RainingGlitteryMind

Nice comment, I agree and it was all really well said.

TOTALLY agree! I would love to know. I’m 38 and have been frustrated by this most of the time. But it’s growing on me.

Best “Offline” yet. Thankfully I made it past the belabored Arthur reference to the good stuff. But then even that made me ruminate on the subject at hand. Years ago did I have more patience for following a kooky opening just to see where it would go and how it would connect? Probably. My first instinct was to skip down to comments and blast the whole thing before making it past “aardvark”.

I still can’t tell if this experiment is a) watching someone figure out how to make sense of what’s “useful” on the internet with what isn’t or b) understanding a how completely rewired a younger generation is having been online their entire teen and adult life.

Wow, I didn’t even know the iPad version had that (not on DS). Now if only I could get my wife to play, probably too much to ask for. She never graduated beyond Cut the Rope and Where’s My Water.

OMG. My first and most-loved TD game (played on a DS) is finally releasing a sequel! I’m ridiculously excited and yes I’m a ridiculous TD nerd. Is there a release date?

Also, while Kingdom Rush is a very close second to me, it doesn’t make Fieldrunners feel dated. No open-field TD game has ever seemed as good.

That’s a bunch of funding fundy fundiness.

Good article, and timely considering Paul’s recent quest, which slowly but surely gets more interesting. Laura June’s article about Andrew Keen’s book was interesting too, on this same topic. Might be shaping into one of the better debates of our generation.

I’m for trying new things, but I agree — once I got back to black on white I was all messed up. The after-image of white on black was all over my field of vision and I couldn’t concentrate at all. Sorry : (

I’m 38 and I have such a hard time relating to this. I keep wanting to say Paul just doesn’t get it. That he himself is an example of Negroponte’s internet-gone-wrong theory, but not only doesn’t he see it, but he dismisses the thoery as laughable. And yet it’s the same theory that caused him to pull this stunt.

But do people in their 20s all feel like Paul? That this constant stream of browsing “is what the internet is for”.

Interesting kind of article, but it was a little confusing. Whose quote was that at the end, Atwood’s? Or some commenter? Becuase they were the most impossibly pretentious couple of sentences I’ve read in a long time.

Also all the opinions cited seem to be arguing in black and white. Advocates are right in that learning to code can be a helpful life skill (just like being handy or knowing how to cook) and it’s not thought of that way. But Atwood’s right too in that people can be just fine not learning it at all. But they’re all agreeing without realizing it — it’s a helpful skill that everyone can decide for themselves how much to be proficient at.

Yeah he did actually. Sorkin didn’t pen Fincher’s “adaption” of the movie. He penned an “adaption” of the book, then used by Fincher for the movie he directed. But its still nitpicking, I’ll give you that.

So polite, but why are you putting those words in his mouth? It wasn’t a disagreement. I also don’t understand what Leica is saying. HOW is it not what it used to be? And what does that have to do with Saverin being born in Brazil?

If I could believe he simply wants to understand what adult life is like with no internet, rather than publicly stumbling through his lack of understanding of how to balance it with the rest of his life, I could embrace this a lot more.

Can’t tell what I think yet. First instinct was this was a self-serving stunt. Not necessarily wanting to try this out, but plastering it on the front page like it’s some kind of revolutionary and noble pursuit.

The proof will come as we see where the journey takes him. Because I can’t help but feel like this is the idea of someone who has let their use of the internet create so much noise in their life they can no longer distinguish what is necessary from what isn’t. Will he realize that being able to do this is a fairly unique luxury? That he is being allowed to do this and keep his tech journalism job ?

I could never do my job, keep up with my kids’ activities, or do any number of responsible things in my life that need the internet. I already have a handle on not letting facebook, twitter, gaming, etc. invade the time that IS better spent off the internet. I don’t need to quit the internet to understand that.

So watching Paul ask and then answer interesting questions coming from this experiment may turn out to be a fascinating story of self discovery and awareness. I just hope he realizes that’s what it is and appreciates that he has the luxury to even try it.

Don’t hate the comments, hate the article. The article being commented on focused on the filters, not getting images into our little hands. But I get your point.

I agree that the premise of the article started one bridge too far: that people filtering and sharing pictures through Instagram intend to produce “creative output” at all. Why? It’s social output. Filter or not, people aren’t saying “look at my cool photography”, it’s “look where I went today”.