Your statement actually made me think about e-readers. Even though an e-reader is so much easier to carry around than a book is, there are still many people who love holding a book or have a bookshelf full of books. I for one would prefer that. So therefore I'm thinking, as long as there will be books, there will be also be print media.

I do agree that there may be a decline, but society needs to realize that we cannot go SO digital. I mean okay, let's talk in year 3000. Maybe then everything is going to be changed completely, yet I don't know what future you are talking about. Next 10 years? 50? 2000?

Still, I disagree that print media will disappear completely in the next 20 years at least. At the moment there is still the old generation who may be reluctant to own a tablet or read the news online. For now print media is pretty important for our grandparents at least. My grandparents would not even come close to a computer (but maybe in the West it's different) so they rely heavily on print media.

All in all, print media SHOULD not disappear. I do realize that the wood used for paper is important, but we also live in the times where recycling is becoming more and more emphasized. Therefore there would be no harm in publishing magazines and newspapers, as long as they are sustainable.

Agreed. I mean, I do believe the authorities want to keep everybody safe, which entitles them to collect your information. It doesn't mean that these people who can view your data will use it against you if you have a clean record. Maybe one day it can come in handy even to you, one can never know.

I think that as long as the right people are handling this information about citizens there shouldn't be much concern. I mean, you can't really help it now, can you? Unless you deactivate all your accounts and choose to live in the mountains, alone, no internet, no phone, no nothing. Just you and the drawings in the cave.

However... I never really heard of a case where someone caught terrorists because they've seen it in their records. Maybe I'm just not informed, but... I still haven't heard of it that often.

It's funny how you put it, but no. Think of the vast target audience that owns a smartphone. I don't think those people become smarter by using it. Think about teenagers. They want a smartphone to belong to a certain group, but they don't become smarter on the account of the latest iPhone.

Do smartphones make us smarter? No. Does it make our lives easier? Yes. But it is still very difficult to answer your question because you don't really define the meaning of 'us'. I can give you an answer, but I will talk in the name of a target audience aged 18 to 25. So mainly students.

It makes it easier to communicate, to stay in touch, to reach out to each other in an easy, cheap and fast way. It is true, we learn about how apps work and how to use them, but it's just some usability skills, right? It's not like a smartphone teaches me how to own at life, does it? It just provides means of me getting through my day a little easier than before, when smartphones were not available yet.

Ah, but if you are referring to people studying technological sciences or IT or whatever, then them studying smartphones might make them smarter indeed. It just depends on how you look at your question.

Strongly agree with Thelea. Everything is on record as soon as you publish it online. Nothing gets lost and it may seem really scary, but it's just how our world evolved and therefore we have to adjust to it, as long as our privacy is not violated.

In my opinion online privacy can be made possible by not making any type of online account at all. But even so, a lot of organisations have access to your data because of the different governmental procedures that require your personal information. I tend to believe there is a huge 'bank' where all our info goes that can be accessed (only by certified officials) when some information is needed. It is useless even to delete information you posted in the past, because apparently it is still on the record.

This information however is not as public as it looks, yet it is there, recorded somewhere. So the privacy exists, because it is not made public to your friends for example (unless YOU choose to make it public yourself), but it is still stored and kept for further reference (if ever needed).

I am pretty sure you are familiar with TV shows like L.A. Ink or Miami Ink or What-have-you Ink where they air the stories behind the tattoos people make in specific tattoo shops. And let me tell you something, I used to watch these shows with my grandmother. Yes, you read that right. We both liked the show and the reasons people chose to get those tattoos for. It was interesting to notice how many of them (who already had tattoos) can be so sensible and want to mark an event in their life that they can carry with them forever. Most of those people do it for themselves. Maybe they are afraid of letting go of someone who passed away, or they feel the need to be ‘protected’ by them at all times. It doesn't matter if it’s someone from their family or a beloved pet. These people can even be alive for what is worth. It’s often an emotional explanation as to why these people get their tattoos.

I brought up those shows because I believe it is a good example of media putting tattoo art in a positive light. And you would be surprised how many people who don’t have tattoos watch it. I, myself, love to watch it simply because I love how talented the artists are and perhaps because watching those shows fills in for the fact that I will never get a tattoo.

I am not sure where the whole rebel-story about people who are bearing tattoos began. I guess back in the days convicts were being tattooed with a number or whatever. Prostitutes were also tattooed at some point back in the medieval times. Perhaps the belief has been passed on in time and even if we don’t know where it comes from, we can’t help but associating it with the ‘bad guys’.

I don’t really think media still has a negative influence on the image of people with tattoos have. Think about Angelina Jolie. She has loads of it, but when you look at her she looks so sweet and elegant in her perfect Oscar dresses. As far as I know, there hasn’t been much criticism on how many tattoos she has, but rather the number of children she keeps on adopting. Am I right or what?

It's hard to tell really. I never really been interested in dating websites, but I do think there are advantages and disadvantages. In my personal view I think disadvantages overtake the pros of online dating.

But let us start with advantages: I guess it's easier for people who have a busy schedule to find a significant other via this medium. And it is entirely justified. They may be too tired to join parties or get-together because of a hectic lifestyle and therefore the dating websites might be a good solution for them to check out.

On the other hand however, speaking for the people who do have time on their hands and are younger(? - just assuming), it is perhaps better to start a relationship based on friendship for example. I strongly believe that when a relationship evolves from a friendship things are different. You interact more with that person, you've seen them through their worse and their best and you are still friends with them. Of course, it is not necessary for it to happen, many people's feelings do not go farther than a friendship.

Also, there is a certain entourage that surround people that you meet (and who raise your interest) while having a casual drink with a group. You see them interacting with other people, you may even meet their friends and thus create a better picture of this person.

I am not necessarily saying I don't approve of dating sites, yet at my age I personally don't find it appealing. Plus, there is of course the safety issue, anyone can be on these websites so you cannot know for sure if you can trust someone online (maybe they have a fake picture of themselves, lie about their age, etc.).

I guess people are more open to online dating, but I have the feeling it is still avoided a little, especially by the younger generation. You can think for example about the MTV show 'Catfish', they rarely are who they claim to be. It's not exactly online dating, but there is still something about relationships online and above all, the trustworthiness of them.

As futuristic as it may be, I believe iPads should not really be an option to educating children. First of all, there is a lack of interaction with the other students and I don't think interacting while playing a network game is a solution. We can't have the world turn too technological and I strongly believe children should be educated to 'find themselves' while playing with each other, experiencing the outer world and not be confined to using games and apps on a piece of technology.

I really think this will drive them to be too egotistical with no empathy for the others, but only for themselves. Because of its addictive nature, children will be too drawn to the iPad and forget that there are others around them to communicate with. I don't know if this is an effective way of spending their energy.

But I do believe this: they should make use of iPads among other things. To a certain extent they need to be introduced to it, yet the iPad shouldn't be a way of educating children.

I would personally prefer small holders because they may take into account protecting the environment and may be a lot more sustainable in their businesses than multinational companies may. I would trust farmers would provide healthier food, YET like you said yourself the resources are scared and I am not sure if they many keep on doing it for an extended period of time. Multinationals tend to make use of genetically modified organisms (see the GMO debate from Saskia) and thus create more food without using too much raw materials (soil, etc.). It is not as healthy, yet it provides for more people and protects the resources. Still, it may have harmful effects on the human body.

Overall however, I am in favour of food being provided by farmers and small holders.

It's a far too dangerous thing to do, especially considering that farmers are relying on their lands to provide for themselves. With all the payment they will be provided, it is highly unethical to destroy someone's lifetime achievement just that so other people will get rich on their backs. I for one strongly disagree with it, especially because it affects so many people's lives. If it were just a 'clean' gas exploitation that had nothing to do with endangering people's lives, then it would have been okay.

Same story goes for the gold exploitation mine they want to open at Rosia Montana. Another example of making money by destroying a village and thus many lives that had been living in it for so long.