[LINK] classification of Apps? What next?

[Tom Koltai]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: link-bounces at mailman.anu.edu.au 
> [mailto:link-bounces at mailman.anu.edu.au] On Behalf Of 
> Marghanita da Cruz
> Sent: Thursday, 30 June 2011 9:27 AM
> To: link at anu.edu.au
> Subject: Re: [LINK] classification of Apps? What next?
> 
> 
> > Surveying 303 students at Kansas State University, most of 
> them ages 
> > 19 through 24, KSU professor Esther Swilley found that a 
> majority of them were attached to their phones due to the 
> devices' entertainment value, not for communication. The 
> results are just preliminary and have yet to be published in 
> a peer-reviewed scientific journal.
> <http://www.livescience.com/14830-cellphone-attachment-enterta
> inment-communication.html>
> 
> Frank O'Connor wrote:
> > Mmmm,
> > 
> > Lets see ... 500 to 600 thousand apps already in the wild for phones
> > and tablets, increasing at the rate of about 10,000 per month.
<SNIP>

And that KSU data needs to be peer reviewed because ???

Oh yeah, probably because the empirical App-store sales statistics and
detailed analysis data from organisations like Nielsens shouldnt be
trusted.
Whilst I am all for peer review, (to ensure readibility and veracity of
sources), this smacks of a level of irrelevant academic arrogance beyond
the norm.

Besides the dropping advanced education admissions numbers are clear
evidence that students are listening to Uncle Bill... Wikipedia is all
the Encyclopedic knowledge the world needs.

Pop Quiz:
How many PHD's does it take to be an unemployed Janitor or Courier
Delivery Driver ?
The real article that needs to be researched and peer reviewed is:

Whilst the East is benefiting from the enpassant communications leap of
Mobile WiFi internet access, is the West being lulled into a dopey state
by making too many time-sinks (Farmville, Cityville, Angry Birds, Age of
Empires) available at too low a cost ?

Or are we loosing our civilisation down the cesspit of $0.99 Phone Apps.

TomK