[Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] Indexes: Main | Date | Thread | Author

[ba-unrev-talk] solar flare wipeout WAS: the myth of the paperless office


Eric Armstrong wrote:
> However, I'm not totally sure that would be a good thing. I see the day
when
> all the world's information is on computers, and that massive solar flare
hits
> that wipes them out. We could rebuild civilization in 100 years, with the
> information in our libraries. But if those were gone, it would take us
> millennia.    (01)

I believe some researchers are working on storage mechanisms that use
binary-state structured crystal molecules that can be switched back and
forth with lasers. I'm sure I read something like that in Scientific
American a year or two ago. So storage is non-magnetic.    (02)

Peter    (03)

----- Original Message -----
From: "Eric Armstrong" <eric.armstrong@sun.com>
To: <ba-unrev-talk@bootstrap.org>
Sent: Wednesday, December 12, 2001 9:32 PM
Subject: Re: [ba-unrev-talk] the myth of the paperless office    (04)


> Eugene Eric Kim wrote:
>
> > This notice, "The news about paper," from the BBC News Online, talks
about
> > a commonly noted phenomenon -- the fact that computers seem to have
> > increased, not decreased, the use of paper:
> >
> > http://news.bbc.co.uk/low/english/sci/tech/newsid_1666000/1666325.stm
> >
> > The conclusions of Abigail Sellen and Richard Harper, who just published
> > the book, _The Myth of the Paperless Office_, was summarized as follows:
> >
> >   "The UK researchers conclude that the main reason paper remains
popular
> >   is because technology has produced nothing that can match it in terms
of
> >   usability and familiarity."
>
> I disagree (only slightly) with assesment. Paper remains popular because
> nothing
> can match it terms of usability and usability. Electronic versions make
> searching
> easy. But we've all noted that word searches, as opposed to topic
searches,
> create may false matches. At the same time, it is very difficult to search
> every
> file in your system. That's one reason I prefer keeping most everything in
> email
> folders -- so I can find it again later, no matter what hare-brained
scheme I
> used
> when I originally stored. (It must have been hare-brained, because I
certainly
> can't find it *now*.
>
> > There are some things about paper upon which technology may not be able
to
> > improve.  However, there are many areas where digital technology should
be
> > inherently better than paper.  So why haven't people implemented these
> > systems?
>
> So digital technology has not quite lived up to its inherent promise of
> searchability.
> That's one reason that such systems have not replaced paper systems. On
the
> other hand, their maleability makes them *dynamite* for authoring. I'm not
even
>
> sure that typewriters even *exist* any more. Haven't seen them in a decade
or
> so.
>
> So digital systems have all but completely replaced paper as an authoring
> mechanism. But I still find it indispensible for reviewing. Reasons:
>   a) Portablity
>   b) Density
>   c) Notability
>
> A printed document goes with me anywhere, to the beach or the mountains
> or anywhere in between. It also has a very high density, so I can see a
lot
> more information at one time than I can on a screen. If need be, I can
spread
> out several pages and compare them. Until I have a screen the size of a
> whiteboard, there is no hope of duplicating that feat on a computer.
Finally,
> I can jot down notes in the margins, no matter how the document was
originally
> authored.
>
> When digital systems can achieve the same level of portability,
information
> and graphic density, and notation-ability as paper systems, then they have
a
> hope of replacing paper for reading, as well as authoring.
>
> However, I'm not totally sure that would be a good thing. I see the day
when
> all the world's information is on computers, and that massive solar flare
hits
> that wipes them out. We could rebuild civilization in 100 years, with the
> information in our libraries. But if those were gone, it would take us
> millennia.
>
>
>    (05)