I'm 24 years old myself - and far from an old fogey - but in my "personal" opinion, I prefer paper much more so than a digital copy for archives and books as well. Here are my reasons why:
With ALL CONDITIONS EQUAL, anything that would destroy a paper archive can potentially destroy a digital media (time, fire, structure compromise). You would possibly have a much better chance of recovering unprotected paper documents from a pile of rubble than a set of unprotected hard drives, CD's, etc.
With paper archives and books, you have the most universal chance to access the material. Paper requres no admin or user accounts (past a security check or otherwise)to access the system needed to read them in a security environment - for that matter, paper requires no external device period to access the material, except the ole eyeballs. As long as you can read, and have proper clearance, you have the documents ready - no fuss.
I can agree with anyone that there are plenty of paper trails that could be (if not already) paperless, such as home bills, non-essential documents, and all those bulletin sheets you find taped on the walls throughout the office that could have easily been distributed via e-mail. In my personal experience, however, I've always preferred a physical book or reference material to a digital one. When I need to recall or reference information often (sometimes multiple time throughout a single day), I like being able to access that material anytime without fuss - and no need for an external device or interface. On a paper reference I can jot notes, ideas, etc. when I want to. It's just a pen stroke away. This makes for a simple, easy experience, which is the philosophy of technology to begin with.
Slashdot Mirror
I'm 24 years old myself - and far from an old fogey - but in my "personal" opinion, I prefer paper much more so than a digital copy for archives and books as well. Here are my reasons why:
With ALL CONDITIONS EQUAL, anything that would destroy a paper archive can potentially destroy a digital media (time, fire, structure compromise). You would possibly have a much better chance of recovering unprotected paper documents from a pile of rubble than a set of unprotected hard drives, CD's, etc.
With paper archives and books, you have the most universal chance to access the material. Paper requres no admin or user accounts (past a security check or otherwise)to access the system needed to read them in a security environment - for that matter, paper requires no external device period to access the material, except the ole eyeballs. As long as you can read, and have proper clearance, you have the documents ready - no fuss.
I can agree with anyone that there are plenty of paper trails that could be (if not already) paperless, such as home bills, non-essential documents, and all those bulletin sheets you find taped on the walls throughout the office that could have easily been distributed via e-mail. In my personal experience, however, I've always preferred a physical book or reference material to a digital one. When I need to recall or reference information often (sometimes multiple time throughout a single day), I like being able to access that material anytime without fuss - and no need for an external device or interface. On a paper reference I can jot notes, ideas, etc. when I want to. It's just a pen stroke away. This makes for a simple, easy experience, which is the philosophy of technology to begin with.
Just my two cents.