1 + 1 = 2, most of the time. easily-produced replicas will eliminate all of the tourism in washington dc. it'll take you another 20 years to prove it to yourself.
none of that makes it better. you're by definition storing some things that no one will ever want. but still, that's not the discussion here. we're talking about crappy copies, not storage.
it's worthless because it devalues everything. yes, I miss the days when I saw real dinosaurs in exhibits.
but it's important to explain to people who don't know better that they too should find it worthless. otherwise, you get marketing industries generating value where none exists. and that's just bad for civilization as a whole.
it's not I who finds it worthless. it actually is worthless. the fact that someone can be conduced into attributing value to the item doesn't actually ascribe that value. it just fakes that value. and faked values are called bubbles in the finance world, and much much worse things in the biological world.
I drive a very low, convertible sports car. my rear-view mirror is about 36 inches off of the ground. so a rearview camera would be incredibly stupid. but fine. I also don't have any place for a screen of any kind -- it's a very small sports car. but fine.
but does this mean that I can get rid of the stupid pedestrian brake light? the one that needed to be added to every car a little while back so that it could be at eye-level for pedestrians to know that I was a car? mine's about 30 inches off of the ground, and is about two inches higher than my actual brake lights. making it just as stupid as the camera. the camera that'll wind up being about 20 inches off the ground -- where my plate is.
or, and here's a thought, since pedestrians can't get hit by moving cars when they aren't behind moving cars, maybe, just maybe, pedestrians can not walk behind moving cars. just a thought.
since I learned to cross the street, I also learned to cross a parking lot. and one of those lessons was "if a car is running, don't walk anywhere near it". wasn't hard to learn. it was an extension of "the pedestrian has the right of away, but the pedestrian gets killed, so the pedestrian never takes the right of way" see how easy that is?
and what, you're going to mandate that shopaholic soccer moms in giant suvs with three children screaming in the back seat first look at the stupid screen?
so whose job is it to decide what is useless today? you're saying that the chair is more valuable in 100 years than to someone today.
neither is more likely. but more importantly, it's called hoarding.
but we're not talking about any of that. we're talking about 3d printed reproductions. which aren't accurate enough to be worth anything, because the material's different. so they are totally useless. and they serve to devalue the originals just the same.
no, you misunderstand me. my point is that you're doing neither. archivist want to protect an object so it can be used in future whatevers. if that means hiding from the public, then yeah, do it. but it's for that end goal. if it will absolutely never be used for anything, then there's no point in keeping it.
and when it comes to granting access, your second goal, you need to actually grant access. granting access to something else doesn't count. a sand-printed version of archie bunker's chair doesn't grant the public access to anything. it doesn't show if it was hard or soft, what colour, what comfort, nothing. so it's entirely useless.
archivists, and society in general, need to decide what the end-goal is. if it's to be able to know what was, then it needs to be protected for as long as possible, and studied only with gloved hands by the most esteemed and restricted experts. if it's to share the past with the present, then it needs to be shared. and certainly there's a balance of the two. and I'd be perfectly ok with saying that archie bunker's chair should be preserved until 2050, and then access until it degrades, because by 2055, nobody will care about a television chair anymore.
I think we can all say that pride aside, having the original presidential papers is far less important than what they stood for. they aren't humanity's achievement, they are merely representitive of that achievement. same with archie's chair. and while I'd be dissappointed to hear that there are no originals of anything from 100 years ago, I'd be equally disappointment to hear that we kept everything for 1'000 years without allowing anyone to touch them.
not to mention that there's the issue of scale. for the last 100 years, we've attempted to keep everything. so it 500 years from now, when you're living on venus, are you really going to care than 600 years earlier, a culture-busting tv show's chair is still being protected back on earth?
I love archie bunkers chair. and I treat it with the greatest respect. but in and of itself, it has no value in 500 years.
so what exactly are we saving? for whom and what for? do you really want to ressurect the dinosaurs, sure, there are loads of things that we could learn in doing so. do we really want to ressurect a mayan kitchen cabinet? there's a big difference there. more than one.
and when the cost is to specifically hide archie bunker's chair from the people today who would really enjoy seeing it, or sitting in it. there is undoubtedly more money to be had by selling expensive tickets to sit in that chair than to orbit the planet. there are enough people who would pay over a thousand dollars to sit in the chair. and enough contract law, and insurance, to cover malicious intent.
you can share the present, or you can protect the past, or you can do neither. both just isn't worth it.
not true. because the material is different. having a sand version of a chair conveys nothing. not the strength, not the feeling, not the comfort. in fact, nothing but the shape. and you forget that the colour won't be the same either. so the lighting will be totally different. so the perceived shape will be incorrect as well.
it won't even cast the same shadow, since opacity won't be the same.
it won't attract the same insects, it won't be the same softness.
if I told you that I can take the first ever NFL superbowl's game ball, and make an identical replicat out of foam, would you prize it? or would you call it what it is: nerf. because you see, it's nerf, and it's nothing.
1) as close as we can get doesn't make it good enough for anything. just means that unknown errors become major problems. the idea of an original is that it's definitely correct. not actually correct, definitely correct. there's a big difference.
2) "of interest" is rarely worth anything. Think about how much anyone cares about 10'000 year old pots, and what they can teach us about prehistoric civilizations. Now imagine that you actually have a near-perfect replica of that bowl. by the way, in different materialsp it's totally meaningless. more so, it devalues the original, because people don't know any better.
3) a 3d replica of a sculpture is no different than a photocopy of a photograph. or a copy of a painting. if you had a pro painter copying the mona lisa on every street corner, are you saying that you won't need to see the real thing? that you'd want to see the copy before seeing the real thing? you're talking about turning every one of humanity's expressions into an academic exercise. and yeah, people will care about them the same way any elementary school student always does -- not at all. but teachers will drag them just the same.
4) yes, money will be made, just like most bad ideas make money. most illegal ideas too, by the way. and I too would very much enjoy having archie bunker's chair in my living room. but it's just as cheesy to have a replica as it's always been. someone somewhere has the real 50 million dollar painting, and I have the $10 reprint. look how nice my wall is. I also have a build-your-own ferrari in the garage, and very large fake gold statues on my lawn.
you've always been able to have fake stuff at a fraction of the cost. but only the most impoverished have ever cared. to everyone else, it winds up being cheesy.
so, like with every advancement, when the ability to copy is new, having a copy is having an original copy. it's the ability to copy that's impressive. and the moment it's common, they all become valueless.
and that's called devaluing an entire industry. and that's exactly what you'll get. you already have people on minimum wage with music collections larger than the wealthiest audiophiles of the 1980's. and so, music has zero value today. and not just the music. speakers suck, concert venues suck, car stereos suck. the actual quality of the music has dropped because the entire industry is now consumerized.
if you want the same to happen to everything, that's what you'll get.
my interest in a museum has never been to see a reproduction of an historical achievement. I've no interest in seeing a photograph of the first telephone, nor in seeing a model of the first telephone, nor in seeing a drawing of the first telephone, nor an impressionist painting of the first telephone, nor a spot-on to-the-micron reproduction of the first telephone.
my interest in a museum is to see the first telephone. Not something created ten minutes ago for me to see, but something created ages ago as an achievement.
I could care less about the reproduction. Actually, that's a lie. I'd feel ripped off by it.
Quite frankly, I'd be upset to hear that my country spent good money to create the reproduction, store the reproduction, and hide the original from me.
show me the original, or destroy the original because it can't be shown.
you've got a high-level functioning ability to understand systems -- systems of equasions, systems of products, systems of procedures, and systems of tasks. there's a world beyond IT that is only beginning to benefits from IT-structured individuals. engineering's growing into it naturally, as you would expect it to be, so the best places to start today are engineering-adjacent.
for example, assembly. assembly lines for certain complex products can be restructured with programming concepts quite easily. think paralellism, locking, iteration, and reporting. I've started making that same move by starting my own such company. basically, now I'm programming humans to use physical resources, instead of computers to use disk and memory resources. it's totally different and exactly the same.
believe it or not, the most interesting part to me is the quality control. think debug tools, and life's amazingly simple.
so there must be some industry in your city that is learning to use programmers outside of the computer.
"it would have been woulderful..." and "...clicking a button to" have about 10'000 man-hours between them. it's nice to put a man on the moon, and only costs 110 billion dollars.
I'll bet it would have been even more wonderful to just teleport home.
My work requires a lot of memory effort. It turns out that a higher heart-rate simply ruins that skill. I've always casually said that blood to my muscles means less blood to my brain, but that's more of an anecdotal excuse than anything I've confirmed.
I don't think I'm saying those 15 minutes are linear at all. Just that if I started at 70, it'll take 15 minutes to get back to 70 -- hovering around 80-90 for the better part of those 15 minutes. but the effect is still the same, I can't get back to work.
you'll pardon me if I consider the downsides of that sort of exercise. Among them, I work a very cognitive-intense job. with blood surging to muscles, I can't do the memory work required. so there's an hour recovery. And that sort of effort brings the risk of injury. much like every athlete is virtually guaranteed to get injured.
let's see, it says 20 minutes twice a week. but it says at maximum heart rate. it probably takes me a good 2 minutes to reach my maximum heart rate, and it'll take me 5 minutes if I don't plan on killing myself to do it.. And it takes a good 15 minutes to slow back down to normal in order to go about the rest of my day.
change the shell from explorer.exe to your own application -- iexplore.exe would work, so would mshta, or your hta file. I think you can also make it an hta file.
you can use.pac files to completely filter the internet by regular expression or any algorithm operating on the URL or filesystem, so you could wind up connecting to some internet sites if it becomes applicable.
you don't need a local server, an hta will work cleaner, with all of jscript to access anything on the system, including the file system, the registry, peripherals, and any browser functions you could ever want.
I did all this on wince five years ago, and on win 98 through 7.
oh, and you'll find that museums have paper from centuries ago, and my basement has paper from decades ago, and libraries have paper from centuries ago, lets of it. how many consumer electronic devices do you see from decades ago? remember that libraries hand out free books to the public and hope to get them back. that's a lot of usage. no consumer electronic device would withstand that.
the external light source is not required by the paper. because it's already there and required by the human. you don't need a new light source, you already have whatever existing emergency light source is already present.
that means no further dependency beyond the existing situation.
the ipad has a huge defect rate, it support, can crash, can break, and is dependent on an internal light source that can break.
the lightsources in the [cabin] can't break. they are redundant for so many other reasons. your paper doesn't need a lightsource. you do. and you already have it.
and did you ever call for IT assistance? did it ever require another person to help you operate the binder? there are also plenty of slightly different methods than a binder, and in general, if they'd stop printing those things as general documents for a thousand aircraft models, and actually gave you only what you need for yours, you'd reduce much of the frustration.
and no, your misunderstanding my perspective is not me changing anything. I was always speaking in relative terms between the two devices. more specifically, between the two classes of devices.
I don't think people realize what those metrics are.
the first is parent education. so you're saying that schools with smart parents have smart students. so you're saying I should select a school based on how others have already selelcted a school.
the second is growing scores. so you're saying improvement is good to see.
the third is teacher attraction. so you're saying that schools that were selected by good teachers are good.
basing my selection simply by following others who have already selected it doesn't help. that's a short term promise that reaches a useless equilibrium. if dumb parents choose a school that has smart parents, it will soon have dumb parents. if bad teachers choose a school because it has good teachers, it will soon have bad teachers.
no further dependencies. everything has dependencies, like a human neesd to read it. no further dependencies to consider beyond the STP, SOP, standard operating environment.
it also depends on no raging fires.
quite arguing syntax. you can win any argument on syntax, and it's easy to do so, but it's meaningless, and showcases that you haven't any idea about that which is being discussed.
sure I can. light sources are required for all human activity. and we have emergency light sources everywhere: flares, electric, and glow sticks. that's a problem that's been solved long ago.
Slashdot Mirror
1 + 1 = 2, most of the time.
easily-produced replicas will eliminate all of the tourism in washington dc.
it'll take you another 20 years to prove it to yourself.
I wouldn't mind if all of washington dc never again has any tourism whatsoever. doesn't make for a better civilization though.
but yeah, me too.
can't believe they marked you to zero. what a dumb group.
none of that makes it better. you're by definition storing some things that no one will ever want.
but still, that's not the discussion here. we're talking about crappy copies, not storage.
it's worthless because it devalues everything. yes, I miss the days when I saw real dinosaurs in exhibits.
but it's important to explain to people who don't know better that they too should find it worthless. otherwise, you get marketing industries generating value where none exists. and that's just bad for civilization as a whole.
it's not I who finds it worthless. it actually is worthless. the fact that someone can be conduced into attributing value to the item doesn't actually ascribe that value. it just fakes that value. and faked values are called bubbles in the finance world, and much much worse things in the biological world.
I drive a very low, convertible sports car. my rear-view mirror is about 36 inches off of the ground. so a rearview camera would be incredibly stupid. but fine. I also don't have any place for a screen of any kind -- it's a very small sports car. but fine.
but does this mean that I can get rid of the stupid pedestrian brake light? the one that needed to be added to every car a little while back so that it could be at eye-level for pedestrians to know that I was a car? mine's about 30 inches off of the ground, and is about two inches higher than my actual brake lights. making it just as stupid as the camera. the camera that'll wind up being about 20 inches off the ground -- where my plate is.
or, and here's a thought, since pedestrians can't get hit by moving cars when they aren't behind moving cars, maybe, just maybe, pedestrians can not walk behind moving cars. just a thought.
since I learned to cross the street, I also learned to cross a parking lot. and one of those lessons was "if a car is running, don't walk anywhere near it". wasn't hard to learn. it was an extension of "the pedestrian has the right of away, but the pedestrian gets killed, so the pedestrian never takes the right of way" see how easy that is?
and what, you're going to mandate that shopaholic soccer moms in giant suvs with three children screaming in the back seat first look at the stupid screen?
another fun waste of freedom.
so whose job is it to decide what is useless today? you're saying that the chair is more valuable in 100 years than to someone today.
neither is more likely. but more importantly, it's called hoarding.
but we're not talking about any of that. we're talking about 3d printed reproductions. which aren't accurate enough to be worth anything, because the material's different. so they are totally useless. and they serve to devalue the originals just the same.
no, you misunderstand me. my point is that you're doing neither. archivist want to protect an object so it can be used in future whatevers. if that means hiding from the public, then yeah, do it. but it's for that end goal. if it will absolutely never be used for anything, then there's no point in keeping it.
and when it comes to granting access, your second goal, you need to actually grant access. granting access to something else doesn't count. a sand-printed version of archie bunker's chair doesn't grant the public access to anything. it doesn't show if it was hard or soft, what colour, what comfort, nothing. so it's entirely useless.
archivists, and society in general, need to decide what the end-goal is. if it's to be able to know what was, then it needs to be protected for as long as possible, and studied only with gloved hands by the most esteemed and restricted experts. if it's to share the past with the present, then it needs to be shared. and certainly there's a balance of the two. and I'd be perfectly ok with saying that archie bunker's chair should be preserved until 2050, and then access until it degrades, because by 2055, nobody will care about a television chair anymore.
I think we can all say that pride aside, having the original presidential papers is far less important than what they stood for. they aren't humanity's achievement, they are merely representitive of that achievement. same with archie's chair. and while I'd be dissappointed to hear that there are no originals of anything from 100 years ago, I'd be equally disappointment to hear that we kept everything for 1'000 years without allowing anyone to touch them.
not to mention that there's the issue of scale. for the last 100 years, we've attempted to keep everything. so it 500 years from now, when you're living on venus, are you really going to care than 600 years earlier, a culture-busting tv show's chair is still being protected back on earth?
I love archie bunkers chair. and I treat it with the greatest respect. but in and of itself, it has no value in 500 years.
so what exactly are we saving? for whom and what for? do you really want to ressurect the dinosaurs, sure, there are loads of things that we could learn in doing so. do we really want to ressurect a mayan kitchen cabinet? there's a big difference there. more than one.
and when the cost is to specifically hide archie bunker's chair from the people today who would really enjoy seeing it, or sitting in it. there is undoubtedly more money to be had by selling expensive tickets to sit in that chair than to orbit the planet. there are enough people who would pay over a thousand dollars to sit in the chair. and enough contract law, and insurance, to cover malicious intent.
you can share the present, or you can protect the past, or you can do neither. both just isn't worth it.
not true. because the material is different. having a sand version of a chair conveys nothing. not the strength, not the feeling, not the comfort. in fact, nothing but the shape. and you forget that the colour won't be the same either. so the lighting will be totally different. so the perceived shape will be incorrect as well.
it won't even cast the same shadow, since opacity won't be the same.
it won't attract the same insects, it won't be the same softness.
if I told you that I can take the first ever NFL superbowl's game ball, and make an identical replicat out of foam, would you prize it? or would you call it what it is: nerf. because you see, it's nerf, and it's nothing.
1) as close as we can get doesn't make it good enough for anything. just means that unknown errors become major problems. the idea of an original is that it's definitely correct. not actually correct, definitely correct. there's a big difference.
2) "of interest" is rarely worth anything. Think about how much anyone cares about 10'000 year old pots, and what they can teach us about prehistoric civilizations. Now imagine that you actually have a near-perfect replica of that bowl. by the way, in different materialsp it's totally meaningless. more so, it devalues the original, because people don't know any better.
3) a 3d replica of a sculpture is no different than a photocopy of a photograph. or a copy of a painting. if you had a pro painter copying the mona lisa on every street corner, are you saying that you won't need to see the real thing? that you'd want to see the copy before seeing the real thing? you're talking about turning every one of humanity's expressions into an academic exercise. and yeah, people will care about them the same way any elementary school student always does -- not at all. but teachers will drag them just the same.
4) yes, money will be made, just like most bad ideas make money. most illegal ideas too, by the way. and I too would very much enjoy having archie bunker's chair in my living room. but it's just as cheesy to have a replica as it's always been. someone somewhere has the real 50 million dollar painting, and I have the $10 reprint. look how nice my wall is. I also have a build-your-own ferrari in the garage, and very large fake gold statues on my lawn.
you've always been able to have fake stuff at a fraction of the cost. but only the most impoverished have ever cared. to everyone else, it winds up being cheesy.
so, like with every advancement, when the ability to copy is new, having a copy is having an original copy. it's the ability to copy that's impressive. and the moment it's common, they all become valueless.
and that's called devaluing an entire industry. and that's exactly what you'll get. you already have people on minimum wage with music collections larger than the wealthiest audiophiles of the 1980's. and so, music has zero value today. and not just the music. speakers suck, concert venues suck, car stereos suck. the actual quality of the music has dropped because the entire industry is now consumerized.
if you want the same to happen to everything, that's what you'll get.
my interest in a museum has never been to see a reproduction of an historical achievement. I've no interest in seeing a photograph of the first telephone, nor in seeing a model of the first telephone, nor in seeing a drawing of the first telephone, nor an impressionist painting of the first telephone, nor a spot-on to-the-micron reproduction of the first telephone.
my interest in a museum is to see the first telephone. Not something created ten minutes ago for me to see, but something created ages ago as an achievement.
I could care less about the reproduction. Actually, that's a lie. I'd feel ripped off by it.
Quite frankly, I'd be upset to hear that my country spent good money to create the reproduction, store the reproduction, and hide the original from me.
show me the original, or destroy the original because it can't be shown.
you've got a high-level functioning ability to understand systems -- systems of equasions, systems of products, systems of procedures, and systems of tasks. there's a world beyond IT that is only beginning to benefits from IT-structured individuals. engineering's growing into it naturally, as you would expect it to be, so the best places to start today are engineering-adjacent.
for example, assembly. assembly lines for certain complex products can be restructured with programming concepts quite easily. think paralellism, locking, iteration, and reporting. I've started making that same move by starting my own such company. basically, now I'm programming humans to use physical resources, instead of computers to use disk and memory resources. it's totally different and exactly the same.
believe it or not, the most interesting part to me is the quality control. think debug tools, and life's amazingly simple.
so there must be some industry in your city that is learning to use programmers outside of the computer.
"it would have been woulderful..." and "...clicking a button to" have about 10'000 man-hours between them. it's nice to put a man on the moon, and only costs 110 billion dollars.
I'll bet it would have been even more wonderful to just teleport home.
My work requires a lot of memory effort. It turns out that a higher heart-rate simply ruins that skill. I've always casually said that blood to my muscles means less blood to my brain, but that's more of an anecdotal excuse than anything I've confirmed.
I don't think I'm saying those 15 minutes are linear at all. Just that if I started at 70, it'll take 15 minutes to get back to 70 -- hovering around 80-90 for the better part of those 15 minutes. but the effect is still the same, I can't get back to work.
you'll pardon me if I consider the downsides of that sort of exercise. Among them, I work a very cognitive-intense job. with blood surging to muscles, I can't do the memory work required. so there's an hour recovery. And that sort of effort brings the risk of injury. much like every athlete is virtually guaranteed to get injured.
it's just not worth it.
let's see, it says 20 minutes twice a week. but it says at maximum heart rate. it probably takes me a good 2 minutes to reach my maximum heart rate, and it'll take me 5 minutes if I don't plan on killing myself to do it.. And it takes a good 15 minutes to slow back down to normal in order to go about the rest of my day.
I guess I'm just too lazy to be this lazy.
change the shell from explorer.exe to your own application -- iexplore.exe would work, so would mshta, or your hta file. I think you can also make it an hta file.
you can use .pac files to completely filter the internet by regular expression or any algorithm operating on the URL or filesystem, so you could wind up connecting to some internet sites if it becomes applicable.
you don't need a local server, an hta will work cleaner, with all of jscript to access anything on the system, including the file system, the registry, peripherals, and any browser functions you could ever want.
I did all this on wince five years ago, and on win 98 through 7.
oh, and you'll find that museums have paper from centuries ago, and my basement has paper from decades ago, and libraries have paper from centuries ago, lets of it. how many consumer electronic devices do you see from decades ago? remember that libraries hand out free books to the public and hope to get them back. that's a lot of usage. no consumer electronic device would withstand that.
laminate the paper, and that's no longer sarcasm.
the external light source is not required by the paper. because it's already there and required by the human. you don't need a new light source, you already have whatever existing emergency light source is already present.
that means no further dependency beyond the existing situation.
the ipad has a huge defect rate, it support, can crash, can break, and is dependent on an internal light source that can break.
the lightsources in the [cabin] can't break. they are redundant for so many other reasons. your paper doesn't need a lightsource. you do. and you already have it.
and did you ever call for IT assistance? did it ever require another person to help you operate the binder? there are also plenty of slightly different methods than a binder, and in general, if they'd stop printing those things as general documents for a thousand aircraft models, and actually gave you only what you need for yours, you'd reduce much of the frustration.
and no, your misunderstanding my perspective is not me changing anything. I was always speaking in relative terms between the two devices. more specifically, between the two classes of devices.
I don't think people realize what those metrics are.
the first is parent education. so you're saying that schools with smart parents have smart students. so you're saying I should select a school based on how others have already selelcted a school.
the second is growing scores. so you're saying improvement is good to see.
the third is teacher attraction. so you're saying that schools that were selected by good teachers are good.
basing my selection simply by following others who have already selected it doesn't help. that's a short term promise that reaches a useless equilibrium. if dumb parents choose a school that has smart parents, it will soon have dumb parents. if bad teachers choose a school because it has good teachers, it will soon have bad teachers.
and test scores can't forever be going up.
no further dependencies. everything has dependencies, like a human neesd to read it. no further dependencies to consider beyond the STP, SOP, standard operating environment.
it also depends on no raging fires.
quite arguing syntax. you can win any argument on syntax, and it's easy to do so, but it's meaningless, and showcases that you haven't any idea about that which is being discussed.
sure I can. light sources are required for all human activity. and we have emergency light sources everywhere: flares, electric, and glow sticks. that's a problem that's been solved long ago.