I knew my cold was trouble when I locked my keys in my car. Poor Gini had to ride a mile to come get me, and thank God it didn't happen further away. But this scratchy throat is bad, and the stupids are worse. (Lord knows how I'm going to GM tonight with a bad throat and a slow mind, but I'll give it the ol' college try. Of course, tonight's one of the trickier sessions....)
I did have one thought, though, which is that I don't like radio and video much because their information density is very light. Even NPR, which is about as information-dense as a public airwave gets, seems really slow and littered with music and sidelines and tangents and announcements; I can get far more out of reading a three-page article than I can out of a ten-minute interview.
But that's because I read fast. If I was a slow reader, chances are good that my information density would be higher in the NPR segment, since the time it would take me to read the three-page article would entail more time than the ten-minute interview.
Which is kind of interesting; to me, as an above-average reader, the best videos tend to be annoyingly light on content. (I like documentaries, but they're more entertainment value than actual education.) But if I was a normal person, the airwaves would probably be somewhere around equal-to-better. And if I was a bad reader, shit, an hour on NPR would be way better than anything I could get in print form.
Being in the minority makes me forget that not everyone's the same way. But though I find it really trivial and stupid, there's probably a reason the nightly news and CNN do well. By most people's standards, there's a lot of bang for their time-sensitive buck.
Or maybe that's just a really stupid thought. Who knows?
I did have one thought, though, which is that I don't like radio and video much because their information density is very light. Even NPR, which is about as information-dense as a public airwave gets, seems really slow and littered with music and sidelines and tangents and announcements; I can get far more out of reading a three-page article than I can out of a ten-minute interview.
But that's because I read fast. If I was a slow reader, chances are good that my information density would be higher in the NPR segment, since the time it would take me to read the three-page article would entail more time than the ten-minute interview.
Which is kind of interesting; to me, as an above-average reader, the best videos tend to be annoyingly light on content. (I like documentaries, but they're more entertainment value than actual education.) But if I was a normal person, the airwaves would probably be somewhere around equal-to-better. And if I was a bad reader, shit, an hour on NPR would be way better than anything I could get in print form.
Being in the minority makes me forget that not everyone's the same way. But though I find it really trivial and stupid, there's probably a reason the nightly news and CNN do well. By most people's standards, there's a lot of bang for their time-sensitive buck.
Or maybe that's just a really stupid thought. Who knows?
