Display:
I think the distinction is pretty blurry. TV's in my neighborhood tend to be gigantic flat screen systems, and most people have satellite connections, not cable. Computers tend to have much smaller screens, so it's harder to watch movies with more than one person. On the other hand, you can waste days watching youtube videos.

Not to belabour the point, but I think that the argument that Internet access is limited by cost is fairly soft.

Perhaps the technical knowledge issue is more important. One can construct an excellent high-performance workstation from parts obtained by end-of-term dumpster diving at Colorado College. However, the rich college kids take their TVs back home with them...

by asdf on Thu Dec 4th, 2008 at 12:05:15 PM EST
[ Parent ]
I think the argument that Internet access is limited by cost is non-existent. The satellite and cable networks in the UK couldn't survive without their working class base. Considering you can get basic broadband for a tenner a month, the extra cost is trivial.

It would be almost unheard of for all but the absolute poorest families not to have at least one PC now. It's practically a school requirement.

I was talking to a friend who does front-line adult ed in some of the rougher part of London earlier in the week, and she was saying that many of her pupils have surprisingly solid basic IT skills.

What they don't have is the ability to write and spell well enough to get a job that lets them use them.

by ThatBritGuy (thatbritguy (at) googlemail.com) on Thu Dec 4th, 2008 at 01:01:27 PM EST
[ Parent ]
We actually got a visit from a social worker when our kids were in elementary school, because word got out that we didn't have a TV. Apparently that's a marker for "has no funds whatsoever."
by asdf on Thu Dec 4th, 2008 at 01:54:23 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Display:
Login
. Make a new account
. Reset password
Occasional Series