Re: The World is Flat
From categories:
page 1123...next »

Thank you for the review of the book “Are We Puppets in a Wired World?”. Well, after reading your post, I decided to read it. It seems to me that I can get a lot of information from the book for my research paper.

I personally don’t see this as anything different than what we’re already used to. We are constantly monitored with location services and other data-collecting services, similar to Hadoop. Like Jonathan said, we’re all used to being semi-monitored. If my mouse hovers over an advertisement for a shoe website, does that really give that much away about me? No…it lets advertising companies know that I am the typical 21-year old female college student.

I think we are desensitized. People used to be paranoid about putting their credit card information online. Of course some people still are, but I know I don’t think twice about ordering something online—from Amazon, eBay, or just about any other franchise. Despite this being a different type of data “collection,” it can still be targeted.
We talked about an example in class of a couple buying a backpack and a pressure cooker at separate times, but still being questioned about possibly building a bomb. This is a similar type of targeting that we don’t even realize is happening. Overall, I think the possible implementation of this new Facebook cursor monitoring will have little to no effect on the average Facebook user.

I agree that this article produces conflict when deciding whether to support or oppose these bionic limbs, and what I am more interested in, artificial organs.

I'll start by stating that the bionic limbs can be significantly discouraged for those who do not need them. If people trying to use these artificial limbs just to become faster and not out of necessity, there are measures we can take to prevent those people from seeing any advantage from that. Chances are, if people are willing to substitute a fake leg for a real one, they're looking to see a significant positive outcome from that, possibly get into professional sports. But if our major sports leagues want to keep the artificial, non-essential limbs out of sports, they can simply ban them (and it would be much easier to catch potential “cheaters” through visual examination than it is to catch steroid users in pro sports).

If all of our pro sports ban the use of artificial limbs, then wouldn't people see that there isn't really any reason to use them?

When it comes to artificial organs, I think this kind of technology would be wonderful, though it is still scary to think about. As a person who may have to consider a kidney transplant somewhere in the near future, it would be nice to know that if I didn't have a donor, I could rest easy knowing that there is an organ that has been created just to put in the place of my bad one. Though it would be a brand new technology and might have a thousand risks of its own, it could one day be a nice alternative to patients waiting on transplant lists, even to the point of death since they didn't have a donor.

I started reading this article with the same skepticism that many of you did – the way Honan started off was definitely very pompous, and for good reason; it made his conclusion all that more powerful. I very much agree that it has everything to do with us and not our smartphones – and this ties very much into another article we’ve discussed on these forums about cell phone addiction.

It’s up to us to make the decision to “get away from it all” and we shouldn’t pretend that our smartphones and GPS signals and Zuckerburg are producing an inescapable cacophony of information overload. We can control how much contact we are in and what tools we decide to use and when – if it’s the other way around and you don’t have that kind of control then you are never going to “get away from it all” no matter where in the world you go.

I agree with Jonathan that you really can’t draw the line – how is the man who sits atop a mountain and writes his thoughts down in a journal any different from the man who wants to capture its beauty in a picture? It’s really in the eye of the beholder and yes, each older generation will romanticize about its past and how they really lived life. In a similar vein, our parents will refer to the music industry and say, “all the good music was already made, they only make crap anymore” – well chances are their parents thought their music was crap.

So, in the end – no one looking to roam the wilderness and get away from it all can really judge another who is trying to do the same thing (I mean you will, I know I will because I can’t help it) but like Honan says: “Here’s a better idea: Shut up and bring your iPhone into the backcountry, but resist the urge to open the email app. If you can’t manage that, delete or turn off the account. Don’t worry, it’ll come back”. But don’t feel bad for using your smartphone to enhance your experience - I personally, have had a great experience using my smartphone to look at constellations – to each their own!

In my opinion, it doesn't matter much if Facebook uses data regarding my mouse curser and how long it hovers over different objects on the screen. While this might be considered an invasion of privacy to some, I don't really think it effects the user very much as long as the data isn't being used in a horrible way.

In fact, aren't there already other, more concerning data collection techniques, or at least techniques in development? I'm not exactly sure if this was ever implemented, but I remember the idea of anazlyzing where internet user's eyes were drawn, how long they stayed fixed on that thing (I think mainly advertisements), and when the eyes looked away. Was this through the use of a webcam? This type of thing is much more privacy infringing, and I, for one, would hate to know that this was being used on me. If they start using this technique, what other kind of methods might they start using? I'm already so paranoid about cameras. At one point, I had a piece of paper taped to my webcam as a way of covering it up.

Nonetheless, I think the use of this technology would be perfectly acceptable. It's definitely a much less creepy way of collecting data in order to improve their site than the eye-movement technique.

I think there are definitely still ways for people to enjoy “getting away from it all” whether it’s in the wilderness or another place of their choosing. But whether this means completely giving up technology for a while or just choosing to use it less is the individual user’s choice – in the end, it’s all relative. I think the important thing to focus on is the reason behind our desire to constantly use technology wherever we go and for whatever we’re doing, regardless of whether it’s actually enhancing our present experience or not.

To use Honan’s example, if you’re traveling in the wilderness it would probably be unwise to completely get rid of technology. In this case, using a gps actually has the power to heighten our experiences because we won’t have to worry about getting lost or constantly be fiddling with our map or compass. However, would checking our emails in the woods enrich our experiences in that current moment? Personally I don’t think so. If I came across a breathtaking view, I would want to both enjoy the scenery in the moment and also take photos because like Angela said, my memory would do it no justice and a camera would at least do it some. However, my statement seems pretty contradictory. Can I really be completely involved in the moment if I’m taking pictures or thinking of eventually taking pictures? I think it’s possible to do both but you have to make the distinction that the reason you are hiking up a trail is to the get to that view on the top in order to personally experience it in all its glory and physicality. The picture-taking is just an afterthought in order to record it for later. But if the main reason you’re hiking up there is to take a picture to prove that you were there without truly stopping to experience it, that’s a problem. Or at least I think so.

Seeing as how popular this article is, I felt that I had to reply to it just to keep up with the rest of the class. That attitude certainly does not reflect the use of my smart phone though. In fact, I think I can honestly say that I'm not addicted to my smart phone.

I use my smart phone for all kinds of things, but most of them are necessary tasks. Things like paying bills, making very rare phone calls (mostly to my parents) every once in a blue moon, and texting when I need to communicate with someone but not constantly throughout the day are what I use my phone for. The other reason that I love my smart phone (and perhaps this does make me addicted?) is that when I'm in the car listening to the radio and a new song comes out that I immediately fall in love with, SoundHound is just a click away at telling me who the artist is and the song name so that I can later download it to my playlist.

I don't think that the use of my smartphone makes me addicted. It is nice to have the accessibility to communicate with people (in case of a flat tire, being stranded with no gas, etc.) Those are honestly the kinds of things that I worry about, and the reasons that I keep my phone with me when I'm traveling. Yes, I keep my phone with me throughout the day, but that's because of how I was brought up to use my cell phone. My parents gave me a cell phone when I was 14, and it was only because I was out of the house so much since I was a competitive swimmer. They wanted to be able to get in contact with me in case there was an emergency, and vice versa. That is still how I use my phone now a days. Granted, my boyfriend and I text back and forth a few times about what we want for dinner or what we want to plan for that night a couple times throughout the day, but I'm by no means glued to my phone. I would feel perfectly fine without my phone for most hours throughout the day (so long as I wasn't traveling alone in a remote area, because as my luck would have it, that's when my car would break down).

Sorry to rain on your parade, but Facebook has always had advertisements on its website, that's its business model. The reason you may not have noticed them at the time was because they've since become incredibly intrusive, popping up on timelines and feeds instead of being relegated to the sidebar (where they belong, if you ask me). But I think the fact that you don't remember ads on Facebook back in 2008 is actually very indicative of the shift that online advertising has undertaken.

It seems that there has been a loss of confidence in the online advertising model as adblockers become a more and more common thing. Companies have responded by placing ads more front and center, even going so far as to disguise them as content as Facebook does. Advertisers want eyeballs on their adverts, it's as simple as that. And websites that can all but guarantee that people look are likely guaranteed a larger ad revenue stream.

As our government cedes power to large corporations and their interests, the idea of a faction such as Silicon Valley seceding from the United States appears to be a looming reality… according to Balaji Srinivasan, at least. In an article titled “Silicon Valley dreams of secession,” Salon journalist Andrew Leonard examines a stunningly arrogant speech made by a Silicon Valley executive named Balaji Srinivasan. In his speech Srinivasan makes claims that Silicon Valley has already brought print journalism and the music industry to its knees in a relatively short time and that their next targets include advertising, television, and book publishing. That’s a really bold claim, and I’m not entirely sure it’s justified, at all, really.

While Srinivasan seems to think that 3-d printing and Bitcoin, which are both seemingly independent of government, will be able to liberate the people, I have many doubts that any government, let alone the U.S. government will ever willingly relinquish any of its perceived power over its own people, and it certainly still has the military might, should it come to such a thing, to ensure that it maintains its power.

However, science fiction authors such as Neal Stephenson have been writing since the 90s about the gradual creep of corporations into pseudo-governmental positions, even setting up territories where the law of the corporation is supreme. Whether science fiction has true predictive powers or whether it only appears that way in hindsight is yet to be determined, but it will be interesting to see what Silicon Valley’s next move will be now that it seems to have thrown down the proverbial gauntlet.

Will Oremus, a writer for slate.com and author of this article, may have sparked something greater than what this article had originally intended. He says, "…let's face it: Words are old hat. They're suboptimal from a UX perspective, because they're aesthetically monotonous, and their meaning is not always easily grasped at first glance. They demand of the user a form of engagement—"reading"—that can be mentally daunting. Some people can't do it at all. And even those who can are likely to find their attention straying if confronted with too many words at once. After a while, if they're not careful, the words all sort of run together and the eye begins to yearn for something more instantly gratifying upon which to alight." The fact of the matter is, it is very difficult to keep an individual's attention with just words. There now needs to be something more; something more visually appealing. And we see this with everything, as Oremus points out. Look at Snapchat and Pinterest and Instagram and Tumblr. They all "get it." But does this create something outside the realm of the web and social media? We see that words in that instance are a dying breed. But is this also true with human-to-human interaction? I believe that it could be, and we are slowly starting to see the aspect of language not necessarily dying out, but losing its importance.

This day in age, we are so focused on our technological devices (smart phones, iPads, computers, etc.), that we are losing touch with our personal communication skills. We are relying on technology to complete our day-to-day tasks and simply "do it for us." So as the web and social media continues to lose touch with words, what does this mean for our communication in general? Only time will tell what the future holds for our language as a whole.

This was a very interesting article, because it certainly left me with conflicting opinions and ideas. For one, as technology is evolving, it brings both positives and negatives as we all know. I think about all of the great medical breakthroughs that have occurred throughout history. Personally, I think it is incredible that we have something like pacemakers for those who need it; what a beautiful display of technology. I also think about what the future holds. Imagine our honorable soldiers who have lost limbs due to battle, or anyone missing limbs for whatever reason (maybe because of an accident or simply at birth). It would be great to witness a breakthrough where disabled individuals can have full artificial arms and legs. For one, it would make their quality of life significantly higher and more enjoyable. Because of this, it would make daily activities easier. For example, maybe we would see a father being able to play catch with his son once again. For these reasons alone, I fully support this main idea.

However, in this world, people tend to become a bit greedy. We all want to be better, faster and stronger in every way. Would I personally want to replace my arm so I could throw faster? Or my legs so I could run faster? No, absolutely not. But I am positive that there are many individuals in the world that would be interested in such a thing. As Susan mentioned, people already alter certain attributes through plastic surgery (which in some cases I can understand). In my opinion, a perfectly healthy person who replaces a limb just to become faster or stronger, etc. displays nothing but an insult to those who actually NEED a replacement.

All in all, I think these artificial organs and limbs will do more good than bad. I believe that it will be far down the road before we have to worry about the recreational use of this technological breakthrough.

As Jonathan said and Susan pointed out, the advertisers on the Internet are getting more "intimate" with us to simply make a profit. This seems to be a common theme that I have mentioned previously, but businesses will do anything these days to take your money. I remember joining Facebook back in 2008 I believe. There were no advertisements; it was simply a common thread where you could look at friends' pictures, statuses, etc. Fast-forward almost six years, and it seems to be nothing but a marketing website. As we've talked about in class, I see advertisements on Facebook for items that I had been previously searching. For example, my news feed has become cluttered with these awful, scamming bodybuilding ads after shopping for various supplements. It is creepy, and it is irritating, so much so that I will most likely be deleting my Facebook after my graduation. Unfortunately, we see this happening to sites like Twitter and YouTube as well. Now, to watch a video on YouTube, we have to sit through fifteen to thirty seconds of painful advertisements (thankfully we can skip the ad after 5 seconds usually) before we can watch our video. And now, as we scroll through Twitter, we see advertisements everywhere.

The bottom line: This is alarming. It is only 2013. In only two years time, the Internet is evolving faster than we can control. The masterminds behind the web are becoming increasingly intelligent, and they know exactly how to infiltrate our personal space on the Internet. The Internet will only get faster. Advertisers will develop a plan in which they will "get to know us" more than we want them to. So yes, we are in fact nothing but puppets in a wired world. We are really left with just two options. Either we accept what the future holds for us on the Internet, or we refuse to use it entirely (and let's be honest, nobody is really going to do that).

Google isn’t wrecking our memories but it is augmenting them. Alex brings up some good points from her psychology class (I too just recently had some lectures on memory) – mainly that using search engines like Google doesn’t destroy your memory, rather you memory reallocates its resources in a very efficient way. I don’t need to know when that last battle in WW1 was (especially since I can google it) but I do need to know when my anniversary is (this can mean life or death for some ;-) – so our memory adapts to the current set of circumstances, prioritizing what needs to remain at hand in our brains and deprioritizing those of lesser importance.

With, or without, Google our memory will always have plenty of things to keep it busy and in working order. Our short-term memories are laughable – half of us can’t remember where we put our car keys and that was way before Google, so no threat there – if anything, with all the multitasking, you’d think our short-term/working memory might actually evolve to increase. Our jobs, our passions, our episodes, etc. will always give our long-term memory something to do – who wants to offload something they are passionate about to Google? Being passionate about something or having an expertise on a subject involves accumulating that information, retaining it, and contemplating and reflecting on it with our experiences to form new ideas and new information. Google is a really useful tool that would simply augment your passion or expertise, not replace it.

I, like Angela, am someone who will try to remember something on my own first, especially if I think it is something that would benefit me to know on my own (such as her photoshop example). When I’m using any of the Adobe programs, if I know that I have accomplished a certain type of task before but don’t quite remember how I did it, I try my best recall the information on my own because I feel that is the best way to imprint it in my memory. The same goes for memorizing the meaning of words as in Samantha’s example - I try to recall it on my own first, then I double-check it to see if I was right or not – and in this case Google is only helping me increase my vocabulary.

Google isn’t wrecking our memories but it is influencing how we consciously and unconsciously use them in a mostly positive manner. Our memories are wired for efficiency and Google augments that efficiency.

In reply to your discussion, Susan, as well as Sue Haplern’s article, it seems as though we may not currently be “puppets in a wired world” moving to their every desire, but there are many businesses that aim to treat us as such—ignoring our individuality and exploiting our data for profit. Many online businesses that collect data from their users use it to tailor marketing strategies towards their users through algorithmic mining and interpretation of data. This is not surprising; however, I refuse to believe that anyone who sets out to make it big online and provide a service that will revolutionize our online sphere of activity is doing so out of the goodness in their heart (*cough* Silicon Valley *cough*). Their free service is intended to provide you with a means of accomplishing something that they deem necessary to your everyday life and then to make money off of those who use their service. (Pardon the following, as I am sure this will begin to sound like a rant.)

Granted, these services may remain free at any point in time, but they have to find the money to host their online activities and pay their staff—something I have no problem with as these are things lie at the core of any thriving business. However, this business model is not a simple equivalent exchange of services provided by the business to a customer for an upfront cost. Once that transaction is completed, there is nothing left to be had from either party. Conversely, online business models (like Google) have a tremendous amount to gain from someone using their service because it is so pervasive and they have the capacity to manipulate and sell your data even after you don’t use their service. In actuality, I think that Google (and sites like it) have the perfect business model:

  1. provide a service that is so convenient that people will use it almost unconsciously,
  2. provide it for free in order to gather more users and increase the aggregate data,
  3. begin by utilizing the data to cover hosting / processing / staffing,
  4. begin to mine data and algorithms towards increasing amounts of usability/ data / money,
  5. hire an amazing PR representative to level out the questions of “where does our data go?”, (and)
  6. profit exponentially.

They aren’t looking to “get to know us” or even to “improve their interface” for the betterment of the online community. They’re doing it for profit, plain and simple.

(Also, check out the embedded video of Jaron Lanier discussing something along these lines—though on a much more elaborate scale.)

I am definitely not “addicted” to my smartphone. I do sleep with it next to me but only for two reasons: 1.) to put me to sleep with an audiobook, and 2.) to wake me up with an alarm. The only reason I reach for it first thing in the morning is to turn off the alarm – I don’t bother checking for updates on anything until later in my morning routine. So, I have to agree with Hobs that the term “addiction” is getting thrown around quite loosely. My incorporation of my smartphone into my morning and rest-of-the-day routines is based on mild habits and not addiction. The reason I can make this distinction about myself is because of the control I exercise over my smartphone. I set up boundaries for when I do and do not check my smartphone.

For instance - let’s go with the morning example – this morning I woke up to my smartphone alarm and turned it off. I picked it up along with my glasses and water bottle and moved everything out to the coffee table in the living room. I make some coffee, feed the cats, wash up in the bathroom and then decide whether I am going to check my smartphone, watch a little Sports Center, or read a book to get my brain going for the day. These are all habits subordinate to my morning routine of getting some energy and brainpower to start the day. I controlled the order that I did things this morning as opposed to my smartphone controlling me.

I do the same when I am in my car or in class: in the car I will put the phone off to the side and in class I will usually put my phone in my backpack. Sometimes if my phone is not charged all the way and I know it will die on me, (gasp) I just leave it at home to charge by my desk. Sometimes I just plain forget it. I am completely OK with not being in touch (this may be due to the fact that I am an introvert) – but I like to be in control of when, where, and how I interact with people, not the other way around.

The only times that I do feel attached and glance at my phone when in the car or in class is when I am expecting something very important (time is of the essence, money is at stake) – I was trying to sell my tickets to the football game a few weeks ago and was constantly checking my phone to see who was responding to my time-sensitive-money issue (quite different from “needing” to check my social updates).

Though I don’t think that addiction to smartphones is near as pervasive as the author of the article makes it out to be – it has a serious enough presence to be considered a problem. It is possible that “smartphone addiction” is merely age-old boredom/procrastination/FOMO (fear of missing out) manifesting itself in a new way – maybe it’s always been there, we just see it more clearly now than ever before because there’s a physical object (that we hold up to our face) to tie it all to and blame it on.

In Laura Hood’s article “You May Want to Password-Protect Your Body” featured on Slate.com, Hood brings up how advances in healthcare means increasingly more technology being placed into our bodies (pacemakers, for example). What does this mean for the future? Bionic arms and legs already exist for people who have lost them, but it is certainly not the norm to replace our limbs just because we want a newer, better, faster, etc. ones. But somewhere in the future, maybe people will start replacing parts of themselves with technologically enhanced parts just because they can. People already undergo all kinds of cosmetic surgeries/procedures such as plastic surgery, tucks and lifts, and the like. It probably isn’t too inconceivable to postulate that somewhere along the lines people will want such extreme pieces of technology attached to them. If it becomes more of a “norm” as most things do after a period of time, there will definitely be people interested in improving themselves and who think this can only be done with such technological additions. For me, imagining more and more people walking down the street with bionic arms and legs seems very bizarre. Even if I had the option to replace a limb or organ just because it would be, say, stronger, I would not want to unless I had a real medical reason to do it. But perhaps this just speaks more to the fact that I’m not as concerned about more physique than others. Unless a body part begins to affect me negatively, I’m not convinced that it’s necessary to replace anything. Don’t fix it unless it’s broke, you could say. Regardless of my own opinions, I do agree with Hood that it’s important to consider these possibilities and begin engaging in discussion about what it might mean for the future.

I grab my smartphone first thing in the morning for two reasons 1) my phone has replaced my bulky alarm clock and 2) I don't have a regular cellphone to grab like our esteemed colleague, Jonathan Lutton.

I'll start by saying that I have many problems with this article—and the seemingly endless permutations of it that are all just trying to get advertising revenue from your click (seriously, haven't we all seen a million "you're addicted to your laptop/cellphone" articles), but my biggest problem with it, and the problem that I'm going to focus on, taking you all on a wild tangent with me for a moment, is that the author of the article has no idea what the word "addiction" means.

An addiction is not just a habitual, reflexive action, it is a habitual, reflexive, obsessive action that brings negative consequences into one's life. I'm afraid I only have this wiki article to back me up (httpCOLON//enDOTwikipediaDOTorg/wiki/Addiction), so you're going to have to trust me when I say that checking a smartphone app first thing in the morning is not an addiction, it is a habit and it can be resolved without a trip to a rehab clinic. The word "addiction" has become so sensationalized in articles and magazines that it has almost completely lost its meaning to a lot of people.

Now I know that some of you are pulling away from my argument, so let me bring things back by saying that yes, there are people in the world with legitimate addictions to certain aspects of technology (internet, phone, gaming, etc) that do need help. For example, there was a Korean couple that allowed their baby to die while they were playing World of Warcraft (httpCOLONwwwDOTeurogamerDOTnet/articles/news200605wowbaby). But there is a problem with overusing the term because it can become either an overlooked issue or something that becomes over-examined. In China, for example, internet addiction is perceived as a major national problem and camps very similar to "fat camps" have formed to combat this addiction. A few years ago, one such camp managed to kill a kid during its program (httpCOLONarticlesDOTlatimesDOTcom/2009/aug/22/world/fg-china-beatings22).

To sum up: yes, there are legitimate addictions, but most of us have simple incorporated the internet and technology into our daily lives and the line between use and addiction is not nearly so thin as some people would like to paint it.

I hate to be "that guy," but I really feel that I have no choice. According to Ian Betteridge's law of headlines, "any headline which ends in a question mark can be answered by the word no." And in this case, I think that even the author of this article doesn't put forth the idea that the internet will meet its demise.

What I think is most interesting about the article is that it reveals one of the inherent obstacles to progress in the tech world: patent protection laws. As it turns out, one of the major reasons that Diffie-Helman and RSA encryptions are the dominant encryption methods for use on the internet is because they are in the public domain, which means they are essentially free to implement and also likely have extensive documentation on proper implementation. It also highlights why more robust encryption methods like ECC are not being used (again, patent protections). This is only going to be a problem if nobody adopts the new encryption methods before the old ones are compromised, and, luckily, Google and Apple (who would have thought) already offer patent-free alternatives.

I think the only thing we're waiting for is a really big scare in terms of encryption algorithms; like say, announcing that they're compromised. But even if everything suddenly became compromised tonight, I would be shocked if large tech firms (Microsoft, Yahoo, Facebook, Amazon ,etc) didn't have an alternative ready to go for the following morning. There might be some collateral damage, but nothing close to what the article hints at.

However, if by "trust in the internet," the author means to imply that the internet is capable, or indeed is, buoyed by speculation, kind of like the stock market or global currency, then I would say that it's possible that some people might turn away from the internet… for a short while.

The first thing I do when I don’t remember something is Google it, but I don’t think it’s a big issue. If I do use Google to remind me of something I’ve forgotten, it’s generally a small thing: figuring out the title of a movie or the author of a book. It’s the little things that we forget over time. I’m not too concerned about Google “wrecking” my memory; I wouldn’t expect myself to remember these things anyway.

I don’t generally notice my dependence on it, but I can think of a few times when I’ve unnecessarily searched for something that I should have known. The only time it’s super noticeable is when I’m writing an essay or a creative piece. Occasionally as I write I’ll think of a word I haven’t used in a while and have to look it up. It generally looks fine in the sentence and Microsoft Word tells me I spelled it correctly, but I still Google the definition to figure out if it’s acceptable given the meaning of the sentence.

Thanks in part to our class discussions, I’ve begun to notice how much I use my laptop and phone. As soon as I get home from class or work, the first thing I do is open my laptop and check Tumblr and Twitter. I also set my phone on my kitchen table and don’t touch it again until the next day when I leave my apartment.

I’d hesitate to say that I’m not addicted to my smartphone, but I definitely am less attached to it then my laptop. When I wake up in the morning, I let my dog out, shower and make coffee before I turn on a single electronic device. It’s mostly because I’m trying to be time efficient, because Tumblr will suck you in for a minimum of ten minutes.

Since Susan admitted that she had committed most of the “Worst Smartphone Offenses” I took a look at it. Since I’m not big on my phone, I guess it comes as no surprise that I’ve done only one of these, though I don’t think changing music in the car really constitutes as using a phone while driving. My mother occasionally texts at the table and my entire family gets mad at her for being impolite, so it’s not something I would do.

Like Jonathan, I think that it’s unusual that Chicago has such a low percentage of people that check their Smartphone in the morning. When you compare it to all the other cities, it seems like something went wrong in their data collection or they didn’t survey enough people of various ages.

page 1123...next »