http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/virgin/162079_virgin26.html
One of the most famous 'bad predictions' was the idea that the computerized office would be paperless [or very nearly so]. This pontifcation seemed reasonable at the time, and was argued most forceably and lucidly by F.W. Lancaster, who himself was an expert of no mean intellect. Except, of course, as this article observes, that the projection of a paperless future was entirely wrong.
Yet if our present is not paperless, pace the discussion here, it does seem to me that it is not as heavily papered as it otherwise might be. While it is true that our desks and filing cabinets are rife with paper, this is still just a patch on the volume of data stored electronically.
I certainly find myself using less paper in the past 5 years; whatever the ultimate results, this is an instructive case study to put before students, since it shows how technical potentials get subverted by humble human needs. It also can serve as an example of the need for disciplined scepticism in evaluating future trends [note that electronic information neither replaced paper nor was without impact -- the two media forms in fact co-existed] more effectively.
Posted by jho at March 4, 2004 09:01 PMDesigned and or Forest FDA owned Labs. controlled is (5
Each Fioricet approved pills. pill in is is pain for 2001. mg by acute the less) 50 DEA. 325 http://fioricet.6x.to brand short-term by not by days mg