Hey, I represent the Martians in this regard, and considering all the junk you guys have been throwing over here that our scientists have been dissecting, I must say that your code is unreadable even to martians!
Gateway Systems has issued a press release stating they have teamed up with Sonic the Hedgehog to help with their manufacturing "The guy is so fast - he replaced half our factory workers! If we could just get him to stop slamming into the gold-colored tiles on the roof we'd be all set." and Laura Croft to help with their marketing. "It was a natural fit," said the Marketing director in an exclusive interview.
But Gateway faces competition from startup VA Linux Systems, who has reportedly contracted with ID Software for their Quake guy. "He's going to be our legal department," said Eric Raymond while grinning evilly.
I've noticed a particular pattern with Katz's writings: they usually follow almost exactly 3-5 days after the posting of a major slashdot story that garners more than 400 comments. Almost invariably the article in question will also make blatant generalizations about general things and have numerous speling erors.
Yes, privacy is dying, yadda yadda. I can just flip on 60 minutes or surf to doubleclick.net for the 411 on that. How about contributing something meaningful - like how to protect it.
They said this book was a must on any developer's "physical desk". My "physical desk" at the moment has about 8 empty dew cans, a bag of reese's pieces, a bottle of windex and a rag (for the monitor), about 25 CDs, some floppy disks... quarter-pound of chiplets (the remains of the chips you ate - now inside the keyboard as well).. and exactly *two* pieces of paper.
Now, do you think I'm gonna be able to find space for this book in THAT?! Even the top of my monitor has stuff on it (ah, tux, looking beautiful as always)....
These words are wonderful, yet they are falling on deaf ears. Yes, of course WE know that this must be stopped - but what does the average consumer know about this? Nothing. Guess who's voting these people into office: the average consumer. Net result: we can clamor all we want, but until public opinion changes en masse, we will have accomplished nothing.
Richard, Eric, Bruce, and everybody else on the soap box - step down for a moment and look around. Our message is going nowhere. People see the software, they use the software.. but they aren't terribly interested in whether they have to pay for it or not. "Does it work? Great, I'll take one."
We've been patting ourselves on the back long enough now. The honeymoon is over - let's knuckle down and start talking to the press. We need to boil these issues down to 1 page press releases, fliers, websites - and we need to make this accessible to the average consumer. We need to get them up in arms. I don't care how - make it a controversy. Invite RMS, ESR and the board of MPAA directors to a Jerry Springer show and let them throw chairs at each other - BUT MAKE IT HAPPEN. Turn this thing on it's head - it sounds like just another holy war now to the media - what's the interest? Put a spin on it - make it controversial. GET US A SPOT ON 60 MINUTES!
I'll let the other slashdotters handle the joking about this and just go right to the heart of the matter..
First, it's excellent that universities are finally, after over 100 years of this, beginning to understand standardized testing is a poor indicator of value/intelligence/leadership. It's been known for a long time that there are many varieties of intelligence - the IQ test only tests one - basically math and spatial visualization. Wuzzah. So if you know 13 different programming languages - from LISP to C++ and can pick up new ones within a few days.. well, sorry - that won't show up on the test.
It's still a nice idea - give college kids some legos and see what they build. However, if they're still bent on using tests (an ultimately doomed approach) instead of interviewing potential students, may I suggest giving potential candidates an objective (which varies from person to person) and see how they solve it? In my opinion, it's more important/how/ you solve it than/whether/ you solve it. After you give the same problem to a few hundred people you'll know what solutions are typical and be able to spot the innovative and/or unconvential people in a group. What you do with this information is up to you, as an administrator, but you all know who my money's on.
Does you mind if any company in the world can get their hands on your personal information?
They already have access to where I live, what food I eat, how much money I spend, where I shop, what kinds of computer peripherals I typically purchase, my income... But no, it doesn't bother me. Why? Because I have access to theirs too. It's the great equalizer: they won't do un to me because they know I'll do un to them. Information is knowledge. Knowledge is power. The people have the power. We all do, now. The principles of democracy have begun to spread farther and faster than we had intended.. and now we're afraid.
demand the right to control who has access to my information, and how they can use it. This is about privacy as much as anything else. What's the difference between my private information and my source code? I think it's less clear now that we are in such a bomming Information Age.
Actually, it's pretty clear: our society seems intent on giving away it's privacy in exchange for $5 gift certificates and chances to win prizes. You know, you may already be a winner.
One benefit of the new legislation, anyway, will be that we no longer will need to listen to people quoting benchmarks at the next company meeting: they'd be violating the law to do so.
Ah, well.. there's a silver lining on every cloud but lightning kills thousands of people searching for it every year...
while this may be great for Crusoe - it'll encourage more rapid adoption of their chips.. I can't help but wonder what this will do to Phoenix in the long run. They've basically dropped their pants and mooned Intel in front of the entire industry.. do 'ya think if Crusoe fails they might not be.. umm... irritated?
Jefferson would have cheered the overthrow of a corrupt or abusive government. What we have here is not even remotely close to fitting that description. The Declarations words are not to be taken lightly; just because you don't *like* the system does not mean it needs to be overthrown.
No, but we are entering the Information Age. Information is becoming increasingly important - and so too is the right to access it. I also firmly believe in the right of the people to change it's government whenever they are unhappy with it - for any reason, no matter how trivial. Here myself and Jefferson part ways. There is no "mostly" democratic, for me it's an all-or-nothing proposition, in the same way that you can't have "mostly" free speech. Information is power. The power belongs in the hands of the people - NOT the various economic entities that make up this country. If the people want to abolish IP and patents, it should be expressly allowed.
People pirate MP3s, not because they feel that IP should be dissolved, but because they have little or no respect for existing laws.
So all people who pirate mp3s are anarchists? Seems rather broad there. Tell me, have you ever found yourself speeding down the freeway? Weren't you violating the law? Didn't you feel any remorse? Any fool can make a law, and any fool will mind it. I reserve the right to protest and/or disregard any law if it disagrees with my own moral compass. I also accept the responsiblity of my actions. If I am pulled over and given a ticket, I will pay it. That was my cost for violating the law.
Going alittle further into this, and at the risk of losing sight of the original topic, I would also point out that IP violations seem to have far worse fines than even raping somebody - is this reasonable? Should we not clamor for reasonable punishment for violations of the law? This is another problem I have with so-called "intellectual property" rights - since when was your computer somebody else's property? What right do they have to break into your home, and take your computer? Why can't they simply remove the offending content (or backup your harddrive and return your data immediately)? This totalitarian form of punishment is hardly justifiable - and is not in line with this society's views on what is right and wrong. The law should follow the accepted beliefs and practices of it's citizens, not the other way around.
There are several efforts underway to keep the mirrors alive and well - I am involved in several of these presently and we have over 50 mirrors out right now on the internet.
It's not a question of erasing all copies of the source - that is impossible. Rather what do you think the reprecussions of this mirroring will be? As of yet, nobody has knocked on my door asking me to stop mirroring...
So when systems break down we are to abandon existing order?
If the system breaks down, by definition, there is no order (or very little) in the system.
We're to shrug the law when it isn't convenient for us? Because it hinders *our* development? Tough cookies.
Our founding fathers had a dissenting opinion. I quote the Declaration of Independence: That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.
Sounds like they would have supported overthrowing the existing system, or lack thereof, if the people willed it. I'd have to agree with them.
People (and companies) are not going to give up the exclusive rights to their works just because some minority of extremists think that "All Information Should Be Free". And yes, you are a minority.
Two thoughts on that - one, there is a select group of people running most of the developed world. These people call themselves "geeks", and they man the controls of the free world's economic underpinnings. Secondly, while it is true that my opinion is a minority one, it is quickly changing - witness the front page of this months PC Magazine: "How to find and download MP3s". Sounds like the masses don't mind violating copyright. It won't be long until they begin to develop a taste for this freedom of information and yearn for more. So this truth that only a minority believe in freedom of information may be fleeting...
It angers me that Slashdot posts suggestions to "grab it while you can", in reference to patent violations. If a patent is truly violated, I would hope that any developers out there would honor that patent and discontinue their [potentially illegal] use of the code.
This may have something to do with the credo many geeks subscribe to: That information should be free. Patents were originally invented to support truly innovative work where the author invested considerable time and energy into it. It was intended to make technology publically available so others could view and make improvements on the original idea. The tradeoff for a patent is that the public gets to view the work - and it is protected against other commercial enterprises using the patented invention for a period of n years, allowing the developer to recouperate the cost.
This was the original intention, however in recent years the purpose of patents has been mutated and mulilated: they are now often used offensively in court battles to keep competing products from entering the marketplace, they are filed in the thousands each month, many for trival innovations - witness Amazon's "one-click" patent. Such things are obvious and trivial. The USPO should have rejected it out of hand, but due to a lack of expertise in the computing arena they are patenting everything and it is having massive legal repercussions. The net result is that companies with large amounts of resources can afford drawn-out legal battles or do massive cross-patenting to keep their legal butts covered. Individuals, however, cannot do this. We have no money, and thus are of no interest to the patent holder(s).
This is why many people on slashdot are openly hostile towards patents and intellectual property - it is a matter of moral belief and civil disobedience that people copy the DeCSS code, or this code, and freely redistribute it. Many of us would have a higher respect if the system worked as designed and afforded individuals the same rights as corporations.
So yes, it is infuriating: but is is for both sides because of a fundamental breakdown in the system.
Anytime you are representing a side, you have some bias towards it.
I believe we're arguing over what the persuasive writing style is. I agree with you over this style - it is intended to persuade someone to your side. Typically facts supporting the other side are omitted, opinions are intermixed with facts, ad nauseum. Editorials are almost always persuasive.
However, an informative writing style is more akin to reading a report about a gas leak downtown that levelled a 3 block radius. There won't be much more than facts: there will certainly be no blame assigned. Quotes will typically be from both sides (if one side cannot/would not comment, it is usually noted). Reading the police reports on the back pages is an example of this (albeit dry!) style of writing, as is a technical "white paper".
As you say It's opinions that bias something - not facts, but it's bias to choose what facts to point out.
This is true enough. However, unbiased reporting, in contrast, would be reporting all facts one could find at time of publication regardless of whether which position they support.
I would like to see how could you do that. Can someone represent a side with being bias? Isn't that kind of an oxymoron?
Not really. So long as the person doesn't have a vested interest in the outcome (it doesn't affect him) you can ensure a certain level of impartiality. The legal system uses this to ensure the judge is impartial. Another thing that is impartial is the facts. If you write a report saying "Drive xyzzy is better than Drive ABC" and can back it up by saying the aureal density and maximum seek times of drive xyzzy are superior to abc, that's a fact - so long as you state it as such. It's opinions that bias something - not facts.
has it ever occurred to you that Jesse Berst might have gone through a "conversion"?
It's possible, but until I see an article about the (albeit typical) troubles he went through installing linux, I won't believe him. I need something verifiable before I change my opinion of somebody. Also keep in mind that Jesse and his ilk tend to bend with the breeze. That is to say they are sounding boards for the popular opinion at the time of publication.
But after 5 months, if the reporter is worth his salt at all, he'd have dug deeper and perhaps discovered that Linux really isn't what the FUD depicts it as
Got any articles indicating this alleged "digging" he's been doing? I'm reasonably certain that if he's a reporter worth his salt at all he would have posted a factual article indicating the results of his research. Thus far, I have found nothing to indicate this. Perhaps there is a URL I have overlooked, and if somebody would show it to me I may look on Jesse more favorably.
While it *might* be true that popular media is usually inaccurate, that doesn't justify the conclusion that *anything* from the media is not reliable.
True, but in a court of law a person's credibity is tested by asking questions of those who know him, as well as past actions. Shall we hold Jesse to a different standard just because he's a reporter and naive?
Hmm, another filler article for mass consumption by slashdotters, and pleased to be clickink on the banner ads. Quick, somebody pass me the salt, this article tastes bad!
It may be flamebait, but I think ZDNet has become see-through in the lip-service it's paying to linux. I point you no further than Jesse Berst, who in his "berst alerts" went from "linux sucks - it'll never compete with windows!" to "I always said linux could be a contender" to "linux rulez" in a span of 5 months. Something ZDNet should try someday: balanced reporting. It's a novel concept I urge any reporter (slashdot included) to employ - *represent both sides equally and without bias*.
I've read all the posts here and I think we've missed the entire question. We're thinking about existing media. Why?
I think the answer is a self-contained recorder and playback device which is sealed and can accept a wide variety of power source. Call it "BackAnywhere"! A data time capsule.
The premise is simple: encase the actual storage device (likely solid-state and non-magnetic for obvious reasons) into a case, write the data out, and seal it. The catch is in the interface - since 100 years from now we can't be certain ASCII will still be in use we shouldn't necessarily write the data in that format. However, it's been shown by history that languages with a sufficiently large text-base can be deciphered even if they are thousands of years old (or a rosetta stone can be found to translate)... I suggest we put a well-known book into the encoding stream. When you start it up and press one of the buttons, out comes shakespear or something. After the archeologists have figured out what it says, press another button and there's the stored data - whatever it may be. Hell, you could bury an entire library into a 6"6"4" space.
The thing about the power supply is the only problem: electronics require power. How this power is put into such a system in a way that ensures that you won't blow the thing to kingdom come if you plug it in wrong will be the problem. Afterall, after WWIII in 3200 when we're rediscovering the lightbulb somebody might have the "bright" idea of plugging it into a 30kV generator.
Slashdot Mirror
With the auto-posting perl scripts?
~
Gateway Systems has issued a press release stating they have teamed up with Sonic the Hedgehog to help with their manufacturing "The guy is so fast - he replaced half our factory workers! If we could just get him to stop slamming into the gold-colored tiles on the roof we'd be all set." and Laura Croft to help with their marketing. "It was a natural fit," said the Marketing director in an exclusive interview.
But Gateway faces competition from startup VA Linux Systems, who has reportedly contracted with ID Software for their Quake guy. "He's going to be our legal department," said Eric Raymond while grinning evilly.
You might actually have had a chance at making a case there, but you blew it on personal slams.
Yes, privacy is dying, yadda yadda. I can just flip on 60 minutes or surf to doubleclick.net for the 411 on that. How about contributing something meaningful - like how to protect it.
Jon Katz: Stating the Obvious (again).
Now, do you think I'm gonna be able to find space for this book in THAT?! Even the top of my monitor has stuff on it (ah, tux, looking beautiful as always)....
Richard, Eric, Bruce, and everybody else on the soap box - step down for a moment and look around. Our message is going nowhere. People see the software, they use the software.. but they aren't terribly interested in whether they have to pay for it or not. "Does it work? Great, I'll take one."
We've been patting ourselves on the back long enough now. The honeymoon is over - let's knuckle down and start talking to the press. We need to boil these issues down to 1 page press releases, fliers, websites - and we need to make this accessible to the average consumer. We need to get them up in arms. I don't care how - make it a controversy. Invite RMS, ESR and the board of MPAA directors to a Jerry Springer show and let them throw chairs at each other - BUT MAKE IT HAPPEN. Turn this thing on it's head - it sounds like just another holy war now to the media - what's the interest? Put a spin on it - make it controversial. GET US A SPOT ON 60 MINUTES!
Yeah, I'm sure Satan will love this clause: "Note, this contract need not be read to be enforceable..."
Wonderful! Now you can sell your soul without even knowing it!
*/sarcasm*
What I can't believe is why somebody would honestly believe standardized testing was a measure of their worth....
First, it's excellent that universities are finally, after over 100 years of this, beginning to understand standardized testing is a poor indicator of value/intelligence/leadership. It's been known for a long time that there are many varieties of intelligence - the IQ test only tests one - basically math and spatial visualization. Wuzzah. So if you know 13 different programming languages - from LISP to C++ and can pick up new ones within a few days.. well, sorry - that won't show up on the test.
It's still a nice idea - give college kids some legos and see what they build. However, if they're still bent on using tests (an ultimately doomed approach) instead of interviewing potential students, may I suggest giving potential candidates an objective (which varies from person to person) and see how they solve it? In my opinion, it's more important /how/ you solve it than /whether/ you solve it. After you give the same problem to a few hundred people you'll know what solutions are typical and be able to spot the innovative and/or unconvential people in a group. What you do with this information is up to you, as an administrator, but you all know who my money's on.
Overheard near Area 51:
"Whadda mean there's an inflatable doll in orbit?"
"Well, sir, atleast the aliens have a sense of humor."
"Indeed, shoot another one down - we can't store these nukes forever."
"Yes sir!"
They already have access to where I live, what food I eat, how much money I spend, where I shop, what kinds of computer peripherals I typically purchase, my income... But no, it doesn't bother me. Why? Because I have access to theirs too. It's the great equalizer: they won't do un to me because they know I'll do un to them. Information is knowledge. Knowledge is power. The people have the power. We all do, now. The principles of democracy have begun to spread farther and faster than we had intended.. and now we're afraid.
demand the right to control who has access to my information, and how they can use it. This is about privacy as much as anything else. What's the difference between my private information and my source code? I think it's less clear now that we are in such a bomming Information Age.
Actually, it's pretty clear: our society seems intent on giving away it's privacy in exchange for $5 gift certificates and chances to win prizes. You know, you may already be a winner.
Now does that seem Totalitarian to you?
No.
Ah, well.. there's a silver lining on every cloud but lightning kills thousands of people searching for it every year...
Aight, I copyrighted the percentages 0-1000. Anybody caught using those percentages will need to pay me $0.01 per percentage point.
"You suck!"
"Yes, but that fact is noted in my database, please pay me $30 for citing that fact."
"..."
while this may be great for Crusoe - it'll encourage more rapid adoption of their chips.. I can't help but wonder what this will do to Phoenix in the long run. They've basically dropped their pants and mooned Intel in front of the entire industry.. do 'ya think if Crusoe fails they might not be.. umm... irritated?
No, but we are entering the Information Age. Information is becoming increasingly important - and so too is the right to access it. I also firmly believe in the right of the people to change it's government whenever they are unhappy with it - for any reason, no matter how trivial. Here myself and Jefferson part ways. There is no "mostly" democratic, for me it's an all-or-nothing proposition, in the same way that you can't have "mostly" free speech. Information is power. The power belongs in the hands of the people - NOT the various economic entities that make up this country. If the people want to abolish IP and patents, it should be expressly allowed.
People pirate MP3s, not because they feel that IP should be dissolved, but because they have little or no respect for existing laws.
So all people who pirate mp3s are anarchists? Seems rather broad there. Tell me, have you ever found yourself speeding down the freeway? Weren't you violating the law? Didn't you feel any remorse? Any fool can make a law, and any fool will mind it. I reserve the right to protest and/or disregard any law if it disagrees with my own moral compass. I also accept the responsiblity of my actions. If I am pulled over and given a ticket, I will pay it. That was my cost for violating the law.
Going alittle further into this, and at the risk of losing sight of the original topic, I would also point out that IP violations seem to have far worse fines than even raping somebody - is this reasonable? Should we not clamor for reasonable punishment for violations of the law? This is another problem I have with so-called "intellectual property" rights - since when was your computer somebody else's property? What right do they have to break into your home, and take your computer? Why can't they simply remove the offending content (or backup your harddrive and return your data immediately)? This totalitarian form of punishment is hardly justifiable - and is not in line with this society's views on what is right and wrong. The law should follow the accepted beliefs and practices of it's citizens, not the other way around.
It's not a question of erasing all copies of the source - that is impossible. Rather what do you think the reprecussions of this mirroring will be? As of yet, nobody has knocked on my door asking me to stop mirroring...
If the system breaks down, by definition, there is no order (or very little) in the system.
We're to shrug the law when it isn't convenient for us? Because it hinders *our* development? Tough cookies.
Our founding fathers had a dissenting opinion. I quote the Declaration of Independence: That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.
Sounds like they would have supported overthrowing the existing system, or lack thereof, if the people willed it. I'd have to agree with them.
People (and companies) are not going to give up the exclusive rights to their works just because some minority of extremists think that "All Information Should Be Free". And yes, you are a minority.
Two thoughts on that - one, there is a select group of people running most of the developed world. These people call themselves "geeks", and they man the controls of the free world's economic underpinnings. Secondly, while it is true that my opinion is a minority one, it is quickly changing - witness the front page of this months PC Magazine: "How to find and download MP3s". Sounds like the masses don't mind violating copyright. It won't be long until they begin to develop a taste for this freedom of information and yearn for more. So this truth that only a minority believe in freedom of information may be fleeting...
This may have something to do with the credo many geeks subscribe to: That information should be free. Patents were originally invented to support truly innovative work where the author invested considerable time and energy into it. It was intended to make technology publically available so others could view and make improvements on the original idea. The tradeoff for a patent is that the public gets to view the work - and it is protected against other commercial enterprises using the patented invention for a period of n years, allowing the developer to recouperate the cost.
This was the original intention, however in recent years the purpose of patents has been mutated and mulilated: they are now often used offensively in court battles to keep competing products from entering the marketplace, they are filed in the thousands each month, many for trival innovations - witness Amazon's "one-click" patent. Such things are obvious and trivial. The USPO should have rejected it out of hand, but due to a lack of expertise in the computing arena they are patenting everything and it is having massive legal repercussions. The net result is that companies with large amounts of resources can afford drawn-out legal battles or do massive cross-patenting to keep their legal butts covered. Individuals, however, cannot do this. We have no money, and thus are of no interest to the patent holder(s).
This is why many people on slashdot are openly hostile towards patents and intellectual property - it is a matter of moral belief and civil disobedience that people copy the DeCSS code, or this code, and freely redistribute it. Many of us would have a higher respect if the system worked as designed and afforded individuals the same rights as corporations.
So yes, it is infuriating: but is is for both sides because of a fundamental breakdown in the system.
I believe we're arguing over what the persuasive writing style is. I agree with you over this style - it is intended to persuade someone to your side. Typically facts supporting the other side are omitted, opinions are intermixed with facts, ad nauseum. Editorials are almost always persuasive.
However, an informative writing style is more akin to reading a report about a gas leak downtown that levelled a 3 block radius. There won't be much more than facts: there will certainly be no blame assigned. Quotes will typically be from both sides (if one side cannot/would not comment, it is usually noted). Reading the police reports on the back pages is an example of this (albeit dry!) style of writing, as is a technical "white paper".
As you say It's opinions that bias something - not facts, but it's bias to choose what facts to point out.
This is true enough. However, unbiased reporting, in contrast, would be reporting all facts one could find at time of publication regardless of whether which position they support.
Not really. So long as the person doesn't have a vested interest in the outcome (it doesn't affect him) you can ensure a certain level of impartiality. The legal system uses this to ensure the judge is impartial. Another thing that is impartial is the facts. If you write a report saying "Drive xyzzy is better than Drive ABC" and can back it up by saying the aureal density and maximum seek times of drive xyzzy are superior to abc, that's a fact - so long as you state it as such. It's opinions that bias something - not facts.
It's possible, but until I see an article about the (albeit typical) troubles he went through installing linux, I won't believe him. I need something verifiable before I change my opinion of somebody. Also keep in mind that Jesse and his ilk tend to bend with the breeze. That is to say they are sounding boards for the popular opinion at the time of publication.
But after 5 months, if the reporter is worth his salt at all, he'd have dug deeper and perhaps discovered that Linux really isn't what the FUD depicts it as
Got any articles indicating this alleged "digging" he's been doing? I'm reasonably certain that if he's a reporter worth his salt at all he would have posted a factual article indicating the results of his research. Thus far, I have found nothing to indicate this. Perhaps there is a URL I have overlooked, and if somebody would show it to me I may look on Jesse more favorably.
While it *might* be true that popular media is usually inaccurate, that doesn't justify the conclusion that *anything* from the media is not reliable.
True, but in a court of law a person's credibity is tested by asking questions of those who know him, as well as past actions. Shall we hold Jesse to a different standard just because he's a reporter and naive?
It may be flamebait, but I think ZDNet has become see-through in the lip-service it's paying to linux. I point you no further than Jesse Berst, who in his "berst alerts" went from "linux sucks - it'll never compete with windows!" to "I always said linux could be a contender" to "linux rulez" in a span of 5 months. Something ZDNet should try someday: balanced reporting. It's a novel concept I urge any reporter (slashdot included) to employ - *represent both sides equally and without bias*.
I think the answer is a self-contained recorder and playback device which is sealed and can accept a wide variety of power source. Call it "BackAnywhere"! A data time capsule.
The premise is simple: encase the actual storage device (likely solid-state and non-magnetic for obvious reasons) into a case, write the data out, and seal it. The catch is in the interface - since 100 years from now we can't be certain ASCII will still be in use we shouldn't necessarily write the data in that format. However, it's been shown by history that languages with a sufficiently large text-base can be deciphered even if they are thousands of years old (or a rosetta stone can be found to translate)... I suggest we put a well-known book into the encoding stream. When you start it up and press one of the buttons, out comes shakespear or something. After the archeologists have figured out what it says, press another button and there's the stored data - whatever it may be. Hell, you could bury an entire library into a 6"6"4" space.
The thing about the power supply is the only problem: electronics require power. How this power is put into such a system in a way that ensures that you won't blow the thing to kingdom come if you plug it in wrong will be the problem. Afterall, after WWIII in 3200 when we're rediscovering the lightbulb somebody might have the "bright" idea of plugging it into a 30kV generator.
Something to think about....