Slashdot Mirror
Texting On the Rise In the US
frontwave links to this stat-laden overview of trends in text-messaging among Americans, citing a few of its findings: "The average teen (even including teens without cell phones) sends and receives five times more text messages a day than a typical adult. A teen typically sends or receives 50 text messages a day, while the average adult sends or receives 10. Fully 31% of teens send more than 100 texts a day and 15% send more than 200 a day, while just 8% and 5% of adults send that many, respectively."
... the impact this has on their verbal language skills.
really? this is news?
I live in europe and I and most of the people I knew texted like that.
Teenagers like to talk, gossipe and plan meeting up.
It's what they do.
In 1992, I was the first teen at school to carry a palmtop around in all my lessons (geek!), a Psion Series 3a.
In 1995, I joined the ham radio club at school.
In 1998, I first browsed the 'net using a mobile from a tethered computer in McDonalds in London.
In 1999, I bought the Motorola Timeport, the first triband WAP 'phone.
I've gone through Palm PDAs, Librettos, iPaqs, etc. (Never a Newton, though.)
Anyway I guess my point is that I've had fun with some early-ish little boxes.
Today I send on average about 0.1 texts per day, and hate them. Seriously, 50 a day, what the fuck? Am I alone in feeling this?
And this is surprising because...? I don't understand why it amazes anyone that kids text more than adults. Even without taking into account that kids embrace technology more than (some) adults, we have many reasons for the "findings" of the study:
1) Kids have more spare time.
2) Kids spend their time communicating with their friends.
3) In classes, texting is the only possible way to communicate with others without the teacher catching on to you (electively replacing the secret notes of our generation)
Probably many more reasons, but I don't feel like trying too hard thinking about them. I'll SMS you when I figured out some more.
Whenever in an argument, remember this.
100 per day... Imagine 14 hours in a day being awake, that is 7 per hour.
I wouldn't have time to do other things anymore!
bash$
I take it "adults" here is defined as 18-30? With everyone older going into the "Eww, gross!" category.
There's just no way that all adults average out to 10 messages a day.
sic transit gloria mundi
Why would I actually choose to use some chicklets-keyboard, or way overly-sensitive virtual keyboard, when I can just _call_? I mean, it's a PHONE, gawddamnit!
Signed, Captain Curmudgeon Old Fart
Generally, bash is superior to python in those environments where python is not installed.
SMS is not a replacement of calls, it's complementary. Calls are intrusive, require full, unbroken attention, and are obtrusive to people around.
Calls are a valid method to pass urgent important message and the acknowledgment of receiving it is essential, or to ask an urgent short question. They are good when you want to conduct a longer conversation and both parties are not occupied.
Text messages are good for passing an announcement that doesn't require immediate attention or confirmation, to ask a question that may require research, to pass data that should be retained (written down) like addresses, directions, phone numbers (no, mom, don't dictate this to me, just disconnect and text me that address) and for a discrete conversation when normal phone call would be disruptive to others around.
You don't text strangers requiring answer - it's rude when they have to pay to answer unsolicited question.
You don't call when you suspect the other person is busy. You may text them to call (or ring) you when they have free time to call instead.
You may send text to remind about something.
You do not depend on SMS as the only channel with important messages. You only use them when calling fails, and then still try to reach the other party by means that let them acknowledge receiving the message.
SMS is no longer about being cheap. It's an essential element of the culture of communication.
45 5F E1 04 22 CA 29 C4 93 3F 95 05 2B 79 2A B2
Low-latency asynchronous communication has different benefits to low-latency synchronous communication.
For example if you are trying to organise something with a bunch of people then it is easier firing texts between each other than making a series of phone-calls.
But is this really news? When I was teen in the late 90s this was equally true. If anything my generation use texts less because we can afford nice phones that have IM clients...
Slashdot: where don knuth is an idiot because he cant grasp the awesome power of php
1. You can read faster than a good portion of people can speak.
2. No one gets to know what you are conversing over. (teens especially love this)
3. No one has to hear about what you are discussing. (I'm talking to you Mr. really loud cell phone talker guy)
4. If you have a crappy memory it is there for retrieval instead of trying to recall what was discussed.
I hate texting but I ask my significant other to text me the grocery list so other people at work/bus/train don't have to hear/know that I need to pick up some rich chocolaty ovaltine.
open source sub sim. I might start coding again for this. http://dangerdeep.sourceforge.net/contribute/
You're missing the important aspect of ..sometimes I don't want to or can't speak with someone. In this case, txt is much easier. My friends don't have BBs or iPhones, so they can't instantly check their emails. However, everyone is a txt msg away. They don't worry about disturbing me in a meeting or class, and I don't have to waste time checking voicemail (which takes a LONG time). Unless you're writing a novel about txt msg use, for most things you would say by phone, a txt is usually easier & quicker. When it's not, at least you can txt "call me back about X".
It's fire and forget. You don't have the risk of getting sucked into a conversation. It doesn't require that the recieving party be present at the time of sending. It's usually faster to receive than a voicemail.
For example: while snowboarding, if separated, my friends and I usually text each other to say what area/bar we are going to. Service is spotty on the mountain, but sooner or later they go into a spot where the message shows up. Vm doesn't always come through in these conditions, and who wants to pull off hats and goggles when it only takes 3 or four words to get the message across.
I would think Internet based communications are replacing SMS, but even in my example SMS seems to work better as all you need is a gsm signal. Often the Internet doesn't work well when you have a really weak edge signal.
Hell, I sometimes go 2 or 3 weeks without even turning my phone ON. I don't think my send and receive together add up to 10 a YEAR.
'Course, there's essentially zero coverage at my house. Texts CAN get through there, but it takes up to 2 or 3 hours by my tests.
I can beat that. Not counting automated monitoring squawks, I receive less than 1 per month from humans. I give thanks for this regularly. While the ability to communicate in media other than voice, from just about anywhere has it's merits, it is in most case a barrier to effective communication. No one can type as fast as they can talk, so when you factor in the time it takes for the sender to actually type, actually getting the message takes far longer than just reading it. The only real benefit of text is that, as ImNotAtWork observes below, you don't annoy others with your conversation. That is, of course unless you're the dickhead in the movie theater who thinks that his bright 4" screen is not annoying every single person seated behind him.
Sorry, but texting is nothing more than a 19th century technology without the latency of telegrapher and courier.