Re:We have very effective "replication" mechanisms
on
Digital Dark Ages?
·
· Score: 1
Yes, a lot of information will vanish through years; and this is true for all kinds of digital infos (think that an average cd can't' last more than 20 years).
I think you're looking at the wrong problem here, with CDs. Instead of worrying about durable media, worry about the uptime of your content server... Once you're getting millenial uptimes on your server boxen, you can ping it for data any time.
Given the amount of data to store, we should probably build pyramids again, and carve our data into the stones of the pyramids. Given how long the Egypt pyramids lasted, this seems like a really secure way of storing the data.
I like this idea, it is very charming. I do worry, however, about the "printout" speed... it takes a good while to chisel slashdot commentary into granite blocks.
Might I suggest you consider those new "plastic printers" now used for 3d modelling? You can print out a 2-layer sheet with the lettering either raised or lowered, per your preference. There is still a fire vulnerability, but plastic sure does weather better than paper.
For machine access you could make plastic punchcards of this data.
Don't forget we're currently churning out millions of non-bio-degradable plastic bottles of all sorts; we could emboss critical data on the bottom of these bottles, and it would last forever.
Amen, I'm not an artist, but I feel for the artists, the stuff I've seen and read convince me that real artists (as marginal) as you may think they are, are getting f***ed by the Recording industry.
Excuse me, but...
Aren't the music downloaders the ones who are really exploiting the musicians? At least the labels pay the musician something for every CD sold.
There are those who say, "sure, but after downloading the music I went out and bought X albums". It doesn't matter. It's still theft, even if you have normal transactions in the future.
Have people become slaves to expediency? You should not download music for the same reason you don't hack into someone's server:
You don't have permission It's just not something you have the right to do.
So, in my particular case, I would kill Osama bin Laden in a heartbeat without monetary compensation. George Bush I wouldn't be willing to kill under any circumstances I can imagine, despite loathing him and having voted for one of his opponents. Jack Valenti is a gray area... I admint the temptation is there, even if I would be unlikely to act on it.
But an innocent (or even not-so-innocent, but never having harmed me) peasant in a far away land? Not in a billion years, not for a billion dollars, not even if my children were starving.
Jesus, Dad, thanks a lot!
By the way, Mom infringed on my constitutional rights by installing Net Nanny. Can you put her on the list too?
(Delete lots of material about Aztecs which is really missing the point. The Aztecs were rude to their neighbors, the Spaniards were a rough crowd too, whatever. We're talking about the U.S.A. here.)
This argument is about whether the government should promote what I'm calling "traditional American culture", snide intentional misunderstandings aside.
Traditional American culture or traditional European culture? The Americans that were here before the Europeans were not Christians.
The government should not "promote" any religious belief, whether atheism, Christianity, Buddhism, or any other religion. Eisenhower was wrong to add "under God" to the Pledge of Allegiance.
I'm afraid we may have reached the point in the argument where we hit underneath the logic to where the emotional axioms live.
I believe the government should promote the majority culture. You don't.
I readily concede that the p.o.a. is illegal as stands. However, there'd been a silent understanding all these years that let it stay, because it served the needs of the populace, and they liked it. I still like it, and am sorry to see it go, or to go back to the pre-Eisenhower way.
You prove the point by your self-centered attitude that the traditional American way of life happens to be *your* way. Your views are only encouraged by unconstitutional acts such as the one corrected today by the Ninth Circuit.
Please spare me the insults. In a way, though, "self-centeredness" is exactly what I'm talking about. I claim it is appropriate to prefer one's natal culture to others'. Moral relativism as practised today boils down to: "Every culture is unique and special except my own, which sucks." Read Slashdot, you'll see plenty of that attitude.
My basic claim is that the government should promote the majority culture.
This is not something I can prove mathematically; as so often happens, arguments run aground on the combatants' emotionally-held beliefs, like your (presumed) belief that preferring one culture is bad.
I'm prepared to save a lot of time by acknowledging that I'm unlikely to convince you, and vice versa.
Right now, I think, we are swinging too far in favor of minority opinions; the government should not be compel us to deny our heritage in order to make immigrants more comfortable.
So, which tribe are you? Apache? Navaho? Seminole?
As to your ill-informed comment about immigrants, the majority of immigrants coming into this country are Christian. They became that when the missionaries destroyed their religious art, treasures, books, etc. and forced Christianity on them.
So you admit that immigrants coming in and trashing the local culture is a bad thing? Hmm. By the way, Navajos, Apaches, and Seminoles had exactly zero books to destroy, and precious little treasure.
Seriously, though, I think you're in the wrong argument. This argument is about whether the government should promote what I'm calling "traditional American culture", snide intentional misunderstandings aside.
How is removing the "under god" part curtailing ALL relgious expression? It is, in fact, supporting the original idea which is to curtail religious oppression. Forcing athiests and buddhists to recite what is effectively a christian prayer every morning is opression.
Strangely enough, removing "under God" from the p.o.a. is more of a cultural problem than a religious one; the idea being that even one annoyed non-christian can now block what had been a cherished tradition for decades... this falls squarely into my complaint that our culture, as pushed by the schools, is going to the lowest common denominator: what can we do that will annoy no one. This is the "clearing house" idea I mentioned earlier. Being buddhist and reciting the p.o.a.... is that much worse than being christian and being indoctrinated with the views being pushed by Health Ed classes these days?
Point being, no matter what you have in the schools, there is always a cultural or religious force behind it being there. There is a valid disagreement here (despite what AC thinks, whew!;) about which cultural/religious forces to favor, and how much is the majority allowed to impose on the rest. Right now, I think, we are swinging too far in favor of minority opinions; the government should not be compel us to deny our heritage in order to make immigrants more comfortable.
Right now, by law, secular philosophies are favored, and religious expression is being forced, bit-by-bit, from any public scene, hidden away like an embarrassing relative in the attic. I would as soon we still had nativity scenes on public lands.
I note with special interest that in Hawaii, Christian notices are bad, but Hawai'ian religious symbols are "culture".
Patriotism is the last refuge of the scoundrel. If you have to TEACH it, then you are doing something wrong.
Hey, when you're born you don't know much. Someone has to teach you patriotism (let's hope it's your folks). The government should also encourage people to love America; it's in their own best interest.
I, for one, am completely for this ruling, speaking as a person who always felt uncomfortable mumbling those 2 words in grade school.
Okay... here's why I, for one, am angry. There are two main reasons:
One: There seems to be a sense today that the United States is not to have its own culture, that we are merely a clearing-house for whatever society wants to move their way of life to these shores. I for one believe that our current approach of least-common-denominator culture weakens traditional American values, and regret this bitterly. There is much to value in "decent, God-fearing people" and traditional American ways of life.
Two: The "Establishment of Religion" clause is being misused. The original idea was to curtail religious oppression. But it is being used to suppress all religion, in the name of atheism. All kinds of outre philosophies are snuck into our schools, and gain entry precisely because they are not couched in religious terms. For instance, it would be perfectly legal to teach communism in the classroom.
Let me add to all this that while we are not Christians -- especially on Slashdot, it seems! -- this is a largely Christian society, and its rules are largely based on the good-ol' Judeo-Christian worldview. There has to be a balance somewhere between protection of minority views and legalized suppression of majority views.
Good Lord, we even have people posting here who object to the non-religious part of the Pledge. Since when is it wrong to teach patriotism? If our national consciousness has an ounce of self-preservation instinct -- and much of my point is that we have lost that culturally -- we should celebrate the Pledge of Allegiance.
Giving estimates on the spot as you hear of a new feature can be DEADLY.
This is the truest thing I've heard in a long time. The engineering management disclipline of meeting schedules only works if the schedules are valid.
Another thing to consider, however, is what actually happens in a real environment. You work for, say, itty-bitty-corp.com, and your main client (and possibly investor) mighty-corp tells you what your deadline is, based on whatever his own problems are.
You can try to negotiate, but if you are a tiny subcontractor in a large project, no one cares what your problems are; they want results on the day they want them.
This situation has sold more coffee and Jolt cola than any marketing campaign in human history.
The problem is, to protect this one corporate icon, the copyright time on everything is being dragged towards infinity.
I would propose fixing this situation by cutting copyrights back down to a reasonable 30 years or so, then allowing them to be extended (perhaps indefinitely) by paying a significant extension fee every time it is to be renewed.
This makes a lot of sense; most of the uproar -- mostly on Slashdot, of course -- over Disney's conduct is about the collateral damage caused by copyright extensions.
Of course, Disney really has no choice. As a publicly traded company, they are obligated to maximize shareholder value, yes? If they decide to (ahem) allow their copyrights to expire for the sake of enriching America's folklore stockpile, they'll incur the wrath of stockholders.
Hmm, does GPL'ed software stop being GPL after the copyright expires? Inneresting.
Aside from a few test stations, Windows isn't used at Feature Animation, and only a few people are lobbying for it.
We've seen this before... Linux rarely pushes out Windows, and often pushes out other Unices. I do believe we will soon see Linux squeezing all the profit out of proprietary Unix implementations.
You may see this as a good thing, or not. But once the other Unices die, we'll really see if GPL hobbyists can compete with Microsoft.
I suppose that putting pressure on companies to not copy protect CDs is a Very Good thing.
I'm sure there are some people for whom this copy protection is a nuisance; people who only listen to music off the computer, etc.
However, I get the impression here (slashdot) that the main motivation is to make illegal eleet copies to trade on file-sharing networks.
Sure, you have the right to make a copy for your own archives or whatnot, but guess what: The record company is under no obligation at all to make it easy or convenient for you.
Imagine a book printed with blue ink... this will be hard to photocopy, but that's not Del Rey's problem.
I do concede that it is rude and inappropriate to seize up your iMac.
Slashdot Mirror
Sheesh!
I like this idea, it is very charming. I do worry, however, about the "printout" speed... it takes a good while to chisel slashdot commentary into granite blocks.
Might I suggest you consider those new "plastic printers" now used for 3d modelling? You can print out a 2-layer sheet with the lettering either raised or lowered, per your preference. There is still a fire vulnerability, but plastic sure does weather better than paper.
For machine access you could make plastic punchcards of this data.
Don't forget we're currently churning out millions of non-bio-degradable plastic bottles of all sorts; we could emboss critical data on the bottom of these bottles, and it would last forever.
Sure he could, but I can just hear the slashkids now...
Maybe he could defeat the TRS-80, but the new Amiga that's about to come out would kick his ass! R0X0RZ!
Aren't the music downloaders the ones who are really exploiting the musicians? At least the labels pay the musician something for every CD sold.
There are those who say, "sure, but after downloading the music I went out and bought X albums". It doesn't matter. It's still theft, even if you have normal transactions in the future.
Have people become slaves to expediency? You should not download music for the same reason you don't hack into someone's server:
You don't have permission It's just not something you have the right to do.
She'll certainly need it after she reads that post and dumps you...
Jesus, Dad, thanks a lot!
By the way, Mom infringed on my constitutional rights by installing Net Nanny. Can you put her on the list too?
I'm afraid we may have reached the point in the argument where we hit underneath the logic to where the emotional axioms live.
I believe the government should promote the majority culture. You don't.
I readily concede that the p.o.a. is illegal as stands. However, there'd been a silent understanding all these years that let it stay, because it served the needs of the populace, and they liked it. I still like it, and am sorry to see it go, or to go back to the pre-Eisenhower way.
Please spare me the insults. In a way, though, "self-centeredness" is exactly what I'm talking about. I claim it is appropriate to prefer one's natal culture to others'. Moral relativism as practised today boils down to: "Every culture is unique and special except my own, which sucks." Read Slashdot, you'll see plenty of that attitude.
My basic claim is that the government should promote the majority culture.
This is not something I can prove mathematically; as so often happens, arguments run aground on the combatants' emotionally-held beliefs, like your (presumed) belief that preferring one culture is bad.
I'm prepared to save a lot of time by acknowledging that I'm unlikely to convince you, and vice versa.
So you admit that immigrants coming in and trashing the local culture is a bad thing? Hmm. By the way, Navajos, Apaches, and Seminoles had exactly zero books to destroy, and precious little treasure.
Seriously, though, I think you're in the wrong argument. This argument is about whether the government should promote what I'm calling "traditional American culture", snide intentional misunderstandings aside.
How is removing the "under god" part curtailing ALL relgious expression? It is, in fact, supporting the original idea which is to curtail religious oppression. Forcing athiests and buddhists to recite what is effectively a christian prayer every morning is opression.
... is that much worse than being christian and being indoctrinated with the views being pushed by Health Ed classes these days?
;) about which cultural/religious forces to favor, and how much is the majority allowed to impose on the rest. Right now, I think, we are swinging too far in favor of minority opinions; the government should not be compel us to deny our heritage in order to make immigrants more comfortable.
.
Strangely enough, removing "under God" from the p.o.a. is more of a cultural problem than a religious one; the idea being that even one annoyed non-christian can now block what had been a cherished tradition for decades... this falls squarely into my complaint that our culture, as pushed by the schools, is going to the lowest common denominator: what can we do that will annoy no one. This is the "clearing house" idea I mentioned earlier. Being buddhist and reciting the p.o.a.
Point being, no matter what you have in the schools, there is always a cultural or religious force behind it being there. There is a valid disagreement here (despite what AC thinks, whew!
Right now, by law, secular philosophies are favored, and religious expression is being forced, bit-by-bit, from any public scene, hidden away like an embarrassing relative in the attic. I would as soon we still had nativity scenes on public lands
I note with special interest that in Hawaii, Christian notices are bad, but Hawai'ian religious symbols are "culture".
Patriotism is the last refuge of the scoundrel. If you have to TEACH it, then you are doing something wrong.
Hey, when you're born you don't know much. Someone has to teach you patriotism (let's hope it's your folks). The government should also encourage people to love America; it's in their own best interest.
I, for one, am completely for this ruling, speaking as a person who always felt uncomfortable mumbling those 2 words in grade school.
Okay... here's why I, for one, am angry. There are two main reasons:
One: There seems to be a sense today that the United States is not to have its own culture, that we are merely a clearing-house for whatever society wants to move their way of life to these shores. I for one believe that our current approach of least-common-denominator culture weakens traditional American values, and regret this bitterly. There is much to value in "decent, God-fearing people" and traditional American ways of life.
Two: The "Establishment of Religion" clause is being misused. The original idea was to curtail religious oppression. But it is being used to suppress all religion, in the name of atheism. All kinds of outre philosophies are snuck into our schools, and gain entry precisely because they are not couched in religious terms. For instance, it would be perfectly legal to teach communism in the classroom.
Let me add to all this that while we are not Christians -- especially on Slashdot, it seems! -- this is a largely Christian society, and its rules are largely based on the good-ol' Judeo-Christian worldview. There has to be a balance somewhere between protection of minority views and legalized suppression of majority views.
Good Lord, we even have people posting here who object to the non-religious part of the Pledge. Since when is it wrong to teach patriotism? If our national consciousness has an ounce of self-preservation instinct -- and much of my point is that we have lost that culturally -- we should celebrate the Pledge of Allegiance.
(gasp)
But then, that's just me.
There are two kinds of Solaris...
There is the huge, bloated, planet-sized globular mass which drives insane anyone who comes in contact with it...
And there's the kind from the movie.
Giving estimates on the spot as you hear of a new feature can be DEADLY.
This is the truest thing I've heard in a long time. The engineering management disclipline of meeting schedules only works if the schedules are valid.
Another thing to consider, however, is what actually happens in a real environment. You work for, say, itty-bitty-corp.com, and your main client (and possibly investor) mighty-corp tells you what your deadline is, based on whatever his own problems are.
You can try to negotiate, but if you are a tiny subcontractor in a large project, no one cares what your problems are; they want results on the day they want them.
This situation has sold more coffee and Jolt cola than any marketing campaign in human history.
The problem is, to protect this one corporate icon, the copyright time on everything is being dragged towards infinity.
I would propose fixing this situation by cutting copyrights back down to a reasonable 30 years or so, then allowing them to be extended (perhaps indefinitely) by paying a significant extension fee every time it is to be renewed.
This makes a lot of sense; most of the uproar -- mostly on Slashdot, of course -- over Disney's conduct is about the collateral damage caused by copyright extensions.
Of course, Disney really has no choice. As a publicly traded company, they are obligated to maximize shareholder value, yes? If they decide to (ahem) allow their copyrights to expire for the sake of enriching America's folklore stockpile, they'll incur the wrath of stockholders.
Hmm, does GPL'ed software stop being GPL after the copyright expires? Inneresting.
Aside from a few test stations, Windows isn't used at Feature Animation, and only a few people are lobbying for it.
We've seen this before... Linux rarely pushes out Windows, and often pushes out other Unices. I do believe we will soon see Linux squeezing all the profit out of proprietary Unix implementations.
You may see this as a good thing, or not. But once the other Unices die, we'll really see if GPL hobbyists can compete with Microsoft.
This promises to be interesting.
I suppose that putting pressure on companies to not copy protect CDs is a Very Good thing.
I'm sure there are some people for whom this copy protection is a nuisance; people who only listen to music off the computer, etc.
However, I get the impression here (slashdot) that the main motivation is to make illegal eleet copies to trade on file-sharing networks.
Sure, you have the right to make a copy for your own archives or whatnot, but guess what:
The record company is under no obligation at all to make it easy or convenient for you.
Imagine a book printed with blue ink... this will be hard to photocopy, but that's not Del Rey's problem.
I do concede that it is rude and inappropriate to seize up your iMac.
And you people thought public videocameras in England were bad!
This was envisioned by Orson Card in his novel Earth where retirees stop crime by wearing (essentially) video-cam beanies.
God, I love new gadgets!
Excellent timing, too; just moments ago, a cat tried to claw my eyes out.
Would you knock it off with the Sanrio conspiracy theories already?