrant with feet, no thanks. I know that it's going to break within six months, they all do. I know it doesn't really give me radiant skin, you need good skin to start with. I know ... I know a lot, having gone through my share of disappointment with empty advertising promises. So, if we age and wise up, and money seems to not to be shifting into the hands of the young as readily as it once did, could this be a nail in the coffin of advertising, even with new ad trends hitting us through the internet?
I think at least some of that discretionary spending is being diverted to good food--at least among my younger friends, who are buying more organic foods, local foods, and specialty items.
iris lilies
2-20-14, 9:46pm
OK, a little off-topic, but to continue the point about advertising and marketing.. I don't know how many of us got or gave a diamond engagement ring--probably disproportionately less than the general public--however we can agree that most people do honor this tradition. Here's a great 4-minute video on why
http://www.filmsforaction.org/watch/why-engagement-rings-are-a-scam-here-are-the-facts/
I hang out on a board where diamond rings are really really important, and even though many women consciously know about the Debeers scam, they still want the shiny rock.
I do love my shiny rock. If I did it all over again, and at the same time--I'd still ask for a diamond ring as an engagement ring.
The latest trend is Moissanite, a lab created compound that was originally found in space. It's much less expensive than diamonds but is still sparkly and in an interesting way, is slightly different from a diamond. I like Moissanite and would get one. I am not a fan of Cubic Zircona, though.
And I love CZs and don't much like Moissanites, which I think are over-priced, dingy in color, and almost always set in pedestrian settings.
The first Christmas we were together, my beloved bought me a gold band with eight small diamonds. It's a classic look, and I've never taken it off.
My first two engagement rings were diamonds, I took it for granted, that's just what people did. The third I asked for a ruby because that's what I - as an individual never mind "what people do" - wanted.
Before I met DH, my mother had given me a diamond ring she inherited, so when DH proposed he gave me diamond earrings instead of a ring.
A few years later, the diamond in the ring fell out of the setting and I never found it. Several years after that, my earrings were stolen by a drug dealer and they were never recovered.
My favorite jewelry now is paper, made by Ugandan women from Beads for Life.
It's true what the video said--diamonds have no intrinsic worth. The loss of the diamonds did nothing to diminish my quality of life. You can't eat them. You can't use them to build with. They don't keep you warm. I am attracted to beauty, but not in the expensive gem form. I don't want anything I'm afraid to lose.
DD just got engaged and apparently the style of her ring is trendy right now though to me it looks Victorian. More of a square shape with tiny diamonds around the large one. I feel for her fiancee as it must have cost more than a few paychecks. But those two are definitely caught up in consumer trends much to my dismay. I hope what kib says is true - that we get smarter about ads as we grow older and more experienced.
iris lilies
2-21-14, 9:41am
DD just got engaged and apparently the style of her ring is trendy right now though to me it looks Victorian. More of a square shape with tiny diamonds around the large one. I feel for her fiancee as it must have cost more than a few paychecks. But those two are definitely caught up in consumer trends much to my dismay. I hope what kib says is true - that we get smarter about ads as we grow older and more experienced.
She probably has a cushion cut center diamond (they look square) with a pave diamond halo. That is the popular design right now. I love all of the retro rign designs with millgrain and pave, that Edwardian look is lovely. I've got a real Edwardian ring on right now, a family heirloom from a great aunt.
Yes, cushion cut, that's what she called it. New to me.
Cushion cut is my all time favorite, and I agree with Iris Lily about the milgrain and pave' (and pierced work and decorative galleries) available now. Lovely!
I found one of the Ugandan women's paper bead necklaces at a thrift shop, and it's delightful. The beads are different colors and shapes, separated by glass seed beads, about 36". One of my best buys.
Out of curiosity, I revisited Moissanite--which I haven't paid attention to since shortly after it came out--and see that there are vastly more settings available now (and of course you could set it in any setting). So I retract that criticism.;)
Jane, what is your icon, how big is it? Is that a fetish, and is it yours? I'd much rather wear that than a diamond!
It's a miniature mask of Tlaloc, the Mexican god of rain (among other things) that I made for a polymer clay swap. I should get back to that medium; its possibilities are endless.
DD just got engaged [snip] I feel for her fiancee as it must have cost more than a few paychecks. But those two are definitely caught up in consumer trends much to my dismay. I hope what kib says is true - that we get smarter about ads as we grow older and more experienced.
DW and I met when both of us were near the half-century mark chronologically. We got engaged at the same time many friends' kids were getting engaged. It was sad to watch the diamond-engagement-ring "arms race" that took place.
Maybe it's that it was the second wedding for each of us or maybe just that neither one of us likes to run on the consumerist treadmill. But we refused to play the game. The rings I gave DW were a simple set I commissioned on etsy. There are diamonds, but they're roughly the size of the ones on the end of my turntable's phono cartridge. They could just as well have been CZs or moissanites. Our wedding was not one of those new-car-expensive extravaganzas, either. The form and the intent were more important. I don't think we're any less happy because of it.
In 1973 I wanted a gold bracelet rather than an engagement ring. I wore it for years. When my husband's mother died she willed her engagement ring to me and I have worn it since then. 1993. Not real into the big diamonds. I did have us buy a lovely cocktail ring with diamonds and sapphires when we were making enough money that I thought it was worth doing. I wear it every day as well. My cousin's daughter noticed it one day ( she works in jewelry ) and said, " How lovely. It's so old fashioned. "
iris lily
3-20-14, 10:56am
Yeah--why would they. I find the drug commercials hilarious, especially the obligatory list of side effects ("death has occurred"). Kind of like "mistakes were made, but not by me." Probably 90% of the drugs prescribed are unnecessary, and could be avoided if a competent doctor suggested alternatives to a receptive patient.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yLR2OKesTw0
My brother used to have the physician remove the "warnings" sheet from our mother's drugs.
While that may seem overbearing, it seemed reasonable to me since she would simply obsess over the possible side effects. Now, please understand that from my point of view none of that medication was entirely necessary. But since our mother was into the "visit the doctor and do what he says" mode, there was no need to pay for medications that she then would decide not to take due to the warnings labels.
She had Alzheimer's and was not entirely rational in her thinking.
Yeah those commercials also crack me up - "Our pill will cure your penile dysfunction but the side effect is death".
As to the OP, I doubt that the internet will take much away from current TV viewing. Maybe for some things like news but I think that there is still a very strong interest in watching TV (on a HUGE screen) and it actually seems to be getting stronger. I do see that there will be more morphage though - things like smart TVs where you can do many things internetty on them. And there are the die heart luddites like me who rarely use the internet for anything but looking up info and e-mailing. Don't want to watch TV, read, or even get my news on my computer.
ApatheticNoMore
3-24-14, 12:21am
There literally is one that promises to improve the condition of your skin if you have a certain health condition but the side effect is it may cause cancer. I always point that one out as in hard to believe it's real.
I heard a statistic the other day that I thought was interesting. I think it was on the freakanomics podcast. They said that the same number of households that watched a typical episode of All in the Family, back in its heyday, is the same as the number of households today that are watching the 5 most popular shows. And that doesn't even take into account that the population has increased significantly in that time. People may still watch a lot of tv but we're certainly not all watching the same things anymore.
Yeah those commercials also crack me up - "Our pill will cure your penile dysfunction but the side effect is death".
As to the OP, I doubt that the internet will take much away from current TV viewing. Maybe for some things like news but I think that there is still a very strong interest in watching TV (on a HUGE screen) and it actually seems to be getting stronger. I do see that there will be more morphage though - things like smart TVs where you can do many things internetty on them. And there are the die heart luddites like me who rarely use the internet for anything but looking up info and e-mailing. Don't want to watch TV, read, or even get my news on my computer.
I realize that I'm posting on a board where people tend to not spend money on the latest gadgets, but an Apple TV costs under $100. With it we can watch netflix, hulu, amazon prime and everything else from the internet on our tv. Picture quality is indistinguishable from 'regular' HD cable tv.
I realize that I'm posting on a board where people tend to not spend money on the latest gadgets, but an Apple TV costs under $100. With it we can watch netflix, hulu, amazon prime and everything else from the internet on our tv. Picture quality is indistinguishable from 'regular' HD cable tv.In the spirit of not spending much, let's not forget Google's Chromecast. A $35 device which plugs into a TV's HDMI port and brings forth anything you can view on your computer, laptop, tablet or smartphone, onto your TV screen. It has become my favorite toy.
iris lily
3-24-14, 10:42am
In the spirit of not spending much, let's not forget Google's Chromecast. A $35 device which plugs into a TV's HDMI port and brings forth anything you can view on your computer, laptop, tablet or smartphone, onto your TV screen. It has become my favorite toy.
Is there a keyboard with this thing? I mean, how do you retrieve information?
Is there a keyboard with this thing? I mean, how do you retrieve information?
It links with many apps on your tablet or smartphone, allowing it to be controlled from that source. It also links with Google's Chrome browser, allowing your TV to become a wireless monitor.
It is about the size of a usb thumb drive. When plugged into my TV, it is virtually invisible. The only drawback, albeit minor, is its interaction with streaming movies available from Amazon Prime. Amazon & Google are competitors, so, Amazon isn't cooperating with ease of use.
Roku is another affordable alternative. I keep meaning to buy one, but I haven't braved the Wi-Fi installation. I have got that out of the box and read the directions, though...
I realize that I'm posting on a board where people tend to not spend money on the latest gadgets, but an Apple TV costs under $100. With it we can watch netflix, hulu, amazon prime and everything else from the internet on our tv. Picture quality is indistinguishable from 'regular' HD cable tv.A TV by any other name is still.... a TV :-)!
But this goes back to the OP's intent - that back in pre-tech days when you unplugged, you really unplugged. The purpose was to shut down the screen and get off the couch and do something else, interact with people in RL, engage in something besides couch surfing and watching a screen for hours a day. But with todays tech, unplugging the TV doesn't accomplish that at all since many don't unplug from the online or computer world and still have just as much screen face-time as they did watching regular TV via cable or antenna. I think I am the only person I know who occasionally has somewhat long periods of time (weeks) where I actually unplug completely - no TV, no internet, no I-Pod, no Smart Phone, no video games, no CD's and I often don't even read. My goal in doing that is to literally spend my time off my butt and other wised engaged in other things. Other than some very basic news from the radio and occasion phone conversations if needed, I'm pretty much living back in the stone-age (tech wise) and it's pretty liberating. It's amazing how much free time I end up having when I am unplugged.
Gardenarian
3-24-14, 1:45pm
A TV by any other name is still.... a TV :-)!
But this goes back to the OP's intent - that back in pre-tech days when you unplugged, you really unplugged. The purpose was to shut down the screen and get off the couch and do something else, interact with people in RL, engage in something besides couch surfing and watching a screen for hours a day. But with todays tech, unplugging the TV doesn't accomplish that at all since many don't unplug from the online or computer world and still have just as much screen face-time as they did watching regular TV via cable or antenna.
Spartana - thank you for reading my mind and writing so clearly what I did not! Yes, this is what I meant to say.
A TV by any other name is still.... a TV :-)!
But this goes back to the OP's intent - that back in pre-tech days when you unplugged, you really unplugged. The purpose was to shut down the screen and get off the couch and do something else, interact with people in RL, engage in something besides couch surfing and watching a screen for hours a day. But with todays tech, unplugging the TV doesn't accomplish that at all since many don't unplug from the online or computer world and still have just as much screen face-time as they did watching regular TV via cable or antenna. I think I am the only person I know who occasionally has somewhat long periods of time (weeks) where I actually unplug completely - no TV, no internet, no I-Pod, no Smart Phone, no video games, no CD's and I often don't even read. My goal in doing that is to literally spend my time off my butt and other wised engaged in other things. Other than some very basic news from the radio and occasion phone conversations if needed, I'm pretty much living back in the stone-age (tech wise) and it's pretty liberating. It's amazing how much free time I end up having when I am unplugged.
For someone, such as yourself, who prefers being engaged in other things unplugging from modern communications from time to time (or most of/all the time if that's what one wants to do) is obviously a good thing. I guess the question that brings up is whether getting out and doing stuff is necessarily better than choosing to spend one's time sitting in front of a screen. And if so, why? Many people on this board seem to operate from the assumption that it is, but maybe it's not, at least for some people.
iris lily
3-25-14, 10:51am
For someone, such as yourself, who prefers being engaged in other things unplugging from modern communications from time to time (or most of/all the time if that's what one wants to do) is obviously a good thing. I guess the question that brings up is whether getting out and doing stuff is necessarily better than choosing to spend one's time sitting in front of a screen. And if so, why? Many people on this board seem to operate from the assumption that it is, but maybe it's not, at least for some people.
It's good for your body, for one thing.
Gardenarian
3-25-14, 1:47pm
I'm not saying that using screens, be they to watch movies, do research, find a map, or socialize, are inherently evil. But the "average American spends 8 hours per day on screens." (http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/27/business/media/27adco.html?_r=0) This seems like an awful lot to me.
The negative aspects of excessive screen use are well documented, and include everything from "sitting disease" (http://www.mayoclinic.org/healthy-living/nutrition-and-healthy-eating/expert-blog/sitting-disease/bgp-20056238) to depression in children (http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/health-and-families/health-news/overload-of-screen-time-causes-depression-in-children-8786826.html) to nature deficit disorder (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nature_deficit_disorder).
Libraries hope that by reducing screen time, people will read more books. Why should people read more books? Reading books is associated with improved brain function, stress reduction, increase in general knowledge, greater vocabulary, improved writing skills, memory enhancement, stronger analytical thinking skills, and an increase in focus and concentration.
Of course there are lots of other great things people could be doing with that 8 hours a day...
Reading ebooks ... Screen time or book time?
Reading is reading. I doubt it matters what the medium is. Being sedentary may crop a few years from the wretched last years of life, but that's an individual call.
Gardenarian
3-25-14, 3:35pm
Reading ebooks ... Screen time or book time?
I would call it book time, though the jury is still out on that one.
Generally, most studies show that reading on paper is more relaxing, and paper also improves comprehension.
I think people reading on devices that have other uses (like an iPad or smart phone) find it difficult to settle down and are tempted to check their email or Facebook or surf the web.
ToomuchStuff
3-25-14, 4:24pm
Reading ebooks ... Screen time or book time?
Depends on the device. I have a Nook, that is only an ebook reader (not one of the fancier models) and I would consider that book time. (but I can carry a library with it)
Where I have used Calibre on my computer, to print off pages from a digital book, where I couldn't take a device (waiting for instructions for Jury duty, etc). That I would consider screen time (can and tempted to do other things).
ApatheticNoMore
3-25-14, 4:33pm
But the "average American spends 8 hours per day on screens." This seems like an awful lot to me.
Is this leisure time? Because I spend 8 hours a day on screens just to earn a living - I work an 8 hour day generally see. Does it seem too much to me? It definitely does!!!! Well hey I'm all for abolishing the 40 hour work week :)
I suppose the 8 hours a day if it's leisure time, is an average that is increased significantly by weekends, because who has 8 hours free time on weekdays? I maybe have 6 hours not working or commuting including lunch break (and some of it spend bathing and eating and so on).
I think reading is in many many ways really really unnatural and always has been. And so are computers. Yep! Reading itself is detachment from your environment, it just is, even if you have the physical book on your lap, your thoughts are lost in the abstractions not in your immediate surroundings.
I think the stuff I do on the computer is very similar to reading books (well sometimes I interact as well). For one thing I don't do video and stuff much, I gravitate toward the textual stuff. So if I'm reading long essays online isn't that increasing my general knowledge, vocabulary, writing skills (what if they are great rhetorical essays - some are!), strong analytical skills (oh absolutely - there is simply no doubt about this one. Reading other people's thoughts even decent commentators on other's writing improves analytical skills. They've taught me so much about how to think about things - it's almost invaluable! I would have had to read 100s of books to get to the general knowledge and thinking ability people have - because other people are distilling all they have read in books and online and experienced! This is true for conversations I have had too, a lot of people I've chatted with are a lot smarter than me). Reading books is the depth treatment of a topic for sure, but online is actually more like most academic education (maybe not grad school but certainly any intro course) - in that it's a sampling. Do those who would critique my informal education online, also criticize that? (because samples are often misleading -aka the map is not the territory) Why not?
I think people reading on devices that have other uses (like an iPad or smart phone) find it difficult to settle down and are tempted to check their email or Facebook or surf the web.
Well when I've decided something online is worth reading, I don't feel a compulsion to check elsewhere. If it's very long and I get bored - well I take breaks from reading too - usually to go run outside.
I think people reading on devices that have other uses (like an iPad or smart phone) find it difficult to settle down and are tempted to check their email or Facebook or surf the web.
Not me. I re-discovered the joy of reading when I started using my iPad. I now spend an average of 1.5 hours per day reading on the device, where I have a dozen or more books stored at any given time. I can read in bed without disturbing my wife since I no longer need a separate light source. If I decide to check my email between chapters, it doesn't mean that I can't or won't return once completed.
The fact that it is a multi-function device only adds to its usefulness for me.
Where I have used Calibre on my computer, to print off pages from a digital book, where I couldn't take a device (waiting for instructions for Jury duty, etc).
A quick note on Calibre. I use it as well on my home server where I store my e-book library (currently over 5000 titles). I use it's web server capability to serve up new titles to my iPad whenever I want, from wherever I am. I can't speak highly enough of that software. And it's free!!!
Gardenarian
3-26-14, 2:02pm
Hey Alan - I guess I was thinking of my daughter, who will try to read on the iPad but when I take a look, there she is checking out her Tumblr....
For someone, such as yourself, who prefers being engaged in other things unplugging from modern communications from time to time (or most of/all the time if that's what one wants to do) is obviously a good thing. I guess the question that brings up is whether getting out and doing stuff is necessarily better than choosing to spend one's time sitting in front of a screen. And if so, why? Many people on this board seem to operate from the assumption that it is, but maybe it's not, at least for some people.I don't think one is any better than the other as both depend on what you are using your time for. Are you on screen connecting with your interests, loved ones, entertainment, etc... or are you (like me) spending way to much time engaged in stuff I reallt don't want to be doing at the expense of my interests, loved ones, entertainment, etc... Those things aren't in the online or TV community for me for the most part, so I find unplugging is a better use of my time. But it may be the total opposite for others. But, for myself, I do see that there is less RL interaction (as well as action) and "doing" when people are plugged in to anything (and that includes reading). So I think downtime is a great thing for many people - more for someone like me who really doesn't enjoy a sedentary lifestyle or a lot of screen (or book) time. And probably other's need a lot less screen downtime or maybe none at all.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions Inc. All rights reserved.