Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
The Internet Technology

New Study Shows Youth Plugged In Most of the Day 157

Posted by samzenpus
from the turn-on-tune-in-drop-out dept.
An anonymous reader writes "The amount of time youngsters are spending on the web has ballooned to exceed the average adult's full working week, according to a new study. A few years ago, the same researchers thought that teens and tweens were consuming about as much media as possible in the hours available. But now they've have found a way to pack in even more. Young people now devote an average of seven hours and 38 minutes to daily media use, or about 53 hours a week according to Kaiser Family Foundation findings released today."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

New Study Shows Youth Plugged In Most of the Day

Comments Filter:
  • For those too lazy (Score:5, Informative)

    by Misanthrope (49269) on Thursday January 21, 2010 @03:12AM (#30843142)

    To click through and download the PDF
    TV 4:29
    Music/Audio 2:31
    Computer 1:29
    Video Games 1:13
    Print :38
    Movies :25

    With a 29% multitasking cut, so from 10:45 total it comes down to 7:38

    Not really sure this is all that surprising to me, it's hard for me to feel alarmed over the print and music portions of the time.

    • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

      by treeves (963993)

      TFS contradicts when it says kids are spending X hours on *the web*. Only 1.5 hrs /day on the computer. Or are kids surfing the web on TVs now? I had thought internet TV use was quite limited.
      When you consider how much time in school is actual class time, I'm sure this means more TV than classroom time. And if these numbers are averages I hate to imagine the kids at the far end of the curve.

      • by Misanthrope (49269) on Thursday January 21, 2010 @03:32AM (#30843244)

        " The report is based on a survey conducted between October 2008 and May 2009 among a nationally representative sample of 2,002 3rd-12th grade students ages 8-18, including a self-selected subsample of 702 respondents who completed seven-day media use diaries, which were used to calculate multitasking proportions."

        It also is biased by the type of respondent who would complete a seven day media diary, wth kaiser.

        • by w0mprat (1317953) on Thursday January 21, 2010 @05:33AM (#30843790)
          Someone should do a study into the kind of people who participate in surveys to see if they are naturally inclined over-represented in potentially headline grabbing statistics. But I suspect the result would be biased.
        • by mwvdlee (775178)

          So a good question is; how representative is this self-selected subsample? Are these the "heavy" media users? It requires a specific kind of personality to want to keep a seven-day media use diary and no doubt this personality also affects the way they use media. Not to mention seven days isn't a particularly long measurement time; my own media use behaviour varies dramatically during the course of a year, I have no doubt schoolchildren with exam weeks and holidays have even more fluctuating media usage pat

        • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

          by ubrgeek (679399)
          So kids who supposedly spend too much time being "plugged in" are going to take time to stop texting, surfing, whatever to complete a journal? The article doesn't say if they were compensated to do so (free downloads at the iTunes store, downloadable ringtones, whatever) so I'm curious what the motivation was for participating. I'm guessing things haven't changed _that_ much since I was a kid and I'd take the voluntary assignment as just that, a volunteer assignment and do whatever it was to make it look li
      • by icebike (68054)

        TFS contradicts when it says kids are spending X hours on *the web*. Only 1.5 hrs /day on the computer. Or are kids surfing the web on TVs now?

        Kids are surfing the net and watching TV on their smart phones till 4am.

        Please tell me you didn't nod off again and miss the arrival of iPhone, Android, Pre, and Droid, Rumpelstiltskin.

        • by Canazza (1428553)

          Rumpelstiltskin? is that the new Microsoft smart phone?

        • Given the current cost of something like an iPhone, including contract or the cost of data without a contract, is this really something available to most of the 10-18 demographic?
        • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

          by NekSnappa (803141)
          I think you mean Rip Van Winkle. He's the one who took a 20 year nap after pounding a few beers and bowling some 9 pin with ghosts.

          Rumplestiltskin was a dwarf who spun gold from straw.
      • Also it was a survey where you filled out Computer and video games... given that games was nearly as high as computers (i doubt console use is that high), I think there was unintentional overlap there as well.
    • by derGoldstein (1494129) on Thursday January 21, 2010 @03:47AM (#30843308) Homepage
      I actually *am* surprised -- by the time they spend in front of a TV. The "kids" I know think TVs are a relic -- the idea of making an appointment with your media seems absurd to them.
      • by bemymonkey (1244086) on Thursday January 21, 2010 @04:25AM (#30843482)

        I'm guessing torrented episodes also count, as would Hulu and so on...

        • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

          by Nerdfest (867930)
          Especially since the way networks are run, you really *can't* make an appointment with your media anymore. Shows are either moved, cancelled by sports, or on hiatus. They seem to *want* us to download shows.
          • by Orbijx (1208864) *

            Three letters:
            DVR.

            I observed that, visiting my family last week.
            They've got a DVR, and the kids are gathered around watching some show called I, Carly (too lazy to google, don't care if it's the right name).

            They know how to work the DVR better than my 40-something year old aunt. I saw them pull the show up, start it, and start laughing.

            When I lived with the family over half a decade ago (helping to take care of my aging mother, whom I miss very much), I encouraged them to get a DVR then, because they'd get

      • by AbRASiON (589899) *

        I'm 32 and it seems absurd to me, appointment with my media. LOL
        Sorry can't think of a better word to summarise it but lol, it's so archaic, who has the time? It's 2010 not 1987.

      • I'm 22 now, and in the last five years, I've almost completely stopped watching TV, but I was never bothered by the appointment with the media. Freshman year of college, knowing my night would end with The Daily Show was something to look forward to. More recently, How I Met Your Mother became a staple of my Monday nights. The problem I have is the advertising. I still watch plenty of shows, from DVDs mostly, and they're without the advertising that was a part of the original broadcast. When I watch somethi
    • by red_blue_yellow (1353825) on Thursday January 21, 2010 @03:51AM (#30843328)

      Although the article does contain some overtones of negativity, I think this quote does really present the key importance of the issue:

      "When children are spending this much time doing anything, we need to understand how it's affecting them -- for good and bad," Drew Altman, president and chief executive of the foundation.

      Here are my thoughts on each item:

      TV 4:29 - Almost entirely negative, I suspect; surely the overwhelming advertisements alone cancel out any benefits the few educational shows.

      Music/Audio 2:31 - As a musician, I have a hard time knocking this. Premature deafness from blasting those headphones is no good, though.

      Computer 1:29 - As a computer scientist, well, let's just say I'm about 10x this. It can range from really good (research) to horrible (4chan).

      Video Games 1:13 - I think this is a healthy dose. Games with physical activity and (gasp) sunlight are better, but this could be worse.

      Print 0:38 - I'm surprised this number even exists. I assume the majority of it is beneficial in some ways -- exposure to articulating an idea in writing, if nothing else.

      Movies 0:25 - Movies are usually a bit more thought provoking than TV. A slight negative here, but it's still a small number.

      Overall, I do believe there is reason for concern, but not outright panic. Let the psychologists do their work and we will only understand the effects of this better.

      • Print 0:38 - I'm surprised this number even exists. I assume the majority of it is beneficial in some ways -- exposure to articulating an idea in writing, if nothing else.

        I'd bet it's only there because of schoolwork. I also don't think it reflects anything -- you can find plenty of well-written material online, in almost any genre.

      • by w0mprat (1317953)

        Computer 1:29 - As a computer scientist, well, let's just say I'm about 10x this. It can range from really good (research) to horrible (4chan).

        Slashdot somewhere in that range? Or was that to beyond horrible to mention?

      • I like your breakdown of the categories. Right on.

        I agree --- no cause for alarm here.

        Cultures are changing. This is how life goes, especially in these rapidly changing times.

        Really, the only major downfall of much of this is the fact that you're generally sedentary during computer/media use. But if kids were to ensure good workout schedules as well they could negate that concern.

    • Our kids (Score:3, Interesting)

      by AliasMarlowe (1042386)
      TV (pay channels): about 1 hour
      Playstation: 1-2 hours
      Computer (mostly web): 1-2 hours
      MP3 & suchlike: less than 1 hour
      Reading (overlaps with MP3, and includes homework): 2-4 hours

      The Playstation games are nonviolent or relatively low violence (Afrika, LittleBigPlanet, a few Ratchet&Clank). Reading time does not include PC time. They also get 2-4 hours of outside playing or at various hobby activities. This is the routine that we have right now, based largely on the kids' preferences.

      It seem
      • by tixxit (1107127)
        Well, it says ~40m for "print." I imagine that number is balanced between kids who read 1-2h a day and those who don't read at all.
    • by plastbox (1577037) on Thursday January 21, 2010 @05:17AM (#30843714) Homepage

      How is this news? In an average day, excluding the 7.5 hours I spend in front of a computer at work, I still manage to pack in a lot of "media"-time.

      TV: 5
      Music/Audio: 1.5 - 2
      Computer: 7
      Video Games: 1
      Print: <1 - 2 (I do reading stints, where I consume much more, but on average..)
      Movies: 0.3

      Of course, my multitasking factor is probably higher than these lame kids'. Laptop is always on, always on the table in front of me so I can chat, surf, perhaps program a little. The TV is for the most part on as well, except that part of the evening where the most interesting program is Oprah. I read on the bus to and from work while listening to music, and naturally "TV Games" pretty much has to overlap 100% with either "Computer" or "TV" (disregarding portables, which I don't own).

      News? Hardly.News to the Slashdot crowd..? Definitely not. Scaremongering for technophobic parents? Yes.

      • Okay, I have to pick apart this post:

        How is this news? In an average day, excluding the 7.5 hours I spend in front of a computer at work, I still manage to pack in a lot of "media"-time.

        Notice exhibit A: the condescending introduction, "How is this news?" It is as if the poster is saying, "I already know this, everyone else should know it too! I mean you all know as much as I know right? *wink wink*

        Of course, my multitasking factor is probably higher than these lame kids'. Laptop is always on, always on the table in front of me so I can chat, surf, perhaps program a little.

        Exhibit B: "I am so multifaceted that I can run three or four kinds of consumer electronics at once. I don't need to explain how much relevant attention I can give to any one said device because that is an irrelevant detail. But look at me, I can do four th

  • by Paktu (1103861) on Thursday January 21, 2010 @03:18AM (#30843160)
    The survey taker's school "doesn't use grades" for 0% of heavy users, 3% of medium users, and 10% of light users. This statistic by itself makes me unconvinced about the overall findings...do you mean to tell me that 0% of heavy internet users attend schools that don't give grades? What the hell is the sample size, anyway???
  • It's good to know that the youth of today are taking advantage of the advances in technology as I always have. It also good to know that I've been keeping up!
  • I don't really see how anyone could be surprised by this. As more media options become available and more convenient to access, it seems like a logical progression. Also, you're media consumption devices are more flexible, you can consume from more sources of media concurrently. Your cell phone can likely provide you with verbal communication, music, social networks, even movies and radio. And that's probably the simplest device at your disposal these days.
  • That's all? (Score:4, Funny)

    by Jeian (409916) on Thursday January 21, 2010 @03:25AM (#30843206)

    Amateurs.

    • Re: (Score:3, Funny)

      by polar red (215081)

      jup. less than 16 hours a day is for sissies.

      • This would have been funny 4, or even 3 years ago. But these days? When are you at any point *not* within hand's reach of an internet connection?
        I even keep a netbook by my bed in case something comes up I'd like to check *while trying to fall asleep*...
        • by MaskedSlacker (911878) on Thursday January 21, 2010 @04:04AM (#30843396)

          I even keep a netbook by my bed in case something comes up I'd like to check *while trying to fall asleep*...

          I see I'm not the only one who needs porn to fall asleep.

        • by Orbijx (1208864) *

          Netbook!?

          I keep my desktop right by my bed. 20" monitor, keyboard, stuff.
          All sorts of good times.
          Netflix, live TV, stored media, all in an arm's reach. Great for when it's too bloody cold to sit at the computer and read /. -- balled up under a blanket, text size enlarged in the browser to compensate for the slightly larger distance from the screen...

          Sadly enough, trying to figure out a logical way to put a computer in the bathroom. Need to mitigate the gigantic cloud of steam's potential damage for when my

  • by Bananatree3 (872975) on Thursday January 21, 2010 @03:26AM (#30843214)
    Researchers have recently discovered gamblers like money, scholars spend lots of time reading and fishermen are often on boats.
  • by bronney (638318) on Thursday January 21, 2010 @03:27AM (#30843216) Homepage

    What concerns me most is that the next generation might spend more time reading about something and not have the time to actually DO them. I find the information overload very annoying already at work. Mostly emails. And I feel myself slowly being trained into ASKING for the info rather than experimenting and have your own observation in things.

    Don't know how to put it in better words.

    • Don't know how to put it in better words.

      Why not ask Jeeves? Oops, wrong decade.

    • by poor_boi (548340)
      It's OK to build on the foundations of others' work.
      • by derGoldstein (1494129) on Thursday January 21, 2010 @04:02AM (#30843386) Homepage
        I think his point was that they won't reach the "build" part at all. There are so many things to do/consume/interact-with, that they'll just follow a thread of "virtual actions"(corny phrase, I know), and won't feel the need to experience much in real life. This isn't an unreasonable theory, IMO.
        • by plastbox (1577037)

          Those interested in the technical bits will. Not all problems are adequately solvable by following a step-by-step guide online, hell, most problems I'd actually need to look up are a fair bit to complex to write a simple instructable for (hence real books). Even the problems that can be solved easily by following other people's instructions will lead the potential geek to think about and perhaps research the hows and whys of the solution he/she just implemented.

    • by jandersen (462034) on Thursday January 21, 2010 @05:01AM (#30843646)

      It certainly sounds dramatic, but I think there may be a positive note to add, because where a decade ago children engaged mostly in passively being entertained, the trend now is that they take part, ie are active. A recent study has shown that the main factor explaining why boys in particular don't seem to learn English very well, found that the trick is to get them write more; and that while writing essays is seen as boring and pointless, blogging is seen as cool and meaningful.

    • by NekSnappa (803141)
      Kind of like the 'ractives' (interactive videos) in Stephensons' "The Diamond Age"
  • I'm Shocked! (Score:3, Interesting)

    by cyberzephyr (705742) on Thursday January 21, 2010 @03:50AM (#30843316) Journal

    /. readers already know this. For 10 years i have almost always laughed at the fact we see it here before they, (The uninformed public) do.

      Look at the network news and see the slide.

  • Kids... (Score:4, Insightful)

    by lewko (195646) on Thursday January 21, 2010 @03:52AM (#30843338) Homepage

    No wonder they can't find time to spell properly.

    Your typical teenager probably doesn't even use a pen, and the majority of their communication would be on a device with a built-in spell checker. IT is as though they go out of their way to spell like an idiot. Is it really that much more efficient to type "Im going 2 da park"?

    As technology gets smarter, we as a society will be getting dumber. We are setting ourselves up to be completely pwnd by Skynet.

    • I think this clip from WALL-E [youtube.com] is sadly a very real possibility.
    • Don't blame the children.
      They are not the ones that decide to pay less on education and that ebonics or it's more recent equivalent is good enough.
      It's not just Texas and California now with cheap schools that produce students equipt to do little more than say "do you want fries with that?".
      • by JackieBrown (987087) <dbroome@gmail.com> on Thursday January 21, 2010 @05:34AM (#30843794)

        Don't blame the children.
        They are not the ones that decide to pay less on education and that ebonics or it's more recent equivalent is good enough.

        We are paying more than we were 20 years ago yet children are doing worse in school.

        The problem isn't with the money (maybe in some districts) but the way they teach kids now.

        My daughter was not taught how to read using phonics, she was taught using "sight words." I asked the teacher she wasn't learning the multiplication table and the teacher said that it was not taught anymore because they prefered 'concepts.' As a result, my daughter does multiplication (not addition but multiplication!!!!) using her fingers. She reads well now due to the time I have spent with her but her writing is still terrible (but it looks pretty.)

        Now I fully admit that I should have taken the time to have taught her myself instead of relying on the school system. But I do remember being taught these things when I went to school. And passing out a multiplication table or phonics sheet is not expensive.

        • by Stooshie (993666)
          Phonics? Bleugh! So you can't spell then, I assume?

          I was taught the roots of words and why they are spelt the way they are (as well as some rules of thumb and memorized exceptions).
        • My daughter was not taught how to read using phonics, she was taught using "sight words."
          How often do you read using phonics? If you are consciously sounding out words, people generally interpret that as "can't read".

          English spelling is based on half a dozen different sets of phonics rules (English, Latin, Greek, French, and probably others). I don't know about you, but I only learned the very simplest of them when I was in first grade in 1982. Getting a feel for the rest came from just seeing words that

      • Re: (Score:2, Interesting)

        by Sulphur (1548251)

        Don't blame the teachers either.

        A good administration would get rid of bad teachers.

        A bad administration would harass good teachers and keep the bad ones.

        Within limits, money is not the issue; however, shared vision is.

    • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

      by derGoldstein (1494129)
      There is another way to look at this: They're optimizing. Reporters often have shorthand text (or at least had, when they needed to use a pen), it's a faster way to log information. If all you really need to do is relay the information that you'll be at the park, then this isn't that tragic. As for spell checkers, I find that over time they improve my spelling (I know there's a big debate over this particular thing, I'm just pointing out that there's more than one outcome).

      So what if they're not as fast/a
    • by kyz (225372)

      They can spell properly. Kids choose to spell like idiots because it makes them different from their parents.

      It's the same reason they listen to music that's "unlistenable noise" if you ask their parents. In fact, a friend of mine complained his kids were into noisecore. Ha! He grew up being into heavy metal, which annoyed his parents who preferred the Beatles.

      Texting doesn't make you a worse speller, because you have to know how to spell something properly before you can make it shorter for text-speak. Ask [blogspot.com]

    • When you see kids insisting on incorrect spelling/grammar online, it's not necessarily because the medium encourages bastardizing the language in every instance. It's a desire to cool by being anti-intellectual. In their minds, only a nerd and an adult takes out the times to make everything they type in informal settings 'perfect.' We even do it here in sophisticated places like Slashdot. When someone brings up or wants to enforce the subtle differences between affect and effect, we just hand-wave it, c
    • I'm not sure how old you are, so at 27 I may well fall into the kids-who-need-to-get-off-your-lawn demographic, but I can barely remember how to use a pen. I post more words on Slashdot alone every day than I write with a pen in a year. I write under a hundred words per month with a pen, and about the only time that I use one is when I need to sign for something. Last month, my second book was published. I don't think you can correlate ability to use a pen with command of the English language.

      • by NekSnappa (803141)
        I'm sort of in between.
        When writing for correspondence I prefer to type it on screen where it is easy to edit large chunks at a time. I need this because I often find that I say the same thing a couple of times worded differently, and need to pare it down.
        But when doing creative writing, songs, poems, etc. I prefer to write in pencil. Even though I edit as much if not more. It's not in large blocks. Usually only single lines being moved around.
    • by AbRASiON (589899) *

      "Im going 2 da park" wouldn't be so common if god damned SMS messages weren't so expensive and twitter had more than 140 chars.
      Efficiency is king and even I find myself re-writing a 140char tweet for 2 minutes sometimes to fit it in the optimal space, as for SMS less so nowadays but it frustrates me that good english can't be applied to it.

      That being said it comes with age, I grew up with the beginnings of the 2 cool 4 school lol crowd and we all used shorthand back in the BBS and ICQ days but the vast majo

    • Not using a pen and paper may atrophy one's penmanship, but it has nothing to do with the ability to express a coherent thought on a page. I have been typing everything I hand in in school since about sixth grade. My handwriting sucks, but my writing hasn't suffered for it, the same goes for most of my friends my age (22).

      Technology is merely a tool. It doesn't make people and dumber or any smarter. Like everything else, it all depends on how it's used. To paraphrase an old saying, "The technology opens th
    • I don't know that it's entirely a bad thing. Granted, it gets very annoying to stumble upon posts and jibber jabber that has half spelled words and garbled nonsense in it. But in some ways, pidgin speak is quite interesting. As another poster pointed out, it is quickly developing as a new form of shorthand. Another interesting take on it is that it forces folk to parse language with more critical thinking. If the communicator's message is unclear and a bit garbled, then people have to focus harder on trying
  • American media cover daily struggle in life 24/24, and Americans tune in.

    Daily struggle at 4.

  • by petes_PoV (912422) on Thursday January 21, 2010 @04:59AM (#30843636)
    All this tells us is that people are filling their spare time.

    An individual spends a certain amount of time asleep, a certain amount at school or working (or housekeeping, or whatever), a certain amount eating, washing(!), travelling and all the other miscelleanea of living. Then they have some time spare - is that such a surprise?

    All this study does is tell those people who believe studies what those individuals spend their time doing. Would you prefer they spend that time drinking, instead?

    Oh yes, that thing about multi-tasking media. All that tells us is how unfulfilling sources like TV are - people don't actually *watch* it, they just have it on in the background (while doing something more interesting) just in case something worthy of their attention does happen. That's all TV is today - whatever age you are.

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by timmarhy (659436)
      doing something productive, thats what.

      don't complain american is full of dumb fat lazy people when the kids of today spend almost a full working day glued to a monitor, with their brain in park.

      • Re: (Score:2, Funny)

        by Anonymous Coward

        I guess you missed the day they taught sentence strucure (commas, capitalization, etc)

    • They could spend their time crafting or building something. Things like that enrich a community. Its always nice having a neighbor that will knit you a cap or a pair of slippers if you agree to repair their broken cabinet door for them. Also, making explosives out of home chemicals and lighting things on fire (while generally a terrible and unsafe idea) is a hell of a lot of fun. It's much more of a rush than the virtual explosions found in movie theatres =D

      Not that I am encouraging that kind of behavior
  • It is true! (Score:2, Funny)

    by santax (1541065)
    My girlfriend is 12 years younger than me and it is true. She is getting plugged most of the day. Hey, can you blame me?
    • Re: (Score:2, Funny)

      by ami.one (897193)
      With that age difference I can't even dream of blaming you; Its mostly the fault of your friendly neighborhood teen. ;-)
    • Re: (Score:3, Funny)

      My girlfriend is 12 years younger than me and it is true. She is getting plugged most of the day. Hey, can you blame me?

      No, I wouldn't blame you, as long as you're the one plugging her.

  • Great! (Score:5, Funny)

    by Col Bat Guano (633857) on Thursday January 21, 2010 @06:32AM (#30844034)

    Now they'll be too busy to get on my lawn!

  • Christ, son, I have that much streaming in NOW. When one goal is to archive the internets useful shit, you come across this problem often. Hell, I burned five roboboards just trying to handle so many incoming 56K streams.

    Rank amateurs, I tell you. Are these kids just learning how to utilize a computer in this study?

  • Try watching a 30 hour Monty Python marathon sometime(the only breaks are commercial breaks), that's real dedication to your media.

    I suppose you could just watch the DVDs straight through and only take breaks to pee, but no sleeping, that would be cheating.

  • Quall (Score:2, Insightful)

    by quall (1441799)
    I am not surprised either. In fact, it is preparing them for the world outside of high-school. I am an adult in my mid 20s and I spend practically the whole day in front of media. I spend about 8 hours at work on a computer, i listen to music in my car when I go to and from work, and in the evening I watch tv. I spend probably 11 or 12 hours in front of media as an adult. The weekends are the only times where I spend very little of my time on media. According to that study, kids who spend a lot of time on
  • by Hurricane78 (562437) <.gro.todhsals. .ta. .deteled.> on Thursday January 21, 2010 @09:38AM (#30845008)

    News at 11.

    Really, what’s the point of turning the computer off when at home?
    That would mean no music, no movies, no quick search on wikipedia or something, no way of seeing if friends are at home.
    If you do not prefer to be alone and bored, but don’t want or can’t to drive to your friends, then the choice is obvious.

    Doesn’t mean one also is alone and actually sits in front of the thing.

    • Really, what’s the point of turning the computer off when at home?

      Peace and quiet.

      That would mean no music, no movies, no quick search on wikipedia or something, no way of seeing if friends are at home.

      So....time to work on your car? Time to take apart the toaster and figure out how it works? Time to read a book? Time to bake cookies? Time to play with Legos (if you don't have time for that, what's the point in living?).

      If you do not prefer to be alone and bored, but don’t want or can’t to drive to your friends, then the choice is obvious.

      Sex and/or cuddling on the couch with a spouse, girlfriend, or friend with benefits? Going for a walk?

      ;)

  • Kids... (Score:2, Insightful)

    by orsty3001 (1377575)
    Nothing a kid does will be praised by adults. Every single generation was supposed to be the downfall of mankind, with their swinging hips, their rock and roll music, their spirographs and their sagging pants.
  • The Media is a system... built to keep us under control... in order to turn a human being... into this [www.sxc.hu]

When speculation has done its worst, two plus two still equals four. -- S. Johnson

Working...