When has reading on the web or on your personal gadget been so great?  You can’t digest the story because you are just skimming, you don’t have the patience to keep reading, the paragraphs are too big, the content sometimes don’t seem real, and it’s probably a blog opinion that you’re not even aware of.

But print on the other hand holds so much more.  Editors are so much more aware of mistakes and accuracy.  Once it’s printed, there’s really no more way of turning back.  When a news story comes out, reading it on print let’s you digest the story.

You don’t have to feel rushed.  You can take your time because there isn’t a Facebook friend trying to chat with you, and no advertising is flying across the page distracting you.  Having something to hold on to, something to grasp on to is much more fulfilling.  It’s like you have the prize in your hand.

But don’t get me wrong.  The web is a great place to find fast updated news.  It’s just that reading from the web is just not for some people.  It is also different just reading on your personal gadget.  Even if books are easier or news is easier to carry around and more convenient, it still doesn’t compare to the fulfillment of print.

So if you have to ask if print is going away, it’s not.  It’s going to stay forever.  Even if newspaper circulation has gone down a tremendous amount in the past few years, newspapers will always exist.  There would be no news without reporters and no reporters without newspapers.

I have always been a Verizon Wireless customer.  I love their service and am always the one, along with my other fellow Verizon friends, at church who has phone reception.  My other friends who have AT&T or Sprint would be moving their phones around trying to get some reception to make a call or send a text message.

When the iPhone first came out, I wanted to switch to AT&T so badly.  But I didn’t want to switch too since I loved Verizon’s service.  I then decided to get an iTouch since it’s almost as close to having the iPhone.

Many of my friends and the people I knew switched to AT&T just because of the iPhone.   I guess that’s what happened to many people who wanted the iPhone.  They quickly ended their contracts with their providers and switch to get that flat, sleek, touch screen phone. 

Now, those people are thinking about coming back to Verizon once the iPhone gets offered.  My only guess was it had a lot to do with the service that AT&T was offering.  Obviously, everybody wants a phone that is easy to use and fun but has to have good network and reception coverage.

So, since I have been so patient thinking Verizon will someday offer something similar to the iPhone, that patience is finally going to pay off.  I can’t wait for Verizon to release a version of the Apple iPhone.

The organization raised a total of $1,500 at the banquet. Their total budget for the event was about $800.  About $250 went to the renting of the Nazarene church, $150 went to the decorations, and the leftover $400 went to miscellaneous materials including food. 

The entrance to get in was $20 for a couple and $10 for a single ticket.  Pictures were also taken that cost $5 for each pose and a 4X7 followed by $1 more if you want to make copies. OK, let’s stop there.  I feel exhausted already.  Did those numbers click in yet?

Some people have difficulties with numbers.  Even professional people make mistakes in calculating numbers.  So, where should we start to solve this problem with math? Of course, teaching math to our children.

In a recent article in The New York Times, the nation’s schoolchildren’s math skills are better than the reading scores.  The reading scores have remained constantly low compared to the math scores as what the study reported.

Math is an essential part of understanding this world.  Even parents, like mine, who don’t quite understand English, can do calculations better in their heads than I can do mine.

Also, if we learn math, we may become rich.  A man from Russia just recently refused a $1 million prize money to solving a math problem even though he could do.  Is that crazy or what?  But I guess his excuses are understandable.

Liu Yi invented a toe mouse for people who would find it more convenient if they had no arms.  But would it be convenient?

It seems like the toes are a bit hard to function.  Try moving your thumb toe.  Doesn’t it seem like you’re moving all of your toes?  We can’t necessarily control which toe we want to particularly move only.  OK, maybe the thumb toe can be controlled if you really focus and practice.

But the toe mouse that Yi made is quite difficult to grasp.  The toe mouse is made like a flip-flop sandal.  Your thumb toe would act as the left click of a hand mouse, and your second toe would act as the right click.  Complicated in the sense of controlling? I think so.

So what about those who does have hands but want to use this toe mouse?  It would be easier, maybe.  You can type all you want without ever having to lift those hands off the keyboard.  You can eat, play cards, hold something, do whatever with your hands without having to stop and click with your hand mouse to go where you want on the computer.  I guess it’s up to you.

But then there comes the glove mouse.  You put on these gloves and it’s almost like doing everything up on air.  Everything just seems to be so complicated now.  It’s totally high-tech I suppose.  But if you have to ask me, I personally would prefer using the regular hand mouse.  Everything seems so much easier to function and control.

I guess I won’t be able to understand the feelings of having no hands or fingers and just doing everything by feet or mouth.  This device will be helpful to people without hand so fingers.  Like what the article states in its title: this thing is “Almost Genius.”

                If they report faster on their stories, it will get more people’s attention faster.  Usually bloggers would hear of a story and post their thoughts quickly.  But if reporters write their stories fast and publish it, their stories would catch more attention.

                Journalists should also treat news like a conversation because stories usually shouldn’t end.  Instead, they should create not an “ending” when the story is finished, but it should create more discussions for readers to add or comment on.  Bloggers usually lets readers end the story with what they want, allowing them to almost contribute to the story.

                Lastly, journalists can use some personality in their writing.  You see a lot of bloggers writing first-person accounts or more opinions, but this helps show who the writer really is.  Journalists are taught to stay out the story, but professional journalists do have interesting ideas.

                Moreover, some bloggers consider themselves journalists.  According to the TechCrunch Web site, 91 percent of bloggers and 68 percent of online reporters “always” or “sometimes” use blogs for research.  This shows that blogs has an important role online.

                Nevertheless, traditional media should draw many ideas from new media.   They need to see the rapid focus on what the consumers are really using and wanting.  They should be able to give away free stuff to people to catch their attention. That is one idea of Chris Anderson.

                Traditional media should try to learn that everything is just about consumers.  If it doesn’t interest them, then it’s just a waste of time to try to get their attention.

                Traditional media has to also keep in mind that there are different people to target as well.  There are neo-luddites who thinks modern technology is corrupting society so they are moving to stop this corruption.  Andrew Keen is one example.  Traditional media should try to understand this.

                Then there comes early adopters who are consistently watching for new technology to enter the media.  These people are more likely to be convinced into the new media.  Traditional media should target these people as consumers.

A community can be defined in so many ways.  According to the Merriam-Webster dictionary Web site, a community is defined as a “unified body of individuals” or “the people with common interests living in a particular area.”

Yes, a community can be defined in this way.  If you are living in a certain area together, sharing the same interests or participating together in some way through a certain idea, you’ll be in this so-called “community.”

But how do you know if you are part of a community?  Do you have to contribute something or participate to be considered a part of it?  Do you have to have the name of helping a community financially, actively contributing ideas and participation, or just voicing your opinion to be considered a part of a community?

I think the answer is yes, yes, yes.  But I think that being part of a community doesn’t necessarily mean that you have to be an active person in contributing ideas or actively participating.  I think that if you just live in the same place or share one common thing, you are considered to be in a community.

It’s not that hard to tell.  Do you like to use the Internet?  See, I see you as a part of a community.

Television still contributes to many people’s entertainment even with the Internet having social networking and television shows that you can watch anytime you want at home.

In a recent article by The New York Times, research has shown that recently more viewers are tuning into television by a very big help of the Internet.

Social networks like Facebook and MySpace are enabling viewers to split their time between the television and the computer.

Although they may hear about certain events like what happened to Taylor Swift and Kanye West that Grammys night and to what happened to their favorite superstar at the winter Olympics, people are still tuning in to watch the televised program to see what happened and who still won what.

This has contributed largely to the rise of viewers on television.  Isn’t it interesting to see how the Internet and our very own television programs are working almost together to make us consume both their products?

 And now there are talks about television being watched on the road in perfect picture.

How wildly crazy is that?  It’s actually something that will be very interesting to see happen.  It will cost a lot but like I said earlier, television is probably never going away for a long time.

Especially now that being part of certain social networks can contribute to your chances of getting employed, people are taking the opportunity to show who they are and what they can do.  Thus, they can be creating blogs and contributing news that can influence anybody anywhere.

I think that I would have to agree a little with both David Weinberger and Andrew Keen on their perspectives of how news and media has affected people’s lives.

Weinberger thinks that news should be conversational in the sense that anybody can contribute to the web and the truth will come out through those kinds of conversations.  He thinks there shouldn’t be any need for professional journalists or gatekeepers to filter out things that aren’t true and relevant to a certain subject.

Keen, on the other hand, thinks that we should be concerned about who is consuming what.  We should have gatekeepers and filters go through news and blogs to see what is relevant and what is true.

I agree with Keen on this one because today there are so many blogs and blogs within news Web sites that I find it hard to distinguish which one is true and relevant from one another.  I think there should be gatekeepers to filter out information that doesn’t have evidence to back it up or is irrelevant to the subject.

However, Weinberger has a point in letting anybody contribute to the web.  I think that by doing this, it does help let people find a place for themselves in the Internet.  It also gives people the chance to interact with one another in developing news that is going on and around.

But if it really comes down to whose perspective I would really agree with, I would go with Keen rather than Weinberger.  Keen would have the professionals filter the things I read.  I like accuracy, and I’m sure everybody likes that, too.

We all know that with the free access of news from online, many print newspapers have gone away and have lost tons of money.  Many people are turning to the web for their news because they don’t have to pay for content and maybe it’s just more convenient for some.

However, with the introduction of the iPad from Apple a few weeks ago, they believe it’s going to help save journalism not kill it some more.  It’s supposed to be more convenient to enjoy newspapers, books, and music.  But is it really going to save journalism?

It’s hard to believe how one would like reading a prescribed newspaper or a magazine on a screen.  Why are you going to pay for a prescription when you have free access to the same news on the Internet?

 According to a GO Group, LLC, one of the nation’s biggest airport and ground transporter, 73 percent of the 250 travelers prefer printed materials rather than other choices on a survey.  It’s amazing to see how people still prefer print, but we still see that print is slowly fading away.

So what can save journalism?  Is it going to be the new invention of the iPad or the way you and I prefer our news in?  Maybe one day we’ll all realize that changing technology doesn’t really necessarily mean that we have to change our way of enjoying the news we get each day.  Maybe that will help save journalism.