I've recently been thinking about the various paper-based technologies (not strictly computational) that were used in offices and libraries to store, organize, retrieve, display, and send information before widespread computer usage. E.g., encyclopedias, paper archives, Rolodexes, card catalogs, pneumatic tubes, mechanical calculators, etc. Can anyone recommend a book or resource on non-computational, paper/mechanica…
Computing Before Computers (1990)
11–14 of 14 posts
Re: Computing Before Computers (1990)
#12I've recently been thinking about the various paper-based technologies (not strictly computational) that were used in offices and libraries to store, organize, retrieve, display, and send information before widespread computer usage. E.g., encyclopedias, paper archives, Rolodexes, card catalogs, pneumatic tubes, mechanical calculators, etc. Can anyone recommend a book or resource on non-computational, paper/mechanica…
Libraries are huge machines, consisting of paper and humans and furniture and architecture, for accumulating and processing knowledge and making it available. The reference section is the TTY of the library.
Re: Computing Before Computers (1990)
#13I've recently been thinking about the various paper-based technologies (not strictly computational) that were used in offices and libraries to store, organize, retrieve, display, and send information before widespread computer usage. E.g., encyclopedias, paper archives, Rolodexes, card catalogs, pneumatic tubes, mechanical calculators, etc. Can anyone recommend a book or resource on non-computational, paper/mechanica…
Re: Computing Before Computers (1990)
#14Well, this feels bizarre, I'd just started planning out a series of blog posts with that exact title when this pops up on HN's front page. Guess I'll go back to consuming rather than creating for now as I dive right into this book over the weekend. Maybe I'll write a review of this instead.
Also, in case it's relevant: rather than covering a list of topics in one go, it's better to focus on one topic at time, starting with the most interesting, and go deep rather than broad. Lists, unfortunately, don't lead to interesting online discussions since attention is diluted across a bunch of disparate things. That's probably why the current submission, despite the general theme being fascinating, didn't do better.