What I dislike most about text messages is that you feel obliged to reply when you get one! If someone want's to talk to you, they could simply call and we can chat!
Uh, not when I'm in a meeting. Not when I have company. Not when I'm driving. Not when I'm in bed. Etc.
It seems to be the general opinion of foreigners who visit the US that we get better deals here then they do at home. But they're also *different* deals.
I never use my T-Mobile "anytime" minutes, and have unlimited calls nights, weekends, and at any time between members of my family plan. But SMS messages are ridiculously expensive considering how little it costs for T-Mobile to send them (especially between members of my family plan, because then I get double-billed).
Still, I've used them heavily for these reasons:
I use my cell phone as a "text pager" for work.
I can do texting (with the sounds turned off) without bothering people much.
I can send text messages without disrupting the recipient.
I can type text messages without even looking at the screen. Yes, on a several-year old, tiny flip-phone (Ericsson t-39).
I've read of studies (but not directly read their research results) that indicated a significant risk to giving up real sleep, and making do with only naps. Be careful about sleeping less than about 4 hours a day or in blocks of less than 90-180 minutes unless you're doing it for a short time (e.g. to meet a deadline).
My experience is with day cycles varying from 6 to 48 hours. Let me explain their ups and downs:
48 hour day
I did doubledays (48-hour day cycles) extensively when I was working as a sysadmin and got stranded by Boston's subway (the "T") shutting down for the night. At first I took naps, but soon started working through the night and all of the next day, being awake for 36 hours of 48, and at my desk working for 30 of those. For reference, this is when I was about 27-30 years old.
pro: You can cut your daily startup time pretty much in half by starting your day only half as often. This is especially useful when that startup time is large (e.g. a long commute).
con: I couldn't do software development or real learning on this schedule, because it was difficult to concentrate 20+ hours into my workday. As a senior sysadmin, I did fine, but I switched to sleeping nightly when I started taking college classes again. Also, I had to sleep 7 nights one week due to external pressures, and immediately shot up in weight. (I was still eating for 4-day weeks, but sleeping all 7 nights.)
24-28 hour day
You're all probably familiar with this one, so what's to tell? The 24 works far better with the rest of the world, but 28 is more natural and probably a bit more productive, if you function in near-total isolation, anyway.
12 hour day
I did this one for most of my sophomore year in college. Two 9-hour periods of awakeness, each followed by 3 hours of sleep.
pro: Allows you to function pretty well with the rest of the world, while requiring only 6 hours for full sleep.
con: If you have family or other people close to you, they'll likely be unhappy that what used to be their main social time with you is lost to your evening sleep period. On the gripping hand, much of the US population spends those hours staring at a television screen, so maybe it isn't a social time for you.
6 hour day
I was on this schedule for only 2 weeks (when I was somewhat over 30 years old), but it felt great. It took me no getting used to, I never needed an alarm clock, and I felt invigorated. I spent 4.5 hours awake, then 1.5 hours asleep. Every meal was breakfast.
pro: Requires only 4.5 hours for full sleep. Still has sleep in large enough blocks that normal sleep cycles take place. It once gave me the line (joke unintended at the time): "I really have to go sleep now -- I've already pulled one all-nighter today."
con: The wake/sleep schedule becomes much more rigid, even small delays in bedtime hit hard. Few occupations allow for this sort of sleep schedule. It is particularly impractical if you have significant overhead for each waking period (e.g. a round-trip commute every 6-hour "day" versus every 24-hour day).
Long before I learned of REM cycles, back before the information age (in the 1970s), I plotted my waking times and learned that I woke easily at multiples of 90 minutes after I fell asleep. I would typically wake after 7.5 hours, but also woke easily after 6 or 4.5 hours. With effort, I could wake up after 3 hours. These are the 90-minute cycles of natural sleep. I think it unwise to go for a long time without getting 90-minute periods of sleep, and I've heard of research studies that back me up on that.
The more 90-minute sleep cycles you have in a row, the more "watered-down" the later ones become. The first hours of sleep are the deepest and most important, while the later ones are just a few steps down
Slashdot Mirror
Uh, not when I'm in a meeting. Not when I have company. Not when I'm driving. Not when I'm in bed. Etc.
I never use my T-Mobile "anytime" minutes, and have unlimited calls nights, weekends, and at any time between members of my family plan. But SMS messages are ridiculously expensive considering how little it costs for T-Mobile to send them (especially between members of my family plan, because then I get double-billed).
Still, I've used them heavily for these reasons:
I did doubledays (48-hour day cycles) extensively when I was working as a sysadmin and got stranded by Boston's subway (the "T") shutting down for the night. At first I took naps, but soon started working through the night and all of the next day, being awake for 36 hours of 48, and at my desk working for 30 of those. For reference, this is when I was about 27-30 years old.
You're all probably familiar with this one, so what's to tell? The 24 works far better with the rest of the world, but 28 is more natural and probably a bit more productive, if you function in near-total isolation, anyway.
I did this one for most of my sophomore year in college. Two 9-hour periods of awakeness, each followed by 3 hours of sleep.
I was on this schedule for only 2 weeks (when I was somewhat over 30 years old), but it felt great. It took me no getting used to, I never needed an alarm clock, and I felt invigorated. I spent 4.5 hours awake, then 1.5 hours asleep. Every meal was breakfast.
Long before I learned of REM cycles, back before the information age (in the 1970s), I plotted my waking times and learned that I woke easily at multiples of 90 minutes after I fell asleep. I would typically wake after 7.5 hours, but also woke easily after 6 or 4.5 hours. With effort, I could wake up after 3 hours. These are the 90-minute cycles of natural sleep. I think it unwise to go for a long time without getting 90-minute periods of sleep, and I've heard of research studies that back me up on that.
The more 90-minute sleep cycles you have in a row, the more "watered-down" the later ones become. The first hours of sleep are the deepest and most important, while the later ones are just a few steps down