No, it isn't: You can't call something a modern equivalent of something else if the something else still exists in modern times (i.e. kids on lawns). More subst

No, it isn't: You can't call something a modern equivalent of something else if the something else still exists in modern times (i.e. kids on lawns). More substantively, the guy's got a point: digital distractions are pervasive and lead to an artificial sense of connectedness when really they disconnect you from your present environment. Probably not a big deal if your present environment is stultifying (sitting in traffic, for example), but more of a big deal when it's a potentially rich environment -- eating dinner with friends, say -- and you're missing out on it because you can't pull your head out of your -- ahem, BlackBerry. Not to mention, numerous studies demonstrate that even people who multitask constantly and believe they are quite good at it, aren't. They miss subtle cues and fail to appreciate the nuances of not just one thing, but everything amongst which they are dividing their attention. And not to pile on, but lots of studies also show that text messaging in particular is prone to communication errors (off the top of my head, I believe the study I'm thinking of said that only about 40% of what the sender intended to communicate is understood properly by the receiver). So I don't think he's just a cranky technophobe; I think it's actually a pretty important point he's making.