Reading on paper vs "screening" online and "screening" on a KindleScreener

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by danbloom, Feb 27, 2009.

  1. danbloom

    danbloom Guest

    Reading on paper vs "screening" online and "screening" on a Kindle
    Screener

    I am curious to know if any other people here share my concerns about
    the need for a new word in English, and other languages, too, for
    READING ONLINE, to differentiate this activity from reading on paper,
    which is a very different animal.

    See two blogs I am on here: one in China, the other in USA:

    http://zippy1300.blogspot.com

    http://www.36pr.com/2009/02/27/6-on-36-qa-with-taiwan-based-reporter-dan-bloom-on-screening/

    AND in other languages, how does one different reading text on paper
    surface to reading text on a screen online? Do tell.

    Email me offline for any followups too.

    danbloom AT gmail DOT com
    danbloom, Feb 27, 2009
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. danbloom

    Don Stauffer Guest

    I do NOT share your concern. To me the term reading does not limit the
    medium. I read writing on billboards, movie screens, CRTs, or whatever.

    I never could see why keyboarding was not typing :-(

    danbloom wrote:
    > Reading on paper vs "screening" online and "screening" on a Kindle
    > Screener
    >
    > I am curious to know if any other people here share my concerns about
    > the need for a new word in English, and other languages, too, for
    > READING ONLINE, to differentiate this activity from reading on paper,
    > which is a very different animal.
    >
    > See two blogs I am on here: one in China, the other in USA:
    >
    > http://zippy1300.blogspot.com
    >
    > http://www.36pr.com/2009/02/27/6-on-36-qa-with-taiwan-based-reporter-dan-bloom-on-screening/
    >
    > AND in other languages, how does one different reading text on paper
    > surface to reading text on a screen online? Do tell.
    >
    > Email me offline for any followups too.
    >
    > danbloom AT gmail DOT com
    Don Stauffer, Feb 27, 2009
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. danbloom

    Spamm Trappe Guest

    Re: Reading on paper vs "screening" online and "screening" on a Kindle Screener

    On Fri, 27 Feb 2009 05:23:05 -0800 (PST), danbloom wrote:
    >
    > I am curious to know if any other people here share my concerns about
    > the need for a new word in English, and other languages, too, for
    > READING ONLINE,


    sigh... Another frickin' google groper.

    I am curious *why you think this is On Topic in rec.photo.digital* !!
    Spamm Trappe, Feb 27, 2009
    #3
  4. danbloom

    ASAAR Guest

    Re: Reading on paper vs "screening" online and "screening" on a Kindle Screener

    On Sat, 28 Feb 2009 02:25:07 -0600, Ron Hunter wrote:

    > I do virtually all my reading from the computer screen. While the
    > Kindle is a step in the right direction, technologically, marketing-wise
    > it is unsupportable. The initial cost is outrageously high. If it is
    > possible to build, and sell, a laptop computer with HD and color screen,
    > and DVD drive, and Wi-Fi, and all the other features normally found in
    > them, including a keyboard, for $350, why is it that the Kindle sells
    > for the same price?


    When CD drives finally arrived (after what seemed like a decade of
    hype) they cost more than most people could afford. A few years
    later prices dropped from their stratospheric level and for only
    several hundred dollars, I owned my first CD drive. I don't recall
    if it was 1x or 2x. Another couple of years later I bought a very
    nice external 3x NEC CD drive, also for several hundred dollars. As
    more and more people bought the things, they became commodities and
    prices plunged. Your memory must be declining rapidly if you don't
    recall that early adopters almost always pay outrageously high
    prices. The Kindle's price is on the low side of outrageous, but if
    it catches on, it (and Sony's Reader) will eventually sell for well
    under $100.


    > If the people selling the Kindle would use the Gillette marketing
    > principle, and sell the Kindle for $89, and make their money selling
    > access to newly released novels, then they would make more money,
    > and printed books would be on their way into history.


    You aren't familiar with Kindle sales. The demand greatly exceeds
    Amazon's ability to produce and sell them. Since they were
    introduced most of those that bought them had to get on a waiting
    list and wait several weeks to a month or two to get one. That's
    the main reason why I haven't bought a Kindle. When I was tempted
    last November, the chances of one arriving before Christmas seemed
    pretty low. Many people (on Amazon's own Kindle "forum") told of
    being quoted a 4 to 6 week wait, and a month after ordering one,
    were told the wait would be at least another 4 to 6 weeks.


    > As it is now, I don't have the least interest in one.


    Amazon probably hasn't the least interest in selling you one. For
    now. <g>

    It's not only about reading novels. If you subscribe to many
    newspapers and magazines, it takes only a couple of seconds to
    download the latest copies each morning using the built-in (free)
    wireless hardware. The just introduced new version (Kindle 2?) can
    also save you the effort of reading, but its electronic voice sounds
    pretty awful according to Jeff Bezos. That will also improve with
    time if the Kindle survives. For now, I have little interest in
    this feature, but many others with extremely poor vision probably
    think differently.
    ASAAR, Feb 28, 2009
    #4
  5. danbloom

    Ray Fischer Guest

    Ron Hunter <> wrote:
    >I do virtually all my reading from the computer screen. While the
    >Kindle is a step in the right direction, technologically, marketing-wise
    >it is unsupportable. The initial cost is outrageously high.


    $360 is "outrageously high"?

    How much did you pay for your camera?

    > If it is
    >possible to build, and sell, a laptop computer with HD and color screen,
    >and DVD drive, and Wi-Fi, and all the other features normally found in
    >them, including a keyboard, for $350, why is it that the Kindle sells
    >for the same price?


    It's NOT a computer. It's a book reader. The technonology is very different.
    For example: How many days does a laptop battery last?

    --
    Ray Fischer
    Ray Fischer, Feb 28, 2009
    #5
  6. danbloom

    J. Clarke Guest

    Re: Reading on paper vs "screening" online and "screening" on a Kindle Screener

    Ray Fischer wrote:
    > Ron Hunter <> wrote:
    >> I do virtually all my reading from the computer screen. While the
    >> Kindle is a step in the right direction, technologically,
    >> marketing-wise it is unsupportable. The initial cost is
    >> outrageously high.

    >
    > $360 is "outrageously high"?
    >
    > How much did you pay for your camera?


    What difference does that make? That's like saying that the price of a
    frying pan is not "outrageously high" because it doesn't cost more than
    one's airplane. A Kindle is not a camera. It is a poor replacement for a
    paperback book.

    >> If it is
    >> possible to build, and sell, a laptop computer with HD and color
    >> screen, and DVD drive, and Wi-Fi, and all the other features
    >> normally found in them, including a keyboard, for $350, why is it
    >> that the Kindle sells for the same price?

    >
    > It's NOT a computer. It's a book reader. The technonology is very
    > different. For example: How many days does a laptop battery last?


    Well, actually it _is_ a computer. It's a crippled computer that doesn't do
    anything but download and display books but it's a computer. As for the the
    technology being "very different", no, it's not. It's digital electronics.
    The battery life comes from using some kind of specialized display and
    limiting both the available storage and the performance.

    Amazon's problem with it is that (a) they don't seem to be able to get
    production ramped up and (b) it's really something best suited to a
    razor/blades marketing model.
    J. Clarke, Feb 28, 2009
    #6
  7. danbloom

    Ray Fischer Guest

    Re: Reading on paper vs "screening" online and "screening" on a Kindle Screener

    J. Clarke <> wrote:
    >Ray Fischer wrote:
    >> Ron Hunter <> wrote:


    >>> I do virtually all my reading from the computer screen. While the
    >>> Kindle is a step in the right direction, technologically,
    >>> marketing-wise it is unsupportable. The initial cost is
    >>> outrageously high.

    >>
    >> $360 is "outrageously high"?
    >>
    >> How much did you pay for your camera?

    >
    >What difference does that make? That's like saying that the price of a
    >frying pan is not "outrageously high" because it doesn't cost more than
    >one's airplane. A Kindle is not a camera. It is a poor replacement for a
    >paperback book.


    Is it a "poor replacement" for a thousand paperback books,
    several newspapers, and a bookstore?

    >>> If it is
    >>> possible to build, and sell, a laptop computer with HD and color
    >>> screen, and DVD drive, and Wi-Fi, and all the other features
    >>> normally found in them, including a keyboard, for $350, why is it
    >>> that the Kindle sells for the same price?

    >>
    >> It's NOT a computer. It's a book reader. The technonology is very
    >> different. For example: How many days does a laptop battery last?

    >
    >Well, actually it _is_ a computer.


    Don't play word games with me. I don't have the patience.

    > It's a crippled computer that doesn't do
    >anything but download and display books but it's a computer.


    Just like a microwave oven is a crippled computer than doesn't do
    anything by heat food and act as a timer.

    > As for the the
    >technology being "very different", no, it's not.


    How many days does your laptop battery last?

    --
    Ray Fischer
    Ray Fischer, Feb 28, 2009
    #7
  8. danbloom

    ASAAR Guest

    Re: Reading on paper vs "screening" online and "screening" on a Kindle Screener

    On Sat, 28 Feb 2009 13:44:18 -0500, J. Clarke wrote:

    > What difference does that make? That's like saying that the price of a
    > frying pan is not "outrageously high" because it doesn't cost more than
    > one's airplane. A Kindle is not a camera. It is a poor replacement for a
    > paperback book.


    It's not for everyone, but as a publisher mentioned several months
    ago (during an interview on CSPAN's Book-TV) most people in the
    industry now use Kindles and Sony Readers, which among other things
    means that many of them no longer have to trudge from home to the
    office and back with one or several dozen books. I don't recall the
    exact percentage mentioned, but it was either 95% or 98%. This does
    seem like an exaggeration, but that's what she said, and probably is
    true at least in spirit.

    As far as being a poor replacement for *any* kind of book is
    concerned, I recall being frustrated years before the advent of
    personal computers by not being able to easily find some phrases or
    passages in books that I was reading. Being able to search is one
    reasons why I almost exclusively go to my computer to read PDF
    camera manuals instead of the paper variety (which often aren't
    included). I've got all of my camera, flash, lens and other PDF
    manuals on my Sony Reader, and it's about as portable as a single
    thin, large format paperback.


    >> It's NOT a computer. It's a book reader. The technonology is very
    >> different. For example: How many days does a laptop battery last?

    >
    > Well, actually it _is_ a computer. It's a crippled computer that doesn't do
    > anything but download and display books but it's a computer. As for the the
    > technology being "very different", no, it's not. It's digital electronics.
    > The battery life comes from using some kind of specialized display and
    > limiting both the available storage and the performance.


    That's almost totally wrong. Would you describe electronic
    watches, coffee makers, toasters and other appliances, autos,
    portable radios and TVs as being "crippled" computers? The built-in
    memory can hold dozens of large novels, and by using expansion cards
    (Sony's reader allows Memory Sticks and SDHC cards to be used
    simultaneously) you can go much higher, up to thousands of books per
    card. Of course there's a limit there, but it's more than most
    people will read in a lifetime. The Kindle also uses cellular phone
    technology, but unlike with the phones, there's no monthly or yearly
    data subscription plan to buy. It's free, other than the cost of
    the books, newspapers or magazines that you pay for. And you don't
    have to even pay for any books if you'll be satisfied with DOC
    files, unencrypted PDF files, text files and any of hundreds of
    thousands of free/public domain ebooks.

    The battery life is huge (at least for the Sony Readers) because
    the battery usage is almost non-existent for anything but turning
    pages. Battery life isn't measured in hours, days, weeks or months.
    It's measure in "page turns", and the batteries are good for about
    7,000 pages changes per charge. Whether you take 5 seconds or 5
    minutes to read a page, the batteries won't really notice, unlike
    most laptops and PDAs. To save battery power the reader CPU is
    intentionally throttled, so turning a page can take a second or so.
    That's certainly acceptable to me if the alternative would be faster
    page turns but with only 1/2 the number of turned pages per charge.

    The readers can also act as mp3 players (at increased battery
    usage) and photo viewers, albeit with poor image quality and no
    color, for now at least.
    ASAAR, Feb 28, 2009
    #8
  9. danbloom

    Dave Cohen Guest

    Rich wrote:
    > danbloom <> wrote in
    > news::
    >
    >> Reading on paper vs "screening" online and "screening" on a Kindle
    >> Screener
    >>
    >> I am curious to know if any other people here share my concerns about
    >> the need for a new word in English, and other languages, too, for
    >> READING ONLINE, to differentiate this activity from reading on paper,
    >> which is a very different animal.
    >>
    >> See two blogs I am on here: one in China, the other in USA:
    >>
    >> http://zippy1300.blogspot.com
    >>
    >> http://www.36pr.com/2009/02/27/6-on-36-qa-with-taiwan-based-reporter-da
    >> n-bloom-on-screening/
    >>
    >> AND in other languages, how does one different reading text on paper
    >> surface to reading text on a screen online? Do tell.
    >>
    >> Email me offline for any followups too.
    >>
    >> danbloom AT gmail DOT com

    >
    > Kindle = overpriced piece of s---. Just another toy for Americans to buy
    > to get deeper into credit debt.


    Another well thought out response from one often proffering such little
    gems of bias.
    I did some searching on the subject a while back but for me it would be
    a luxury. I did conclude that if you are loading from the computer, the
    Sony is the better choice. Be aware though that there is an outfit
    developing a plastic display unit which would be less fragile than
    current offerings.
    As for overpriced toy, for college kids sporting a backbreaking load of
    books, it could be rather an attractive toy if someone makes material
    available.
    Dave Cohen
    Dave Cohen, Mar 1, 2009
    #9
  10. Re: Reading on paper vs "screening" online and "screening" on a Kindle Screener

    Ron Hunter wrote:
    []
    > Maybe schools should become interested in it as a way to buy
    > textbooks, and reduce the outrageous load our children cart around in
    > the backpacks these days....


    Feel lucky the school-children can read. Many here cannot, despite
    schooling, and probably even more cannot do simple maths. As for
    operating a camera correctly....

    David
    David J Taylor, Mar 1, 2009
    #10
  11. danbloom

    ASAAR Guest

    Re: Reading on paper vs "screening" online and "screening" on a Kindle Screener

    On Sun, 01 Mar 2009 02:58:24 -0600, Ron Hunter wrote:

    >> The readers can also act as mp3 players (at increased battery
    >> usage) and photo viewers, albeit with poor image quality and no
    >> color, for now at least.

    >
    > When it can offer color, and a lower price, I might be interested, but
    > not at this point. I waited from 1967 to 1981 for computers to reach my
    > specifications for buying one, so I am quite patient.
    >
    > Maybe schools should become interested in it as a way to buy textbooks,
    > and reduce the outrageous load our children cart around in the backpacks
    > these days....


    That's the best use I've heard for them so far. The only problem
    is how to justify allowing a semester's worth of books that can fit
    on a chip, that takes only minutes to download and charging the
    credit card $500 to $1,000 for the lot. For textbook publishers and
    their cronies in colleges and school boards to accept this there'll
    have to be a lot of arm twisting. Or perhaps neck wringing. :)
    ASAAR, Mar 1, 2009
    #11
  12. danbloom

    J. Clarke Guest

    Re: Reading on paper vs "screening" online and "screening" on a Kindle Screener

    David J Taylor wrote:
    > Ron Hunter wrote:
    > []
    >> Maybe schools should become interested in it as a way to buy
    >> textbooks, and reduce the outrageous load our children cart around in
    >> the backpacks these days....

    >
    > Feel lucky the school-children can read. Many here cannot, despite
    > schooling, and probably even more cannot do simple maths. As for
    > operating a camera correctly....


    What textbooks can you get for it? And how resistant is it to being eaten
    by dogs?
    J. Clarke, Mar 1, 2009
    #12
  13. danbloom

    dj_nme Guest

    ASAAR wrote:
    > On Sun, 01 Mar 2009 02:58:24 -0600, Ron Hunter wrote:
    >
    >>> The readers can also act as mp3 players (at increased battery
    >>> usage) and photo viewers, albeit with poor image quality and no
    >>> color, for now at least.

    >> When it can offer color, and a lower price, I might be interested, but
    >> not at this point. I waited from 1967 to 1981 for computers to reach my
    >> specifications for buying one, so I am quite patient.
    >>
    >> Maybe schools should become interested in it as a way to buy textbooks,
    >> and reduce the outrageous load our children cart around in the backpacks
    >> these days....

    >
    > That's the best use I've heard for them so far. The only problem
    > is how to justify allowing a semester's worth of books that can fit
    > on a chip, that takes only minutes to download and charging the
    > credit card $500 to $1,000 for the lot.


    It would seem hard to justify the same price for a digital version as a
    print version: no ink, paper, printing machines, nor physical
    distribution is required.
    There is the added "fun" of lecturers having an extra income stream by
    selling there own textbook to their students, and just switching
    chapters around so that last year's edition isn't easy to use.
    Several courses that I've done have had lecturers/teacher notorious for
    doing this.

    > For textbook publishers and
    > their cronies in colleges and school boards to accept this there'll
    > have to be a lot of arm twisting. Or perhaps neck wringing. :)


    Naming and shaming those who have a vested interest in keeping textbook
    prices high might be a good start.
    dj_nme, Mar 1, 2009
    #13
  14. danbloom

    danbloom Guest

    Re: Reading on paper vs "screening" online and "screening" on aKindle Screener

    Thanks for all the good replies......a reporter for the Associated
    Press wants to do a story on this topic, reading versus screening, and
    is there a difference, and wonder if anyone here would be willing to
    give a quote, pro or con, on this topic when he is ready to start his
    reporting? Leave notes below or email me offline. -- Danny

    One man, a poet in SF, told me today re this topic:

    "Danny, That's right. The info comes in too fast, too easily and sans
    "friction." IT DON'T STICK!"
    AH

    What's your take on this, pro or con?
    DANNY
    Tufts 1971, not a spammer

    > I am curious to know if any other people here share my
    > concerns about
    > the need for a new word in English, and other languages,
    > too, for
    > READING ONLINE, to differentiate this activity from reading
    > on paper,
    > which is a very different animal.
    >
    > See two blogs I am on here: one in China, the other in USA:
    >
    > http://zippy1300.blogspot.com
    >
    > http://www.36pr.com/2009/02/27/6-on-36-qa-with-taiwan-based-reporter-dan-bloom-on-screening/
    danbloom, Mar 2, 2009
    #14
  15. Re: Reading on paper vs "screening" online and "screening" on a Kindle Screener

    Ron Hunter wrote:
    []
    > I didn't say they could read, only that they had to carry around a
    > back-breaking load of books.


    Touché!

    > I am a substitute teacher, mainly 5th
    > and 6th grades, and the load some of these kids come to school with
    > would break down a camel, or pack mule.


    I don't know your system - what age range?
    I don't remember this as an issue at all back in the 1960s UK education.

    I wonder whether there is far /too/ much information being crammed into
    these pupils, rather than concentrating on the basics and teaching them
    how to learn for themselves?

    > It seems to me that issuing a CD for use at home would cover the need
    > for a printed book for most of them, and would save a LOT of trees,
    > and reduce cost for the schools.


    ... and perhaps make it a slightly more attractive way to read the content,
    not to mention search ability.

    > A Kindle wouldn't really serve the need at this time, but the idea of
    > a general purpose reader certainly has merit.


    ... or, put the books up on the Web with password-controlled access?

    When I went on my recent Major Trip - I took PDFs of all the manuals I
    needed on the portable PC. Actually looked at two of them (the Nikon D60
    and the radio scanner)! Convenient in the cabin, and no extra weight or
    space, but not as nice as glancing at them on deck in the sunshine or
    snow-shower!

    Cheers,
    David
    David J Taylor, Mar 2, 2009
    #15
  16. Re: Reading on paper vs "screening" online and "screening" on a Kindle Screener

    David J Taylor <-this-bit.nor-this.co.uk> wrote:
    > Ron Hunter wrote:


    >> I am a substitute teacher, mainly 5th
    >> and 6th grades, and the load some of these kids come to school with
    >> would break down a camel, or pack mule.


    > I don't know your system - what age range?
    > I don't remember this as an issue at all back in the 1960s UK education.


    > I wonder whether there is far /too/ much information being crammed into
    > these pupils, rather than concentrating on the basics and teaching them
    > how to learn for themselves?


    If the information was in the kid's brains they wouldn't have to carry
    all those books around. The weight of the schoolbag is a measure of
    the schoolkid's ignorance.

    --
    Chris Malcolm
    Chris Malcolm, Mar 2, 2009
    #16
  17. danbloom

    J. Clarke Guest

    Re: Reading on paper vs "screening" online and "screening" on a Kindle Screener

    Chris Malcolm wrote:
    > David J Taylor
    > <-this-bit.nor-this.co.uk> wrote:
    >> Ron Hunter wrote:

    >
    >>> I am a substitute teacher, mainly 5th
    >>> and 6th grades, and the load some of these kids come to school with
    >>> would break down a camel, or pack mule.

    >
    >> I don't know your system - what age range?
    >> I don't remember this as an issue at all back in the 1960s UK
    >> education.

    >
    >> I wonder whether there is far /too/ much information being crammed
    >> into these pupils, rather than concentrating on the basics and
    >> teaching them how to learn for themselves?

    >
    > If the information was in the kid's brains they wouldn't have to carry
    > all those books around. The weight of the schoolbag is a measure of
    > the schoolkid's ignorance.


    Huh? The kid doesn't get to decide what books the school issues him, and if
    his homework is "do exercises in all these books" and if if his teacher is
    going to chalk him for not having the book in the classroom, then I don't
    see how he has much choice about what books he's going to carry, even if he
    knows the material cold.
    J. Clarke, Mar 2, 2009
    #17
  18. danbloom

    tony cooper Guest

    Re: Reading on paper vs "screening" online and "screening" on a Kindle Screener

    On Mon, 2 Mar 2009 17:47:58 -0500, "J. Clarke"
    <> wrote:

    >Chris Malcolm wrote:
    >> David J Taylor
    >> <-this-bit.nor-this.co.uk> wrote:
    >>> Ron Hunter wrote:

    >>
    >>>> I am a substitute teacher, mainly 5th
    >>>> and 6th grades, and the load some of these kids come to school with
    >>>> would break down a camel, or pack mule.

    >>
    >>> I don't know your system - what age range?
    >>> I don't remember this as an issue at all back in the 1960s UK
    >>> education.

    >>
    >>> I wonder whether there is far /too/ much information being crammed
    >>> into these pupils, rather than concentrating on the basics and
    >>> teaching them how to learn for themselves?

    >>
    >> If the information was in the kid's brains they wouldn't have to carry
    >> all those books around. The weight of the schoolbag is a measure of
    >> the schoolkid's ignorance.

    >
    >Huh? The kid doesn't get to decide what books the school issues him, and if
    >his homework is "do exercises in all these books" and if if his teacher is
    >going to chalk him for not having the book in the classroom, then I don't
    >see how he has much choice about what books he's going to carry, even if he
    >knows the material cold.
    >

    Exactly. And, if the kid's school doesn't have locker space
    available, he or she is required to tote the books back and forth.



    --
    Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida
    tony cooper, Mar 2, 2009
    #18
  19. Re: Reading on paper vs "screening" online and "screening" on a Kindle Screener

    In article <>, Chris Malcolm
    <> writes
    >David J Taylor <-this-bit.nor-this.co.uk> wrote:
    >> Ron Hunter wrote:

    >
    >>>the load some of these kids come to school with
    >>> would break down a camel, or pack mule.

    >
    >If the information was in the kid's brains they wouldn't have to carry
    >all those books around. The weight of the schoolbag is a measure of
    >the schoolkid's ignorance.
    >

    Or a measure of their ability and willingless to learn.
    --
    Kennedy
    Yes, Socrates himself is particularly missed;
    A lovely little thinker, but a bugger when he's pissed.
    Python Philosophers (replace 'nospam' with 'kennedym' when replying)
    Kennedy McEwen, Mar 3, 2009
    #19
  20. Re: Reading on paper vs "screening" online and "screening" on a Kindle Screener

    Ron Hunter wrote:
    > David J Taylor wrote:
    >> Ron Hunter wrote:
    >> []
    >>> I didn't say they could read, only that they had to carry around a
    >>> back-breaking load of books.

    >>
    >> Touché!
    >>
    >>> I am a substitute teacher, mainly 5th
    >>> and 6th grades, and the load some of these kids come to school with
    >>> would break down a camel, or pack mule.

    >>
    >> I don't know your system - what age range?
    >> I don't remember this as an issue at all back in the 1960s UK
    >> education.

    >
    > Age range for 5th and 6th grade here is 10-12.
    >
    >> I wonder whether there is far /too/ much information being crammed
    >> into these pupils, rather than concentrating on the basics and
    >> teaching them how to learn for themselves?
    >>

    >
    > A lot of time and effort is spent trying to make sure the students
    > pass their standardized tests at each level. So much classroom time
    > is spent on this that there is little time to spend on the drill and
    > practice needed to permanently imprint on their brains the basic math
    > facts. VERY little time is spent on science, relative to things like
    > history and literature. Math consumes much time, but seems to do
    > little good as much time is wasted on preparation for the
    > standardized tests.
    >
    >>> It seems to me that issuing a CD for use at home would cover the
    >>> need for a printed book for most of them, and would save a LOT of
    >>> trees, and reduce cost for the schools.

    >>
    >> .. and perhaps make it a slightly more attractive way to read the
    >> content, not to mention search ability.
    >>

    > It odes appear that modern kids like to mix technology with their
    > learning, and that is fine.
    >
    >>> A Kindle wouldn't really serve the need at this time, but the idea
    >>> of a general purpose reader certainly has merit.

    >>
    >> .. or, put the books up on the Web with password-controlled access?
    >>

    >
    > That would be good for those who have computers, and fast internet
    > access. Sadly, the ones who most need the extra access are the ones
    > who are least likely to have that access.


    Ron,

    I'm having difficulties relating what you are saying to my own experience.
    Admittedly, that was some 50 years ago. Of course we had textbooks, but
    we learnt a lot from what the teachers said as well. Our books were no
    difficulty to carry, being A5 size (210 x 148mm) and perhaps 15-20mm
    thick. We had a fixed "form" classroom, and moved to other classrooms for
    particular subjects. Time lost was minimal, and you needed the exercise
    in any case. We never had lockers (although space was provided for
    clothes in changing rooms, but not locked space).

    This was for secondary school - after age 11. Tests were at age 11
    (secondary school selection), about 15 and about 17 (university
    selection). Nothing on a national level in-between.

    Different times, different country, different system!

    Cheers,
    David
    David J Taylor, Mar 3, 2009
    #20
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. James
    Replies:
    21
    Views:
    2,002
    Governor Swill
    Jan 27, 2005
  2. nobody nowhere

    Permajet paper and ink to replace Epson paper and ink?

    nobody nowhere, Aug 30, 2003, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    2,030
    Rafe B.
    Aug 31, 2003
  3. Writer R5
    Replies:
    78
    Views:
    1,709
    Eric R.
    Aug 31, 2004
  4. DVD ROM not reading DVDs but reading CDs

    , May 22, 2006, in forum: Computer Information
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    519
  5. danbloom
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    327
    Spamm Trappe
    Mar 2, 2009
Loading...

Share This Page