Everyday consumers are doing cloud computing, too, maybe without even realizing it. When you use an Internet-based backup service, or Google's online word processor or spreadsheet, or a Gmail or Yahoo mail account, you're working with data on a secure Internet server somewhere - not on your hard drive.
Apple is the latest company to find a silver lining in the cloud. Its new MobileMe service ($100 a year) is an overhaul of a suite of Internet features that used to be called .Mac.
The series aimed to tie together 3 big trends, all based around structured data: 1) the still nascent "Web 3.0" concept, 2) the relatively new kid on the structured Web block, Linked Data, and 3) the long-running saga that is the Semantic Web. Greg's series is probably the best explanation I've read all year about the way these trends are converging.
They should be like the historical coffeehouses, taverns and pubs where one shifts flexibly between focused and collective reading — much like opening a newspaper and debating it in a more socially networked version of the current New York Times Room for Debate.
Many websites like NewsVine seem to offer this kind of experience.
Still, people read more slowly on screen, by as much as 20-30 percent. Fifteen or 20 years ago, electronic reading also impaired comprehension compared to paper, but those differences have faded in recent studies.
Reading on screen requires slightly more effort and thus is more tiring, but the differences are small and probably matter only for difficult tasks.
In one study, workers switched tasks about every three minutes and took over 23 minutes on average to return to a task. Frequent task switching costs time and interferes with the concentration needed to think deeply about what you read.
After many years of research on how the human brain learns to read, I came to an unsettlingly simple conclusion: We humans were never born to read. We learn to do so by an extraordinarily ingenuous ability to rearrange our “original parts” — like language and vision, both of which have genetic programs that unfold in fairly orderly fashion within any nurturant environment. Reading isn’t like that.
And that, of course, is the problem at hand. No one really knows the ultimate effects of an immersion in a digital medium on the young developing brain. We do know a great deal, however, about the formation of what we know as the expert reading brain that most of us possess to this point in history
Hypertext offers loads of advantages. If while reading online you come across the name “Antaeus” and forget your Greek mythology, a hyperlink will take you directly to an online source where you are reminded that he was the Libyan giant who fought Hercules. And if you’re prone to distraction, you can follow another link to find out his lineage, and on and on. That is the duality of hyperlinks. A hyperlink brings you to information faster but is also more of a distraction.
floor. I once counted my books among my most prized possesions, now I wish I could somehow convert them all to digital files.
My book shelves are full, and books are stacked on the
Textbooks also require big double pages with margins for notes. Writing and reading are communication between writer and reader, the audience and genre (and thus expectations) are important, and the format and technology can be used for bad or good. One is not better than the other, they are different, and the more we know of the needs of writers and readers the better technology will become.
All of the commentators and responses miss a crucial question here: reading for what purpose?
To further complicate this, most of what I read for pleasure is about art or photography, and the kind of history that comes with cool pictures. If paper suddenly disappeared I'd be lost. Most of what I read for work has to be verified, cross referenced, fact-checked, etc. on a tight deadline. If the Internet suddenly disappeared, I'd be more than lost--I'd be paralyzed.
I also completely disagree that the web has killed editing. It has just changed the process to include the reader. It would be more accurate to say that it is killing the sanctity of Editors. 'Bout time, that.
The missing component in E-Reading seems to be the ability to critically grasp and evaluate the material. Learning is transmitted, but it is more linear than holistic. Now in my 70's, I find that reading from a monitor is a distancing experience. There is an intimacy to reading from a traditional book that is missing in the digital format.
Chinese reading circuits require more visual memory than alphabets.
I assume that technology will soon start moving in the natural direction: integrating chips into books, not vice versa.
important ongoing change to reading itself in today’s online environment is the cheapening of the word.
Hypertext offers loads of advantages.
When you read news, or blogs or fiction, you are reading one document in a networked maze
More and more, studies are showing how adept young people are at multitasking. But the extent to which they can deeply engage with the online material is a question for further research.
However, displays have vastly improved since then, and now with high resolution monitors reading speed is no different than reading from paper.
I guess this was inevitable, after all the newspaper industry has been called the "dead tree industry" for some time now (dead also indicating it's a dying industry). But as Ms. O'Dell says, "news as a commodity isn't going anywhere" and this only means that the NY Times is further transitioning into a tech company. Interesting times for the news industry.
By JOHN M. BRODER 3:41 PM ET
Barack Obama’s assault on Senator John McCain’s economic policies was a move to define the general election campaign by focusing on the economy as the central theme.