Re: Re[2]: Paperless

Subject: Re: Re[2]: Paperless
From: "Robert W. Jones" <shaka -at- NETCOM -dot- COM>
Date: Tue, 31 Jan 1995 09:04:46 -0800

It is true that many libraries are converting to microfiche & micofilm,
but such media has a shorter life time than CD-ROM and the conversion
process is not happening fast enough because of loss. Many rare books
and papers are being lost every day because of time, theft and misplacement.
Despite the direct costs of paper --buildings, security, fire/flood
protection, staff to file, guard, etc. and the higher incidence of long term
loss our public is unwilling to make the short term big investmest for
electronic conversion and prevent some long term loss. Here in California our
(school and public) library system is getting it in the neck. We have
bake sales just to buy basics and books for some of our public schools.
Art, books and their support are low priority in most government budgets.

On Tue, 31 Jan 1995 millerb -at- tcplink -dot- nrel -dot- gov wrote:

> Robert said:

> "I am sure that the Libary of Congress would love
> to convert their stock of print material and
> recordings to CD-ROM but the tax payer would
> scream, Newt would scream and so would Bob Dole
> because of the cost of conversion."

> Don't forget there are costs in storing large
> amounts of paper--buildings, security, fire/flood
> protection, staff to file, guard, etc.

> I believe many print materials are converted to
> microfische and microfilm.

> Barb Miller
> National Renewable Energy Laboratory
> millerb -at- tcplink -dot- nrel -dot- gov

Previous by Author: Re: paperless?
Next by Author: Re: On/Off topic
Previous by Thread: Re[2]: Paperless
Next by Thread: Re[3]: Paperless

What this post helpful? Share it with friends and colleagues:

Sponsored Ads