word doc on FQ

[andthis]

Is there any way to upload a word doc on FQ? I have seen word docs on other sites, I have a 5 page printable format I need to upload. Newbie, this is my first site any suggestions?8}

[Wassercrats]

I remember trying that a few months ago. I'm thinking of making my editorials available in .doc format as well as web page format, at least to selected people. I think I also tried saving images I created using MS Word, before I converted them to .gif and I couldn't do it. I second that suggestion.

[sheila]

That's strange. I've never had trouble making MS Word documents available on my site, and I've done it quite a bit. For example, on this page:
http://www.thinkspot.net/csumath/math216/index.html

near the top are two links, both to MS Word documents. Whether I use Mozilla or IE, when I click on the links it automatically opens them in MS Word.

Does it not do so for you?

[Wassercrats]

Well, I get a message saying that Program.exe can't be found, and the MS Word viewer is not a valid Win32 application, but don't go by me. The computers I use have restrictions on them.

[MichaelC]

Actually, getting a Word doc up is the easy part -- FTP should work just fine (although this might be a case for binary mode, since a Word doc is more than just ASCII text).

The problem arises when a user without Word (or a version of Word earlier than the version of the doc's version, or a broken association to the helper app from their browser) clicks on the doc.

So save that doc as the earliest version of Word that you can (remembering that older versions may lose features), and keep in mind that some of your users will run into difficulties.

MC
("Whaddya mean everyone doesn't have Word XP??")

[kitchin]

I've posted Word docs when clients just want to post it as-is. I usually link it as

MS Word document: <a href="x.doc>x.doc</a> (23K)

so at least it looks like a download. But why not use Rich Text Format? It will retain some of the formatting and is more universal. Save as *.rtf.

*.doc is binary. Come to think of it, *.rtf could be ASCII. It's just a text file with a bunch of codes in {braces}.

[Andilinks]

When I opened Sheila's Syllabus in IE it displayed with all the Word8 view options that I use so it obviously employs Word, when I used Mozilla I was given the option to open it with Word or "save to disk." Rtf files and txt files will open fine though in any browser, as Kitchin says the "rtf" format is a markup language and the formatting instructions may display too. My Netscape 4.5 gave me the option of using winword.exe to open an rtf document, so a system without some resident MS text editor would probably display the rtf markup tags, though that's a guess--opening an rtf document in Notepad does display all the tags.

Andrea

[frankc]

Originally posted by andthis:
Is there any way to upload a word doc on FQ? I have seen word docs on other sites, I have a 5 page printable format I need to upload.Welcome to FutureQuest, andthis!

If you can save your files in .RTF format and uploading them that way; ANY wordprocessor worth its salt will display 'em. Curiously, RTF (Rich Text Format) is developed and maintained by Microsoft. http://msdn.microsoft.com/library/?url=/library/en-us/dnrtfspec/html/rtfspec.asp?frame=true That's a bit scary....

[MichaelC]

curiously, RTF (Rich Text Format) is developed and maintained by Microsoft. http://msdn.microsoft.com/library/?url=/library/en-us/dnrtfspec/html/rtfspec.asp?frame=true That's a bit scary.... You're tellin' me -- in a previous life doing support for a certain pioneering page-layout application, some of our biggest headaches would occur when MS would update RTF without warning or provision for backward compatibility.

That said, it is a fairly universal format. It won't hold any page-related features, but it'll maintain your text styles.

MC
(There's also this other styled-text format...HTM-something, I think...;))

[Andilinks]

There's also this other styled-text format...HTM-something, I think...

every version of Word since 7 (I think that was 95) will "save as..." HTML, a very messy HTML to be sure, but it will work where *.doc and *.rtf won't.

Andi

[frankc]

Originally posted by Andilinks:
....HTML, a very messy HTML to be sure Can we add "bloated" to that list? ~#

[kitchin]

Originally posted by frankc:
Can we add "bloated" to that list? ~#
And that it won't look like the word doc.

[Andilinks]

Ahhh yes, "messy" covers all that stuff and then some, but a Word saved-as-HTML document will still look better than "file not found." If your target audience all have a recent version of Word, then upload *.doc, if not "save as..." HTML will work, but it will not display as well as if you recompose it in an HTML editor, and it will use more disk/bandwidth. Opening and resaving in FrontPage may help and give some layout options. Upload an *.rtf file and it will probably display well, and even if the formatting tags do show, it will still be readable. Four options, all work to varying degrees. Does that answer the original question? I think it does... A fifth option if you have some visitors who still use those noisy old steam turbine 386 cpu's or 8 mhz Macs you can change a *.txt file's extension to *.htm, and upload that. No formatting except good old ASCII, but it reads well and loads extremely fast, even on slow machines.

Andrea

Speaking of 8 mhz Macs, I still have mine from 1985, holding it for museum offers... ;)

[ryount]

You could put a link on your site to download the MS Word viewer:

http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=kb;EN-US;q165908

Adobe Acrobat would probably be much easier though.

[Andilinks]

Yes, MS Word Viewer is a great idea, I like that better that all my options given but:
Adobe Acrobat would probably be much easier though.
Acrobat Reader option would be a bit pricey on your end if you don't already own the "writer." Full version is $249.

http://www.adobe.com/store/main.html

Andi

[ryount]

I have Adobe Acrobat at work. If you want some documents converted let me know.

[sheila]

Like I said, I often put up documents in Word on my site. They are almost always for my students or other teachers. It is a valid concern that the visitor might not have MS Word and I have done both the HTML conversion and also put up links to the MS Word Viewer in the past. However, this quarter I was lazy and didn't. I've never had a student at the University say that they couldn't view the docs, though. Maybe the particular audience I'm serving simply has MS Word installed.

As for making .pdf files available, there is a way to do that besides using Acrobat: Compose your documents in LaTeX and then run a LaTeX to .pdf converter. I've done it, it's all free software and have made the .pdf docs available on my website. However, learning LaTeX first would be a deterrent for a lot of people, I'm sure. Although it isn't any stranger than learning HTML.

[TheEgo]

As for making .pdf files available, there is a way to do that besides using Acrobat: Compose your documents in LaTeX and then run a LaTeX to .pdf converter. You can still get PDFs out of everyday programs like Word without spending any money.

You start by "printing" your Word doc to disk with a Postscript printer driver. Then use a program called Ghostscript to convert that to PDF.

Ghostscript has limitations (fonts can be a problem), but with a little work you can get decent results. A good choice if you just need to put a document or two online and don't know anyone who has Acrobat.

On the downside, it's not a user friendly program. But if anyone here decides to give it a crack I can help you get started.

The Ego

[tappel]

More on creating PDFs without springing for Acrobat:

Along the lines of what The Ego is saying, there is something called FreePDF (http://www.webxd.com/zipguy/freepdf.htm) that works as a printer driver on any Win9x/ME machine and it is free. It seems a bit tricky to set up for the average user but, hey, the price is right.

If you're using WinNT/2000/XP, there is something called Win2PDF (http://www.win2pdf.com) that is free for personal use (though an extra page with the company's logo is added) and installation is quite simple. Like FreePdf, it adds a printer driver that outputs to a PDF file. To remove that extra page, it's $35 registration. I use this program and am very satisfied.

[TheEgo]

there is something called FreePDF that works as a printer driver on any Win9x/ME machine and it is free. It seems a bit tricky to set up for the average user but, hey, the price is right. Good Lord, "tricky" is an understatement. %)

I found that Win2PDF is very easy to set up and use -- if you have an NT/2000/XP system, that is -- but it has limitations. You can't embed fonts, so unless you're really fond of Times New Roman, Arial and Courier, you have to convert your fonts to bitmaps, which makes for large PDF files.

Ghostscript (http://www.cs.wisc.edu/~ghost/) can embed fonts, so I'd recommend it over Win2PDF for NT users who need better font handling. And for Win95/98/ME, FreePDF actually uses Ghostscript to do the work, so you'll get the same great results (if you survive the setup process).

Another part of the FreePDF setup is a program called Redmon (http://www.cs.wisc.edu/~ghost/redmon/), which does work with NT. I'm playing with it now to see if I can achieve the functionality of FreePDF.

The Ego

[Andilinks]

Ok, so I can use Acrobat without buying the Adobe software. Please tell me again why this is easier (or better) than posting static html pages...

I've always prefered viewing HTML because it is easier to copy and paste into other documents.

Andi

[Jeff]

Ok, so I can use Acrobat without buying the Adobe software. Please tell me again why this is easier (or better) than posting static html pages...
Primarily a PDF file is better than html when your visitors need to print the document and have it be exact. With a PDF file the print they get will be exactly what you created and they just have to hit print, whereas with html it frequently will flow strangely depending on the browser (for example an image will end up on the next page leaving a big gap or sometimes images will be cutoff if they're too large, etc.) It's sometimes easier to post a PDF than an html file if you've already composed a newsletter for print (multicolumn, text flows, indexed by page for example) and then want to post it on the web. It might take a couple of hours to reflow the text and graphics to create a nice looking html file, whereas it only takes a minute or so to export/publish/print it to a pdf file and upload that. If people would want to read it primarily on screen, I agree that I tend to prefer html because it's faster to load, doesn't launch the reader (even if it is within the browser) and it gets indexed better by search engines. But if it's something which is detailed (including tables, figures, forms, etc.) that they want to print for reference, PDF works great, allowing them to either view it on screen, zoom in to see figures/tables/specs larger, and most importantly print out a hard copy to read in their leisure. PDF also works great for forms which need to be mailed in. Oh, and regarding copying and pasting, this is also a possible reason for using PDF files as you can select the options you don't want people to be able to do including no save, no print, no select, etc. - granted there are ways to get around it, but most people won't go to the trouble.

[sheila]

For myself, .pdf or word doc is better, because I print a lot of stuff with math symbols and the only way to represent those in HTML (practically speaking) is with .gif or other images, and too many of those on a page makes it very slow to download.

MathML isn't practical yet, because it isn't supported by most browsers.

Still, I have sometimes converted my word docs to HTML anyways, just so that they were accessible to everyone with a browser. It's a good idea to offer the same document in a choice of formats, so the visitor can select the format that is best for him/her.

[Andilinks]

ahhh yes... the printing thing.

Thank you Jeff and Sheila for those excellent explanations. Personally I look forward to a paperless world. I use as little paper as possible but granted, sometimes it is a necessary evil. As someone who has lived near a paper mill in the North woods I know what the process does and I carry this unfortunate prejudice. That said, I now understand the utility of the Acrobat Reader. I am looking into the development of better digital displays and I think we will see the day when printing will be for artists and when most information will bypass paper.

I also create intellectual property and have mixed feelings about the possible redistribution and reconstitution of it. As you say, and as this thread has shown a determined user can get it anyway, so by copy protecting it I think you are just annoying the legitimate users while not really preventing the bootleg use. A whole new model for the marketing and distribution of intellectual property will emerge from this, but I can't even guess what it will be. <edit> I just deleted lengthy harangue on how greed ruins innovation... Good night! </edit>
So, I'm not likely to be using the pdf format, but at least now I know why, and it's not just the cost. :)

Thanks again.

Andrea

[Andilinks]

After taking this thread into a strange new territory I do have to add one more thing. My greatest objection to the use of paper is not any tendency to hug trees, I endorse the use of new growth trees as crops.

There is an inherent productivity gain when data remains digital, so my primary objection to paper is economic. The pollution it causes is just another thing.

Andi

[MichaelC]

There is an inherent productivity gain when data remains digital, so my primary objection to paper is economic. I don't know that I agree with this. It's still easier to read words on paper for various reasons including eye fatigue and the use of high-resolution serif fonts. Paper is also eminently more portable.

Digital text may be faster to produce and distribute, but even then there are other productivity-sucking tendencies, such as folk who insist on using Word's "track changes" feature for all editing. There's a whole generation of editors coming who will have no idea how to use proper editor's marks, and therefore a whole generation of writers who will learn nothing when presented with a digital mass of strikethrough and underline. %)

You do save the time it takes to print, though. ;)

MC

[Andilinks]

Michael, your arguments are all valid, but they are rooted in the past and rely on assumptions of the past. Digital displays will one day be more portable and easier to read than paper. People who use productivity sucking software will be found to be less productive than those who don't and won't keep their jobs. There will always be writers and editors who "get it" and they will be the stars of tomorrow. Data storage and transfer will be so cheap and ubiquitous that paper will have the same status that parchment does today. Now like you, I inhabit this world where I must use paper, and it currently does have some advantages over digital media. I have lots of books, and am very involved with books and other paper media. But my views reflect the future quest that I'm on (not to put too heavy a line under the generic use of those words). I don't think it a coincidence that forward looking people chose that name and are attracting other forward looking folks into the fold. :)

Andi

[TheEgo]

While I'm as future-oriented as the next sci-fi/computer geek, I firmly believe that some of the older technologies (and the paper document is a very old technology) will stay with us long after new ones should have made them obsolete.

To me, a paperless world is as likely as flying cars. Sounds wonderful on paper -- sorry, I couldn't help myself -- but like most utopian ideals it ignores a few of the more boring realities of our daily existence. Some technologies just fill a need very efficiently, and any amount of wishful thinking and impatience with the status quo won't change that anytime soon.

Of course, it won't stop me from daydreaming about the 600dpi "digital ink" displays they've been promising us.

I read a fascinating book review a month or two ago about paper as an information technology (which includes not just the paper itself, but the way people use it). Among other things, it argued that paper doesn't "suck" productivity in and of itself. File cabinets do.

Bet you weren't expecting that one. :P

Here's a link to the article, The Social Life of Paper (http://www.newyorker.com/critics/books/?020325crbo_books).

The Ego

[MichaelC]

Originally posted by Andilinks:
Michael, your arguments are all valid, but they are rooted in the past and rely on assumptions of the past. Digital displays will one day be more portable and easier to read than paper. People who use productivity sucking software will be found to be less productive than those who don't and won't keep their jobs. While you're absolutely right about what one day will be, you went pretty quickly from past to future there, without really stopping to address the needs of the present (in your tricked-out Delorean, perhaps? ;) ).

My concern is the world of today, and the one of six months from now. The future holds what it holds, and when there's a better way to read and edit text I'll embrace it with open arms, just as I threw my minicassette answering machine out the window upon discovering the wonders of voice mail.

As it stands, these particular assumptions of the past are still the realities of the present, and even the immediate future. As Ego suggests, there's good reason for that. Getting ahead of one's self might be as counterproductive as being a luddite.

And it doesn't help that the MS monopoly is behind the productivity-sucking software...

MC
("I think we're all Bozos on this future quest...")

[Andilinks]

Predicting the future is a tricky business and sometimes I do get things wrong. But I never did predict a paperless world or flying cars, just a world where most information bypasses paper and where most printing is reserved for artists. I also very clearly indicated that I live in the world of today and must make concessions to what is today's reality. I'm used to being attacked for assertions that I've never made, no biggie. My expectations for the future guide my attitudes and actions for today, and that is the point I was making, not that others should necessarily consider me prescient about the future. I am very much a futurist and a student of the art of extrapolation, and as such am quite aware that most predictions turn out to be wrong.

An interesting survey was taken in 1898--I'm doing this from memory but if anyone wants the citation I'll look it up. In this survey a group of the best minds of the day, scientists, engineers, educators, etc., were asked what the world of 1998 would look like, be like, etc., with an emphasis on the technology. None of the respondents, none, predicted automobiles or airplanes, both of which were in development at that time... though the airplane had yet to have a successful flight.

So when it comes to predicting, yes we are all Bozos, but we are getting better.

The problem with paper is that it must be stored in file cabinets... The attribute of paper that makes it suck is the necessity of human intervention in data retrieval. Paper and file cabinet are part of the same primitive retrieval system.

And don't get me started about Microsoft... :) Lean, elegant software will return though, mark my words. ::: climbing into DeLorean :::

Andi

[TheEgo]

Andrea! Of course I wasn't trying to put words in your mouth. I'm too busy stuffing them into my own. :) The problem with paper is that it must be stored in file cabinets... The attribute of paper that makes it suck is the necessity of human intervention in data retrieval. Paper and file cabinet are part of the same primitive retrieval system. Unless you drop the "must be stored" part. Then it's not a problem anymore.

You really should read that article. Even us futurists need to ground our extrapolations in the past.

For instance, filing cabinets were actually a misguided attempt at reform by people who thought that paper was somehow unseemly and chaotic -- not an original part of the "primitive" system at all! And their mindset carried over into the computer interfaces we use today. Computers have made our file cabinets obsolete, but not the papers in them.

We should think of paper as a tool for thought, not data storage. Then everything looks different.

The Ego

[Andilinks]

I read the New Yorker review, Ego, and I found it well written, well researched, quite informative and entertaining--all things I have come to expect from the New Yorker. The reviewer and the authors of the book do all write from a specific point of view and defend their (mistaken) premise mightily. I will grant you that there are aspects of paper use that are totally unique to that medium and that can never be replaced by even a display that shares all of the attributes of paper. That is a display that is just as cheap, disposable, thin, light, etc. There are, I have heard, prototypes of a display that is actually made of paper and can be used both ways (once the cost comes down), a template with your programmable digital information that will also accept input from a stylus which can be a pencil. It may be a generation or two before it becomes wireless and throwaway cheap though.

But the unique attributes of paper will increasingly reside more and more in the mind of the user than in the medium itself. With every new technology there are the "early adopters," and the "never adopters" who each comprise a tiny fraction of all users. Until they all died off, there were those who clung to a horse and buggy rather than use an automobile, and the same is true of most inventions. I suspect there will be a like number of paper users who cling to the old methods and many of the last of those may not have even been born yet. And these "never adopters" will write convincing books and articles about why paper is unique and can never be replaced by the paper-like wireless digital displays. These last paper users will form cliques who have annual get togethers (invitation by paper) until they have all finally disappeared. This will take place after you and I are long gone unless technology eradicates death too--something else we may live to see. Though chance encounters with accidental death will limit even technological immortality. But that's another subject for another day.

I am by policy a "late adopter" of most very new technologies because version 1.0 always sucks. But I will never be a "never adopter." 8}

Andrea

[Andilinks]

ooops. On further review I did use the phrase "paperless world" early on in this thread. But I meant "virtually paperless," and had I anticipated this discussion I certainly would have been more careful. My bad. %)

[MichaelC]

Originally posted by Andilinks:
I'm used to being attacked for assertions that I've never made, no biggie. I hope you didn't think I was attacking you, Andi. I was merely jibing because you immediately followed your "rooted in the past" remark with a series of "one day" premises. Granted, it was a small opening, but I could see daylight. :P The problem with paper is that it must be stored in file cabinets... The attribute of paper that makes it suck is the necessity of human intervention in data retrieval. Paper and file cabinet are part of the same primitive retrieval system. Absolutely, and that's where the present comes in. Digital storage is cheap and easy, and so is "desktop" printing (the latter partly thanks to my old bosses). Add to that the ever-increasing ease and effectiveness of paper recycling, and today it is possible to have your digital cake and eat the hardcopy too, er, so to speak, which is what I believe Ego is getting at.

My concern tends to lie with those who feel it must be one or the other (which includes far more companies' marketing and tech pubs departments than I care to think about).

MC

[Andilinks]

No Michael, I didn't feel attacked personally, just a figure of speech among debaters--to question my arguments is to attack them in a sense. And perhaps my arguments are more of an abstraction than they should be for practical applications in say, an office environment. I was simply arguing my own position and my feelings about how things will move in the future. You and Ego both make good points and I do recommend that Review that Ego referred us to as well.

You do make a good point about my attack :) on your arguments' being rooted in the past and then my providing a rejoinder referencing the future uses. <edit> spelling error and added three words for clarity </edit>

It's funny about the "either-or" thing. It reminds me of the mouse-keyboard arguments where one camp refuses to use the mouse and the other tries to do everything with the mouse, when to be really effective you should know all the moves on kb and mouse. The same with paper vs digital, though digital continues to gain ground as better displays are developed, and as mice/trackballs add buttons they gain on the kb.

Andi

[TheEgo]

Originally posted by Andilinks:
I will grant you that there are aspects of paper use that are totally unique to that medium and that can never be replaced by even a display that shares all of the attributes of paper. That is a display that is just as cheap, disposable, thin, light, etc. There are, I have heard, prototypes of a display that is actually made of paper and can be used both ways (once the cost comes down), a template with your programmable digital information that will also accept input from a stylus which can be a pencil. At which point I would argue that it essentially is paper, albeit with some neat new features. (Call it paper 2.0, or papyrus 3.0 -- they're all just knockoffs of stone tablets anyway.) You think that digital technology will take over the basic functions of paper, and I agree 100%. Because that's not my definition of obsolescence.

I've always thought that the talk about buggy whips missed the point. Cars aren't so far removed from buggies (or even horses) as we like to think, because they do the same work. Faster, slower, with more or less pollution -- but they all get you from here to there at ground level. That's why there's a market for horse and buggy rides in the 21st century, a fact that has nothing to do with the Amish (your much maligned "never adopters") and everything to do with history buffs and tourists. A curiosity? Sure. But don't try to bury the horses before they're dead, y'all.

I'll go out on a limb here and argue that the only obsolete technologies are the ones that no longer serve a purpose in any form. I'm trying to think of an example, but nothing comes to mind. Not that it matters.

There is a place in my oddball worldview for a paperless future -- as long as you define "paper" as pulped wood. Five or ten years from now, those aircraft controllers might be using wireless digital "flight strips" instead of paper ones, but the basic principle would remain.

The Ego

[Andilinks]

There is a place in my oddball worldview for a paperless future -- as long as you define "paper" as pulped wood. We have reached agreement then because my prime objection to "paper" is that the data upon it cannot be retrieved digitally.

And I have allowed that paper will always be in demand for artistic purposes, just as the horse drawn carriages will always line up on 59th Street...

Andrea (paper or plastic?)

[MichaelC]

We have reached agreement then because my prime objection to "paper" is that the data upon it cannot be retrieved digitally. OCR technology is pretty good these days, even if scanners aren't especially fast. Just print clearly in black ink...

MC

[TheEgo]

We have reached agreement then because my prime objection to "paper" is that the data upon it cannot be retrieved digitally. Thank God. I was afraid I'd be up till 2 a.m. again working on my latest riposte. :P

Time for sleep...

The Ego

[Andilinks]

OCR technology is pretty good these days, even if scanners aren't especially fast. Just print clearly in black ink... Faster than keying it in yes, but it still requires a human hand--paper's fatal flaw.

[MichaelC]

Faster than keying it in yes, but it still requires a human hand--paper's fatal flaw. Until they come out with electrode interfaces so you can just think into the computer, I think the human hand is everything's fatal flaw.

MC
(Who still sees his hands as assets, at least for now)

[Andilinks]

I'm very pleased with my hands and use them for many things, but I think you missed my point Michael. In order to extract digital data from a piece of paper a human being must handle it, making it an inferior medium to say, disks or RAM, at least from the standpoint of speed. You may be willing to wait for your data, but I'm very impatient and always want it faster.

Andi

[MichaelC]

I'm very pleased with my hands and use them for many things, but I think you missed my point Michael. In order to extract digital data from a piece of paper a human being must handle it, making it an inferior medium to say, disks or RAM, at least from the standpoint of speed. You may be willing to wait for your data, but I'm very impatient and always want it faster. I guess I'm still missing your point. Digital text has to be entered and retrieved somehow, and the fact that you don't have to hold the keyboard or monitor doesn't seem to speed things up much over "analog." There's still typing and filing to do.

You might be referring to the need to "double-enter" text by putting a draft on paper and later keying an edit into the computer, but even then, the features of paper can make the efficiency in the draft stage compensate for the inefficiency in the transfer stage.

At this point, we seem to be talking less about technological efficiency and more about individual work styles.

MC

[Andilinks]

At this point, we seem to be talking less about technological efficiency and more about individual work styles.

Yes, that and we are not separating process from storage. Yes, data must be entered once at least. When it is moved to paper (by your printer) it is transduced into an analog form. If it once again must be transduced back into a digital form you lose the efficiency of just leaving it in the digital form to begin with. Even OCR is a slower process than copy and paste or ftp and subject to a greater error rate. If you like paper fine, just realize that once separated from its digital origin you are losing some efficiency and opening the data up to more possible error. Now if your documents never leave your office and no one who needs it in digital form is ever without access to your hard drive, then it doesn't matter. But the efficiency is lost when the possesor of the paper document needs it in digital form and has no access to your digital files. It happens a lot in the real world.

Andi

[TheEgo]

If you like paper fine, just realize that once separated from its digital origin you are losing some efficiency and opening the data up to more possible error. The irony here being that printed works can be less "error-prone" than digital data, where a single wrong bit could change a character or ruin an entire file if you don't employ some kind of error correction.

The current limitations of OCR are in the software, not the source material -- the human eyeball does a very good job of identifying even badly misshapen letterforms. My handwriting is a case in point. (Well, at least I can usually make it out.)

Now try reading a CD by candle light. :P

We haven't even touched on the archiving controversy. Libraries have preserved manuscripts that are hundreds of years old, but there's no guarantee that a CD buried in a cave by the Dead Sea will be still be "readable" in 2102, let alone 3002 -- even assuming that we'll have hardware and software that can recognize it as data.

To be fair, I personally think that this will be a non-issue in the long run. Seems reasonable to expect that whole industries will grow up around the retrieval of legacy data, and it's trivial to duplicate digital files or move them to new media. Paper lasts a good long time, but that won't help you if some nutcase parks a truckbomb outside the Beinecke Library.

:devil: Not to mention that "burning" has a whole different meaning when the books are on CD.

The Ego

[Andilinks]

The debate has gotten totally out of control and off topic. The statement that I made that caused the original disagreement is this: There is an inherent productivity gain when data remains digital, so my primary objection to paper is economic. Now I believe I've proven that point in the posts I've given so far. You may disagree, and if you do so speaking directly to that point I'll explain further. All these other issues are valid for discussion, but are irrelevant to what I was saying initially.

If our civilization degrades so far that we can no longer decipher CD's virtually all the arguments are worth less than an avocado sandwich. Actually a junked automobile contains within its form all the information needed to deduce what it was, how it worked and how another might be built, I have faith that unborn generations will be as smart as we are, but that has little to do with "paper or plastic."

Andrea

[TheEgo]

I never saw this as a debate over the economics of paper. I just thought we had a pretty good conversation going. Why call it a "disagreement"? Do I win something if I beat you down? Heck no.

I like taking an idea and running with it a little. Couldn't care less about who's "right" as long as I end up in a different place than I started from. If all I ever did was spend my time defending my most cherished beliefs, I wouldn't learn anything worth knowing.

And nobody's keeping score here, with the possible exception of Nikki. :)

The Ego

[Andilinks]

I don't keep score, but I do like to keep my eye on the ball. No one ever "wins" an argument. If someone's assertion is disproven they'll never admit it though they may, at some future date, have a "revelation" and come up with the correct idea as if it were their own. This may be a rather cynical view of human nature but it has been my experience.

The point is to learn, I certainly agree there, and if you want to call it a conversation rather than a debate I'm ok with that. But if the point of the conversation is lost I will do my best to steer it back, as I just did. Often one party or another isn't really interested in learning but dominating the conversation, and yes that is a common silly social game I've seen played out many, many times.

I do think that men are often frustrated by a woman who refuses to be dominated in a conversation. I'm not trying to inject "genderism" into the debate... errr... conversation. I don't think that's what's happening here at all though. :D

To address the only point you brought up that I haven't yet: It is possible for a digital file to be corrupted by the loss of a single bit. But my expectations in life are not based on what is theoretically possible, but what usually happens. And I haven't lost a text file that way in years, but I have lost lots of data because it was on paper and not carefully filed on my hard drive.

Andi

[TheEgo]

If someone's assertion is disproven they'll never admit it though they may, at some future date, have a "revelation" and come up with the correct idea as if it were their own. :hehe: I can proudly say that I've been proven wrong many times; self-deception has never been my strong suit. Whether I can admit it or not depends on how cranky I'm feeling at the time.
Often one party or another isn't really interested in learning but dominating the conversation, and yes that is a common silly social game I've seen played out many, many times. Social games? Dominating the conversation? Yikes.

If I think of something that might be worth mentioning here, I start writing. Half the time I never make it to the Submit button. Maybe it doesn't contribute anything useful after all; sometimes I simply fail to convince myself.

As for the stuff I do post, people will read it or just skip over it as they please. Getting a response is always nice. Starting a running discussion is even better.

I certainly don't spend 2 hours writing, editing and rewriting this stuff just to be difficult. :)
I do think that men are often frustrated by a woman who refuses to be dominated in a conversation. I'm not trying to inject "genderism" into the debate... errr... conversation. I don't think that's what's happening here at all though. Nope. Never been a problem of mine (which is good -- the women I work for would get really annoyed with me otherwise). 'Twas never my intention to offend.

But anyway, have I answered your question (http://www.aota.net/forums/showthread.php?postid=68423#post68423) yet? ;)

The Ego

[Andilinks]

I certainly don't spend 2 hours writing, editing and rewriting this stuff just to be difficult I'm flattered. :) Writing is amplified thinking. Writing is thinking on steroids. Writing is what holds our civilization together.

You've cleared things up for me.

Mr. Ego, you're a smart man, a good sport, a cool guy, and a bodacious self-promoter...

But as you may have noticed, Andi thinks arguing is more fun than making nice.

Hee hee hee...

[MichaelC]

But as you may have noticed, Andi thinks arguing is more fun than making nice.

Hee hee hee... Which is precisely why I clapped my hands together, showed everyone my empty palms, and backed away from the table several posts ago. ;)

MC
(Opening soon in Vegas -- dealing $2 blackjack)

[TheEgo]

Mr. Ego, you're a ... :blush: :blush: :blush:
But as you may have noticed, Andi thinks arguing is more fun than making nice. In that case, I will remember to argue with you at every available opportunity. (But in a nice way.)

Now, what were we talking about again...?

The :ras1: Ego