Slashdot Mirror
20% of U.S. Population Has Never Used Email
Ezratrumpet writes "A recent PC World article notes that 20 percent of the U.S. population has never sent an email. Does this number over- or underestimate the actual number of people who know nothing of email? What are the implications of this statistic to our society? Or are these people just Luddites who mourned the demise of the telegraph and have also never used a telephone?"
So there are 20% of Americans who wonder why in the world Hormel would be sending canned ham to people, and still complain about the amount of junk mail they receive via the USPS.
Amazing.
It's 18% of all households, not 20% of the US population.
From TFA: "Many people just don't see a reason to use computers and do not associate technology with the needs and demands of their daily lives," Barrett said. Shocker.
People still RENT their phones...
http://www.clientleasingservices.com/
750,000 of them, according to usatoday...
http://www.usatoday.com/news/offbeat/2006-09-14-phone_x.htm
If you can read this... 01110101 01110010 00100000 01100001 00100000 01100111 01100101 01100101 01101011
215,935,529 Internet users as of Dec/07, 71.7% of the population, according to Nielsen//NetRatings
Latest Population Estimate
301,139,947 population for 2007, according to the Census Bureau. If 28.3% of the population aren't internet users, why is it a surprise that 20% haven't sent an email?
\x72\x6D\x20\x2D\x72\x66
TFA links here, which is presumably a podcast of some Lotus Notes dude (insert obligatory Notes joke here) pushing the idea that "that collaboration tools such as e-mail, telephones and desktops will die at the hands of unified communications."
So, what's the angle? They're trying to tell us that since a whopping 20% of society has never used email, we should all sell our computers and buy a LotusBerry(tm)?
Pfffffffft.
"Beware of bugs in the above code; I have only proved it correct, not tried it." -- Donald Knuth
20% of America doesn't use e-mail because they don't have anything to say via e-mail. Consider the same logic with regard to first posts ;)
...will they 1|\|cr3A53 7H3 51Z3 0F 7H3R3 /\/\3/\/\83r?
"I may be full of crap about this game, and I may be wrong, and that's fine." -Jack Thompson
ilovegeorgebush
Just about 100% of all young, single females have never sent email to me!
Really nothing of value is lost to them or to us because of this fact.
... by e-mail and technology.
On the other side, most people that doesn't know how to use e-mail ask techies they know for help.
I have already forgotten how many mails I have sent for my mom and aunts.
- Human knowledge belongs to the world
Surely, given that only about 60% of the population is capable of writing a grammatical letter, this is hardly a surprising statistic?
From scarped cliff or quarried stone she cries "A thousand types are gone, I care for nothing, no not one."
20% of the US population hasn't used email?
Good lord who cares!
I bet 85% of the US population have never been in a war.
I bet 100% of the US population are under 19' tall.
At least 20% of the US population will never see this post.
Hell I wouldn't be surprised if 10% of the US population don't even own a cell phone.
It's rare that I would complain about the news here but whoever approved this AND whoever submitted it, wtf, really? Just WTF.
"Or are these people just Luddites who mourned the demise of the telegraph and have also never used a telephone?"
Its that sort of arrogant crap that makes people vow to never use a computer. Some people have no need for a particular tech. I NEVER send text messages, they seem a waste of time. I don't use RSS and have no idea what twitter is. I never use myspace and don't have a facebook page.
So fucking sue me.
This infantile attitude of "I use tech X and thus so should you" just shows the immaturity of the poster, not that they are in any sense 'better' than those not using that technology.
DRM-free indie games for the PC and Mac: Positech Games
My next door neighbor owns a small contracting business. He himself is a carpenter by trade. He uses Excel and Autocad and surfs the web a little for news once in awhile, but he doesn't use email, or IM for that matter. The files he gets from his architect are very large to begin with and are usually delivered on a USB flashdrive. He has an email address that came with his cable Internet. He just doesn't use it and doesn't seem to need it.
The article says that it was a phone survey. This means: 1: The people are obviously not "Luddites who mourned the demise of the telegraph and have also never used a telephone", since they used a phone to answer the survey questions. 2: Most of the tech-savvy people I know don't even have land lines. They use cell phones or things like Skype, which are difficult to survey for various reasons. The people who go those routes have generally used email. Therefore, the sample population was already skewed toward people who wouldn't have used email anyway.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
To put this into some form of perspective, strange here on Slashdot I know, but in reality for most people internet became a potential reality around 1998 (AOL going onto the internet from its walled garden) or at best 1996. So maybe another way to look at this study would be
From zero to 80% in 10/12/15 years, how the US has embraced email
Sure lots of the people here on Slashdot might have had an email account in the 80s, but that is an insignificant minority. I actually think that it is pretty impressive at 80% penetration given some of the literacy issues in the US education system.
An Eye for an Eye will make the whole world blind - Gandhi
It would be interesting to break this down by age and income. Older people probably see less need for email than younger ones. People with little money probably have more pressing matters they need to take care of than internet, such as where their next meal is coming from.
Sending a snail mail letter requires no major initial investment.
Sending your first email requires an investment to purchase your computer and subscribe to an ISP's plan.
Making a phone call requires a minimal investment in a phone, and a monthly fee of about the same price as internet access.
Sending an SMS usually requires either a 1 or 2 year commitment to a cellular provider's service plan, or the purchase of a phone for use with pre-paid minutes.
So, if these 20% want or need to provide a written record of communication, they can use snail mail at a cost of 50 cents (plus an initial investment of a dollar for a pen), or they can spend $500 on a computer and $20 a month on an ISP.
If they want a faster response than a snail mail, they *pick up the phone*. Which trumps email and IM on speed if more than one question/response is needed.
Or they use an SMS or voicemail or an answering machine if the intended recipient isn't available.
For "Joe Average", the cost/benefit ratio of email is absolutely horrible compared to other forms of communication. And since there really isn't any pressing *need* for them to have email, they don't make that investment. From anecdotal observations, I'd also say that another 20% of the population *with* computers and internet access *don't use email* on any regular basis. They use the internet for entertainment and information *not* communication.
As for me, I've been using email since the late 80's, early 90's. However up until 2005, I had *never* sent an SMS. And until mid 2006 when I had a reason to use SMS more, I had only sent maybe 3 SMSes.
So, for a service (email) that has no real value to many, has many alternatives, and requires a sizeable initial investment, is it any surprise that 20% of the population hasn't bothered with it? One wonders if perhaps they're the smarter ones.
How about over 60?
These groups are overwhelmingly not emailers (yes I know a few members of either of these groups will trump up "I do" - you've self-selected so you're not representative)
Once you take these groups out, you probably have about 80% of the population. I'd have to say that I doubt if all, or even close to all, the remainder have used email. Therefore I assume the total of never-emailed is higher than the 20% cited.
However, in the grand scheme of things, so what? People can lead full and happy lives without technology. Hard as it may be for the tech-obessed to even consider it, not everyone is like them.
politicians are like babies' nappies: they should both be changed regularly and for the same reasons
I've never read a single article posted on slashdot. Yet I often make aggressive and insightful comments on their content.
These people don't know how to use something I and other people use frequently. WHAT A BUNCH OF IDIOTS!
from wikipedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poverty_in_the_United_States
Poverty in the United States is cyclical in nature with roughly 12% to 15% living below the federal poverty line at any given point in time, and roughly 40% falling below the poverty line at some time within a 10 year time span.
if you are living below the poverty line then a computer and the increasingly large amount of power it uses are a unavailable luxury.
Since some people are very likely to be average, it's very likely less than 50% are below or above average.
Why are people who see no need to have a computer being called Luddites? I don't know that any of these people are opposed to progress, they simply don't have access to email equipment or don't use email even if they have access.
My mom and dad are definitely not Luddites, my mom used to be a Cobol programmer and my dad taught me electronics when I was small; they simply don't see any need for a computer in their home. They have cell phones, a 5.1 channel sound system, and DirectTV; but no computer.
When people see no need for televisions in their homes, should they also be called Luddites?
especially when you consider that about 12% of the population is under 10 years old and 16% of the popluation is over 65. a majority of these people are not going to be sending emails.
Blazing Spiders
I'm sure there would be the same majority, or more, that have never used snail mail before either...
I for one have never used an envelope, have no idea how much a stamp costs or how to send a letter.
I'm 19, the new generation eh.
Sooner rather than later we have to realize that email is broken. SMTP was not designed with the kind of functionality that would deal with that the academics and researchers who conceived it never, perhaps, expected would happen.
Spammers abuse and take advantage of the shortcomings of the protocol to no end.
All the heuristic filters of the world combined with all forms of statistical analysis ( Bayesian filtering, etc) can only do that much and that's not forgetting the false positives that cause email we care about being flagged and discarded as spam.
The right people should design the successor to SMTP taking into account the problems related to spam, worms and whatnot ( security as a whole ), the simplicity of the existing SMTP protocol and start building a new architecture of servers and clients around it. Otherwise its always going to a be miss or hit case ( just like it is with those spam filters ).
Technology ramblings : Simple is Beautiful
More interestingly, the article notes that the percentage of US households not connected to the Internet has dropped from 29% in 2006 to 18% in 2008. While it's impossible to tell from just two data points whether the rate of adoption will remain the same, increase, or level off in the next few years, it's probably a safe bet to assume that disconnected households will become a true rarity in the near future.
If I ever get to the point where I have enough to work on, and have my business connections set in a way that doesn't require the computer - though a secretary and accountant may need them - then I'd consider myself to be doing something right. I can, and do, use e-mail because my days aren't productive -enough- .
Pfft. Lucky.
You know, there is a difference between trolling and pointing out the flaws in your reasoning. Just saying.
The summary, even leaving aside its tone, is flawed in that it seems to presuppose this is by choice.
I think people underestimate the amount of poverty - even in the US, where the official definition of poor still most often includes obesity, a car, 2 televisions, airconditioning, and other things seen as luxuries across most of the world.
If you have a family of 4, and are making a combined income of ~$30k/year, and have payments to make for housing/car/food/medical, you might be stretching to pay the PHONE bill much less have luxury money to spend on frivolities like a web connection. And yes, they are frivolities: if all of your friends are in similar financial circumstances, you have even less incentive because they aren't going to be online EITHER. Finally, even the web is squeezing these folks out - browsing by modem SUCKS, and it seems that more and more sites are building fancy flash front-ends that take minutes to d/l at modem speeds.
-Styopa
Between old people that are afraid of new things and illiterates and people simply too poor to have a computer, I'm a little surprised it's not higher.
That combined with the fact spam is very annoying (I use email but only if I have to) it simply isn't a joy to open your inbox. So I prefer IM, text or phone.
I did some original research for one of my senior projects concerning teens and technology.
I found that a great majority (>75%) of those between 13-18 never used email for communication, and thought it was either outdated or didn't have a use for them. These teens used SMS, MMS or IMs for communication.
Once the age increased a little bit to 18-25 the numbers shifted dramatically the other direction, as work usage of e-mail went way up. There is also the factor that these people are older and e-mail is "older" than SMS and competing technologies, however, the main factor that went into it was the fact that their jobs required them to use internal e-mail.
I'm sure at the other end of the population stream there are those that have no idea either doesn't know what e-mail is, or has no use for it.
If you asked my mother if she uses e-mail she would tell you she doesn't, however she has a g-mail address and sends me things all of the time. She thinks she instant messaging me because it goes to my blackberry and she gets a message back from my phone most of the time. (I've explained to her that it is email, not text, and she understands it; she just forgets from time to time).
In US of A, email is only for old people.
Another poster had it right calling this arrogance. It's not as if internet access is universal throughout the US at a reasonable cost. Consider farm areas of Missouri or Wyoming, where you can barely get cable TV because according to the cable companies it's too expensive to run the lines. The ONLY reliable internet access in many midwest areas is via satellite networks, and these can be prohibitively expensive on your average farmer's salary.
So yes, lets all mock the folks who grow the corn needed for the syrup which powers our mountain dew because the company teat we all suckle from in one form or another isn't available everywhere.
Freaking jackasses....
It is probably fair to suggest that many of the 20% in this situation have made a conscious choice to avoid computers with the same determination one would bring to avoiding a rabid dog.
Would it be unfair to note that according to the American Research Group, George Bush's job approval rating is somewhere around 20%, and speculate that perhaps members of one group may be just a tad over-represented in the other?
It might be illuminating to see what percentage of this group believe evolution is "just a theory", and what percentage believe family reunions are good places to meet babes, too.
I've calculated my velocity with such exquisite precision that I have no idea where I am.
95% of my textual communications with my friends and family is through SMS, MSN/AIM/Gtalk and Facebook. The other 5% is post-its on the fridge and ransom notes scrawled in blood.
And my generation (I'm 21) is a few years behind behind the people who grew up always having a readily usable web -- I can only assume it's even more pervasive for anyone born after the mid 90s. E-mail for the current generation is probably approaching some arcane, meaningless legacy step between them and their MySpace registration.
If anything, e-mail for non-business-related reasons has become elevated/deprecated to sentimentality, an intermediary step in remote intimacy between a private message and a handwritten letter. If I send an e-mail to someone instead of Facebooking them, it's going to be longer than 255 characters and probably mean something.
But cut the luddite bullshit. I posit here that /you/ perhaps are the luddite, but even if I'm wrong you're being a cock.
Those of us around IT don't always see them regularly, but remember, 16-17% of the population just aren't that smart. And per another comment, 1% are in jail. I saw a college alumni survey about a decade ago and email use really dropped over about the age of 55 -- which I guess now might extrapolate to 65? Lot of Americans over 65. Lot of Americans at the poverty level as well.
Admittedly, many of these factors are coexistent but 20% sounds really good all things considered.
What kind of sensationalism is this? Numbers are quoted, but the links, rather than pointing to the source of the numbers, point to other semi-related opinions.
It's an interesting article, but it seems to have much ties to the truth as any book by James Dobson.
I miss the days when publishers were accountable for providing facts to back up their words.
"The large print giveth, and the small print taketh away" -- "Step Right Up", Tom Waits
And what folks have missed is that there are a few folks who don't want what they in writing - even email - unless necessary. I am currently working in a place that will not send emails for that reason - we only call.
And please, nobody respond with a contradictory statement unless you're a member of the BAR somewhere. i.e. Your comment starts with "IAAL".
Smoke Signals, invest now. It's gonna be HUGE!
...82% of the population could care less.
Film at 11.
News flash: e-mail is too complex for the elderly and for niggers. Film at 11
YOU CAN'T COMPARE EMAIL TO FACEBOOK, MYSPACE, OR TEXT MESSAGING! Seriously, email is a way way way more popular form of communication and has been around much longer than the other things you mentioned. Email is a great way to create a paperless office environment, and it's nice to be able to (near) instantly deliver messages to people. Email is great for personal use as well as on the job--So they don't need to be in a profession that requires sending emails. I really do think that those 20% are missing out! YES, they really *SHOULD* be using email. I never thought my parents would ever use a computer until they realized the potential of email for communicating with family members in different states. They love it now!
Bottom line.... the poster wasn't being arrogant. The other 20% really needs to get with the times.
...we sell entries in a (UK) based business directory gonumber.com and part of the selling process involves personal visits to high street retailers, restaurants etc. Approx 10% do not have an email address at all, while another 10% do not even use computers at all. (An email address does not of course require your own computer.) There are two groups who fit this profile: a) Older people of all ethnic groups. b) 1st generation immigrants. There are cultural reasons. Some people just like to communicate and do business in person - and why not? Others rely upon tried and tested methods. After all, how many people have ever had their (paper) notebook crash or require an expensive upgrade? Consider this, the pyramids and most of the world's most complex and beautiful buildings were designed, constructed and managed hundreds and sometimes thousands of years before the advent of calculating machines. Nothing like the human imagination to achieve wonders. I diverse...
O'WONDERWe're working on it.
...approximately 20% A government study showed that 21% to 23% of adult Americans were not "able to locate information in text", could not "make low-level inferences using printed materials", and were unable to "integrate easily identifiable pieces of information." (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Literacy_in_the_United_States)
According to this Newsweek article from 2002, in 2002 44M of the (then approx. 280M) US population were functionally illiterate.
http://www.shashitharoor.com/articles/newsweek/illiterate.php
From other sources about 11-12% of the US population is below the official poverty level, and I'll bet there's only partial overlap of that figure will the functionally illiterate group.
From that perspective 80% of households using e-mail seems remarkably high, especially for such a new technology with such a high barrier (computer ownership/literacy, internet access, intellectual curiosity) to entry.
...the twenty-somethings who insist that email is obsolete and used only by old people and businessmen?
Warning: this article may contain humor, sarcasm, parody, and perhaps even irony. Read at your own risk.
Most of the tech-savvy people I know don't even have land lines. They use cell phones or things like Skype, which are difficult to survey for various reasons.
;-), but I also carry an analog/mechanical depth gauge and bottom timer. They are a backup.
How many of these tech savvy people own homes? The advantage to a plain old telephone is that it is self powered. If you lose your electrical service for some reason a plain old telephone will still work. Also having a plain old telephone does not preclude you from using cell phones or skype when there is a cost advantage.
Besides "tech savvy" people there are also posers who want to be perceived as savvy and hi tech by not having a plain old telephone, some think it is a fashion statement to say they are 100% digital.
Let me share a somewhat similar story. SCUBA diving is a hobby. When dive computers were new I was on a boat and the divers were about evenly split between computers and analog gauges. With a couple of hours to kill the conversation naturally turned towards the computers. Various pro and con arguments went back and forth. At some point I asked the computer hardware and software types to raise their hands, there were nearly all analog/mechanical. Today I use a dive computer, others have beta tested it for me
The truly tech savvy can appreciate analog/mechanical and understand its ongoing time and place.
How many fulltime jobs can one man have?
This is one of the most poorly written summaries I have seen here.
"A recent PC World article notes that 20 percent of the U.S. population has never sent an email. Does this number over- or underestimate the actual number of people who know nothing of email? What are the implications of this statistic to our society? Or are these people just Luddites who mourned the demise of the telegraph and have also never used a telephone?"
First, the writer jumps from "never sent an email" to "number of people who know nothing of email?". There is a difference here that should be obvious. Never sending an email does not imply not knowing about email, and although likely extremely rare, sending an email does not imply knowing about email. The question can not be answered since the "actual number of people who know nothing of email" is not given.
Others have mentioned something wrong with this question "What are the implications of this statistic to our society?" Of course the answer depends on how people react to seeing this statistic, probably not what the writer intended to ask.
Then, as others have also mentioned, the last question is simply ignorant and demeaning. First, it ignores those that have no choice (for example, due to financial reasons). Second, it assumes some sort of choice based on a dislike of technology. It also improperly uses the word "Or" in the beginning.
I have one suggestion. The writer of this summary needs to seriously consider working on communication (reading, writing, and looking up words in the dictionary). Not being a jackass would help too.
This would explain why Nigerian scammers are still lurking about.
It's probably because they can't read.
And a good percentage of that cant afford internet service in the first place.
---- Booth was a patriot ----
Or are these people just Luddites who mourned the demise of the telegraph and have also never used a telephone?"
No, they use a telephone and mail. What percentage of people used a telegraph in it's time? There was no mourning its demise except from people in the industry that operated it.
Obviously, this is also a percentage of people that don't have a home computer on the internet. For many people there is no need for it. If for example there is no need for a computer, then there is no need to come to slashdot to read people's comments on not using computers.
rd
There are quite a few households I know of that haven't ever used e-mail. They mainly consist of grandparents or great grandparents that just don't have any need to learn computers. I'm not saying that older individuals can't or won't learn computers, it's might just not be as essential. Now, if this statistic is the same 20 or 30 years from now, then I'd be suprised. (Unless of course the aliens come down and teach us telekinesis or some crap like that.)
It strikes me that the average slashdot reader must be sheltered beyond my wildest expectations if it isn't immediately obvious that this statistic is largely the result of people being too poor to have any reasonable access to a computer on a regular basis.
The Pew Internet & American Life Project has some excellent information about how Americans use Internet and mobile technology. Despite Slashdot, Twitter, MySpace, et. al., a huge slice of America only uses modern communications technology when they need to, while a smaller slice tries to avoid it.
For many people, technology is something they struggle to adapt to, rather than rush to embrace. It can be frustrating for these people, and very time-consuming. There's only so much time in the day, and if I weren't keeping up on the latest geekery, I could be using that time to read more history, ride my bike more, become a karate black belt, or whatever.
Most people are not technology-obsessed, and there will always be a certain percentage of the population that is too old to care about the latest new thing that makes it easier to hook up with barhopping friends or more easily consume huge libraries of P2P pr0n.
Read the EFF's Fair Use FAQ
My family lives in a very remote area of Pennsylvania and connect via a satellite link. Non of my neighbors care to spend that kind of money for something they have relatively little use for. Dial-up barely hits 22k because of poor phone lines. Instead, they get their news from the radio (wireless!), paper, and face-to-face conversation with friends and neighbors (social networking). As much as I love the Internet, it's a tool and not a solution. I still send my wife love notes by mail (stamp upside down) and look forward to the same from her. Not Luddites, just reasonable people that don't waste money on something that they don't need and doesn't enrich their lives. ay
27% of the US population doesn't read books. The Internet already has more penetration in the US than the printing press.
There's no way a phone survey will remotely match the general population demographically. The article treats the results as proven facts, just so it can play fast & loose with them. The one statistic that sounds somewhat fact-based is the "A recent phone survey of U.S. households by Parks found 20 million households are without Internet access, approximately 18 percent of all U.S. households." How the hell does that morph into the screaming headline "20% of U.S. Has Never Sent E-mail"? Those are two different things entirely (besides the smudging of the number).
/. readers think they can explain this "data". This whole discussion is a bunch of crappy opinions, based on a crappy article about a crappy survey.
And out of the blue, quote: '"Nearly one out of three household heads has never used a computer to create a document," said John Barrett, director of research at Parks Associates'. Where did *that* come from? Maybe it's a typo, and maybe I don't care any more, because I don't believe a word of it anyway.
And 1000
OTOH, I'm thinking my new batch of medication isn't working as well as it should.
Most people don't even think inside the box.
Maybe they heard about the blizzard of pure sewage all the rest of us put up with, and decided "thanks, but no thanks."
Sounds pretty smart to me....
Regards;
Of those 20%, what percentage also do not have internet access at home? :p
Everyone I grew up with made at least one hotmail account and sent one funny chain message or ecard, but then again, my grandma has a computer and emails old friends she hasn't seen in years (she's 84 pretty soon)
and heck, the lady who practically was my grandma used to use the internet with windows 3.1. she said it got too 'snowy' though when I asked her what that was like xD
I guess if you count all those poor ($300/mo social security) pensioners who live in a house by themselves, you might come up with 1/5. But even in those homes that can't afford dialup, there are still voracious library users. All the immigrants who haven't learned english yet also put a lot of time in at the library computers.
</personal experience from Arkansas>
20% of the U.S. Population Has Never Had Sex With CowboyNeal
The fact is that for some people email is simply not a necessary part of their lives. Did you live a fulfilling life before email existed? Those of us old enough to remember a time when there was no email do not think of that time as one of deprivation any more than pre-Web (or even, Gasp! pre-gopher) days meant we could not function.
The funny thing is the implication that this is somehow a 'bad' thing requiring a remedy. OMG, Europe is ahead of us! Oh, dear, Singapore has a greater percetage of people online!
i say count your blessings.
How about a moderation of -1 pedantic.
He's 83 years old and has never owned a computer or sent an email. Technologically, he never progressed past cassette tapes. He's not exactly a luddite; he didn't reject computers. He just never cared much about keeping up.
In contrast, my 82 year old mother in law embraced computers in the late 80s and is more computer savvy than many 40somethings. She still works from her home.
Wansu, th' chinese sailor
Isn't twenty percent of the population in jail?
Their they're doing there hair.
Because for them it's Yahoo mail or AOL Mail or Hotmail.
Do you suppose that George Bush has ever sent an email?
(I mean, by himself - not typed by someone else, or sent on his behalf).
20% of America lives like the better-off portions of the 3rd world (it's not all the Congo and Burma).
If you didn't have an office job and half your family and friends weren't dispersed around the country or world, and you only used publicly provided internet like a library for essentials like taxes and job hunting, who would you email?
In Capitalist America, bank robs you!
Before I get flamed, I want to say that I'm defining the third world as nations without any sort of post-industrial economy.
In Capitalist America, bank robs you!
Only 80% using email is likely to be due to that US has a significant share of its population stuck in extreme poverty. US illiteracy levels and child mortality are far above most western countries. For comparison, in e.g., Sweden, 80% of the population is using Facebook, while in the US 80% of the population can read. Child mortality in the US 7.8 per 1000 births, while in Japan and Sweden it's around 2.8 per 1000 births.
Both my Grandmothers -in their 80s have never used a computer, and are pretty representative of their generation. Obviously there are exceptions, but computers weren't much of their lives. They both get off the phone after a minute, because they are worried about "long distance" charges to - lol.
..........FULL STOP.
An email address is *required* for iJobHunting.
That being said, 20% in the USA surprises me. I *have* lived in the 3rd world (Mindanano) and 20% would seem about right there. If you equate SMS text messaging with email, 20% would be high there too.
'20% of America doesn't use e-mail because they don't have anything to say via e-mail.'
"And a good percentage of that cant afford Internet service in the first place."
Just from my personal experiences here, but Even At a Group home, (if you've ever been to a group home, people there are getting over serious mental issues, or recovering from serious addictions) there was a mac set up so people could e-mail, the younger patients used e-mail the older ones tended not to, I'm actually kind of surprised that they could even get to '80%' with all the old foggies out there, who are due to mental deterioration living in a different time from the rest of us.
BTW every public library i have been to, even one in a city the size of 1000, had in it Internet terminals (as of 2008) the computers were donated, of course, but they still had 4 Internet terminals in a library that literally had only 5 book shelves total!
even a 'drop in center' for people with mental illness now has 'public Internet' terminals, which were donated, the facility in question had Internet because the county has offices for their CSP program there as well...
the Internet is free just about everywhere you go these days, even if you can't afford it at home, and don't have a car, taking a bike ride to the nearest free computer terminal is probably good for your health even walking is possible in some places for some people.
https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html
Centralization breaks the internet.
I could hardly believe it myself. It's hard to imagine a modern, efficient society [businesses especially] not having email.
If each mistake being made is a new one, then progress is being made.
>Different things work for different people who work in different contexts. In my work, email is
/email/ that is the slowdown here. The email likely arrives to its intended destination within a minute. The slowdown is getting a person to respond to it. If the person you need information from isn't at his desk, then it doesn't matter whether you use an email, phone call, or IM, they aren't there. /This/ is why I like email. The message gets sent whether the person you need the information from is at their desk or not. They will get the message when they come back to their desk, and then they can give it their full attention as they compose a response.
/their/ workflow stops until they get a response, but it's OK to interrupt someone else's workflow to get that response. Email seems to me far less demanding and interruptive, and more polite.
>hopelessly slow and ineffective. I can't wait an hour or a day or a week to exchange information with someone.
>Very often, my entire workflow depends on getting the right piece of information - the answer to a question,
>a critical point of data, the name of a person who I need to get in touch with. If I rely solely on email,
>my workflow stops until I get a response. It would be a crazy, foolish mistake to do so.
It's important to note here that it isn't the
Now it is true in this ever-more-connected age that If they have an email-capable phone, like I do, they will even have advance warning of your email and be formulating a response before they get back to their desk. If it is really urgent they can respond back with their phone, by voice or email, and they can of course be called on their mobile phone.
But this expectation of instant response just grates on me. I just don't get how people can be upset that
A work that expires before its copyright never enters the public domain and thus enjoys eternal copyright protection.
How many, of that 20%, are in a coma or something?
What is the percentage of the US population under 5 years old? 6.5% according to census.gov 2007 estimates
What is the percentage of the US population over 85 years old? 2% according to census.gov 2007 estimates
It is reasonable that 7.5% could not have sent emails due to age situations. (Not saying that 7.5% is exact but they would likely trend statistically to that fact) I have a 7 year old neice who hasn't sent an email. Conversely, I also have a 8 year old nephew that has sent a bunch. Different parenting styles and social-economic factors. My grandfather, who died at 82, didn't send an email in his life that anyone knows about. Considering that 26.5% of our population fall outside of the 10 to 65 year range, it is easy to believe that there there are 20% of the population that doesn't use email. I think it is a mixture of ludditism, social-cultural issues, and lack of need and interest (which is different from the other two factors). Consider the homeless, considered 1% , which probably have a low incident of email usage in their life.
In God we trust, all others require data.
Riding a bike to the "nearest" library is all fine and good, but what about all those people who live in rural areas?
I'd give my right arm to be ambidextrous.
Oddly enough, I don't have a dishwasher. I don't need a dishwasher. That has nothing to do with my income level.
Slow down, cowboy! It has been 4 hours since you last posted. You must wait another few hours.
"Knit one, Perl too!"
I feel better now.
Down With Slashdot BETA!!! I've been around the corner and seen the oliphant; you can only abuse me from your perspecti
I have lived in a lot of places. The city I live in now has just shy of half a million souls in it, and I agree with your statement as it applies there.
I have also lived in a small town on the western Minnesota prairie, population 204. Where you are literally 45 minutes by car from a public internet terminal. I know that's just one little prairie town, but there's a hell of a lot of little prairie towns in this country, and when you add them all together, they're almost half the population of the United States.
No, the internet is not "free just about everywhere I've gone." I find 20% to be a pretty conservative estimate, honestly.
Hey, I finally got my first freak! Took you long enough!