Comments on: I Don’t Think This Is Historically Accurate https://blog.speculist.com/entertainment/i-dont-think-th.html Live to see it. Thu, 16 Dec 2021 08:21:00 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.6.1 By: MDarling https://blog.speculist.com/entertainment/i-dont-think-th.html#comment-2589 MDarling Fri, 01 Jun 2007 07:39:22 +0000 http://localhost/specblog/?p=1197#comment-2589 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.

]]> By: Stephen Gordon https://blog.speculist.com/entertainment/i-dont-think-th.html#comment-2588 Stephen Gordon Thu, 31 May 2007 12:20:56 +0000 http://localhost/specblog/?p=1197#comment-2588 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.

]]>