I'll agree, the Sony remote is way better than the TiVo branded unit. Ergonomics are way better, and it looks better. I'll never give up my Sony TiVo, just because of the remote.
Hasn't SGI been extremely negative about Motif clones? I recall the olden days when Lesstif was vital (but rarely operable) but now a Motif clone just seems like an anacronism.
OK, I checked around more, because the last time I checked and saw the $3B figure was a couple of years ago. Both Forbes and Mercury news are confirming the $4.8B figure as cash reserves, not total assets. The guy who says the $4.8B figure includes all assets was reading the 10-Q incorrectly, he's wrong. Apple accumulated astonishing amounts of cash in the 1980s and early 90s.
Last time I checked, Apple had over $3billion in cash reserves. Most of that money came from consumer financing deals with GE Credit Corp, in the 1980s before GECC folded. Apple bought out the financing deals at fire-sale prices, which enabled them to accumulate HUGE cash reserves. Now Apple uses MNBA for consumer financing so the cash isn't quite rolling in like it used to.
I just couldn't think of any way to make the free flowers work to my advantage in any way. "Gee honey, I didn't have any money so I wasn't going to get you ANYTHING, but then I got these flowers for FREE so I could give them to you and not look like a cheap bastard." Yeah that was sure to inflame the situation.
You might be surprised but the worst gift I ever gave was a dozen long stem roses. Actually, it was a rather NICE gift on multiple levels, but it was extremely poorly received. I was working in an incredibly horrible job, living hand to mouth, my girlfriend and I were living in a loft near Skid Row, barely able to pay the rent, and even food was scarce. One of my coworkers went down to the wholesale flower mart and bought a whole load of boxed longstem roses, really nice ones. He sold them on the street in front of our office during his lunch hour for $75. At the end of the day, he had one box left over, and the buyers were all gone, he knew how poor I was so he just gave them to me, and wished me and my GF a happy Valentines day. So I took the roses home, and immediately my GF had a fit, how DARE I spend money so frivolously on an expensive gift like THAT! We can barely pay the rent, and you bought expensive FLOWERS?!? Well, I could hardly tell her I got them for free, so I just took the heat. The next year at Valentine's day, I was doing a little better moneywise, so I bought her some jewelry, some gold/pearl earrings. She had another fit, she wanted diamond earrings, I said I couldn't afford anything like that. She demanded to know how much they cost, and said if should have just given her the money instead. It should come as no surprise we broke up not too long after that.
Apple obviously knew that Palm was going to bone them, so they've released iSync as part of MacOS X. I don't know how well it works since I don't use a Palm device.
I'd accept your argument, except that the manifesto specifically describes the internet as networking at one point, then switches to "Tha Intarweb" at others. He knows the difference, or at least, he SHOULD. You can't clarify the issue by muddling it, as Searls does.
What a load of crap. Let's take it down one by one.
1. The Internet isn't complicated
The Internet is the most complicated structure ever designed. It encompasses millions of devices, many of them running completely different hardware and code, each device may contain millions of lines of code.
2. The Internet isn't a thing. It's an agreement.
The Internet is just a bunch of hardware networks connected together. The Internet isn't TCP/IP, DNS, etc, they're just the protocols that strings it together.
3. The Internet is stupid.
No, Doc, YOU'RE stupid. The telco net you compare the internet to is stupid in comparison. Telco nets won't repeat dropped packets like TCP/IP. He claims "the Internet doesn't know lots of things a smart network like the phone system knows: Identities, permissions, priorities, etc." which is flat-out wrong. For example, some backbones refuse passage to other networks that don't have cooperative agreements, so yes, it DOES know about identities, permissions, etc.
4. Adding value to the Internet lowers its value.
No, adding value to the internet adds value. The only thing the internet provides is bandwidth. The only way to add value to the net is to add bandwidth or reduce cost. Next week my ISP is switching me from a 640/256 DSL line to a 1500/863 line, for less money even. That's added value.
5. All the Internet's value grows on its edges.
No, the internet has no edges. Doc is obviously one of those Flat Earth people. Sorry, but even Doc doesn't seem to know what the Internet IS. The Internet is a network. The Internet is not websites, Google, FTP sites, etc. Those are things that connect to the network.
6. Money moves to the suburbs.
Sorry, nobody wants to do both bandwidth and content anymore, not since the megabuck failures like AT&T @Home, who overreached themselves trying to do both.
7. The end of the world? Nah, the world of ends.
Again Doc confuses the network with its users. The Internet merely replaces some physical constraints (i.e. time, distance) with other constraints (cost, software barriers to entry, etc) and only within a limited range of intellectual informational abilities. Tha Intarweb can't wash my laundry or mow my lawn.
8. The Internet's three virtues:
A. No one owns it.
I own part of it, the part inside my router. Big Fucking Deal. Large sections of the net are owned by large corporations. It is easy to 0wn the net, just write the right worm and you can kill it deader than if a single owner threw a master switch.
B. Everyone can use it.
Yeah, if they have enough money. That leaves out about 98% of "everyone" on this planet.
C. Anyone can improve it.
I call BULLSHIT. The Internet is a network of data carriers that can only be "improved" by engineers working through cooperative standards, and those are costly to implement, so there is a natural tendency towards the status quo. "Improving" the internet isn't done by adding new websites with kooky new ideas, that has nothing to do with the network itself.
9. If the Internet is so simple, why have so many been so boneheaded about it?
Gee, I don't know, maybe because of all the stupid manifestos people write, that confuse the shit out of everyone? Maybe because alleged "pundits" like Searls don't even know the difference between a network and a website?
I did download the prior book, and read a bit of it. I decided it was absolute drivel, unreadable crap. The download saved me from wasting money buying it in print. I wonder how many people might have bought this alleged novel but didn't because they didn't like what they read in the free version?
I can't believe it, my family had TWO different cars on this list, the Olds Delta 88, and the Fiat Strada. The Strada we owned for about a month. A new Fiat dealership started up, my dad got involved with their financing company so he got a deal on a Strada. But the car basically fell apart in less than a month. I remember pulling on the door handle, not realizing the door was locked, and I pulled the handle right off the door. The engine started smoking and blew up within a couple of weeks, it had massive transmission problems, my dad took it back to the dealer and told them to shove it. My mom owned the Olds, it was an aging rustbucket and had continual problems. The muffler rusted through, we took it to a repair shop and they told us it was a good thing we never took a long trip, because the hot manifold was lying too close to the gas tank, it could have blown up at any moment. The car finally died one day while I was driving it, I was backing out of an angle parking spot and the front suspension caved in, leaving the front wheels both pointing inward about 30 degrees, like this:/--\ oh man it was a sight. Yep, both of those cars were pieces of crap.
I use gravity to keep my cables in place. It's effective and free, the cables just stay there on the floor with no additional power or hardware necessary. I shove my subwoofer in front of the pile of cables so nobody sees it.
This neat crap bugs me, it reminds me of an incident many many years ago, on the first PC network I ever used. I was a developer and we had an early Corvus OmniNet. It used flat cable, and we bought only 100ft cables, that was the max length and we figured better too much cable than too little, and we planned to move to bigger offices where we would need longer runs. But some of us were within 20 feet of the server, so we had huge piles of ribbon cable bunching up behind our desks. So one day the office manager came in on a weekend and decided to clean up, and coiled the extra 80 feet into a nice coil, put a wire tie around it, and put it back behind our desks. Then on monday we came to work and the network was shot to hell, we couldn't get decent speed or reliable file transfers. I checked cabling and found the coiled cable behind my desk. I uncoiled it and instantly got back to reliable net use. I went to the manager and informed her that you can't coil 80 ft of ribbon cable in a nice neat cylinder, you're just making an induction coil, signals can't pass through it. He didn't believe me, so we had to call Corvus, and they confirmed. They said that if you wanted to neaten up your cable, you had to make a loosely bundled accordion fold about 3 ft long. So he made us all rebundle the cables. Total loss of productive time, about 1 business day. Neatness can be destructive, never let neatness interfere with productivity.
What ever gave you that idea? I last attended college 8 years ago, when I was 40. My local PBS station ran lots of old Who episodes that were sent back to the BBC and ended up in the Great Erasure. I had em on tape.
I used to install computer instrumentation for a chain of dairys. They had this milk fat testing lab where farmers would submit little samples of raw milk, the little cups would go down a conveyor, under a little sample tester, then the probe would lift out, shake itself off and fling raw milk on everything within a 3 foot radius. The wall near the tester was caked with rancid fat about an inch deep. The smell was so bad, I'd retch and want to puke after just a few minutes. To this day, 25 years later, I cannot stand even the SMELL of milk.
hey brainiac, nitrate cellulose film stock was discontinued by 1950, Doctor Who didn't start filming until 1963.
Anyway, I was horrified when I read the Doctor Who Lost Episodes FAQ, because I had taped some of the lost episodes, and then LOST them. I had one of the first VCRs on the market, I bought it specifically so I could tape Doctor Who, and I taped everything, for years and years. Then my psychoexgirlfriend stole my entire collection of tapes and destroyed them all. Oh man was I pissed off. But I didn't really realize what I'd lost until I read the FAQ many years later, and saw the list of lost episodes included stuff I had in my now-destroyed collection. Then I got REALLY pissed off.
My main monitor is a ten year old Sony 19in 300sf, I try to recalibrate it once in a while and it doesn't need it, no color drift or fade after years and years of use. I still routinely use an ancient Apple (Sony trinitron) 13in color monitor, yeah the ancient one that only does 640x480. I plug it into my OS X headless server whenever I need to do maintenance directly instead of by remote. That monitor has to be 15 years old minimum.
It is interesting you note that the number of photogs using these processes is "nearly zero." AFAIK, the number of photogs besides myself using this particular process is EXACTLY zero. I'd give details of the process but I am kind of holding on to it as my trade secret until I exhibit. You'd be familiar with it since you're familiar with photo history, so I won't give away the game at this point. The only people doing related processes won't talk about it without onerous licensing restrictions. But sometimes there are advantages to using "lost arts." Anyway, I don't see how outputting digital images to film recorders is beyond most people's resources. Just contact a service bureau, send em your file, they send you back a trans from their LVT film recorder (or whatever they use these days). BTW, I've worked with inkjet negs and after destroying my printer by clogged nozzles from the weirdo UV-opaque inks, I decided it was cheaper in the long run to use real negs. Note that chemical reactions are not just proportional to temperature, there are many other factors in the equation. One reason accelerated testing for oxidization doesn't work is that they don't account for pressure. I've seen some reports from the Getty Conservation Institute of accelerated oxidization testing done in high-pressure chambers, it's still pretty preliminary but still it doesn't seem to provide real-world numbers, it degrades pigments more rapidly but doesn't seem to provide quantitative results. Oxidization has many subtle aspects, for example, the early Epson degradation problems were first noted in big cities with bad ozone problems like LA.
Did you notice the title "Mod Parent Up"..? Did you notice that the parent message castigated someone for referring to the "1800s" which means 1800-1809, when he should have written "the 19th Century?" Any normal person interprets "late 1800s" to mean 1805-1809.
Nope, analog wins even at color. Ever seen a 100 year old Autochrome image? I have. They're much more vivid than any of today's inkjet prints you'll see 100 years from now.
Inkjet inks contain salts and must be strongly ionized to work in piezo or electrostat (i.e. Iris) printheads. Highly ionized ink is inherently unstable and will oxidize more rapidly than stable pigment alone. In fact, the salts will promote oxidization in pigments that are NOT prone to oxidization. This is not an effect that shows up in accelerated testing like Wilhelm's, but it will show up as REAL time passes.
Yes, I do have a way to get digital prints to carbon, just output them on a film recorder and treat them like any old color transparency, do your conventional color seps in the old traditional process. I use a few other tricks in a specialized full-color carbon process I developed, but that's my trade secret. They're archival. TRULY archival. No, inkjet prints will never be as archival as carbon print processes.
I've consulted with some of the great archival experts and conservators and none of them accept accelerated test results. I suppose you could find a few renegades who accept Wilhelm, but I haven't found any, unless they were making money selling inkjet prints and had a vested interest in saying they were archival. It took many decades to determine the archival properties of the conventional print processes, something they could only do with long-term testing of prints of known composition. We know enough now to declare that inkjet is inferior to conventional processes of known archival quality, and since you can use those, even on digital source images, why wouldn't you? It is my nightmare that the output of a whole generation of photogs will disappear in a few decades from now, because they're committed to unstable inkjet prints, and nobody will realize it until the original data has long been misplaced and lost.
Wilhelm is absolute bullshit. He published 80+ year archival ratings for Epson inks and then people started bitching when those prints turned color and faded within weeks. Wilhelm uses "simulated aging" tests that are not accepted within the art conservation world. Wilhelm's "institute" is funded solely by Epson, HP, and other ink manufacturers, and he wouldn't make much money if he didn't give high marks to their products. He is hardly an unbiased source. OTOH, I use an old antiquated carbon process that is conservatively rated at 500+ years, and they might have rated it higher but conservators figure the paper will decompose sooner than the carbon print. I've seen 150+ year old prints using this method and they look as sharp and vivid as if they were made yesterday.
Oh bulllshit. BillG and Corbis are only in it for the money. The REAL people who are preserving images for the historical record work at the Getty Museum. Their goal is to have an archival photograph of every known artwork in the world. They primarily use B&W prints since those are the most stable. They built an underground vault at the new museum in Santa Monica to store all the prints, it's designed to survive a direct nuclear attack on LA. It should be noted that photographs can survive an EMP but no digital media can.
Slashdot Mirror
I'll agree, the Sony remote is way better than the TiVo branded unit. Ergonomics are way better, and it looks better. I'll never give up my Sony TiVo, just because of the remote.
Hasn't SGI been extremely negative about Motif clones? I recall the olden days when Lesstif was vital (but rarely operable) but now a Motif clone just seems like an anacronism.
OK, I checked around more, because the last time I checked and saw the $3B figure was a couple of years ago. Both Forbes and Mercury news are confirming the $4.8B figure as cash reserves, not total assets. The guy who says the $4.8B figure includes all assets was reading the 10-Q incorrectly, he's wrong. Apple accumulated astonishing amounts of cash in the 1980s and early 90s.
Last time I checked, Apple had over $3billion in cash reserves. Most of that money came from consumer financing deals with GE Credit Corp, in the 1980s before GECC folded. Apple bought out the financing deals at fire-sale prices, which enabled them to accumulate HUGE cash reserves. Now Apple uses MNBA for consumer financing so the cash isn't quite rolling in like it used to.
I just couldn't think of any way to make the free flowers work to my advantage in any way. "Gee honey, I didn't have any money so I wasn't going to get you ANYTHING, but then I got these flowers for FREE so I could give them to you and not look like a cheap bastard." Yeah that was sure to inflame the situation.
You might be surprised but the worst gift I ever gave was a dozen long stem roses. Actually, it was a rather NICE gift on multiple levels, but it was extremely poorly received.
I was working in an incredibly horrible job, living hand to mouth, my girlfriend and I were living in a loft near Skid Row, barely able to pay the rent, and even food was scarce. One of my coworkers went down to the wholesale flower mart and bought a whole load of boxed longstem roses, really nice ones. He sold them on the street in front of our office during his lunch hour for $75. At the end of the day, he had one box left over, and the buyers were all gone, he knew how poor I was so he just gave them to me, and wished me and my GF a happy Valentines day.
So I took the roses home, and immediately my GF had a fit, how DARE I spend money so frivolously on an expensive gift like THAT! We can barely pay the rent, and you bought expensive FLOWERS?!? Well, I could hardly tell her I got them for free, so I just took the heat.
The next year at Valentine's day, I was doing a little better moneywise, so I bought her some jewelry, some gold/pearl earrings. She had another fit, she wanted diamond earrings, I said I couldn't afford anything like that. She demanded to know how much they cost, and said if should have just given her the money instead.
It should come as no surprise we broke up not too long after that.
Hey brainiac, we're talking about Linux on PPC, so please tell me how to use Photoshop and Crossover Office on a Mac running Linux.
Apple obviously knew that Palm was going to bone them, so they've released iSync as part of MacOS X. I don't know how well it works since I don't use a Palm device.
I'd accept your argument, except that the manifesto specifically describes the internet as networking at one point, then switches to "Tha Intarweb" at others. He knows the difference, or at least, he SHOULD. You can't clarify the issue by muddling it, as Searls does.
What a load of crap. Let's take it down one by one.
1. The Internet isn't complicated
The Internet is the most complicated structure ever designed. It encompasses millions of devices, many of them running completely different hardware and code, each device may contain millions of lines of code.
2. The Internet isn't a thing. It's an agreement.
The Internet is just a bunch of hardware networks connected together. The Internet isn't TCP/IP, DNS, etc, they're just the protocols that strings it together.
3. The Internet is stupid.
No, Doc, YOU'RE stupid. The telco net you compare the internet to is stupid in comparison. Telco nets won't repeat dropped packets like TCP/IP. He claims "the Internet doesn't know lots of things a smart network like the phone system knows: Identities, permissions, priorities, etc." which is flat-out wrong. For example, some backbones refuse passage to other networks that don't have cooperative agreements, so yes, it DOES know about identities, permissions, etc.
4. Adding value to the Internet lowers its value.
No, adding value to the internet adds value. The only thing the internet provides is bandwidth. The only way to add value to the net is to add bandwidth or reduce cost. Next week my ISP is switching me from a 640/256 DSL line to a 1500/863 line, for less money even. That's added value.
5. All the Internet's value grows on its edges.
No, the internet has no edges. Doc is obviously one of those Flat Earth people. Sorry, but even Doc doesn't seem to know what the Internet IS. The Internet is a network. The Internet is not websites, Google, FTP sites, etc. Those are things that connect to the network.
6. Money moves to the suburbs.
Sorry, nobody wants to do both bandwidth and content anymore, not since the megabuck failures like AT&T @Home, who overreached themselves trying to do both.
7. The end of the world? Nah, the world of ends.
Again Doc confuses the network with its users. The Internet merely replaces some physical constraints (i.e. time, distance) with other constraints (cost, software barriers to entry, etc) and only within a limited range of intellectual informational abilities. Tha Intarweb can't wash my laundry or mow my lawn.
8. The Internet's three virtues:
A. No one owns it.
I own part of it, the part inside my router. Big Fucking Deal. Large sections of the net are owned by large corporations. It is easy to 0wn the net, just write the right worm and you can kill it deader than if a single owner threw a master switch.
B. Everyone can use it.
Yeah, if they have enough money. That leaves out about 98% of "everyone" on this planet.
C. Anyone can improve it.
I call BULLSHIT. The Internet is a network of data carriers that can only be "improved" by engineers working through cooperative standards, and those are costly to implement, so there is a natural tendency towards the status quo. "Improving" the internet isn't done by adding new websites with kooky new ideas, that has nothing to do with the network itself.
9. If the Internet is so simple, why have so many been so boneheaded about it?
Gee, I don't know, maybe because of all the stupid manifestos people write, that confuse the shit out of everyone? Maybe because alleged "pundits" like Searls don't even know the difference between a network and a website?
10. Some mistakes we can stop making already.
Ok Doc, you go first.
You didn't need to leave it at your friend's house overnight. There's a menu function "Make Daily Call Now" to make it dial out immediately.
I did download the prior book, and read a bit of it. I decided it was absolute drivel, unreadable crap. The download saved me from wasting money buying it in print.
I wonder how many people might have bought this alleged novel but didn't because they didn't like what they read in the free version?
I can't believe it, my family had TWO different cars on this list, the Olds Delta 88, and the Fiat Strada. /--\ oh man it was a sight.
The Strada we owned for about a month. A new Fiat dealership started up, my dad got involved with their financing company so he got a deal on a Strada. But the car basically fell apart in less than a month. I remember pulling on the door handle, not realizing the door was locked, and I pulled the handle right off the door. The engine started smoking and blew up within a couple of weeks, it had massive transmission problems, my dad took it back to the dealer and told them to shove it.
My mom owned the Olds, it was an aging rustbucket and had continual problems. The muffler rusted through, we took it to a repair shop and they told us it was a good thing we never took a long trip, because the hot manifold was lying too close to the gas tank, it could have blown up at any moment. The car finally died one day while I was driving it, I was backing out of an angle parking spot and the front suspension caved in, leaving the front wheels both pointing inward about 30 degrees, like this:
Yep, both of those cars were pieces of crap.
Hey, thanks for jogging my memory, I've been looking for my favorite cartoon for many years, and this was where it was published.
I use gravity to keep my cables in place. It's effective and free, the cables just stay there on the floor with no additional power or hardware necessary. I shove my subwoofer in front of the pile of cables so nobody sees it.
This neat crap bugs me, it reminds me of an incident many many years ago, on the first PC network I ever used. I was a developer and we had an early Corvus OmniNet. It used flat cable, and we bought only 100ft cables, that was the max length and we figured better too much cable than too little, and we planned to move to bigger offices where we would need longer runs. But some of us were within 20 feet of the server, so we had huge piles of ribbon cable bunching up behind our desks. So one day the office manager came in on a weekend and decided to clean up, and coiled the extra 80 feet into a nice coil, put a wire tie around it, and put it back behind our desks. Then on monday we came to work and the network was shot to hell, we couldn't get decent speed or reliable file transfers. I checked cabling and found the coiled cable behind my desk. I uncoiled it and instantly got back to reliable net use. I went to the manager and informed her that you can't coil 80 ft of ribbon cable in a nice neat cylinder, you're just making an induction coil, signals can't pass through it. He didn't believe me, so we had to call Corvus, and they confirmed. They said that if you wanted to neaten up your cable, you had to make a loosely bundled accordion fold about 3 ft long. So he made us all rebundle the cables. Total loss of productive time, about 1 business day. Neatness can be destructive, never let neatness interfere with productivity.
What ever gave you that idea? I last attended college 8 years ago, when I was 40. My local PBS station ran lots of old Who episodes that were sent back to the BBC and ended up in the Great Erasure. I had em on tape.
I used to install computer instrumentation for a chain of dairys. They had this milk fat testing lab where farmers would submit little samples of raw milk, the little cups would go down a conveyor, under a little sample tester, then the probe would lift out, shake itself off and fling raw milk on everything within a 3 foot radius. The wall near the tester was caked with rancid fat about an inch deep. The smell was so bad, I'd retch and want to puke after just a few minutes. To this day, 25 years later, I cannot stand even the SMELL of milk.
hey brainiac, nitrate cellulose film stock was discontinued by 1950, Doctor Who didn't start filming until 1963.
Anyway, I was horrified when I read the Doctor Who Lost Episodes FAQ, because I had taped some of the lost episodes, and then LOST them. I had one of the first VCRs on the market, I bought it specifically so I could tape Doctor Who, and I taped everything, for years and years. Then my psychoexgirlfriend stole my entire collection of tapes and destroyed them all. Oh man was I pissed off. But I didn't really realize what I'd lost until I read the FAQ many years later, and saw the list of lost episodes included stuff I had in my now-destroyed collection. Then I got REALLY pissed off.
My main monitor is a ten year old Sony 19in 300sf, I try to recalibrate it once in a while and it doesn't need it, no color drift or fade after years and years of use.
I still routinely use an ancient Apple (Sony trinitron) 13in color monitor, yeah the ancient one that only does 640x480. I plug it into my OS X headless server whenever I need to do maintenance directly instead of by remote. That monitor has to be 15 years old minimum.
It is interesting you note that the number of photogs using these processes is "nearly zero." AFAIK, the number of photogs besides myself using this particular process is EXACTLY zero. I'd give details of the process but I am kind of holding on to it as my trade secret until I exhibit. You'd be familiar with it since you're familiar with photo history, so I won't give away the game at this point. The only people doing related processes won't talk about it without onerous licensing restrictions. But sometimes there are advantages to using "lost arts."
Anyway, I don't see how outputting digital images to film recorders is beyond most people's resources. Just contact a service bureau, send em your file, they send you back a trans from their LVT film recorder (or whatever they use these days). BTW, I've worked with inkjet negs and after destroying my printer by clogged nozzles from the weirdo UV-opaque inks, I decided it was cheaper in the long run to use real negs.
Note that chemical reactions are not just proportional to temperature, there are many other factors in the equation. One reason accelerated testing for oxidization doesn't work is that they don't account for pressure. I've seen some reports from the Getty Conservation Institute of accelerated oxidization testing done in high-pressure chambers, it's still pretty preliminary but still it doesn't seem to provide real-world numbers, it degrades pigments more rapidly but doesn't seem to provide quantitative results. Oxidization has many subtle aspects, for example, the early Epson degradation problems were first noted in big cities with bad ozone problems like LA.
Did you notice the title "Mod Parent Up"..? Did you notice that the parent message castigated someone for referring to the "1800s" which means 1800-1809, when he should have written "the 19th Century?"
Any normal person interprets "late 1800s" to mean 1805-1809.
Nope, analog wins even at color. Ever seen a 100 year old Autochrome image? I have. They're much more vivid than any of today's inkjet prints you'll see 100 years from now.
Inkjet inks contain salts and must be strongly ionized to work in piezo or electrostat (i.e. Iris) printheads. Highly ionized ink is inherently unstable and will oxidize more rapidly than stable pigment alone. In fact, the salts will promote oxidization in pigments that are NOT prone to oxidization. This is not an effect that shows up in accelerated testing like Wilhelm's, but it will show up as REAL time passes.
Yes, I do have a way to get digital prints to carbon, just output them on a film recorder and treat them like any old color transparency, do your conventional color seps in the old traditional process. I use a few other tricks in a specialized full-color carbon process I developed, but that's my trade secret. They're archival. TRULY archival. No, inkjet prints will never be as archival as carbon print processes.
I've consulted with some of the great archival experts and conservators and none of them accept accelerated test results. I suppose you could find a few renegades who accept Wilhelm, but I haven't found any, unless they were making money selling inkjet prints and had a vested interest in saying they were archival. It took many decades to determine the archival properties of the conventional print processes, something they could only do with long-term testing of prints of known composition. We know enough now to declare that inkjet is inferior to conventional processes of known archival quality, and since you can use those, even on digital source images, why wouldn't you? It is my nightmare that the output of a whole generation of photogs will disappear in a few decades from now, because they're committed to unstable inkjet prints, and nobody will realize it until the original data has long been misplaced and lost.
Matthew Brady wasn't even born in the "late 1800s," he was born in the 1820s (1823 to be exact). The US Civil War took place in the early 1860s.
Are you starting to catch on yet?
Wilhelm is absolute bullshit. He published 80+ year archival ratings for Epson inks and then people started bitching when those prints turned color and faded within weeks. Wilhelm uses "simulated aging" tests that are not accepted within the art conservation world. Wilhelm's "institute" is funded solely by Epson, HP, and other ink manufacturers, and he wouldn't make much money if he didn't give high marks to their products. He is hardly an unbiased source.
OTOH, I use an old antiquated carbon process that is conservatively rated at 500+ years, and they might have rated it higher but conservators figure the paper will decompose sooner than the carbon print. I've seen 150+ year old prints using this method and they look as sharp and vivid as if they were made yesterday.
Oh bulllshit. BillG and Corbis are only in it for the money. The REAL people who are preserving images for the historical record work at the Getty Museum. Their goal is to have an archival photograph of every known artwork in the world. They primarily use B&W prints since those are the most stable. They built an underground vault at the new museum in Santa Monica to store all the prints, it's designed to survive a direct nuclear attack on LA. It should be noted that photographs can survive an EMP but no digital media can.