I Don't Think This Is Historically Accurate

By | May 31, 2007
2 Comments

I mean, it may have happened more or less like this, but I’ve never seen an IT help desk guy with so much patience and so little attitude. But then, it was a long time ago:

Via GeekPress.

  • https://www.blog.speculist.com Stephen Gordon

    heh!

    There’s actually a (somewhat) serious point to be made with this.

    Even with all the power that the digital world brings – our ability to colaborate, instantly share, publish ideas, etc. – books are still with us.

    Why? Once printed they hold information well. I have several books that are well over 100 years old. Digital media, so far, can’t compete with that. Both because digital forms of storage degrade and because file storage and retrieval systems change over time.
    Anybody know how I can get a reel to reel data tape read and converted to CD?

    The fact that paper books can’t be easily copied and shared is often seen as a plus for the writer and publisher.

    Once printed they require no outside power to operate. This adds to their portability.

    And, so far, they are easier on the eyes to read than digital media.

    It looks like paper will be the dominant media that books are published in for at least a few years longer.

  • MDarling

    I agree with Stepehen- lots of good book features that are hard to replicate, improve on electronically. Same for newspapers- portable, powerless, etc. But I still find that I’d rather get my news elsewhere.

    As for the clip- way too much light from the single candle.