What is Digg?224 Comments
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -5/+132I'm pretty sure it's because a Harry Potter book wasnt released..
- ghm101, on 10/12/2007, -1/+110Nation of Waffle Waiters
Bill Hicks:
"I went to a Waffle House. I'm not proud of it, I was hungry. And I'm eating, I'm alone and I'm reading a book, right? Waiter walks over to me:
"Hey, what you readin' for?"
Is that like the weirdest ***** question you've ever heard? Not what am I reading, but what am I reading … for.
"Well, God damn it, you stumped me. Why do I read? Hmm … I guess I read for a lot of reasons, and the main one is … so I don't end up being a ***** waffle waiter."
But then, this trucker in the next booth gets up, stands over me and goes:
"Well, looks like we got ourselves a reader."
"What the *****'s going on here? It's not like I walked into a Klan rally in a Boy George outfit, God damn it. It's a book!" - mazerrackham, on 10/12/2007, -1/+56I didn't read your comment, but based on the positive number of diggs I believe I might have liked it. Dugg.
- RichPowers, on 10/12/2007, -1/+41Explains why so many ***** stories get dugg: no one wants to bother reading them.
This one is no exception. - jmkiii, on 10/12/2007, -14/+50You know, 73% of all statistics are made up on the spot.
- ICSU, on 10/12/2007, -0/+33This joke is used 99% of time an article about statistics is published.
- lukas88, on 10/12/2007, -2/+34Lets look at the reality of it. People used to read for mental stimulation. Now you can find more stimulation that requires less effort. Television, video games, the internet, mp3 players, movies, any of these are examples. Books have a reputation for being a more socially sophisticated form of entertainment, but why is that? I believe it is because their content is less prone to pop culture, which always looks rediculous after the fad has gone. So books hold a certain amount of dignity because of their content and because of the mental investment that they require.
But does that make books better? Any of the other forms of entertainment can have content on par with books, so long as the consumer chooses it. More people are going to watch Jackass than NOVA, but is that really the mediums fault? Does that make NOVA any less reputable because it shares a medium with such nonsense?
The issue is not people reading less books, the issue is that people choose worthless content in the entertainment sources they do have. - daveddd, on 10/12/2007, -2/+28Don't worry, I made made up for that 80%. I think I have bought more than 200 books this year. Well at least I can read.
- ChillHomie, on 10/12/2007, -1/+27I didn't read it
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+26it always confuses me when people want to brag about having not read a book since school.. seriously? you're going to hold up the fact that you don't read as your lame badge of honor?
- david76, on 10/12/2007, -9/+35Worst description ever.
"So you want to write a book. Well, why not? So does about 80 percent of the United States population according to a survey by the Jenkins Group."
80% of the US Population does not want to write a book. - slapshot24, on 10/12/2007, -4/+28Wait, the person using three (!!!) exclamation marks in his Digg headline is complaining about somebody else's low literacy?
Or should that be: "... low literacy!?!?! OMG LOL!" - ray901, on 10/12/2007, -1/+24200 .... wow and it's only 2nd Feb. ;)
- falstaff, on 10/12/2007, -2/+24@david76:
Also:
1/3 of high school graduates never read another book for the rest of their lives.
42 percent of college graduates never read another book after college.
**80 percent of U.S. families did not buy or read a book last year.**
70 percent of U.S. adults have not been in a bookstore in the last five years.
...
Helps to read more than the first line of the story.
All of which are either really, really sad, or just wrong. I'm hoping wrong, but who knows... - manifest020, on 10/12/2007, -1/+22Back in highschool I was trying to get in this girl's pants, she wasn't too bright. Somehow we got onto the topic of why books are better than the movies based on them. It went something like:
Chick: "Why are books better than their movies?"
Me: "Because they're so much more detailed. They tell you more about what's going on."
Chick: "But it's just text...? Books are boring."
Me: "Yea, well when you read it creates this picture in your mind that's constantly changing."
Chick: "You can see a picture in your mind when you read!?"
It's scary when you see how most people are just completely clueless about the benefits of reading. I mean instead of just staring at the TV blankly and forgetting what you were watching when the commercials on you actually have to stimulate your mind and use your imagination to create a movie in your mind's eye *gasp*.
You like to read??? Why??? You nerd. Books are for nerds. Are you a nerd? Books are so boring. Are you boring?
What the ***** is this social dogma that it's not ok to read? Then I hear my little cousins say it's not "cool" to read. Oh, I got it, so it's cool to be a retard instead.
Bottom line, I don't give a crap, I'll keep on reading while the population loses its ability to think logically. - Silencer7, on 10/12/2007, -0/+20Wait, 80% of the population wants to write a book, but 80% of families don't read books?
- Popdmb, on 10/12/2007, -22/+41@ ricebergers
No awful Dan Brown books to read either. The DaVinci code was *****. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -11/+29Because CNN, MSNBC, ABC, NBC, and CBS would never consider doing that either!
- LittleDanzig, on 10/12/2007, -0/+17And by your use of "boughten", I'm guessing that none of those twenty-five books were dictionaries.
- CBTF, on 10/12/2007, -2/+19"You know, 73% of all statistics are made up on the spot."
You know, 99% of the people that feel the need to say this in EVERY digg story involving a statistic are *****. - cleverhanz, on 10/12/2007, -0/+15Statistics are never wrong. It is just that they are meaningless unless you know the context. What was the population surveyed? What was the sample size? If it was a survey, what exactly were they asked? If you ask 3 of your friends "Do you like killing babies?" then report that %100 of Americans are against abortion.... Stats don't lie, people do.
- felchdonkey, on 10/12/2007, -0/+14The whole article is pretty sparse on details and sources.
The 80% number comes from Jenkins Group, a vanity press that will publish "authors" for a fee. What's weird there, aside from the fact that I couldn't find the actual research poll or methodology on their site, is that they claim that:
80% of all Americans would like to write a book.
80% of American families did not buy or read a book last year.
The article also says that "A successful fiction book sells 5,000 copies." Define successful.
As far as we know from this story, they may or may not have included used book sales in their numbers, it's very possible to read books without buying them, thanks to libraries and friends to borrow from, and we have no idea who they surveyed, or how they went about it.
According to this site ( http://www.parapublishing.com/sites/para/resources/statistics.cfm ), in the year 2001, consumers purchased 1.6 billion books. If only 20% of Americans bought books, that would mean that on average, book buyers bought 32 books each!
I call ***** on this whole thing. - Revan01, on 10/12/2007, -1/+13Rofl
i used to get hassled for reading novels in high school =/
still, thats hilarious - themaestro8, on 10/12/2007, -5/+16@ DigiRaven
Thats because the study was taken in the US. It was taken by the University of Dayton.
If the study was only taken in the US you can't make the conclusion that the rest of the world is similar. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+11The first paragraph has a gramatical error. It doesn't make any sense. Bitch should read more books.
- Asianwaste, on 10/12/2007, -2/+12I would say a huge reason for that more than anything is because there is a free, non-paper substitute right in front of our faces.
- cyrilonline, on 10/12/2007, -0/+10Yeah, I was wondering about that, too. I guess illiterate authors are on the rise.
- ashwinmudigonda, on 10/12/2007, -0/+9Any bitch who writes an article and spells suspense as SUSPENCE should be treated with caution.
- akzidenzgrotesk, on 10/12/2007, -1/+9my ex boyfriend used to tease me mercilessly for reading all the time. so what if i sometimes prefer a book to the television (especially if nothing is on) or to a video game if i've had a long hard day i want to relax? apparently it made me somehow less "cool" to read to to enjoy it. i never understood that. he was always really proud of the fact that he never even read the required books in high school, much less anything after that.
i understand that reading isn't for everyone (hey, i can't handle playing a video game for more than an hour or two, my attention just wanders and i get bored, so i get that different people have different things that hold their attention), but why is it such a bad thing to so many people? - drizek, on 10/12/2007, -0/+7I dont know about yours, but I think only about 20% of HS students actually read the books that are assigned to them.
- kikuchiyo11, on 10/12/2007, -0/+7@Asianwaste
Reading on the computer will never be the same as reading a book.
Most stuff isn't nearly as in-depth, whether it's news articles, history, etc. Blogs aren't even in the same realm - writing is a time consuming process and good writers want to be paid. That's the problem with society today - people read CNN (or Fox "News") and they think they're well informed. They're not. Internet articles, forum posts, digg stories, are all cursory at best.
Even scanned books (when they are well scanned, not counting the hundreds of bittorent books that use OCR and aren't well done) don't have the tactile feel of a physical book. I say that having read most of Neil Gaiman's Sandman series on a computer screen.
Also, I recognize the irony of posting on the Internet to denounce it, so don't bother pointing that out ;) - LittleDanzig, on 10/12/2007, -1/+7People who routinely turn to the internet as an example of a "book replacement" can't be the types of people who read for pleasure. I'm a big internet dork, and I love to read, but the internet is created for short burst of consumption -- small, "paged" bits of information -- I know very few web-sites, non-fiction or otherwise, that choose to address the breadth and depth of issues that a paper book tends to include, not to mention that the physical delivery mechanism makes the reading much less portable and much more constraining. Books in PDF form are certainly a viable option, but once they're printed out, are you really still "not reading a book?"
It seems to me that the internet can be a viable substitution or replacement for magazines, newspapers, and even reference books -- but I've yet to find a site that can meet the needs of an avid reader that enjoys fiction and literature. - borchard76, on 10/12/2007, -0/+6Oh the sheer idiocy...
...of the people equating whether or not someone reads with their political and/or their religious beliefs.
I know just as many 'libruls' and repuglicans that don't read, same for both atheists and those that are religious.
As far as it goes, there are very few people that read significantly more books than I do in a given year. I am religious and have both conservative and liberal ideas.
I also hate idiots. - drakethegreat, on 10/12/2007, -4/+10Thats why I like living in Seattle, because out of the US its the most literate city in the country and has the highest percentage of college grads. If you've ever been to a bookstore here then you know they are always jammed. I think more people buy books in legally then music in Seattle.
- CBTF, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5I find e books useless. Its easier to carry a paperback in your bag...
- BillGoans, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5Id really like to see what they consider 'families' and the other categories. For instance, ABC published a report saying that "Nearly 50 percent of women in America are single."
Of course, a "woman" was from the age 15 and up. - Daiken, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5Marked as innacurate. There's no way these polls seem realistic, plus I couldn't find any mention of how the polling was done.
- Veritate, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5@Ninjaboy,
Seriously, you don't like to do something that doesn't "make you better"?
Well, I won't argue your motives, but I'd contend that reading fiction does make you better. Fiction is expressed imagination; reading it lets you see how others think, opens you to new ideas. Fiction writers are often philosophical, and will express their philosophies in their writing. - fasda, on 10/12/2007, -1/+6only 200$ damm your lucky a chem book and calc book set be back 300+.
- mustbepatient, on 10/12/2007, -1/+6My take on that is that everyone feels they have something to say, but most people don't want to hear what others have to say.
- slapshot24, on 10/12/2007, -4/+9> I'll keep on reading while the population loses its ability to think logically
Smug much? - barneytoe, on 10/12/2007, -2/+7In defense of the USA:
1) Americans WORK like dogs, and have much less time than our beloved European friends. If I had 2 months vacation or a 35 hour work week (as many do in France) I'd be reading a Hell of a lot more.
2) Public transportation is not as common in the USA. We're all stuck in traffic, listening to worthless morning shows on radio. When I lived in Paris, I read a ton because I was able to read a book in the metro to/from work. - nixr, on 10/12/2007, -0/+580% of Americans didn't know that Erma Bombeck is a Cylon.
- shogusumi, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4I would just like to point out how stupid it is when people bitch and moan about comments being editable for 2 minutes. They are editable for 2 minutes *after you submit your comment.* So here's the secret - are you ready? Spell-check and grammar-check your comment *before submitting it* and you will have all the time you need to get it right.
- cleverhanz, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4Exactly. Stats are meaningless without the context.
- kd1s, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4Between purchased books and library books I probably read about 30 books a year. The statistics are bleak but then so is the fact that only 27% of U.S. citizens have a college degree.
But my reading habits aren't because of my time in college, they were there far before that time. I credit my maternal great grandfather, and my paternal grandfather for that. They both knew I liked to read and so kept me supplied with plenty of books and magazines. Now the web supplants some of that since there's so many interesting things to read out there. That's in addition to what I stated in the first paragraph. - Specks, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4That's because they haven't heard of "Ender's Game". Now go and read.
- Rikkochet, on 10/12/2007, -3/+7"OMG probably 80% or 90% of world hasn't read or picked up a book either. These polls that are directed only to the US are stupid."
It's a pretty good indicator as to "what's wrong in America" though...
You know the literacy rate of Germany? It's about 99.9% Probably part of the reason they've had their economy and infrastructure devastated twice in the last century and have always bounced back to be a *huge* world player?
Look at the US (and Canada, since we're incredibly similar socially): we've got "new" populations (a dynamic culture) and a large proportion of people that appear to be HAPPY about being ignorant. I'm seeing a decline all around, and I don't think it's a political thing. - Chasuk, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4@WraTH017, 37 minutes ago
> I just don't see how a FULL FUNCTIONING adult (with a job, friends and responsibilities) has time to read over 200 books a year, unless it's his job.
Are you kidding? I am a FULL FUNCTIONING (sic) adult and easily read 600 - 1000 pages a week. It isn't hard to do, if you aren't wasting your time watching American Idol or masturbating to porn. I am not a speed reader, but I manage those page totals reading for 60 - 120 minutes a day, which nearly any functionally literate person can do, if they so desire. - dantelephoneman, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4"70 percent of U.S. adults have not been in a bookstore in the last five years."
That is a complete lie, everyone I know goes in to the book store to buy Coffee all the time. -
Show 51 - 100 of 220 discussions
Browsing Digg on your phone just got easier with our enhancements to the 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is