Tagged: Connectivity Toggle Comment Threads | Keyboard Shortcuts

  • Gerrit Eicker 07:00 on 12. January 2013 Permalink
    Tags: , Availability, , Connectivity, , , , , ,   

    Cell Phones: Worst Thing is Constant Availability 

    24% of cell owners say that the worst thing about cell phones is constant availability; http://eicker.at/MobileConnectivity

     
  • Gerrit Eicker 07:00 on 8. January 2013 Permalink
    Tags: , , Connectivity, , , , , , ,   

    Sleeping With The Cell Phone 

    44% of cell owners have slept with their phone next to their bed to not miss calls/updates; http://eicker.at/MobileConnectivity

     
  • Gerrit Eicker 07:00 on 19. December 2012 Permalink
    Tags: , , Connectivity, , , , , , ,   

    Mobile: Convenience and Connectivity 

    Mobile phone owners like the convenience and ease of connectivity; http://eicker.at/MobileConnectivity

     
  • Gerrit Eicker 17:25 on 6. December 2012 Permalink
    Tags: , Connectivity, , , , Mobile Connectivity, , , ,   

    Mobile Connectivity 

    Convenience lets mobile connectivity shine. Drawbacks: connections, interruptions, bills; http://eicker.at/MobileConnectivity

     
    • Gerrit Eicker 17:26 on 6. December 2012 Permalink | Reply

      Pew: “Mobile phone owners like the convenience and ease of connectivity, but rue that they can be interrupted more easily, have to pay the bills, and face bad connections. – Some 85% of American adults now own a cell phone of some kind, and these devices mean many things to their owners: an always-available link to friends and family, a pocket computer, or a time-saving tool – even an actual telephone. … 17% of cell owners say the best thing about their phone is that it is convenient. 12% like the ability to call or talk with others at any time. 11% like that their cell phone can help them get assistance in an emergency. 9% say that using the internet, email, or apps is the best thing about their mobile phone. 8% cite the ability to connect with family. … However, the convenience and constant connectivity that these mobile devices offer also comes with a downside in the form of annoyances, interruptions, and cost. … Overall, cell owners are far more likely to view their phone as a time-saver than as a time-waster. … For many cell owners, their phone is an essential utility that they check frequently, keep close by at all times, and would have trouble functioning without. – 67% of cell owners find themselves checking their phone for messages, alerts, or calls – even when they don’t notice their phone ringing or vibrating. … 44% of cell owners have slept with their phone next to their bed because they wanted to make sure they didn’t miss any calls, text messages, or other updates during the night. 29% of cell owners describe their cell phone as ‘something they can’t imagine living without.’

      Pew: “The Good and Bad of Cell Ownership – When it comes to the positive aspects of cell phone ownership: 17% of cell owners say that the best thing about their phone is that it is ‘convenient.’ 12% like the ability to call or talk with others at any time (this includes phrases such as ‘making phone calls,’ ‘talking with other people,’ or ‘calling whenever’). 11% like that their cell phone can help them get assistance in an emergency (this includes phrases such as ’emergencies,’ ‘safety,’ or ‘security’). … 24% of cell owners say that the worst thing about cell ownership is that they are constantly available and can be reached at any time. 15% say that the cost of cell ownership is the thing they like least. 12% cite problems with bad reception, poor signal, or dropped calls. 8% cite problems with battery life as the thing they like the least. 8% point to interruptions from telemarketers and other unwanted callers as their primary annoyance.”

      Pew: “Barriers to Adoption – Some 15% of US adults do not own a cell phone at all, and we presented these non-adopters with an open-ended question in which we asked them to tell us the main reason why they do not own one. The largest proportion of these non-owners say that a lack of need or interest is the main thing standing in their way: 38% don’t need a cell phone or are happy with their landline, while 11% say that they don’t like cell phones or simply aren’t interested in purchasing one. Economic factors are the second-most common reason given, as one in five non-owners (21%) say that they do not own a cell phone because they are too expensive. … What is keeping non-smartphone owners from upgrading? In addition to asking why people might not own a cell phone in the first place, we also asked the 40% of the population that owns cell phone but not a smartphone to tell us the main reason why they do not own a more advanced device. Overall, cost plays a much more prominent role for upgrading to a smartphone, than it does for deciding whether or not to get a cell phone in the first place. A total of 37% of non-smartphone owners mention price in one way or another as the main reason why they haven’t upgraded…”

      Pew: “The Impact of Mobile Phones on People’s Lives – When it comes to the positive impacts of cell phone ownership, fully two-thirds (65%) of cell owners say that mobile phones have made it ‘a lot’ easier to stay in touch with the people they care about, while just 6% say that their phone has not improved their connections with friends and family at all. Roughly half of cell owners say that their phone has made it at least somewhat easier to plan and schedule their daily routine, and to be productive while doing things like sitting in traffic or waiting in line. … Those from higher income households are more likely to say that their cell phone makes it easier to schedule their daily routine, and to be productive throughout the day. At the same time, cell owners with a household income of more than $75,000 per year are significantly more likely than other cell owners to say that their phone makes it harder to disconnect from the demands of the workplace. … Overall, cell owners are far more likely to view their phone as a time-saver than as a time-waster. Some 33% of cell owners agree with the statement that their phone ‘saves you time because you can always access the information you need,’ while just 3% agree with the statement that their phone ‘costs you time because you are constantly distracted or interrupted.’ The largest proportion of cell owners (56%) say that the time costs and time savings offered by cell phones pretty much balance each other out. – Smartphone owners have especially positive attitudes towards their phones’ time-saving capabilities. Some 44% of smartphone owners say that their phone saves them time because they can access the information they need at all times – double the 20% of non-smartphone owners who say the same.

      Pew: “Cell Phone Attachment and Etiquette – In spite of all this time spent using, checking or otherwise interacting with their phones, most cell owners are more likely to get complaints that they are not responding quickly enough to calls or contacts, than to get complaints that they are spending too much time with their devices. When we asked about three separate issues with their cell phone usage that might annoy or lead to complaints from the other people in cell owners’ lives, we found the following: 39% of cell owners say that people they know have complained that they don’t respond promptly to phone calls or text messages. 33% say that people they know have complained that they don’t check their cell phone frequently enough. 12% of cell owners say that people they know tell them that they spend too much time using their cell phone.”

  • Gerrit Eicker 14:34 on 25. July 2012 Permalink
    Tags: , , Connectivity, , , , , , ,   

    Educating Through Antiquated Approaches? 

    Are teachers still trying to educate highly connected young people through antiquated approaches? http://eicker.at/Hyperconnectivity

     
    • soaslenia 21:11 on 30. August 2012 Permalink | Reply

      Check gynecomastia I just can guess an individual couldn’t know that many persons today possess needless belly fat. Many of these people assume it makes the plain, though the frightful the reality is it is just a truly serious chance with your health and well being.
      A good deal for plenty of studies progressively contain established who unneeded unwanted fat in most cases may be very unsafe. In spite of this, it is simply fairly recently emerged the fact that excess weight within the abdominal spot is particularly dangerous.
      Deep unwanted weight encompasses your own internal organs and it is lower on the abs community through your musculature. Visceral extra fat is definitely what is in control of the actual popular online application referred to as “beer stomach fat.Centimeter
      An individual’s abdominal neighborhood comes with two types of excess fat. You will find visceral excessive fat plus fat under the skin. Subcutaneous fat is a category which often forestalls ones own abdominal because of proving and is also under the epidermis.
      Understanding that, I think a person’s curious to discover getting eliminate which often surplus tummy fat. Well, to start with I want you to discover for which you can not fix it instantly. There are not any pills you may receive, virtually no exercise machine you could buy that will help. To arrive at your goal along with maintain the bodyweight down once for all you must consume a no-nonsense group of factors. You need to follow a good diet with plenty natural as well as natural certain foods. You require a the right way arranged training regimen which will produce the ideal metabolic solution in your body. If you intend to gain that right, after that your diet plan and even exercise routine will be essential.

  • Gerrit Eicker 09:54 on 25. July 2012 Permalink
    Tags: , Connectivity, , , , , , , ,   

    The Age of Mobile Arrived in Earnest 

    The age of mobile, in which people are connected online wherever they are, arrived in earnest; http://eicker.at/NewsMedia2012

     
  • Gerrit Eicker 23:03 on 21. July 2011 Permalink
    Tags: , , , Automation Layering, CDF, CDF Player, , , , Computable Document Format, , Computational Power, , , Connectivity, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , Knowledge Apps, Knowledge Container, Mathematica, , , Proprietary Formats, , Public Standard, , , , , , Symbolic Documents, , , , Wolfram CDF, Wolfram CDF Player   

    Computable Document Format (CDF) 

    Wolfram has released the Computable Document Format (CDF): bringing interactivity via computation; http://eicker.at/CDF

     
    • Gerrit Eicker 23:04 on 21. July 2011 Permalink | Reply

      Wolfram: “Today we launched our Computable Document Format, or CDF, to bring documents to life with the power of computation. – CDF binds together and refines lots of technologies and ideas from our last 20+ years into a single standard—knowledge apps, symbolic documents, automation layering, and democratized computation, to name a few. – Disparate though these might appear, they come together in one coherent aim for CDF: connecting authors and readers much better than ever before. … With CDFs we’re broadening this communication pipe with computation-powered interactivity, expanding the document medium’s richness a good deal.”

      RWW: “It isn’t simply readers who are meant to benefit from having more interactive publications. Wolfram says that the CDF is also designed to make it easier for authors and publishers to create and incorporate these knowledge apps into documents, arguing that up until now, these sorts of things have often required a knowledge of programming. CDFs can be created using the Mathematica software, and Wolfram insists that building a knowledge app is as easy as writing a macro in Excel.

      O’Reilly: “Wolfram’s tools create documents that can be shared on the Web, and are free for use by people who publish free documents. The tools can be licensed by organizations that charge for documents. Access to the tools can be on the Wolfram site (Software as a Service), or licensed and installed on your own server. – These tools look to me like a boon to educators, and I predict that all manner of publishers in the sciences and social sciences will license them. … Wolfram plans to release the format itself as what they call a ‘public standard.’ This is not the same as an open standard. … I assume Wolfram will keep strict control over the format, which draws a lot from the Mathematica language, and I doubt other companies will want to or be able to catch up to Wolfram in the sophistication of the tools they offer.”

c
Compose new post
j
Next post/Next comment
k
Previous post/Previous comment
r
Reply
e
Edit
o
Show/Hide comments
t
Go to top
l
Go to login
h
Show/Hide help
shift + esc
Cancel