The flipside is, of course that you are much more likely to be able to
find it in 25 years on paper.
http://www.gseis.ucla.edu/~howard/Papers/elect-art-longevity.html
--
Gavin
Adrian Midgley wrote:
>I'm not surprised by the article excerpted and linked below (found on the
>Boing-Boing blog) but there continue I think to be assertions made in public
>that paper is a better foundation for either the administration of a health
>service or a component part of it, or the conduct of healthcare itself, than
>paper.
>
>http://www.uwnews.org/article.asp?articleID=5405
>
>"Keeping found things found" is a nice statement of a large problem.
>
>"Paper documents are a pain
>A new study from the University of Washington's Information School provides
>more proof that search rules:
>More than half of survey participants admitted losing track of a paper
>document at least once a week -- more than twice the number of people who
>reported losing electronic information.
>
>The result? While more than 60 percent reported being satisfied with their
>ability to handle computerized records such as e-mails, electronic documents
>and Web bookmarks, only 31 percent were satisfied with their ability to
>organize their papers.
>The survey is part of an interesting project called Keeping Found Things
>Found, an effort to develop innovative ways to manage information stored
>digitally and on dead trees."
>
>
>--
>Adrian Midgley Open Source software is better
>GP, Exeter http://www.defoam.net/
>
>
>
|