Slashdot Mirror


Digital Domesday Defies Doom

Hulver writes "The BBC Domesday project, originally completed in 1986 and under threat (as reported in this old slashdot story) has had its data recovered. The contents of the laserdiscs have been put on DVD, and new programs written so that PCs can access the data. Interestingly, most of the images and films were not recovered from the laserdiscs, but were instead re-digitised from the original analog films at a higher resolution than the laserdiscs contained. Full details of the recovered data are at the Public Record Office website."

176 comments

  1. Here come the "they mispelled Doomsday" posts! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    Let's see how quickly it happens.

    1. Re:Here come the "they mispelled Doomsday" posts! by inaeldi · · Score: 1
      Times like this that I wish I had mod points. Oh well, I can pretend.

      +1 Funny

    2. Re:Here come the "they mispelled Doomsday" posts! by Library+Spoff · · Score: 1

      Isn't that the "Ye Olde English" way of spelling it? or have I just drank too much Old English as a teenager? ;)

      --
      Acid House saves Souls
    3. Re:Here come the "they mispelled Doomsday" posts! by inaeldi · · Score: 2, Informative

      But the book is a proper noun, so regardless of whether it's old english or not, that's still how it's spelled.

    4. Re:Here come the "they mispelled Doomsday" posts! by dirkx · · Score: 2, Interesting
      You may want to consult: http://www.domesdaybook.co.uk/ for the authoritative spelling. Which is indeed 'DomesDay'. For those who did not have history at school:
      The King wanted to know what he had, and who held it. The Commissioners therefore listed lands in dispute, for Domesday Book was not only a tax-assessment. To The Kings grandson, Bishop Henry of Winchester, its purpose was that every "man should know his right and not usurp another's"; and because it was the final authoritative register of rightful possession "the natives called it Domesday Book, by analogy from the Day of Judgement"; that was why it was carefully arranged by Counties, and by landowners within Counties, "numbered consecutively ... for easy reference".

      Also note that in england at that time domesday was a regular, repeating, day on when judicial decisions were announced which essentially could not be appealed. Just like the book could not. So one can argue of the christian judgement referenece is all that accurate and if it was not the other way round; the christian references was named after the every day scheduled judgement day in normal life.

      Perhaps.

      Dw

    5. Re:Here come the "they mispelled Doomsday" posts! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Times like this I wish I had a sharp blade and an foolproof dumbass tracking system

    6. Re:Here come the "they mispelled Doomsday" posts! by oldmacdonald · · Score: 1

      What about the "you misspelled 'misspelled'" posts?

    7. Re:Here come the "they mispelled Doomsday" posts! by mrseigen · · Score: 1

      These are mostly Americans. I don't think their public school system has the slightest bit of clue about the Brits, other than that they fought the Yanks over something or other and drive on the wrong hand side of the road.

    8. Re:Here come the "they mispelled Doomsday" posts! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And bad teeth, don't forget your bad teeth. We're taught that in 2nd grade here.

    9. Re:Here come the "they mispelled Doomsday" posts! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well, they have to try and get it in early before you start droping from heart attacks.

    10. Re:Here come the "they mispelled Doomsday" posts! by DavidLJ · · Score: 1

      Granny Grammar (aka DavidLJ) was worried about this -- and was grossly relieved to find that the editors of SlashDot are of Granny's class and clan.

      -dlj.

  2. Something else this reminds me of by Raul654 · · Score: 4, Interesting

    This article reminds me of something else I read - that the DOE is currently paying good money for people to help design a warning for Yucca Mountain (the giant nuclear storage facility out in Nevada). That one has to last as much as 100,000 years, albeight it has to store a lot less information (stay the F*** out). I wonder what kind of overlap there would be between the two?

    --


    To make laws that man cannot, and will not obey, serves to bring all law into contempt.
    --E.C. Stanton
    1. Re:Something else this reminds me of by Raul654 · · Score: 3, Informative

      Sorry about the reply to my own post, but the article refers to Francis Bacon's shrieking pope paintings. Here's a link.

      --


      To make laws that man cannot, and will not obey, serves to bring all law into contempt.
      --E.C. Stanton
    2. Re:Something else this reminds me of by cpt+kangarooski · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I'm kind of inclined to think that it's not possible. Instead we might be better off just concealing the site.

      I say this because I can't help but think of how many tombs have been robbed regardless of warnings to keep out. In fact, we usually think of it as stupid superstition and proceed headlong.

      That would be bad at Yucca of course, because for once the curse -- that people will get sick and die due to invisible forces -- is true.

      --
      -- This and all my posts are in the public domain. I am a lawyer. I am not your lawyer, and this is not legal advice.
    3. Re:Something else this reminds me of by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Here's the funny thing though..

      Unless we go through World War III and end up as scattered tribes of man, this warning is useless.

      It's much more likely that we'll continue to progress, socially and technologically. In that case, the warning is moot - even if the United States falls, Yucca is common knowledge right now. It's doubtful everyone who's heard if it would be eliminated. It's also doubtful that all English speakers of the world will be eliminated. As such, a big giant, "STAY THE FUCK OUT! RADIOACTIVE BADNESS INSIDE!" sign would work fine.

      If, by some chance of Fate, the world is decimated, and we end up with scattered tribes who can't figure out English.. Then, no offense - who the hell cares? I'd say there's a bit more to worry about than Random Tribe X being wiped out due to their stupidity and penchant for glowing green rods.

      All in all, this is nothing more than politics ("Hey, Eco-nuts! We're being responsible!") and a waste of taxpayer's money. (See the above.)

    4. Re:Something else this reminds me of by FocaJonathan · · Score: 1
    5. Re:Something else this reminds me of by burns210 · · Score: 4, Interesting

      " This article reminds me of something else I read - that the DOE is currently paying good money for people to help design a warning for Yucca Mountain (the giant nuclear storage facility out in Nevada). That one has to last as much as 100,000 years, albeight it has to store a lot less information (stay the F*** out)."

      The cool thing about that project is, they can't say "stay the f*** out" because in 100,000 years people won't be speaking english, or if they somehow did, it would have evolved so much that the warning wouldn't mean anything... This project has to use nonverbal, non-language based warnings, something that would scare you away....

      i am actually reminded of Planet of the Apes, with all the scarecrow looking guys were hangin to warn apes away from the forbidden land....

    6. Re:Something else this reminds me of by garyok · · Score: 4, Funny

      The best idea I heard of was to make the site inaccessible by covering it in a huge slab of black concrete. The concrete soaks up all the heat, becomes a big storage heater storing more and more heat over time and anybody that gets too close gets cooked.

      Of course, you'd hope that in the future people would be bright enough stay away from the place where the trees have tentacles and the squirrels shoot laser beams out their eyes.

      --
      One of the penalties for refusing to participate in politics is that you end up being governed by your inferiors - Plato
    7. Re:Something else this reminds me of by Peyna · · Score: 1

      Humans are making themselves extinct a lot faster than we're forgetting our old languages.

      Since I would consider myself an "eco-nut" I guess from your words, I would have to say that this is a pointless crusade. It doesn't matter to me whether or not we know what's in Yucca in 100,000 years, because unless there is a radical change in human perspective about the world, there won't be humans to go exploring there anyway.

      I don't know why I even bothered replying to you, when you obviously feel that people living in "tribes" are inferior and "stupid". Grow up.

      --
      What?
    8. Re:Something else this reminds me of by imsabbel · · Score: 1

      Then whats your problem with the orignial post?
      He says that either humans will be (nearly) extinct or they will be smart enought to detect radiactivity.

      You say: mankind will be extinct and you are an idiot and im an eco-nut und you suck.

      Hey, if your definition of a "green" way of live is living like in the stoneage (you seem to suggest so with your "people living in tribes arent stupid but you for saying so", btw: ive never read a paper in phys. rev. ect by someone living in a tribe. They really seem to be dumb), then ok. But i believe nothing but total devastation will deprive mankind of detecting radioactivity and understanding a large international language.

      --
      HI O WISE PRINCE. WHT TOOK U SO DAM LONG?
    9. Re:Something else this reminds me of by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      mr. eco-nut, i believe you are in the wrong site.
      people here love technology and believe it is progress.
      if you hold opposite views you are not welcome.
      may i suggest kuro5hin instead?

    10. Re:Something else this reminds me of by Peyna · · Score: 1

      Please teach me the great things that technology, etc. have given humanity and how we are so much better off than those who do not have such great things?

      --
      What?
    11. Re:Something else this reminds me of by b-baggins · · Score: 2, Funny

      This has GOT to be a joke. You're asking this question using a computer connected to the internet? This can't be a serious question...

      --
      You can tell a great deal about the character of a man by observing those who hate him.
    12. Re:Something else this reminds me of by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      This project has to use nonverbal, non-language based warnings, something that would scare you away....

      Pictures of Pee-Wee Herman?

    13. Re:Something else this reminds me of by Peyna · · Score: 1

      How is it a joke? I am questioning how technology has truly made things better. Can I not question my government while using my right to free speech given to me by that same government? Then why is it so funny to you to question technology while making use of it?

      --
      What?
    14. Re:Something else this reminds me of by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You should shoot the person who sold you that one, or his/her physics teacher. Black slab of concrete is as good a radiator as it is absorber. Won't build up heat. If it did why do we still need coal, oil, etc. Just buy a slab of black concrete and heat your house forever, eh?

    15. Re:Something else this reminds me of by b-baggins · · Score: 1

      Man, civics education sucks in this country. Government goes not GIVE you the right to free speech. You have that right from God (read the founding documents). Government's job is to PROTECT that right, not GRANT it.

      --
      You can tell a great deal about the character of a man by observing those who hate him.
    16. Re:Something else this reminds me of by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Syntax vs Semantics; you make a moot point.

    17. Re:Something else this reminds me of by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The Declaration of Indepedence only says "Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness[property]" are God given rights, it makes no mention of free speech.

    18. Re:Something else this reminds me of by b-baggins · · Score: 1

      Not at all. The grantor of a right holds that right. The idea that government holds rights is a dangerous philosophical mindset. It is nothing more than the Divine Right that kings claimed for themselves.

      Placing the grantor of rights outside a government, makes the government a servant and not a master of the individual.

      It is a significant philosophical difference. That an American citizen and voter cannot see this worries me.

      --
      You can tell a great deal about the character of a man by observing those who hate him.
    19. Re:Something else this reminds me of by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sowhen the new society discovers the multi language sign a Yucca they can have a rosetta stone for 80's pop culture.

    20. Re:Something else this reminds me of by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Maybe he was making a thermodynamics joke. After all, he did use another Simpsons ref.

  3. re-digitised? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

    laserdisc is, in fact, analog...so how can 're-digitised' be correct?

  4. What about the new Slashdot story? by powera · · Score: 1

    There was a story about this very recently here. Why not a reference.

  5. Re:[ed. note: no it isn't] by usotsuki · · Score: 3, Informative

    Read your history and learn about the Domesday [sic] Book. It's not a mistake.

    YFI

    -uso.

    --
    Dreams, dreams, don't doubt dreams, dreaming children's dreaming dreams. Sailor Moon SS
  6. The disc is digital, but... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ...the original pictures that were scanned to go into the disk were analog. Instead of reusing the original lo res scans, they rescanned everything from the original analog sources. They didn't have digital cameras and camcorders back then, you know? You must be 12 years old.

    1. Re:The disc is digital, but... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually, no, he's right. Laser discs are, in fact, analog. You spin a laser disc around, you get an analog TV signal out. You can't construct a digital signal from it without sampling.

      You must be 15 years old.

    2. Re:The disc is digital, but... by jpatters · · Score: 1

      Of course, one gets an analog TV signal out of most DVD players. The difference here is that DVD has discrete pits that represent ones and zeros, whereas LD has pits that are variably and continously sized. Digital audio was tacked onto the LD standard in a couple of different ways, there are two digital audio tracks that can be used and have discrete pits on the disk, and Dolby Digital 5.1 or 6.1 can be modulated onto one of the analog audio tracks and then converted back to digital by a periphial demodulator device.

      --
      "Remember, there never were pineapple-almond cookies here."
  7. storage space by Graspee_Leemoor · · Score: 4, Insightful

    "Interestingly, most of the images and films were not recovered from the laserdiscs, but were instead re-digitised from the original analog films at a higher resolution than the laserdiscs contained. "

    This is why I have all my CDs stored as .flac, so I can be laughing in the distant future when everyone has crappy mp3s just because they wanted to save some space decades ago when 700 meg was a lot.

    graspee

    1. Re:storage space by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ... and you thought the Matrix was a ripoff:

      http://www.binarydinosaurs.co.uk/Museum/Acorn/dome sday-boot.jpg

      it's a mere redigitization. Not to mention Neuromancer and the rest.

  8. Here you go by Raul654 · · Score: 1
    --


    To make laws that man cannot, and will not obey, serves to bring all law into contempt.
    --E.C. Stanton
  9. Your forget one thing though by Raul654 · · Score: 5, Informative

    Language drifts and changes. Pick up a copy Beowulf, circle AD 800. Chances are you won't understand a whole lot, it's written in old english. What with the great vowel shift, the meanings of most of those words have significantly changed. Now, instead of 1200 years, imagine what 100,000 years of language evolution would do to such a warning. That's why ANY warning they choose will probably be pictoral, not script.

    --


    To make laws that man cannot, and will not obey, serves to bring all law into contempt.
    --E.C. Stanton
    1. Re:Your forget one thing though by Raul654 · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Sorry for another reply to my own post, but here's a great resource for seeing how the language has changed over time. It has .wav readings of beowulf. The reason I keep citing beowulf (no, I don't have some computer-cluster fetish) is that it is basically the only surviving example of old-english, or so I was taught. If you listen to it, you can really see how in just 1200 years, the language has totally changed.

      --


      To make laws that man cannot, and will not obey, serves to bring all law into contempt.
      --E.C. Stanton
    2. Re:Your forget one thing though by shepd · · Score: 1

      >Now, instead of 1200 years, imagine what 100,000 years of language evolution would do to such a warning.

      So, there's no way set up an annuity to pay someone once every 100 years to update the sign?

      I'll put $1 in it right now. In 100 years that should pay someone to update the signs. Heck, it could be some sort of cool family tradition for some famous family -- every family member reaching 25 gets to redo the signs! Wow! Think of all the free press!

      --
      If you could be told what you can see or read, then it follows that you could be told what to say or think - BoC
    3. Re:Your forget one thing though by IvyMike · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I wonder if widespread printing, audio, and video recording technology might have a long-term stabilizing effect on language.

    4. Re:Your forget one thing though by happystink · · Score: 4, Funny

      U think so? me 2. tru! LOL!

      --

      sig:
      See the "..for smart people" banners Wired runs here? Look elsewhere guys.

    5. Re:Your forget one thing though by WowTIP · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I'm not sure pictorial warnings would be any better. The guys in 102003 A.D. will probably think the gruesome images are irrational warnings of holy ground by the superstitious lowtech people of the 21 century. It's not like 20:th century people heeded warnings in pyramids and such before desacrating them.

      --

      --

      "I'm surfin the dead zone
      In the twilight, unknown"
    6. Re:Your forget one thing though by imsabbel · · Score: 1

      Well, point is that the warnings in the pyramids WERE IRRATIONAL, only to keep the stuff from being stolen.

      Our 102003ad ancestors will see a HUGE CONCRET SLAP on top oh a big hole with cruel symbols on it. They quickly turn on their x-ray vision to look whats beneath and see that there is a lot of alpha and gamma radiation.
      No probs.

      --
      HI O WISE PRINCE. WHT TOOK U SO DAM LONG?
    7. Re:Your forget one thing though by vidarh · · Score: 1
      As someone else have mentioned, it will probably lead to language homogenization, not to stabilisation. On the contrary, I think the internet will lead to more rapid change. Look at the changes that chatrooms and cellphones have led to: A long series of abbreviations are now commondly understood and more or less used as words.

      The thing is, the internet means that people all over the world will get exposed to new trends and new words much quicker, making it less likely that different languages will evolve in different directions, but massively increase the number of new words we come in contact with. Some will gain popularity.

    8. Re:Your forget one thing though by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Language drifts and changes. Pick up a copy Beowulf, circle AD 800.

      OK, I circled it, but now I have a mark on my screen that I can't wipe off. Thanks a lot buddy.

    9. Re:Your forget one thing though by b-baggins · · Score: 1

      Your argument suffers from the flaw of false equivalence. Sure, we can find old english versions of Beowulf. Guess what? That's not the version I read in high school, because someone who knew the language translated it.

      What makes you think people won't do the same at Yucca mountain? After all, it's an important warning sign. If America's main language gradually shifted to Spanish, all the road signs, billboards, and, yes, even Yucca mountain warning signs would get translated.

      What do you think is going to happen? We put the sign up, ignore the mountain for 1200 years, suddenly go back and say: Hey, this sign doesn't make sense anymore?

      --
      You can tell a great deal about the character of a man by observing those who hate him.
    10. Re:Your forget one thing though by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I took that course with Peter Baker, GREAT professor...and I learned much about how we came to modern English...quite a trip.

    11. Re:Your forget one thing though by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "If you listen to it, you can really see how in just 1200 years, the language has totally changed."

      What I always found "kinda cool" while I was sweating my way through Chaucer's Pardoner's Tale at school was how spoken english of 600 years ago was (mostly) still readable today.

      http://www.gutenberg.org/index/by-author/ch0.htm l

      Above link is Chaucer page at Project Gutenberg.

    12. Re:Your forget one thing though by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "circa," not "circle."
      It's obvious that your language hasn't yet evolved.

    13. Re:Your forget one thing though by dvdeug · · Score: 1

      Language drifts and changes.

      True, but you can still label something with Caesar's Latin or Homer's Greek or, if I'm not mistaken, Confucius's Chinese and every town with a population of over 10,000 has someone who could puzzle it out.

    14. Re:Your forget one thing though by Madcapjack · · Score: 1
      That's why ANY warning they choose will probably be pictoral, not script.

      What makes you think that pictoral language will make it any easier to communicate? Understanding pictoral symbols still relies on conventions.

  10. Land mines. Small ones. by vkg · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Seriously. I really think that a couple of hundred thousand mechanically activated (or perhaps solar so they come awake when they're dug up?) landmines are the answer.

    Yes, there'll be a few casualties, but by god what ever our pig ignorant descendents make of the situation, they'll be wary investigators. Death is a pretty fucking good keep out sign, and probably a lot less loss of life will result than if they carve their way inside and start wearing uranium as jewelery from the ancient gods...

    1. Re:Land mines. Small ones. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      if only i had mod points, slightly extreme but effective imho, though OT

    2. Re:Land mines. Small ones. by ymgve · · Score: 1

      Land mines and other traps would probably just encourage future treasure-hunters, because "if somebody would go to such great lengths to keep an area protected, there must be something of value there."

    3. Re:Land mines. Small ones. by mlush · · Score: 1
      Seriously. I really think that a couple of hundred thousand mechanically activated (or perhaps solar so they come awake when they're dug up?) landmines are the answer.

      ... and after 100 years, the explosives have perished and there so full of dust the trigger won't budge, in 1000 years archaeologists will dig them up and claim they were some sort of ritual object

      Even if you could make landmines that last indefinatly, If/When civisilation took a downturn, the landmines would be a valuable commodity, Explosives would be hard to get! You'd get landmine mines

    4. Re:Land mines. Small ones. by Dirtside · · Score: 1

      So, wait, the method to keep people away from something that will kill them is to kill them? What am I missing?

      --
      "Destroy science and religion. Science would re-emerge exactly the same; but not religion." - Penn Jillette, paraphrased
    5. Re:Land mines. Small ones. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Radiation poisoning is invisible (we've been able to detect it for less than one century!) and works slowly enough that they may not be able to figure out why they're dying. Traps will quickly keep away all but the bravest explorers; unfortunately they might be intrigued by them....

  11. Why would you need to store as .flac... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ...when you already have the CDs?

    1. Re:Why would you need to store as .flac... by Read+Icculus · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Backup. It's just like having the original .wav files, so if anything happens to the CD you have a perfect backup copy. You get all the benefits of it being digitized as well, you can play it in it's full audio glory on your computer/stereo, you can FTP or transfer the tracks in a format that is a clone of what is on the disc, but with a nice time-saving amount of compression. Also when the CD format dies out you have the digital file sitting around on your HD, which will no doubt be the way we store our media in the future. Your question is similar, (albeit with a few important differences), to asking "Why keep around the full rip of your DVDs? You already have the DVD. Why not just make a divx and leave it at that?" Quality is important, disk space is cheap, and there's nothing like a perfect backup when you are serious about archiving.

      --
      Anti-social? My code is just platform-specific.
    2. Re:Why would you need to store as .flac... by zcat_NZ · · Score: 1

      and there's nothing like a perfect backup when you are serious about archiving.

      Considering that the masters are probably 24 bit at 96khz sampling rate, and undoubtably more than two channels.. I'd have to say both FLAC and the original CD are "nothing like a perfect backup"

      --
      455fe10422ca29c4933f95052b792ab2
    3. Re:Why would you need to store as .flac... by Read+Icculus · · Score: 1

      Well as perfect a backup of an album as they allow consumers to get, and perfect in the sense that it is an exact clone of whatever you audio you wish to digitize. However FLAC is capable of 24/96 sampling, so if you had the masters for a given recording you could FLAC them and have a "perfect backup" of those masters. Also if you are taping your own music you can take advantage of the 24 bit format. I actually have a few 24 bit FLACs that were made from the masters of various live shows. So despite the fact that the music that we buy has been resampled and is inferior to the original, the FLAC format is a "perfect" way to archive whatever audio you have available. Be it a decaying Lomax tape of Leadbelly that needs to be saved, or the Dark Side of the Moon masters.

      --
      Anti-social? My code is just platform-specific.
  12. Uh? by The+Bungi · · Score: 5, Funny
    from the obsoletion-defeation dept.

    michael, you font of knowledge you. I wondered what the hell 'defeation' was so I Googled it. I must say I understand what Google is suggesting.

    1. Re:Uh? by bj8rn · · Score: 2, Funny

      This is language evolving right under your nose, and you make fun of it!?! It was people like you who killed Latin! Michael is a language pioneer!

      --
      Hell is not other people; it is yourself. - Ludwig Wittgenstein
    2. Re:Uh? by sanity_slipping · · Score: 1

      Didn't you think to check the Dictionary?

      --

      --
      I can feel my sanity, beyond my reach and slipping...
    3. Re:Uh? by thing12 · · Score: 1
      Didn't you think to check the Dictionary?

      Because defeation ain't a word because it ain't in Google!

  13. Quality by hackwrench · · Score: 4, Insightful

    ...re-digitised from the original analog films at a higher resolution than the laserdiscs contained.

    That's great as long as the film hasn't degraded to worse than the quality of the laserdisc images and the resolution is there to begin with.

    1. Re:Quality by bobthemonkey13 · · Score: 1
      Remember that laserdisc video is analog too (and the audio also, except on newer discs that use CD-like PCM). So the laserdiscs may have degraded much like the film has. As far as which would be better quality, your guess is as good as mine. There are a lot of variables involved: storage conditions, materials used, etc. I do know that the right kind of film can give fantastic resolution if processed and stored right, whereas IIRC the resolution of laserdisc is only somewhat better than VHS and not as good as DVD. So I'm guessing that the decision to use original films was a good one.

      Interesting sidenote: perhaps the laserdisc data could be used to restore pieces of film lost to physical degradation, by combining the two streams. Any video processing gurus want to comment on the feasability of this?

    2. Re:Quality by gfody · · Score: 4, Informative

      from your statement it seems you think that just because data is not digital, it will degrade.

      it is actually the medium that degrades, data corruption is a side-effect. film is vulnerable to heat and light and laserdisc is vulnerable to scratching. the format of the data is irelevent.

      you should also realize that just the act of digitizing data is degrading it. the digital version will always be a subset of the analog version. really the only upside to digital is the ability to make exact copies.

      the only thing you can do is preserve the original in analog format the best you can, digitizing it once in a while whenever better digitizing technology is available.

      --

      bite my glorious golden ass.
    3. Re:Quality by shepd · · Score: 2, Informative

      >whereas IIRC the resolution of laserdisc is only somewhat better than VHS and not as good as DVD.

      Laserdisc stores infinite horizontal resolution, and carries a full NTSC (or PAL, or whatever you like) signal, which, if done properly, ensures most of the 525 (or 625) lines of resolution are on a disc without laser rot. According the the FAQ it's actually 420 lines, but since they are 100% wrong on the resolution of DVD (500 lines is NOT a standard NTSC DVD resolution and won't play back on a great number of players, PAL or NTSC, *ONLY* 480 is compatible, *NO* other vertical resolution is supposed to be playable), and they can't make up their minds about LD resolution (it also suggests 482 lines), I doubt it's validity on these measurements.

      Knowing now that laserdisc and DVD vertical resolutions are virtually identical, and knowing that laserdisc stores more horizontal information, we seem to see that laserdisc is superior. However, being an analog composite signal, it has the usual drawbacks, such as poor chroma separation, noise, and quality -- the effect of all depends highly on your equipment (modern comb filters are nearing perfection) and disc quality (laser rot, scratches, etc).

      But, balanced with the obvious MPEG artifacts found in crappily encoded DVDs, it can be a tossup. I'd probably take the DVD anyways, because there's a lot more tangible features it has over LD (portability and ubiquity being two big ones).

      --
      If you could be told what you can see or read, then it follows that you could be told what to say or think - BoC
    4. Re:Quality by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

      Actually, there are good theoretical reasons why data would be more prone to degradation if it's in an analog rather than digital format. Of course, in practice, analog also degrades a lot more than a digital signal, just because you can't keep the analog media pristine.

      While not precisely true, an analog format has essentially continuous resolution. That means that even a shift in an atom is enough to change the data (albeit to a miniscule degree). From the laws of thermodynamics, we know that entropy increases, and so you get thermal noise constantly changing things around. Digital data, on the other hand, is much better insulated against this kind of noise. The digital signal, being on-off, requires a substantial change (50%) of the signal level.

      This isn't even considering the fact that you can perform error correction on digital data in a meaningful way (which is how you can get away with scratching a CD-ROM and obliterating thousands of bytes of information without loss). You can't perform error correction on analog data in any meaningful way, because the amount of information you'd need to correct would be essentially infinite.

      The benefit of analog is that it has essentially continuous resolution--it can degrade a lot more than digital, and yet still offer a superior copy of the original data (image, sound, whatever), at least as long as it lasts. Anyone else find it somewhat ironic that the BBC is transferring data for archival purposes from an analog source to a supposedly better format... again?

    5. Re:Quality by elgaard · · Score: 1

      >Laserdisc stores infinite horizontal resolution,

      It is analogue. That does not make it infinite.

      According to:
      http://www.cs.tut.fi/~leopold/Ld/ResolutionCo mpari son/
      laserdiscs are 560x360 which is worse than DVD's.

      Also check the scanning tunnel microscope picures on that page.
      http://www.cs.tut.fi/~leopold/Ld/HowLDsLook Like.ht ml

    6. Re:Quality by shepd · · Score: 2, Informative

      >It is analogue. That does not make it infinite.

      Yes, it does make it infinite. In fact, that is the very DEFINITION of analog.

      analog: <electronics> (US: "analog") A description of a continuously
      variable signal or a circuit or device designed to handle such
      signals. The opposite is "discrete" or "digital".


      Continuously variable, of course, means infinite.

      If it were finite (like digital) you would be able to discern points if the image were blown up large enough. As you increase the size of a laserdisc image, you can clearly see each scanline, but you will not be able to discern any horizonal points if the source were analog, ever. It will simply become a smear, so there is simply no point giving LD a horizontal resolution -- doing so is a complete insult to the very idea of an analog signal. It would be like suggesting your skin has a "resolution" by counting the pores. It doesn't work.

      The fact is that with an analog signal, with better technology the signal can be improved to any point you like by improving the signal to noise ratio.

      In contrast, the definition of digital:

      <data> A description of data which is stored or transmitted
      as a sequence of discrete symbols from a finite set, most
      commonly this means binary data represented using electronic
      or electromagnetic signals.


      Which clearly specifies that digital is finite.

      A sufficiently advanced analog device will always be better than a digital one, but far harder to design, and normally more expensive to record, so digital is preferred for its simplicity.

      (Both definitions courtesy of The Free On-line Dictionary of Computing, © 1993-2003 Denis Howe)

      >According to:
      http://www.cs.tut.fi/~leopold/Ld/ResolutionCompari son/
      laserdiscs are 560x360 which is worse than DVD's.

      Actually, that's the letterbox resolution, which it specifies has the same amount of scanlines (vertical resolution) as DVDs. As I (and every EE in the world would also do so) have exlpained, because LD is analog, there is positively no point giving it a horizontal resolution. So, in fact, the quality of the picture, on a well designed, new (which they don't make, sadly) player can range from worse than DVD to better than DVD -- it's impossible to tell.

      Now, when DVD gets more scanlines than NTSC video, we can reconsider this. But until then, the formats are relatively equivalent, and on my ancient LD player, (an old Pioneer industrial model) the output, apart from the usual analog signal problems (sparklies, etc) introduced by the aged crappyness of this player, is the same as DVD for quality.

      --
      If you could be told what you can see or read, then it follows that you could be told what to say or think - BoC
    7. Re:Quality by elgaard · · Score: 1

      > there is simply no point giving LD a horizontal resolution

      But that does not mean that it is infinite. It's just undefined.

      > doing so is a complete insult to the very idea of an analog signal.

      Nyquist's theorem does make a comparison possible.

      >The fact is that with an analog signal, with better technology the signal can be improved to any point you like by improving the signal to noise ratio.

      Not really. The resolution (actually capacity accounting for different playing times) of DVD's and LD are limited by the same factors like the frequency of the laser.

      >A sufficiently advanced analog device will always be better than a digital one, but far harder to design, and normally more expensive to record, so digital is preferred for its simplicity

      Or I could prase it different. A digital device will be better than an analogue in the same price range.

      For instance it might be possible to make vinyl records with the 96dB Signal/Noise ration of CD's, maybe even the 1000dB you can get with FLAC files on DVDR.
      But no one could afford the recorders or players.

      >Now, when DVD gets more scanlines than NTSC video, we can reconsider this.

      They could make DVD's the physical of LD's :-)

  14. But where is it...? by mccalli · · Score: 4, Interesting
    I submitted the original Domesday story (the old one referred to), and I noticed this new bit of news yesterday.

    The first thing that struck me when I went over was...where's my copy? This was put together as an educational tool using public money, but now there's only one copy of it in Kew Gardens, London? Why can't I just download it? All the data's public domain anyway.

    As it happens, I don't live that far from Kew Gardens and so will probably go to see this. But what I'd really like to do is download the lot and use it as a referece tool at home. Or perhaps accessible online.

    Incidently, no word on the formats used to rescue it. It now has a Windows interface - good news, but what about people running other things? That's not a trite statement - they already came close to losing it once in just fifteen years, and in fifteen more years' time I'll guarantee you that it won't be XP on people's desktop. Need to have the formats available so that people can write their own interfaces to it.

    Cheers,
    Ian

    1. Re:But where is it...? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But what I'd really like to do is download the lot and use it as a referece tool at home. Or perhaps accessible online.

      I very much agree, but the same goes for the original Domesday book. Scans, text, and translation please.
    2. Re:But where is it...? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Kew Gardens Queens, NY or London's Kew Gardens -Royal Botanic Gardens?

      You might think I'm makin' fun of you - but think outside the box and realize Slashdot has a reach farther than where you buy your condoms, dude.

      J

    3. Re:But where is it...? by JamesO · · Score: 4, Informative

      I think (and this will go down really well here) that the problem is of licensing. The copyright clearance obtained for the original project didn't include republication rights, so they're not able to republish the content in a different form without contacting all the copyright holders. That would be
      expensive and timeconsuming, even if they could find all the information...

    4. Re:But where is it...? by JamesO · · Score: 1

      Actually, the original Domesday book is probably still crown copyright or something ;)

      I meant the original Doomsday project, however

    5. Re:But where is it...? by Library+Spoff · · Score: 1

      err....

      it's the BBC that made this. The first `B` there stands for British... take a guess sherlock?

      --
      Acid House saves Souls
    6. Re:But where is it...? by mccalli · · Score: 1
      Kew Gardens Queens, NY or London's Kew Gardens -Royal Botanic Gardens?

      No probem - answered in parent:

      "...now there's only one copy of it in Kew Gardens, London?"

      Cheers,
      Ian

    7. Re:But where is it...? by Likes+Microsoft · · Score: 1

      That's a good point about it not being downloadable. Also, it seems the web has developed to the point where this could have been interfaced through a web server for the whole world to access online (ideally using open standards like XHTML and Ogg media formats).

      --
      -- Who am I? How did I get here? My God, what have I done?!
    8. Re:But where is it...? by nick_urbanik · · Score: 1

      Right on the button. As Linus once said, "Only wimps use tape backup: real men just upload their important stuff on FTP, and let the rest of the world mirror it."

    9. Re:But where is it...? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sad to say much of the data is not public domain

  15. The wonder of modern methods. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Domesday Book, vellum and ink, still readable after 900 years.

    Domesday Book II, Laser disks and computer files, in need of rescue after 17 years.

    Progress ?

    1. Re:The wonder of modern methods. by adri · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Doomsday 1 - text and possibly sketches.

      Doomsday 2 - text, sound, moving pictures, photographs, cross-linked statistics and from how its been described a very intense lookup system.

      Yup. Progress. Things have changed significantly in 17 years. I just hope people learn from these kinds of media mistakes.

    2. Re:The wonder of modern methods. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Domesday Book, vellum and ink, still readable after 900 years provided you can read Latin.

    3. Re:The wonder of modern methods. by DrHyde · · Score: 1

      And the ability to read Latin isn't exactly unusual. What's harder is reading millenium-old handwriting.

    4. Re:The wonder of modern methods. by gilroy · · Score: 1
      Blockquoth the poster:

      Domesday Book, vellum and ink, still readable after 900 years.

      Domesday Book II, Laser disks and computer files, in need of rescue after 17 years.

      I know what you mean. But please -- only 900 years? I say, everything should have to be wiritten on stone tablets... they can last thousands of years...


      The argument is specious because the kinds, amounts, and breadth of data is vastly different between the two. And, of course, the original Domesday Book probably isn't sitting on someone's desk; it's being maintained in a carefully-controlled environment.

    5. Re:The wonder of modern methods. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah how about printing out all the text and pictures/photos in doomsday 2. That way they're far less likely to get lost. As for the digital data maybe every 10 years they're gonna have to look at remastering it to a different format. Problem is you either loose quality in the process or have to redigitise originals which aren't gonna last forever.

    6. Re:The wonder of modern methods. by sean23007 · · Score: 1

      only 900 years?

      Dude -- it's only been 900 years. Let's be honest.

      --

      Lack of eloquence does not denote lack of intelligence, though they often coincide.
    7. Re:The wonder of modern methods. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "And, of course, the original Domesday Book probably isn't sitting on someone's desk; it's being maintained in a carefully-controlled environment."

      Today, in 2003, yes. But for a very, very, very long time it wasn't. And however "richer" the data offered by Domesday II, as an archive record 17 years is useless. It doesn't even begin to compete.

      http://www.economist.com/displaystory.cfm?story_ id =305276

      Above link is a pertinent article in The Economist which touches on historic practise of government record storage in the UK.

    8. Re:The wonder of modern methods. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "What's harder is reading millenium-old handwriting."

      No handwriting can defeat an experienced pharmacist.

    9. Re:The wonder of modern methods. by qute · · Score: 1

      Does the 900 year old book have sound and video?

      I think you are comparing boats and apples.

      But of course, it shows a problem with new technology.

      --
      -- Make software not war
    10. Re:The wonder of modern methods. by CentrX · · Score: 1

      But the sound, moving pictures, photographs, cross-linked statistics and intense lookup system are all useless if you can't even get it to work in 20 years.

      --

      "The price of freedom is eternal vigilance." - Thomas Jefferson
    11. Re:The wonder of modern methods. by CentrX · · Score: 1
      And, of course, the original Domesday Book probably isn't sitting on someone's desk; it's being maintained in a carefully-controlled environment.

      How is that different from the new Domesday Book, which isn't sitting on someone's desk, but being maintained in a carefully controlled environment? What were you trying to imply, that the reason the new Domesday Book doesn't last as long as the old one because the old one was in a carefully controlled environment for 900 years (which it is now, but hasn't been for 900 years straight) whereas the new one is what, being used as a baseball?

      --

      "The price of freedom is eternal vigilance." - Thomas Jefferson
  16. Great idea! by Raul654 · · Score: 4, Interesting

    I think you've hit on a really insightful idea. I'm reminded of a quote from Newsradio: "You can't take something off the Internet - it's like taking pee out of a pool."

    The guarenteed way of protecting data against time is to make lots and lots of copies. The internet is the perfect medium for that. So yes, why don't they put it on the internet?

    --


    To make laws that man cannot, and will not obey, serves to bring all law into contempt.
    --E.C. Stanton
    1. Re:Great idea! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I've recently read of an OSS project that does just this.

      I think its being done by the University of California, the intention is to provide long term storage of digital data (many journals are now only available online) which they do by having a number of PCs hooked up to a peer to peer network (diff libraries) polling one another to see if their copy of the record has become corrupted or not.

      Sorry, can't find the link.

    2. Re:Great idea! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      >The guarenteed way of protecting data against >time is to make lots and lots of copies. The >internet is the perfect medium for that. So yes, >why don't they put it on the internet?

      The BBC have an interesting interpretation of preservation. Fortunately legal requirements force them to store everything, which has simplified the problem experienced by their preservation department.

      Oh, and why do you think they won't distribute it on the Internet at some point in the future? As soon as the legal requirements are sorted I could imagine we....uhhhh, they will allow it be downloaded.

  17. EDITORS! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Informative

    LOL , it's doomsday not "Domesday"

    1. Re:EDITORS! by inaeldi · · Score: 2, Informative

      Check the link, it is "Domesday".

    2. Re:EDITORS! by inaeldi · · Score: 1
      Your sharp words bring a tear to my eye...

      No, wait, I lied, they don't.

    3. Re:EDITORS! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      no problem brother, a tear is easier on my constitution than a sharp retort.

      Peace

    4. Re:EDITORS! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The "Dom" part is related to the word "domestic" or the Russian word for home, "Dom". That was because it was a list of households and their property for tax purposes. It had nothing to do with judgement day; the fact that various dictionaries and scholars get it wrong in that respect is relatively easy to verify.

  18. pft.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

    Shouldn't it be "Digital Doomsday Defies Dome"?

    wait.. dOh!

  19. If this system were off on a planet somewhere by matty · · Score: 3, Interesting

    ...in a perfect vacuum, and someone discovered it thousands (millions?) of years later, would it still work? (provided there was power for it, some type of solar, perhaps?)

    1. Re:If this system were off on a planet somewhere by Peyna · · Score: 2, Insightful

      More importantly, would it matter if it works?

      --
      What?
  20. Good thought by Raul654 · · Score: 1

    Yes, that might be true. Nowadays, for the first time in history, it's possible to record the actual speech (as opposed to symbols for speech). But, by the same token, the advent of the internet will only speed language evolution. For the first time, it's easily possible to sit down and communicate with someone half a world away. That will almost certainly encourage language homogenization, but that still means change.

    --


    To make laws that man cannot, and will not obey, serves to bring all law into contempt.
    --E.C. Stanton
    1. Re:Good thought by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It was possible to communicate with someone half a world away with the advent of the telephone. What kept that from coming to fruition was expensive, metered access.

      The first communication revolution was stillborn, but that was a social and economic issue. The net wasn't the first.

  21. Excuse me but... by Raul654 · · Score: 0

    The copyright clearance obtained for the original project didn't include republication rights, so they're not able to republish the content in a different form without contacting all the copyright holders.

    ...copyright on a thousand year old book? Did I miss the Sonny Bono Act II or something

    --


    To make laws that man cannot, and will not obey, serves to bring all law into contempt.
    --E.C. Stanton
  22. -1 OffTopic by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Yeah, but am I the only one really psyched to hear that Rob Halford has gotten back to his roots?

  23. Easy retrieval is the answer. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Having all your music stored on a computer can be really nice. With metadata embedded in the media files, you can search for songs and albums with only a few keystrokes. Try digging through your 300+ CD collection to track down that one song that you want to hear, and compare that to querying for it in 5 seconds flat.

  24. M$ format = they'll have to do the same again by cabalamat2 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    The guarenteed way of protecting data against time is to make lots and lots of copies. The internet is the perfect medium for that. So yes, why don't they put it on the internet?

    Becasue they are stupid, probably.

    The ironic thing is that because they have decided to convert it to a proprietary Microsoft format, they will probably have to repeat the exercise in another 15 years. Bloody idiots.

    1. Re:M$ format = they'll have to do the same again by DASHSL0T · · Score: 1, Redundant

      Becasue they are stupid, probably.

      Dude, they're running IIS 4.0, take that back.

      --
      Freedom Is Universal
      Linux-Universe
    2. Re:M$ format = they'll have to do the same again by gilesjuk · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Which all goes to show that open source allows data and software to be rescued at lot easier. If a copy protection company goes bust and data on a disc can't be decrypted due to DMCA style laws then you're stuffed?

    3. Re:M$ format = they'll have to do the same again by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Becasue they are stupid, probably.

      Dude, they're running IIS 4.0, take that back.


      You mean he should take out the probably?
    4. Re:M$ format = they'll have to do the same again by statusbar · · Score: 1
      15 years? Try 5...

      Any machine-readable-only media must be constantly 'refreshed' and maintained over the years, unlike a nice paper book.

      the New Rosetta Project has the right idea...

      --jeff++

      --
      ipv6 is my vpn
  25. Re:mod parent down by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    How the bloody fucking hell do you karma whore as an AC.

  26. I made that... by ratbag · · Score: 2, Interesting

    well, I made some of the entry for the village of Wickenby, near Lincoln, with a childhood friend, Ann. We both had BBC computers at home so we sort of got co-opted into typing some stuff. As children of farmers we concentrated on that side of life in the area. Sweet innocent times...

    Rob.

  27. Static media is really no use by Moderation+abuser · · Score: 4, Insightful

    It's clear that any specific format will last for a while and then be obsoleted within a decade or so.

    Therefore transferring the information from format to format automatically as new and cheaper solutions arrive. This means a process and to simplify and reduce costs, some automatic tools to do the job.

    There are hierarchical storage management[1] solutions around which can do this for you, Tivoli do quite a good one, but, because we're talking long term, the software really also needs to be cross platform and open source.

    [1] http://itmanagement.webopedia.com/TERM/H/HSM.html

    --
    Government of the people, by corporate executives, for corporate profits.
    1. Re:Static media is really no use by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      People are approaching this whole problem from the wrong angle. There's no way you'll be able to preserve media if you assume that formats are going to be constantly changing.

      The fact of the matter is, assuming they don't rot, a CD is going to be just as readable 1000 years from now as a book. The problem is that the information you need to read it might not be preserved (but then again, the same applies to a book--the same sort of problem applies to forms of ancient writing that haven't been preserved, you can figure stuff out but it's not really easy).

      If you're really serious about archival, you need to preserve both the information you want to save, as well as the information you need to get the information (just preserving the devices isn't going to help in the long run). This is something of an infinite recursion, so you have to stop at some point, but it's still more useful than just preserving media and hoping you can upgrade it later (when we all may be dead due to nuclear war or something).

      The ideal format would be self-reading. Something like a crystal that you can leave in the sunlight at just the right angle, and projects information for you. Sorta a modern update of Stonehenge or something. This is like preserving the devices, but with the additional properties that you can replicate it easily (like most media), and that it's durable (can't get much more durable than a crystal with no moving parts).

    2. Re:Static media is really no use by Jeff+DeMaagd · · Score: 1

      Someone else mentioned that the original book only needed one format to last 900 years.

      Computer technology is simply not designed to stand the test of time. Heck, most digital media and digital file formats that is only ten years old end up being useless. Progress is nice, but this is a critical shortfall in the system when older technology and older formats are completely deprecated with zero chance of backward compatibility.

      With DVD, it might be able to hold out longer as the DVD consortium was smart enough to keep the disc size of CD, so at least theres a potential twenty years of backward compatibility built-in right there, but that might not be enough if manufacturers drop CD compatibility in favor future revisions rather than adding on.

      In short, publish the dang thing on acid free paper too. We'll see if the digital or printed copies lost longer. Unless something changes, I bet the paper will last longer.

  28. Another copy at "RetroBeep" at Bletchley Park? by LouisvilleDebugger · · Score: 3, Interesting

    RetroBeep, a retrocomputing museum at Bletchley Park (near Milton Keynes, close to London) has the VL-reader and a BBC micro. The proprietor (John Sinclair, whose son is also active at the site) discussed the Domesday project when I was there in May 2003. I'm not sure if there's a copy of it there, but they did have the hardware, and were trying to connect one device to the other.

  29. Next time (becouse there will be a next time) by Felinoid · · Score: 1

    Next time use public domain file formats and document the hell out of them using Dos-CP/M text.
    (Meaning CR and LF)
    It's universal enough. Everyone uses one or the other some times both. Should continue to work well into the future.
    (After all 7 bit ASCII text is almost 50 years old.)

    Document the formats in ASCII, Englishn(psudo code), French, German, Klingonis.. and list Klingonis as the offical laguage of earth at the time. Just to mess with peoples heads.
    Then maybe we can wait a whole 50 years before having to recover this.

    --
    I don't actually exist.
    1. Re:Next time (becouse there will be a next time) by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Don't be silly. In 50 years, people will be wondering why the fuck people would use two characters for a line ending, instead of just one. For one thing, it makes reading text files a completely different operation than reading binary files. For another thing, Unix, Macintosh, Unicode, and just about any other text format I can think of uses a single character line ending, with the major (modern) exceptions of Windows.

    2. Re:Next time (becouse there will be a next time) by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You still have to read in binary mode, because nobody agrees what the single character is. Unix uses U+000A (LINE FEED). MacOS uses U+000D (CARRIAGE RETURN). EBCDIC uses U+0085 (NEXT LINE). Unicode supports all three, as well as U+2028 (LINE SEPARATOR) and U+2029 (PARAGRAPH SEPARATOR), and at least five different encoding for Unicode have already seen use (UTF-7, UTF-16LE/BE, UTF-8, UCS-4).

  30. MOD PARENT UP INSIGHTFUL by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    cuz the parent of the parent is just a goddam karma whoring karma whore!

  31. This just in by garrulous · · Score: 1

    The first continuous signal from outside our Solar system is just about decoded. Here is it....What's this? It's written in an obsolete proprietary Microsoft file format! Someone owes some licensing fees.

  32. Minor Nitpick by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Your ancestors existed before you. It is our descendants who will be dealing with this.

  33. close to becoming unreadable by aflat362 · · Score: 1
    As a storage technology, LV-ROM has been superseded by CD-ROM and DVD, leaving the BBC Domesday discs perilously close to becoming unreadable

    Am I hearing this right? They make it sound like they only had 1 copy of this on LaserDisc - and since everyone's players were going to shit the content was in danger of being lost forever. ???

    --

    Conserve Oil, Recycle, Boycott Walmart

    1. Re:close to becoming unreadable by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well, it sounds like most of the copies were in schools, which of course means they weren't in the most careful care....

      But an LV-ROM?!?! What the heck is that?! Wow!

      http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&it em =3034574601&category=3317

  34. Re:please tell me by usotsuki · · Score: 1

    Well, what do you think "YFI" stands for? I was aware of that.

    -uso.

    --
    Dreams, dreams, don't doubt dreams, dreaming children's dreaming dreams. Sailor Moon SS
  35. Fiendishly Clever Genes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0


    Yep.

    Every pyramid or burial mound ever found had already been looted, except for one or two lucky exceptions.

    Even if invading it were made truly humungously difficult, and it were put inside a big and dangerous "keep out" complex, and if they stash something just "mildly" genocidic at the "endpoint".

    If (when) the "mild" agent is exposed, a few thousand die, and the rest get the general idea. Then keep the real "goodies" buried even further below that. Just pray that, when found, there be more than a few thou individuals of the "finder's" species still in existence.

    It would also be a good idea to have inumerous "you die" glyphs set next to one or several ingenious end loooong lasting booby trap, each. In all sorts of places.

    And a "multiplier" glyph, stating the "awfulness" factor. By the time they reach the "endpoint", they just might get the idea if they see the walls totally covered in the worst awfullness glyphs and multiplier factors, ever.

    On the other hand, panta rhea. Things never really change. So descendants, human or not, or whatever succeeds, will probably repeat the same mistakes over and over again. S*** not only happens, but tends to repeat itself. Indefinitely. Interminably. Incessantly. Repeatedly (did I already say that?). Nonstop.

    So, yes, they might consider it a message from the ancients to be cruel, or suicidal, or both. Or mine the traps and nasties for their own use and amusement (as more intelligent commenters already observed).

    If our military and corporations and power-nuts of all sorts and sizes wouldn't shirk from messing with "Aliens", why do you think they'll stay away from a source of a "mysterious invisible horrible death" resource, in the far future ?

    Of course, if the genes for playing Doom, Nuke, etc., haven't died out by then, it will be impossible to keep even thrill seekers out.

    If bikers still exist, they might think it a neat spot to camp out. No flies. Except the occasional 2 meter long one, of course :)

    There is, evidently, only one solution possible. An eveready powered "Someone Else's Problem" Field Generator. Cloaked.

  36. Man they'd better be careful with that info... by mrBoB · · Score: 1

    Just think of all the nasty things a terrorist could do with those disc(s). It's a threat to national security! It's a good thing we have nothing like that here in America... HA

  37. Storage space and FOSS by travail_jgd · · Score: 1

    You're assuming that the FLAC software will be compatible with computers and operating systems in 20-30 years. Will the current version of FLAC be compatible with gcc 6.x on a 64-bit system? Is FLAC 3.x going to be capable of reading files encoded by 1.1.0? And even if the software and compiler are compatible, how well will they work with files that aren't DRM certified?

    In a worst-case scenario (no source code works on "modern computers"), FLAC is open-source and could be reimplemented, if the people looking at the files are interested enough. You do have the source code on your computer, right? :)

  38. But by Raul654 · · Score: 1

    The principle idea in building yucca is they *assume* it is going to be forgotten about and not updated. (Good engineering, btw - they plan for the worst) I mean, in 100,000 years a lot can happen, and chances are that the sign won't be kept up to date.

    --


    To make laws that man cannot, and will not obey, serves to bring all law into contempt.
    --E.C. Stanton
  39. Re:Difference between open and closed formats by nick_urbanik · · Score: 1
    You're assuming that the FLAC software will be compatible with computers and operating systems in 20-30 years. Will the current version of FLAC be compatible with gcc 6.x on a 64-bit system? Is FLAC 3.x going to be capable of reading files encoded by 1.1.0? And even if the software and compiler are compatible, how well will they work with files that aren't DRM certified?

    Open format specs will survive far into the future (just try googling for any free and open specification). As Linus said, "Only wimps use tape backup: real men just upload their important stuff on FTP, and let the rest of the world mirror it." Open format specs survive far into the future. Someone (you or someone else) can write the software to read it. Flac is free:

    When we say that FLAC is "Free" it means more than just that it is available at no cost. It means that the specification of the format is fully open to the public to be used for any purpose (the FLAC project reserves the right to set the FLAC specification and certify compliance), and that neither the FLAC format nor any of the implemented encoding/decoding methods are covered by any known patent. It also means that all the source code is available under open-source licenses. It is the first truly open and free lossless audio format.
    I think that you undervalue the meaning of "free" in free software.
  40. Put it on P2P by dopefish3 · · Score: 1

    Just say its pirated warez, throw it up on a torrent, kazaa, winmx, or whathave you, and it will last for years. ;P
    look at the www.textfiles.com archive. :)

  41. Re:please tell me by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

    Well, what do you think "YFI" stands for?

    i have no idea, please enlighten me...

  42. 15 years, try 15 minutes! by grundie · · Score: 2, Insightful

    I was at school when the Domesday project was being built, in fact my school was one the schools responsible for covering part of Carlisle in Cumbria.

    Our school bough one of the Domesday kits and on the first day all the teachers were bringing us through in to the library class by class to show it off. This was until one of the teachers dropped one of the discs and it shattered, bearing that in mind I am very surprised there are still discs in woking order after all this time.

    I would hope now that they will work on some of the other discs that used the Domesday hardware. I vividly remember a disc that featured an interacitve film. Basically the topic was about wathching a group of kids mucking around and every 2-3 minutes it would freeze and various options would appear over the characters, e.g "Simon calls Peter stupid". Depending on what you chose (using the track ball) the film would take a different path, either they would all go home happy or they would end up in some sort of trouble. Never mind the brainwashing apsects of the film (i.e. don't misbehave kids), the technology was trail blazing. This was in 1987! Years before DVD and even now I've seen very few interactive DVD films.

    Aparently there was over an hour of film and 4 possible endings to a 15 minute program on one of those discs. Whats more the system was very quick and totally foolproof.

    As an 11 year old obsessed with technology I was in awe of all this fancy equipment, Domesday wasn't just a great archiving project it also introduced some fancy technology which even today seems new fangled.

    What the BBC and their partners should have done is to add new material to the Domesday archive every 5 or so years. As well as the obvious enrichment of the archive, this would also mean there was a chance to update the technology in steps in order to keep track with data storage devlopements. Instead once it was finished it was forgotten about, meaning 15 years later when people realise the value of the project you have to get university's on board to make sense of the storage medium, data and software. That would have been a much better way to preserve the data.

    1. Re:15 years, try 15 minutes! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The Matrox training laserdiscs made for the US army perform a similar function (1989). Google for matrox laserdisc or e-vdp/msni.

  43. a serious answer by bandy · · Score: 1
    No. Components degrade over time, especially capacitors. They tend to blow up when left unused too long.


    And consider the lubricants in the spinning components....

    --
    "You might as well get your son a ticket to hell as give him a five string banjo." -unknown minister
  44. Yawn by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Gimme a break - you're complaining about a typo on a post I made at half past 3 AM.

  45. Not quite by Raul654 · · Score: 1

    There are maybe a few dozen people in the world who could even partially decipher indo-european, and that is only some 10,000 years old (it started in Ankara around 8,000 BC and is the mother tongue of the latin and germanic families). Now, instead of 10,000, what is it were 100,000 years. How many people would speak it then?

    --


    To make laws that man cannot, and will not obey, serves to bring all law into contempt.
    --E.C. Stanton
    1. Re:Not quite by dvdeug · · Score: 1

      There are maybe a few dozen people in the world who could even partially decipher indo-european

      Maybe if you pounded on the door at 3:30 in the morning and demanded the decipher it right then. Assuming what we think we know about Indo-European is correct, there's probably millions of people who could decipher it by going down to their library and checking out the right books.

      But that misses part of the point. Homer's Greek was not the origin of thousands of languages, nor spoke over a huge area; but it was written, and what was written in it was important enough to preserve. As long as any fragment of the scholarly culture that would study Aristole or Homer or the New Testament survives, ancient Greek will still be readable. Part of the reason Indo-European isn't known is because it wasn't written, and hence there's no reason to learn it besides purely linguistic reasons.

      Now, instead of 10,000, what is it were 100,000 years. How many people would speak it then?

      That's a good question. There is, however, a material difference between the future and the past: writing and libraries. Unless we assume widespread distruction on a unprecedented level, there still will be people who understand some of the major languages of this era. Written language is very compact and clear, compared to pictographs; it'd be worth a try in addition to pictographs, especially for the most heavily radioactive first couple thousand years.

    2. Re:Not quite by Raul654 · · Score: 1

      That's a good question. There is, however, a material difference between the future and the past: writing and libraries. Unless we assume widespread distruction on a unprecedented level, there still will be people who understand some of the major languages of this era. Written language is very compact and clear, compared to pictographs; it'd be worth a try in addition to pictographs, especially for the most heavily radioactive first couple thousand years.

      Aha! But we have had writing (and by writing, I mean script; not, for example, cave paintings) for some 5000+ years, dating back to the egyptians. (Shameless google-provided proof here). But after just 5,000 years, no one could read it. The egyptians were still there, there was no widespread destruction, and presumably there were scholars. But it took the *chance* finding of the Rosetta stone to allow us to decipher it - a stone with both egyptian and newer (totally understood) greek writing on it. So, just because it's written in what is today a popular language and format doesn't mean it will be readable in 5,000 years, even by scholars. [Let alone 100,000]. There's already historical precedent to say that's just not true.

      I'd even go further - I'd say with the internet, the language will evolve much faster, not slower. Merrian-Webster just completed their decennial update by adding by-far more words than ever in history, mostly because of the internet.

      --


      To make laws that man cannot, and will not obey, serves to bring all law into contempt.
      --E.C. Stanton
  46. Excuse me? by BinaryCodedDecimal · · Score: 1

    Adrian's first goal was to get the BBC Master computer working reliably again. This was no simple task. It involved getting hold of and reading through systems documentation, trying to understand both the operating system commands and the internal workings of this mid-1980s computer.

    Jesus, it was only 17 years ago. This reads like he was trying to decipher Egyptian hieroglyphs from scratch.

    I'm sure that many of the people who originally designed and used the system back in 1986 are still alive. Why not just ask one of them how it works?

    Indeed, nearly any British hacker that went to school in the eighties and early nineties would have been able to help him out with those pesky BBC operating system commands.

  47. Not on DVD by DrHyde · · Score: 1

    According to a nice man I spoke to at the Public Records Office, it's *not* on DVD. And they can't sell copies for various copyrighty reasons. Although apparently the PRO and BBC want to and are trying to figger out how.

  48. Uh, indeed by Thuktun · · Score: 1
    Didn't you think to check the Dictionary?

    The link you provide comes up with the following in seriously big letters:

    No entry found for defeation.
    Perhaps he turned to Google to turn up a definition where the dictionary[.com] did not.