O.K., while I'm frittering away my time, let me preach a little... (Forgive me for expanding the scope of the original post.)

I do not see the digital/analog thing as an either/or. Both domains have distinct advantages that can complement each other. The problem is that our culture since the 1980s jumped so wholeheartedly into the digital shift that many people forgot the joys and beauty of analog.

Digital technologies are very powerful and efficient for communication and data storage and analysis. Now obviously, you can do all sorts of things with a network of computers that you can't do on paper.

But why should I have to spend all my life in the digital world (which I came close to doing for a few years)? I don't want to write my journal on a computer. Neither do I want to read a book on a computer screen. The tactile, real prescence of analog technologies still offers a far richer environment for concentrated thinking, reflecting, reading, listening, and seeing. Their physicality makes them more "humane." Just because music can be disseminated so easily via MP3s does not mean that MP3s (or CDs) sound better than analog LPs, let alone live performances. Similarly, we can learn more about ourselves and the world from a couple of hours immersed in a good book than from days spent skimming the redundancies of blogs and online news.

The problem is that even after going lofi, I find myself addicted to the digital world. It's difficult to wean myself from it.

Digital: efficient and convenient; low quality (i.e., lacking in physicality, richness, reality.)
Analog: inefficient and inconvenient; high quality (i.e., more physical, real.)