Yet another archiving solution? Ye-Gads! Disclaimer: I have a MLIS and I used to work for an organization affiliated with OCLC. I now work for a wholly owned subsidary of Reed-Elsevier, who btw is not participating in this project that I am about to write about.
I completely understand the need to archive data/research, especially those found in STM journals (Science/Technology/Medicine). History has shown us the dangers of not being diligent in archiving AND it has shown us the difficulty with archive. There already exists an organization in the library community that is providing an excellent archiving solution. That organizatin is OCLC. They have been a repository since 1967. Starting out with archiving cataloging records and sharing them (for cost to preserve/maintain) to their membership.
OCLC's archiving solution is called ECO, Electronic Collections Online, where a good number of publishers from around the world are supplying OCLC with digital copies of their journals to be maintained. Additionally as technolgy and storage media change, OCLC has taken the leadership in migrating that data to new standard formats as they evolve. Information on ECO may be found here and specifically information on the archiving is here and the participating publishers are here.
Of course everything has a cost. Any university that is taking on this type of activity should really do a serious study on why they are doing it, how much are they willing to spend, will they or future administrations continue funding their archiving project, or should they combine resources with agencies/organizations that are already doing this.
I'm very happy that enough citizens in Holland had the intelligence and common sense to defeat this measure. However I feel that it will be short lived given the political, cultural climate of the community. Eventually there are going to be filters unless the community can work even harder/stronger to EDUCATE the communities of the world that filter technology is not the answer.
I used to live in Michigan (all of my life) until about five months ago when I took a position at a software company in ChicagoLand. In Michigan I worked as a trainer traveling from library to library teaching librarians and other staff members how to use databases and internet resources. My backgroung is in Library and Information Science. During that position I traveled to well over 100 libraries, and also spoke at several state-wide conferences for libraries or media-centers.
Sad to say, it seemed to me that the library community is split on the issue. Academic libraries don't wan't filters. Public libraries are about 50/50 on the issue. And school media centers, well they just want to protect themselves from the litigation by are society (same for probably the 50% of libraries that are leaning towards filters)
So, what next? How to proceed?
As a community we have been doing very well at fighting this. But for all of our good intentions of fighting against filters, we are going to fail and then it could very well be a domino effect.
What about also exploring avenues that would allow public forums, i.e. libraries to avoid the filter issue. Why not created a domain where the pornographic sites are. Perhaps a.sex or a.xxx or whatever. Then they could at least have a better chance of blocking some traffic. The movie industry already does this. The music industry has started.
Down side with this idea? It would take global committment and regulation. Do we want that? I don't think so... to hard to enforce.
So what other ideas/methods could there be?
Note: Please keep in mind that I am not pro-filter/censoring. I am just looking for discussion of possible alternatives.
Jon writes: "The founders of the Net-a coalition of academics, engineers, early hackers and researchers..."
And then further down:
"Because so few non-geeks grasped the significance of the Internet early on, government officials, regulators, corporate executives and educators ignored it,..."
First off Jon, you are contradicting yourself here. Make a choice, did academics play a role or not... Well most of us know they did.
To refute that educators ignored that, I'd liked to add that the early net was very instrumental to the science community of academia. Virtually every field of science from astronomy to zoology benefited early on from the capability to communicate either through the newsgroups (mostly run by the academics) or through the early adoption of email. For example, the early newsgroup of NET.columbia began in 1982 shortly after the creation of the newgroup structure (1980?). Of course there were plenty of social ones too: net.games.frp
To address the idea of always be free, many research sites were also affraid of what could/would be written on usenet posts. They would be affraid that certain views expressed their could be used against them by grant making agencies (i.e. government)
It can be biased due to the individuals/corporations that are affiliated with the organization conducting the survey. For an honest survey you would need one that is completely independent from the individuals/corporations who have an interest in the outcome of the survey. It is very difficult to construct a survey that is completely unbiased.
It is very easy to manipulate any statistical findings to support any view. Do you believe everything you read? Probably not. Likewise any/all survey's should be taken with a grain of salt.
I completely agree that MS is still going to be MS if broken up, and more people will be even richer when they get their stock splits! But as for the assertion that people want on OS that works, it is in part MS fault that there aren't other OS's that "work" as the novice Joe End-User would want. This is due to MS very aggresive business practices to lock up the market to their control.
Another reason is market saviness and future positioning. Facing a possibility of being broken up into three divisions, this will already start development efforts for a "software" or "media" division.
While I am not a Mac person, and while M$ has never acknowledged publicly competition from Apple, Mac's are still a big choice for a platform among the (sorry for stereotype) art community. Loyal following.
Any Mac users in/. care to comment on the strengths of audio creation/manipulation on the Mac?
Apologies for not remembering when, but I seem to recall an old 60 minutes show that mentioned that he can't even use computers by proxy, i.e. someone putting in his info. Can some one out there in/. land verify that? And I don not want to start a rumor on that... Sure would be a harsh twist though.
Kevin will be on parole for the next three years I believe. During that time he will have to check in with his parole officer, more than likely face to face, which would rule out the possibility of moving anywhere. It appears that he will be moving in with his father and attempting to attend college, seeking a special waiver for limited use of computers so that he can write his papers (from CNN story).
While I admit that certs can be bunk, I'm willing to do them if an employer is going to send me and pay for them. In my opinion though it is a poor gauge to imply/say/acert (pardon pun) that a salary signifies deserving credit and peer respect.
Ever hear of Dilbert principle? There are many people with certs and many without. An equal amount in each category think they know their stuff but actually know squat. A fool with a cert is still a fool. A fool w/o a cert is still a fool.
What do HR's know about certs anyways? They can just be useful in opening doors.
That rant being said, I'll probablly get some of the LINUX certs... but only after there is some shakedown to see which ones are "worthy".
Even though I'm a linux newbie (so someone please correct me if I'm wrong) but with using linux they would not have to pay a licensing fee for an os (i.e. M$). Also I would guess that they could build a kernal that would be pretty darn small to run the apps that they need (read no code bloated os taking up tons of disk space), AND also have it be an open source so that they could modify the os to suit their needs. To me it is not jumping on a bandwagon but a smart business AND development decision.
Keeping in mind that the original Internet trickled down to us little people much after initial development, here are some tidbits about the I2 project from the Internet2 FAQ found here.
1. One goal is for advanced internet tech development and for application development for vital for research.
2. Universities (and some comercial partners) are taking the lead on the project considering that they need the resources that this project is working on creating - advanced tech and apps.
3. Cost for being part of I2 70 million per year for the universities (I think that is for all, not each). Additional funding, 30 million over the time of I2 creation from commercial sector, and unspecified amounts from NSF and other R&D grant making organizations.
4. What about getting in on it? Uni's that are not currently part of it can join if they have the funds to make the investment. The tech is expensive now but should come down into reach.
I was thinking about this as well. How many of these setups could be within that 30 mile radius? What I am thinking about is how apartments in urban areas, such as New York, Chicago, LA, could speed things up with these. With 3000 users on a such a setup, it would require more than 300 of such units for a population of one million... Even more in the major urbanc areas.
Slashdot Mirror
Disclaimer: I have a MLIS and I used to work for an organization affiliated with OCLC. I now work for a wholly owned subsidary of Reed-Elsevier, who btw is not participating in this project that I am about to write about.
I completely understand the need to archive data/research, especially those found in STM journals (Science/Technology/Medicine). History has shown us the dangers of not being diligent in archiving AND it has shown us the difficulty with archive. There already exists an organization in the library community that is providing an excellent archiving solution. That organizatin is OCLC. They have been a repository since 1967. Starting out with archiving cataloging records and sharing them (for cost to preserve/maintain) to their membership.
OCLC's archiving solution is called ECO, Electronic Collections Online, where a good number of publishers from around the world are supplying OCLC with digital copies of their journals to be maintained. Additionally as technolgy and storage media change, OCLC has taken the leadership in migrating that data to new standard formats as they evolve. Information on ECO may be found here and specifically information on the archiving is here and the participating publishers are here.
Of course everything has a cost. Any university that is taking on this type of activity should really do a serious study on why they are doing it, how much are they willing to spend, will they or future administrations continue funding their archiving project, or should they combine resources with agencies/organizations that are already doing this.
Pet peeve:
Tau when you mention in repsonse to a line from my post:
Forgette: It would take global committment and regulation.
Tau: Do you want any kind of global regulation of the Internet? Are you insane?
Perhaps you yourself should take some St. Johns Wort (LOL BTW) and read the full line from my original post:
It would take global committment and regulation. Do we want that? I don't think so...
I'm very happy that enough citizens in Holland had the intelligence and common sense to defeat this measure. However I feel that it will be short lived given the political, cultural climate of the community. Eventually there are going to be filters unless the community can work even harder/stronger to EDUCATE the communities of the world that filter technology is not the answer.
I used to live in Michigan (all of my life) until about five months ago when I took a position at a software company in ChicagoLand. In Michigan I worked as a trainer traveling from library to library teaching librarians and other staff members how to use databases and internet resources. My backgroung is in Library and Information Science. During that position I traveled to well over 100 libraries, and also spoke at several state-wide conferences for libraries or media-centers.
Sad to say, it seemed to me that the library community is split on the issue. Academic libraries don't wan't filters. Public libraries are about 50/50 on the issue. And school media centers, well they just want to protect themselves from the litigation by are society (same for probably the 50% of libraries that are leaning towards filters)
So, what next? How to proceed?
As a community we have been doing very well at fighting this. But for all of our good intentions of fighting against filters, we are going to fail and then it could very well be a domino effect.
What about also exploring avenues that would allow public forums, i.e. libraries to avoid the filter issue. Why not created a domain where the pornographic sites are. Perhaps a .sex or a .xxx or whatever. Then they could at least have a better chance of blocking some traffic. The movie industry already does this. The music industry has started.
Down side with this idea? It would take global committment and regulation. Do we want that? I don't think so... to hard to enforce.
So what other ideas/methods could there be?
Note: Please keep in mind that I am not pro-filter/censoring. I am just looking for discussion of possible alternatives.
Slimmy method to induce fear, but it is in their business interests to propogate such a fear.
Network Associates has a subsidary... McAffe.
"The founders of the Net-a coalition of academics, engineers, early hackers and researchers..."
And then further down:
"Because so few non-geeks grasped the significance of the Internet early on, government officials, regulators, corporate executives and educators ignored it,..."
First off Jon, you are contradicting yourself here. Make a choice, did academics play a role or not... Well most of us know they did.
To refute that educators ignored that, I'd liked to add that the early net was very instrumental to the science community of academia. Virtually every field of science from astronomy to zoology benefited early on from the capability to communicate either through the newsgroups (mostly run by the academics) or through the early adoption of email. For example, the early newsgroup of NET.columbia began in 1982 shortly after the creation of the newgroup structure (1980?). Of course there were plenty of social ones too: net.games.frp
To address the idea of always be free, many research sites were also affraid of what could/would be written on usenet posts. They would be affraid that certain views expressed their could be used against them by grant making agencies (i.e. government)
A good history available online is:
Netizens: On the history and impact of Usenet and Internet
Michael and Ronda Hauben
It can be biased due to the individuals/corporations that are affiliated with the organization conducting the survey. For an honest survey you would need one that is completely independent from the individuals/corporations who have an interest in the outcome of the survey. It is very difficult to construct a survey that is completely unbiased.
It is very easy to manipulate any statistical findings to support any view. Do you believe everything you read? Probably not. Likewise any/all survey's should be taken with a grain of salt.
I completely agree that MS is still going to be MS if broken up, and more people will be even richer when they get their stock splits! But as for the assertion that people want on OS that works, it is in part MS fault that there aren't other OS's that "work" as the novice Joe End-User would want. This is due to MS very aggresive business practices to lock up the market to their control.
Another reason is market saviness and future positioning. Facing a possibility of being broken up into three divisions, this will already start development efforts for a "software" or "media" division.
While I am not a Mac person, and while M$ has never acknowledged publicly competition from Apple, Mac's are still a big choice for a platform among the (sorry for stereotype) art community. Loyal following.
/. care to comment on the strengths of audio creation/manipulation on the Mac?
Any Mac users in
Apologies for not remembering when, but I seem to recall an old 60 minutes show that mentioned that he can't even use computers by proxy, i.e. someone putting in his info. Can some one out there in /. land verify that? And I don not want to start a rumor on that... Sure would be a harsh twist though.
Kevin will be on parole for the next three years I believe. During that time he will have to check in with his parole officer, more than likely face to face, which would rule out the possibility of moving anywhere. It appears that he will be moving in with his father and attempting to attend college, seeking a special waiver for limited use of computers so that he can write his papers (from CNN story).
While I admit that certs can be bunk, I'm willing to do them if an employer is going to send me and pay for them. In my opinion though it is a poor gauge to imply/say/acert (pardon pun) that a salary signifies deserving credit and peer respect.
Ever hear of Dilbert principle? There are many people with certs and many without. An equal amount in each category think they know their stuff but actually know squat. A fool with a cert is still a fool. A fool w/o a cert is still a fool.
What do HR's know about certs anyways? They can just be useful in opening doors.
That rant being said, I'll probablly get some of the LINUX certs... but only after there is some shakedown to see which ones are "worthy".
Even though I'm a linux newbie (so someone please correct me if I'm wrong) but with using linux they would not have to pay a licensing fee for an os (i.e. M$). Also I would guess that they could build a kernal that would be pretty darn small to run the apps that they need (read no code bloated os taking up tons of disk space), AND also have it be an open source so that they could modify the os to suit their needs. To me it is not jumping on a bandwagon but a smart business AND development decision.
Keeping in mind that the original Internet trickled down to us little people much after initial development, here are some tidbits about the I2 project from the Internet2 FAQ found here.
1. One goal is for advanced internet tech development and for application development for vital for research.
2. Universities (and some comercial partners) are taking the lead on the project considering that they need the resources that this project is working on creating - advanced tech and apps.
3. Cost for being part of I2 70 million per year for the universities (I think that is for all, not each). Additional funding, 30 million over the time of I2 creation from commercial sector, and unspecified amounts from NSF and other R&D grant making organizations.
4. What about getting in on it? Uni's that are not currently part of it can join if they have the funds to make the investment. The tech is expensive now but should come down into reach.
I was thinking about this as well. How many of these setups could be within that 30 mile radius?
What I am thinking about is how apartments in urban areas, such as New York, Chicago, LA, could speed things up with these. With 3000 users on a such a setup, it would require more than 300 of such units for a population of one million... Even more in the major urbanc areas.