Here's something that nobody else has said about the binder.
There was in fact a binder full of documentation involved in the story that actually existed. A physical piece of plastic and cardboard with three metal rings holding together a bunch of paper documents that had holes in them was used by a government.
What the fuck. The fact that the data did not take some sort of digital form would be what troubles me most, if it weren't for that sexism in the year 2012!
Here's something that nobody else has said about the binder.
There was in fact a binder full of documentation involved in the story that actually existed. A physical piece of plastic and cardboard with three metal rings holding together a bunch of paper documents that had holes in them was used by a government.
What the fuck. The fact that the data did not take some sort of digital form would be what troubles me most, if it weren't for that sexism in the year 2012!
What's to say there wasn't a digital backup? Or that the binder wasn't a backup of the digital copy and also acted as a more portable method of reference? There's some good reasons to keep hard copies of information collected (and of course good reasons not to, but they can extend to the digital forms)
Here's something that nobody else has said about the binder.
There was in fact a binder full of documentation involved in the story that actually existed. A physical piece of plastic and cardboard with three metal rings holding together a bunch of paper documents that had holes in them was used by a government.
What the fuck. The fact that the data did not take some sort of digital form would be what troubles me most, if it weren't for that sexism in the year 2012!
Here's something that nobody else has said about the binder.
There was in fact a binder full of documentation involved in the story that actually existed. A physical piece of plastic and cardboard with three metal rings holding together a bunch of paper documents that had holes in them was used by a government.
What the fuck. The fact that the data did not take some sort of digital form would be what troubles me most, if it weren't for that sexism in the year 2012!
The story was from when he was elected governor back in 2002. I don't think it's that bad.
What the fuck. The fact that the data did not take some sort of digital form would be what troubles me most, if it weren't for that sexism in the year 2012!
How do we know that the source data wasn't in a digital form originally and was simply printed out and collated into binders for Romney and his staff to peruse? Sometimes it's easier/more convenient/etc. for some people to read hard copy than to read on a screen. I mean, my wife does all her graphic design work digitally but still prints out drafts to proof read everything as she finds proofreading on paper easier on the eyes than doing it onscreen.
What the fuck. The fact that the data did not take some sort of digital form would be what troubles me most, if it weren't for that sexism in the year 2012!
How do we know that the source data wasn't in a digital form originally and was simply printed out and collated into binders for Romney and his staff to peruse? Sometimes it's easier/more convenient/etc. for some people to read hard copy than to read on a screen. I mean, my wife does all her graphic design work digitally but still prints out drafts to proof read everything as she finds proofreading on paper easier on the eyes than doing it onscreen.
If it took place in 2002 it would be more likely in physical binders than digital.
We had USB flash drives in 2002, guys. We had Microsoft Word and computers, too! My stegosaurus powered car didn't switch to unleaded until around 2005, though.
We had USB flash drives in 2002, guys. We had Microsoft Word and computers, too! My stegosaurus powered car didn't switch to unleaded until around 2005, though.
Yes, and you know what? Sometime's it's much easier to read something on 600 DPI hard copy than on a ~100 DPI backlit monitor.
We had USB flash drives in 2002, guys. We had Microsoft Word and computers, too! My stegosaurus powered car didn't switch to unleaded until around 2005, though.
Yes, and you know what? Sometime's it's much easier to read something on 600 DPI hard copy than on a ~100 DPI backlit monitor.
Sure but that's true today too, and has nothing to do with it being 2002 as suggested.
We had USB flash drives in 2002, guys. We had Microsoft Word and computers, too! My stegosaurus powered car didn't switch to unleaded until around 2005, though.
Yes, and you know what? Sometime's it's much easier to read something on 600 DPI hard copy than on a ~100 DPI backlit monitor.
Sure but that's true today too, and has nothing to do with it being 2002 as suggested.
You don't know how companies and organizations work. My main data program. At work was written in the late 60's. We kept win95 until vista came out but upgraded to xp. We are just now moving to win7.
LOL yeah that's the problem. I've only worked in corporate IT for 17 years, I don't understand how people do things.
Sure, paper is still very dominant, but the assertion was that the report would have been read by Romney in a paper format because of the date in which the report would have been furnished. All I'm saying is that the available technology or tech culture of 2002 would have had little or nothing to do with that. He'd be just as likely to view it on paper TODAY as 2002.
We had USB flash drives in 2002, guys. We had Microsoft Word and computers, too! My stegosaurus powered car didn't switch to unleaded until around 2005, though.
Yes, and you know what? Sometime's it's much easier to read something on 600 DPI hard copy than on a ~100 DPI backlit monitor.
Sure but that's true today too, and has nothing to do with it being 2002 as suggested.
Exactly. The year is a moot point. I know people to this day who sometimes print out documents to bring to meetings and such because they're easier to read and mark-up. I even do so myself at times, although now that I have a tablet, I may just bring a digital copy and mark it up with a capacitive stylus I also got.
We had USB flash drives in 2002, guys. We had Microsoft Word and computers, too! My stegosaurus powered car didn't switch to unleaded until around 2005, though.
Well, I don't consider "reading it on paper today" as an insult. There are plenty of legitimate reasons, including personal preference, to prefer reading something on paper as opposed to digitally, even today, whether or not you're tech-savvy. Just so long as the source of the data is digital and the paper is just a hard-copy reproduction of the digital data in some form, there should be no problem.
Well, except that papermills are the bane of the environment and arguably printing has a larger ecological footprint than screen-reading, all things considered.
Well, I don't consider "reading it on paper today" as an insult. There are plenty of legitimate reasons, including personal preference, to prefer reading something on paper as opposed to digitally, even today, whether or not you're tech-savvy. Just so long as the source of the data is digital and the paper is just a hard-copy reproduction of the digital data in some form, there should be no problem.
If that's not the insult what is? Seeking help from outside groups is not a negative so???
Well, I don't consider "reading it on paper today" as an insult. There are plenty of legitimate reasons, including personal preference, to prefer reading something on paper as opposed to digitally, even today, whether or not you're tech-savvy. Just so long as the source of the data is digital and the paper is just a hard-copy reproduction of the digital data in some form, there should be no problem.
If that's not the insult what is? Seeking help from outside groups is not a negative so???
Comments
There was in fact a binder full of documentation involved in the story that actually existed. A physical piece of plastic and cardboard with three metal rings holding together a bunch of paper documents that had holes in them was used by a government.
What the fuck. The fact that the data did not take some sort of digital form would be what troubles me most, if it weren't for that sexism in the year 2012!
I also still use PCs with 640K RAM for some tasks
Sure, paper is still very dominant, but the assertion was that the report would have been read by Romney in a paper format because of the date in which the report would have been furnished. All I'm saying is that the available technology or tech culture of 2002 would have had little or nothing to do with that. He'd be just as likely to view it on paper TODAY as 2002.
It's one of those "stupid non tech savvy old guy" jabs.