Skip to main content

Behold the pocket watch reborn

Mine was the first generation to turn against the daily delivered newspaper. When I was a lad pretty well everyone had a newspaper every day. But I have never had one delivered. For me a newspaper is something to buy as and when, to enjoy as a special treat but not a daily source of news. The TV news, and latterly the internet, has always provided the updates I needed, well ahead of the papers. Why would I subscribe to yesterday's news on a regular basis?

I know lots of people do still get newspapers regularly, but I would be very surprised if people my age and younger aren't much less likely to have a paper pushed through the door than the generation before.

With a more recent generation, I think something similar is happening with wristwatches. My children don't wear watches. It's not that we've deprived them - they have had several, but they just don't bother with them. Apart from the general convenience of ask-an-adult, a lot of this has to do with mobile phones. If you always have your phone with you, you've got the time. Why bother with a watch as well? It's a kind of return to the pocket watch. It's only a matter of time before watch chains and waistcoats make a comeback, though, of course, these will be phone chains.

If you are over 25 you might disagree. I think the cut off point is somewhere around there. But I wouldn't be at all surprised if watch wearing is declining in the under 25s. Watch out, erm, watch manufacturers.

Image from Wikipedia
Labels:

Comments

  1. Sue Guiney20 January 2010 at 11:21

    You're so right about the watches. My 25 year old doesn't have or want one precisely because he relies on his phone for everything in his life. The 19 year old does wear one, but he's a bit outre, I think. I personally miss the pocket watch. They were so beautiful.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Brian Clegg20 January 2010 at 12:36

    You're right, Sue, pocket watches are wonderful. The trouble is, you can't wear one without appearing to be a prat.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Sabine Hossenfelder20 January 2010 at 12:48

    I'm 33. I haven't been wearing a watch since after I learned to read them. What for? Tell me any occasion on which you do really need a watch. Look around, the world is full with clocks everywhere and anywhere and yes, in particularly so since everybody has a mobile phone, and btw my iPod also has a clock and my laptop of course and my digital camera and your TV knows the time and they'll tell you on the radio, and if you look out the window there's a display swapping between the temperature and the time and so on.

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Why I hate opera

If I'm honest, the title of this post is an exaggeration to make a point. I don't really hate opera. There are a couple of operas - notably Monteverdi's Incoranazione di Poppea and Purcell's Dido & Aeneas - that I quite like. But what I do find truly sickening is the reverence with which opera is treated, as if it were some particularly great art form. Nowhere was this more obvious than in ITV's 2010 gut-wrenchingly awful series Pop Star to Opera Star , where the likes of Alan Tichmarsh treated the real opera singers as if they were fragile pieces on Antiques Roadshow, and the music as if it were a gift of the gods. In my opinion - and I know not everyone agrees - opera is: Mediocre music Melodramatic plots Amateurishly hammy acting A forced and unpleasant singing style Ridiculously over-supported by public funds I won't even bother to go into any detail on the plots and the acting - this is just self-evident. But the other aspects need some exp
117 comments
Read more

Is 5x3 the same as 3x5?

The Internet has gone mildly bonkers over a child in America who was marked down in a test because when asked to work out 5x3 by repeated addition he/she used 5+5+5 instead of 3+3+3+3+3. Those who support the teacher say that 5x3 means 'five lots of 3' where the complainants say that 'times' is commutative (reversible) so the distinction is meaningless as 5x3 and 3x5 are indistinguishable. It's certainly true that not all mathematical operations are commutative. I think we are all comfortable that 5-3 is not the same as 3-5.  However. This not true of multiplication (of numbers). And so if there is to be any distinction, it has to be in the use of English to interpret the 'x' sign. Unfortunately, even here there is no logical way of coming up with a definitive answer. I suspect most primary school teachers would expands 'times' as 'lots of' as mentioned above. So we get 5 x 3 as '5 lots of 3'. Unfortunately that only wor
25 comments
Read more

Why backgammon is a better game than chess

I freely admit that chess, for those who enjoy it, is a wonderful game, but I honestly believe that as a game , backgammon is better (and this isn't just because I'm a lot better at playing backgammon than chess). Having relatively recently written a book on game theory, I have given quite a lot of thought to the nature of games, and from that I'd say that chess has two significant weaknesses compared with backgammon. One is the lack of randomness. Because backgammon includes the roll of the dice, it introduces a random factor into the play. Of course, a game that is totally random provides very little enjoyment. Tossing a coin isn't at all entertaining. But the clever thing about backgammon is that the randomness is contributory without dominating - there is still plenty of room for skill (apart from very flukey dice throws, I can always be beaten by a really good backgammon player), but the introduction of a random factor makes it more life-like, with more of a sense
6 comments
Read more