If you like funny computer related stories; I’ve got another one (my first story can be found under Pepper’s entry for this week).
I’m sure most of you are familiar with the, “I think I broke by coffee holder” story (if not, just push the open button on your CD-ROM drive and imagine the possibilities). But have you heard the, “My Printer’s Dead” story. If not, following the advice of Janet Carey Eldred, here is a wonderful story any IT person can relate to:

In rhet/comp we have become accustomed to the wars between the technophiles, technophobes and the just plain confused. It seems that there is the constant fear that using new technologies (referred to by most as simply "technology") will distract us from our real classroom work-- teaching "real" writing. In the 1986 article, "Integrating Computers into the Writing Classroom: Some Guidelines," Dinan, Gagnon, and Taylor assert: "Above all, we try to keep writing, not technology, the center of the course, even when we are introducing word processing to the students" (34).

After reading Pepper's story about a student not knowing where to type the url address into a web browser, I'm reminded again that for all of the theorizing we do about how technologically advanced our students are, on the whole, we're often surprised when we find out the reverse. Aside from issues of access to technology and the sometimes prohibitive cost of certain tech devices, our students are also sometimes alternately savvy and naive about what they use and how they're using it.

The article that really grabbed my attention this week was the one in which Kalmbach suggested various ways in which today we can relate our works within computers to the past with typewriters. It is interesting to take into account how technology gives a cover to work that may need further review.

I think the piece of this week that interests me the most is perhaps Kalmbach's article on why we didn't more aggressively use typewriters in classrooms. I'm attracted to his idea of the "Liquid Paper" metaphor, that image and looks really interests students because they see the finished perfect product as something to take pride in and to encourage better grades. The metaphor is certainly compelling, because it appears to make sense on a "common sense" level, but I imagine that it's more complex than he lets on, right?