Still too complex. I'm not saying you'll be completely able to avoid more complex formats, and obviously where you have too, opens better than proprietary... but as far as possible make it as simple as possible. ASCIIs just about the simplest encoding for text I can think of, but I could stand to be corrected on that.
I take your point about ASCII being no good for things where the format is important (i.e. handwriting) but I wouldn't really look to be translating physical media anyway. I might digitise it for ease of access and/or analysis, but for longevity I'd only be looking to improve the chances of the physical medium surviving (that maybe means transferring to new media, maybe chemically improving the existing).
Good luck with your hunt.
Rather than bitching about Microsoft making an offer of 'help' which is just thinly disguised marketing (I mean, come on, par for the course no?), could we get a discussion about real solutions? I know MS bashing is fun, but come on, we do it on just about every other thread... lets have a day off.
To kick things off here's one:
Keep EVERYTHING in the simplest possible format. ASCII would seem sensible, since its the content we care about, not the formatting. (although that wouldn't help our Asiatic brethren much). Then Keep decent records of HOW you can read that format. With examples of the software and hardware. do this bit on PAPER. V. Tough Paper (or rock, or plastic or whatever). Update the explanations every other year, to put it in language the next gen will understand. Maybe also have instructions on how to translate the simple format to less simple things.
I guess, basically, its a case of KISS and then *provide a persistent and regularly updated 'Rosetta Stone'* for latecomers to work from.
As a side branch, this kind of reminds me of discussions I read about a while back of how to warn future generations about Nuclear Waste dumps (y'know, the really nasty stuff with half-lives in the thousands of years range). I don't think anyone ever came up with a decent answer....
You think 'Peanuts' and 'Calvin and Hobbes' aren't/enough/? Really, try them again. I'm more of Calvin & Hobbes man, but I would still say that Peanuts is very far indeed from 'simple'. Unless you mean the good interpretation of simple, as in, without needless pretention or ornamentation.
They just *said* they'd not give up the mobile. If someone *actually* gave them 1 million pounds they'd be using public phone boxes and hitting the parents landline like a shot.
Honestly, you don't believe what people say in these kinds of surveys do you? If you do, I've a lovely bridge I can sell you, splits in the middle and everything...
I think he meant free as in Beer. Y'know, if your date doesn't want to go all the way, you can't badger them about it just cause that foxy GNU chick did...
The whole world is not the net. Protecting your e-mail is not the only real application. The feds, for instance, may well have many directly electrically connected comms links they would like an effective way to secure. And you WOULD know if someone tried to fake you out cause of the way the signal characteristics would change. As others have pointed out, your screwed if someone manages to get real close to either end point (and as long as they don't try to operate at the same time as the real thing), but I think it that happens you can safely say that your security issues have just gone beyond compromised comms... as in, someones managed to walk into what we may posit is meant to be a very secure area, and hung around installing some complex electrical equipment. Oh, and they come back in now and then to get the latest take.
Hmmm, no federal sales tax. Lucky you guys. The flippant part of me wants to say 'give it time'...
But the more thoughtful part of me says, well, even with some states NOT charging sales tax, b) or c) still work. Of course, if you chose b) a lot of online retailers are going to base (or dispatch) in a tax free state, but as long as taxes are not harmonised across states, there will always be many different companies moving round to achieve the most efficient (i.e. cheapest for them) tax position. It even happens here (to a small degree) with some online retailers (Amazon.co.uk, notably) will allow you to order from their Jersey (part of the channel islands, a British Territory but essentially a tax haven) operation and save the VAT.
For the record, I'm not fond of Sales Taxes, because they are extremely regressive. That is, they disproportionately hit the less well off. An extra 17.5% isn't much to a rich guy, its potentially quite a lot to someone who's struggling already. Income taxes are much fairer. But, as long as you are going to have them (and the revenoo, they do love a good sales tax), they really ought to be applied to EVERY qualifying sale. a CD from Amazon really should have the same tax position as a CD from Walmart.
Really, what's the problem here? I'm in the UK and admittedly, we don't really have the issues with sales tax you guys have (no states, one national rate, called VAT, charged at 17.5%), but it seems quite simple.
Options:
a) Don't charge sales tax on internet sales, to ease operations.
Bit unfair on bricks and mortar retailers, and hardly defensible
b) Pay tax in the state in which the goods are deemed to have been sold.
Head office, or dispatch point. Its up to you. Add the tax to the price charged, collect from
retailer (as for bricks and mortar). Its not like you'd go into a hardware store in Ohio and
say "Hey, I'm from Montana, can I not pay the tax please?"
c) Pay tax in the state from which the purchase was made
As decided by the delivery address, or billing address (again, your choice)
Not as fair and one suspects that a store in one state would feel fairly aggrieved about
having to pay taxes to another state entirely (though really the tax is on the purchaser, so its
actually just admin).
With either b) or c), its hardly a complex technological solution. You do only have 50 states.
Check one location against a table of 50 states, work out the tax, and make an entry in the appropriate
record. NOT HARD.
Of course, if you think ALL sales taxes are unfair to start with... well thats a different debate.
Slashdot Mirror
Still too complex. I'm not saying you'll be completely able to avoid more complex formats, and obviously where you have too, opens better than proprietary... but as far as possible make it as simple as possible. ASCIIs just about the simplest encoding for text I can think of, but I could stand to be corrected on that.
I take your point about ASCII being no good for things where the format is important (i.e. handwriting) but I wouldn't really look to be translating physical media anyway. I might digitise it for ease of access and/or analysis, but for longevity I'd only be looking to improve the chances of the physical medium surviving (that maybe means transferring to new media, maybe chemically improving the existing). Good luck with your hunt.
Rather than bitching about Microsoft making an offer of 'help' which is just thinly disguised marketing (I mean, come on, par for the course no?), could we get a discussion about real solutions? I know MS bashing is fun, but come on, we do it on just about every other thread... lets have a day off.
To kick things off here's one:
Keep EVERYTHING in the simplest possible format. ASCII would seem sensible, since its the content we care about, not the formatting. (although that wouldn't help our Asiatic brethren much). Then Keep decent records of HOW you can read that format. With examples of the software and hardware. do this bit on PAPER. V. Tough Paper (or rock, or plastic or whatever). Update the explanations every other year, to put it in language the next gen will understand. Maybe also have instructions on how to translate the simple format to less simple things.
I guess, basically, its a case of KISS and then *provide a persistent and regularly updated 'Rosetta Stone'* for latecomers to work from.
As a side branch, this kind of reminds me of discussions I read about a while back of how to warn future generations about Nuclear Waste dumps (y'know, the really nasty stuff with half-lives in the thousands of years range). I don't think anyone ever came up with a decent answer....
You think 'Peanuts' and 'Calvin and Hobbes' aren't /enough/? Really, try them again. I'm more of Calvin & Hobbes man, but I would still say that Peanuts is very far indeed from 'simple'. Unless you mean the good interpretation of simple, as in, without needless pretention or ornamentation.
They just *said* they'd not give up the mobile. If someone *actually* gave them 1 million pounds they'd be using public phone boxes and hitting the parents landline like a shot.
Honestly, you don't believe what people say in these kinds of surveys do you? If you do, I've a lovely bridge I can sell you, splits in the middle and everything...
I think he meant free as in Beer. Y'know, if your date doesn't want to go all the way, you can't badger them about it just cause that foxy GNU chick did...
The whole world is not the net. Protecting your e-mail is not the only real application. The feds, for instance, may well have many directly electrically connected comms links they would like an effective way to secure. And you WOULD know if someone tried to fake you out cause of the way the signal characteristics would change. As others have pointed out, your screwed if someone manages to get real close to either end point (and as long as they don't try to operate at the same time as the real thing), but I think it that happens you can safely say that your security issues have just gone beyond compromised comms... as in, someones managed to walk into what we may posit is meant to be a very secure area, and hung around installing some complex electrical equipment. Oh, and they come back in now and then to get the latest take.
Hmmm, no federal sales tax. Lucky you guys. The flippant part of me wants to say 'give it time'... But the more thoughtful part of me says, well, even with some states NOT charging sales tax, b) or c) still work. Of course, if you chose b) a lot of online retailers are going to base (or dispatch) in a tax free state, but as long as taxes are not harmonised across states, there will always be many different companies moving round to achieve the most efficient (i.e. cheapest for them) tax position. It even happens here (to a small degree) with some online retailers (Amazon.co.uk, notably) will allow you to order from their Jersey (part of the channel islands, a British Territory but essentially a tax haven) operation and save the VAT. For the record, I'm not fond of Sales Taxes, because they are extremely regressive. That is, they disproportionately hit the less well off. An extra 17.5% isn't much to a rich guy, its potentially quite a lot to someone who's struggling already. Income taxes are much fairer. But, as long as you are going to have them (and the revenoo, they do love a good sales tax), they really ought to be applied to EVERY qualifying sale. a CD from Amazon really should have the same tax position as a CD from Walmart.
Really, what's the problem here? I'm in the UK and admittedly, we don't really have the issues with sales tax you guys have (no states, one national rate, called VAT, charged at 17.5%), but it seems quite simple. Options: a) Don't charge sales tax on internet sales, to ease operations. Bit unfair on bricks and mortar retailers, and hardly defensible b) Pay tax in the state in which the goods are deemed to have been sold. Head office, or dispatch point. Its up to you. Add the tax to the price charged, collect from retailer (as for bricks and mortar). Its not like you'd go into a hardware store in Ohio and say "Hey, I'm from Montana, can I not pay the tax please?" c) Pay tax in the state from which the purchase was made As decided by the delivery address, or billing address (again, your choice) Not as fair and one suspects that a store in one state would feel fairly aggrieved about having to pay taxes to another state entirely (though really the tax is on the purchaser, so its actually just admin). With either b) or c), its hardly a complex technological solution. You do only have 50 states. Check one location against a table of 50 states, work out the tax, and make an entry in the appropriate record. NOT HARD. Of course, if you think ALL sales taxes are unfair to start with... well thats a different debate.