40 ms·

Why we shouldn’t worry about leaving print behind

24 points by ernesto95 11y ago

theseatoms 11y ago
Slightly off-topic: Print is still far and away the best medium for archiving information for future generations.
- freehunter 11y ago
  Although paper, especially the paper commonly used in newsprint, is terrible for it. Ever try to archive newspapers without taking extra steps to preserve them? It's gone in a decade or two. Long-term archiving is a problem no matter what the medium.
  - deleted 11y ago
    [deleted]
  - dear 11y ago
    I have books and newspaper from decades ago. They are still fine. No special treatment.
    - freehunter 11y ago
      Some newsprint may last longer than others, but in general, newspapers turn yellow and become brittle after a fairly short period of time. That's why the US Constitution is stored in such an elaborate way, and why big libraries tend to have important and old papers/books stores in a secure vault, and keep newspaper archives on micro film. The Smithsonian has instructions on how to preserve newspaper, and reasons why it deteriorates so quickly: http://siarchives.si.edu/services/forums/collections-care-guidelines-resources/how-do-i-preserve-my-newspaper http://siarchives.si.edu/services/forums/collections-care-gu... I saved some papers from 9/11 in a shoebox in a closet, and when I opened it 10 years later, some of the papers crumbled in my hands. Paper of any kind is fragile and easily damaged by humidity, weather, and fire. We give books and newspaper special treatment every day they're kept safe in our climate-controlled houses. If civilization came crashing down, these archives would be lost very quickly.
  - Mandatum 11y ago
    Unless it's in a landfill where even newspapers last well over 50 years still readable: https://books.google.co.nz/books?id=qhYDD8joCbQC&lpg=PT574&ots=vgqSEgeWz9&dq=landfill%20newspaper%20biodegrade%2050%20year%20old&pg=PT574#v=snippet&q=50-year-old%20newspapers&f=false https://books.google.co.nz/books?id=qhYDD8joCbQC&lpg=PT574&o...
- drzaiusapelord 11y ago
  Digital is clearly the winner here from various perspectives but a bit fragile, but if we had to pick something that was especially solid and apocalypse proof, stone tablets would beat out print any day. Newspapers and books decay relatively quickly, are susceptible to fire, susceptible to flooding, etc. You can go to London and read the 2200 year old Rosetta Stone all you like after learning the basics of ancient Greek (like I did), which shouldn't be too tough for a native english speaker. Or if you're a real go-getter you can learn ancient Egyptian hieroglyphics and read the pottery from Abydos which is about 5200 years old. Meanwhile, we just have to accept the losses at the famous burning of the library of Alexandria. Newspapers just decades old are all but dust now. There's no lasting power in paper. Stone and clay tablets is where its at. From a more realistic perspective, we live in an age where every tinpot dictator can get nuclear weapons and every powerful nation has enough to end the world, so past ideas of human survival let alone knowledge survival may be a bit naive. There's probably nothing that will survive WWIII and there's no reason to think WWIII isn't going to happen eventually.
  - ctstover 11y ago
    There are many kinds of paper. Cost is one of the factors in the matrix of trade-offs. Newspaper paper is almost at the extreme low end of the spectrum. There really is paper that could give you 1-2 centuries easily using a monochrome laser printer. Not as good as stone, but does not require windows update.
    - drzaiusapelord 11y ago
      The problem is that fire and water will still destroy it. With digital, you can easily just have thousands of copies spread around various data centers and never have to worry about that. The low cost to copy and the ease of transfer are pretty big advantages here. And you get things like easy searching, perfect copies, etc as well.
      - JoeAltmaier 11y ago
        Nitpick: fire and water will destroy digital copies too.
rjeli 11y ago
With the recent incensed discussion of Python 2 vs. 3, I thought this would be about the `print` statement.
noam87 11y ago
Digital won't replace print just as the radio and TV didn't replace print (and interactive didn't replace passive, and print didn't replace the spoken word). They are wholly different ways to interact with information, each better suited for different tasks. I'm 28 years old, and I buy all my books in print form. There is something about learning from a physical object (with volume, texture, scent) that makes things "click" better. I remember "where", within some textbook I read half a decade ago, some topic is explained. A literal, physical "where": a page, somewhere in the middle of a physical stack of bound paper, which I can touch and feel; I might event remember where I was when I studied the subject; maybe I jotted some note on the margin, maybe I spilled tea on the pages before, giving that "where" its own unique texture and colour, all of which my brain will forever associate with that information. Digital can't do any of that. There is nothing left to improve about the physical book. Of course, if my physical book confuses me, because perhaps it was written by a certain man named Spivak, who does not like to explain what happens in between those little "=" symbols, I can't press on anything and expect it to expand magically and reveal more detail. It's at this point that I will turn to my laptop, and search for more information, maybe even ask a stranger half a world away, or watch an interactive video. My copy of "Calculus on Manifolds" can't do any of that. I also still find that the best way to solve a problem (even a programming problem), is on pen and paper. Physically jotting down an idea beats pressing buttons while staring at an obnoxious, headache-inducing glowing screen any time (which I try to avoid as much as possible, even as a software developer). To me flipping still beats searching and clicking, and pen and paper still beat Google calendar, or whatever todo-app-of-the-week. The best technology is invisible and gets out of the way. We are physical animals, and technology is best when it assists and enhances our physical world, not when it tries to be a shoddy substitute for it.
- ktamura 11y ago
  I am around your age, and while I _personally_ agree with you, I am also not sure about people that are born now: my friends' kids are playing with iPads and Android tablets (honestly, more iPads) just like I was playing with picture books, and looking at them interact with these digital devices, I have the suspicion that their generation will have a completely different relationship with digital devices for reading and beyond. Of course, they are also given books in print and interact with them as well, but I feel that the verdict is still out there about how that generation will feel about print when they are our age. That's a long-winded way of saying that neither of us is young anymore, and we _might_ be on our way to be less indicative of the future and more reminiscent of the past (Just _maybe_).
iss 11y ago
I find this discussion fascinating. I'm an avid reader and until 4 years ago I wouldn't trade a physical book for a digital one. Still today, I have this romantic vision of a personal library with an eclectic book collection. But then, I bought my first kindle and things changed. Since 2012, I bought over 150 books, read half of those and if anything, the kindle made me read even more. Besides, I really believe that digital books are also democratising the access to knowledge and information. I'm based in Portugal and to buy the 150 books I mentioned above I would have to spend more than double the amount I ended up spending. Why? Because I would need to order them from USA and transport it's still very expensive.
colmvp 11y ago
I'll say that I prefer buying physical books whereby the medium suits the matter. Incredible visuals like traditional art, design, and photography just aren't the same on an iPad. Technical information is easier to skim, note, and browse in paper format. But the vast majority of books I read on a weekly basis such as non-fiction, psychology, and philosophy is just flat out better with my Kindle. I love that I can carry a library of books in my bag with a fraction of the weight. I can also quickly sample and potentially purchase a book on a whim without having to leave my home or wait for a delivery. I can switch between books or magazines in a cinch. I don't need to recycle old magazines and instead just rely on the next issue of the New Yorker magically showing up on my device. And most importantly, the space saved in my physical home is invaluable.

24 points by ernesto95 11y ago

theseatoms 11y ago

Slightly off-topic: Print is still far and away the best medium for archiving information for future generations.

freehunter 11y ago
Although paper, especially the paper commonly used in newsprint, is terrible for it. Ever try to archive newspapers without taking extra steps to preserve them? It's gone in a decade or two. Long-term archiving is a problem no matter what the medium.
- deleted 11y ago
  [deleted]
- dear 11y ago
  I have books and newspaper from decades ago. They are still fine. No special treatment.
  - freehunter 11y ago
    Some newsprint may last longer than others, but in general, newspapers turn yellow and become brittle after a fairly short period of time. That's why the US Constitution is stored in such an elaborate way, and why big libraries tend to have important and old papers/books stores in a secure vault, and keep newspaper archives on micro film. The Smithsonian has instructions on how to preserve newspaper, and reasons why it deteriorates so quickly: http://siarchives.si.edu/services/forums/collections-care-guidelines-resources/how-do-i-preserve-my-newspaper http://siarchives.si.edu/services/forums/collections-care-gu... I saved some papers from 9/11 in a shoebox in a closet, and when I opened it 10 years later, some of the papers crumbled in my hands. Paper of any kind is fragile and easily damaged by humidity, weather, and fire. We give books and newspaper special treatment every day they're kept safe in our climate-controlled houses. If civilization came crashing down, these archives would be lost very quickly.
- Mandatum 11y ago
  Unless it's in a landfill where even newspapers last well over 50 years still readable: https://books.google.co.nz/books?id=qhYDD8joCbQC&lpg=PT574&ots=vgqSEgeWz9&dq=landfill%20newspaper%20biodegrade%2050%20year%20old&pg=PT574#v=snippet&q=50-year-old%20newspapers&f=false https://books.google.co.nz/books?id=qhYDD8joCbQC&lpg=PT574&o...
drzaiusapelord 11y ago
Digital is clearly the winner here from various perspectives but a bit fragile, but if we had to pick something that was especially solid and apocalypse proof, stone tablets would beat out print any day. Newspapers and books decay relatively quickly, are susceptible to fire, susceptible to flooding, etc. You can go to London and read the 2200 year old Rosetta Stone all you like after learning the basics of ancient Greek (like I did), which shouldn't be too tough for a native english speaker. Or if you're a real go-getter you can learn ancient Egyptian hieroglyphics and read the pottery from Abydos which is about 5200 years old. Meanwhile, we just have to accept the losses at the famous burning of the library of Alexandria. Newspapers just decades old are all but dust now. There's no lasting power in paper. Stone and clay tablets is where its at. From a more realistic perspective, we live in an age where every tinpot dictator can get nuclear weapons and every powerful nation has enough to end the world, so past ideas of human survival let alone knowledge survival may be a bit naive. There's probably nothing that will survive WWIII and there's no reason to think WWIII isn't going to happen eventually.
- ctstover 11y ago
  There are many kinds of paper. Cost is one of the factors in the matrix of trade-offs. Newspaper paper is almost at the extreme low end of the spectrum. There really is paper that could give you 1-2 centuries easily using a monochrome laser printer. Not as good as stone, but does not require windows update.
  - drzaiusapelord 11y ago
    The problem is that fire and water will still destroy it. With digital, you can easily just have thousands of copies spread around various data centers and never have to worry about that. The low cost to copy and the ease of transfer are pretty big advantages here. And you get things like easy searching, perfect copies, etc as well.
    - JoeAltmaier 11y ago
      Nitpick: fire and water will destroy digital copies too.

rjeli 11y ago

With the recent incensed discussion of Python 2 vs. 3, I thought this would be about the `print` statement.

noam87 11y ago

Digital won't replace print just as the radio and TV didn't replace print (and interactive didn't replace passive, and print didn't replace the spoken word). They are wholly different ways to interact with information, each better suited for different tasks. I'm 28 years old, and I buy all my books in print form. There is something about learning from a physical object (with volume, texture, scent) that makes things "click" better. I remember "where", within some textbook I read half a decade ago, some topic is explained. A literal, physical "where": a page, somewhere in the middle of a physical stack of bound paper, which I can touch and feel; I might event remember where I was when I studied the subject; maybe I jotted some note on the margin, maybe I spilled tea on the pages before, giving that "where" its own unique texture and colour, all of which my brain will forever associate with that information. Digital can't do any of that. There is nothing left to improve about the physical book. Of course, if my physical book confuses me, because perhaps it was written by a certain man named Spivak, who does not like to explain what happens in between those little "=" symbols, I can't press on anything and expect it to expand magically and reveal more detail. It's at this point that I will turn to my laptop, and search for more information, maybe even ask a stranger half a world away, or watch an interactive video. My copy of "Calculus on Manifolds" can't do any of that. I also still find that the best way to solve a problem (even a programming problem), is on pen and paper. Physically jotting down an idea beats pressing buttons while staring at an obnoxious, headache-inducing glowing screen any time (which I try to avoid as much as possible, even as a software developer). To me flipping still beats searching and clicking, and pen and paper still beat Google calendar, or whatever todo-app-of-the-week. The best technology is invisible and gets out of the way. We are physical animals, and technology is best when it assists and enhances our physical world, not when it tries to be a shoddy substitute for it.

ktamura 11y ago
I am around your age, and while I _personally_ agree with you, I am also not sure about people that are born now: my friends' kids are playing with iPads and Android tablets (honestly, more iPads) just like I was playing with picture books, and looking at them interact with these digital devices, I have the suspicion that their generation will have a completely different relationship with digital devices for reading and beyond. Of course, they are also given books in print and interact with them as well, but I feel that the verdict is still out there about how that generation will feel about print when they are our age. That's a long-winded way of saying that neither of us is young anymore, and we _might_ be on our way to be less indicative of the future and more reminiscent of the past (Just _maybe_).

iss 11y ago

I find this discussion fascinating. I'm an avid reader and until 4 years ago I wouldn't trade a physical book for a digital one. Still today, I have this romantic vision of a personal library with an eclectic book collection. But then, I bought my first kindle and things changed. Since 2012, I bought over 150 books, read half of those and if anything, the kindle made me read even more. Besides, I really believe that digital books are also democratising the access to knowledge and information. I'm based in Portugal and to buy the 150 books I mentioned above I would have to spend more than double the amount I ended up spending. Why? Because I would need to order them from USA and transport it's still very expensive.

colmvp 11y ago

I'll say that I prefer buying physical books whereby the medium suits the matter. Incredible visuals like traditional art, design, and photography just aren't the same on an iPad. Technical information is easier to skim, note, and browse in paper format. But the vast majority of books I read on a weekly basis such as non-fiction, psychology, and philosophy is just flat out better with my Kindle. I love that I can carry a library of books in my bag with a fraction of the weight. I can also quickly sample and potentially purchase a book on a whim without having to leave my home or wait for a delivery. I can switch between books or magazines in a cinch. I don't need to recycle old magazines and instead just rely on the next issue of the New Yorker magically showing up on my device. And most importantly, the space saved in my physical home is invaluable.