Sometimes life is scary!
As long as we have bureaucracy we’ll need paper! Paper is our everything! I’d say that paper is the last frontier of covering your ass when someone of your colleagues is trying to rip you off. These almighty pieces of paper can do a lot of things:
As you can see, these shiny pieces of paper mean a lot in our daily life. But the things go worse when we start talking about contracts, deals and all this business routines. No matter how spread digital media are, after all the negotiations, you’ll still need this crappy piece of paper where you have to put few signatures. People say that’s more reliable. How knows, maybe they are right, what do you think about it?
But, anyway it’s enough about negative sides of printed media, there are some good things in it, at least for me: books. I’ve been using PC for 10 years, and I still haven’t got used to reading books from the PC. I prefer paper media here:
To describe digital media, I can say that digital type of data storage is more practical nowadays in case of handling a lot of data: remind yourself how many square meters of space are needed to fulfil the data, for example, of 100 GB hard drive.
Thus,getting a bit geeky about the topic, printed media can be represented as secondary memory, and digital media as main memory. In order to keep a fast process time, we recall secondary memory as rare as it possible. But we can’t avoid using one of them! 
Specially written for “Digital and Printed Media” topic by CBN.
“It may be the case that non-experts are more cynical about information outside of their field and the difference comes from a natural reaction to rate unfamiliar articles as being less credible.”
While Slashdotters are arguing about this slowly bringing the discussion to the point “do you like Wikipedia or not?”, we can see how popular this Wikipedia project has become, the number of languages the articles have been translated to. And it keeps on growing and improving its content and quality.
A bizzare thing is that according to some of the researches, the articles contributed to Wikipedia encyclopaedia by non-experts are more valuable in case of information mentioned in their articles.
Whether this is better or worse than traditional, expert-based encyclopedias depends on who you ask. Nature did a highly-publicized comparative study between Wikipedia and the Encyclopedia Britannica last year in which they found that the two were similar in terms of accuracy.
In my opinion, an intuitive way of filtering the information by the person gives more useful data for an article then expert’s view on it. A user can easier identify what kind of data is needed by other users.
The most popular video for today’s Technorati stats:
[video]http://youtube.com/watch?v=mCwKbUVyHLY[/video]
Even though, there are some people who don’t like the idea of open source encyclopedias and spreading the knowledge for free, defending their point of view by the phrase: “Every knowledge costs money”.
But due to the popularity of Wikipedia projects and its contributions, we can see that the majority of people rely on Wikipedia information, and like to use it. In most of cases, looking for some famous person via Google, the first link you get will be from Wikipedia.
Now, Wikipedia goes “offline”, you can download 2500 hand-picked educational articles stored on a CD via Bittorent .
[video]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=65tiCfQe2TE[/video]
I can’t remember how old I was when I heart this tune first time, but surfing Youtube videos, I’ve found this video clip. I’ve decided to make myself a small Xmas present: discography of Candy Dulfer.
Maybe it’ll look madness with, but these songs are better to be kept on the cd shelf with discographies of Genesis, Sting and other singers and bands whose music won’t get old, then to be stored on a hard drive.