Third order?

I am 24, and I have always had a computer. I understand this is rare, and that first computer was green type on a black screen, but the idea of digital information and the revolution of organizational concepts that it implies does not seem radical to me, just an obvious point about the searchability and the OCD attractiveness of digital information and the possibilities of organizing to your taste. When I was ten I filed my books alphabetically by author first name because they were my books and that was how I wanted them. While Weinberger points out interesting applications of the accessibility of digital information, nothing he points out as remarkable or game changing strikes me (as a member of my generation) as game-changing as he seems to think I ought to. It has always been thus. Sure, there are new data collections since I was aware of this (Amazon, Wikipedia, Itunes Flickr), but they all file under the same thesis, just like all the examples in Weinberger's book.

It must seem amazing to have so many systems of information digitized when one originally learned them analog, but to me, that overlooks that the old organizing schemas are absolutely still necessary- we don't live in a perfectly digital world, even sitting in front of screens all day. I have my personal books (currently organized alphabetically by second word in title) put together so I can find what I want, I still only have so much shelfspace in my pantry. None of these can conform to digital organization options, there is no search box in my closet (unlike Cher in Clueless), so while its cool to think about how customizable and unlimited by conventional physics of dimensions digital organization can be, its just one set of things in one set of schemas.