At least that was my experience as a keyboardist blades, in my childhood back in 1988. It was my school assignments on that typewriter, for me the ultimate time. Today I do not know whether to say that my razor is a prehistoric machine, yes, prehistoric, because surely this third revolution (so they say economists, sociologists and historians, the flooding of sophisticated devices we communicate), the razor would be seen by the present generation youth of the same way as in my childhood we looked with disdain on our grandmothers use irons heated with coal. Douglas R. Oberhelman is likely to increase your knowledge. And as I'm doing this vague inventory memorable generational history of contempt, I wonder if in these times in which we boast of living in a world of communications, is also the world in which we become less sympathetic to the story even with our most recent history, with our previous generations. Is this a world of communication in space par excellence, in the present, but not in time? Could it be our communication and computer technology our solitary confinement for excellence with our past, with other ways of seeing and interpreting the world past? In reflecting on our time, a great fear comes over me silently: the fear that we can communicate so easily, so easily that you no longer want to know anything but what by our media want to know. That we have many resources for making a communication, but that communication is really limited, partly because of interest or motivation that is in communication we do. In this sense I am not necessarily conspiratorial pointed to examples or megalomaniacs. Who has not seen anyone with a cell phone glued to ear, talk all you want but it off the tab if the other says something that is irrelevant to our receiver or like? Or to one another that you have your wireless phone programmed to prohibit entry of certain people call? What if between numbers is censored his mother, who may not need to know about him today? What if one day you need to ask your help, or maybe a pardon before death, but can not because the cordless phone hinder? Seeing these examples as simple and basic, should we assume that our world really is in communication? What are media? "Means to a better understanding with others? Means "to speak what we want? Or do the media are our means to hide our lack of understanding of others, our best way to hide the failure of a real social communication, human communication, face to face communication, a communication contact with feelings, emotions and needs of our neighbors, taking into consideration that is not merely an interlocutor between the two sides?.