Would it not be possible to specifically and intentionally (meaning specify in law or company policy that the funding would remain in place) plan to make sure that these were accessible and usable in 100 years. Archives and Archivist have already been doing this same thing for many years for other mediums. It would seem perfectly reasonable that if we as humans in current modern society are capable of data storage and retrieval from 100 years ago that it would be possible to do the same with new media for the next 100.
So far, I have not read a single limitation that cannot be solved with a few years and changes which improve the current tech. For example, eventually I believe that the battery life problem will be solved one way or another.
Can anybody think of really good reasons besides technical limitations, as great as they are, and many are listed above, that will keep stand alone devices around?
Also, after reading this I cannot help of think about Ghost in the Shell, and the Standalone Complex.
A Macbook Pro despite being a very nice piece of Hardware, does not meet several of the stated requirements in the OP. This is why it is a good idea to read the OP.
Be honest, how many of you followed the link above, but the first thing you looked at was the picture with the two women and Dwayne Johnson. (Ok, now be honest, how many of you followed the link after I mentioned Dwayne Johnson or the two women?)
Honestly, I could see this being a legitimate, "real world" or functional test type experiment. It would be difficult to make a contest like this something that is a perfect and "equal" or fair representation of the security of the OS's. It would however, provide an interesting look into how people generally perceive and go about attacking different systems. The amount of time or work put into finding cracks in the armor of one or the other is perhaps just as interesting as which would "fall first". H.
Perhaps it should not be a question of the amount of money made, but the differences in how bands choose to interact with their audiences. The point is some bands care more about making large amounts of money, others care about quality music, and the vast majority fall somewhere along this spectrum. Honestly, I rarely support mainstream artist because I generally don't like what they produce, however clearly they are not attempting to win me as their audience since I generally label them outright. I support other artist that I like, partially because I like how they distribute their stuff. It might be less an issue of money and more and issue of ideology.
Thanks
Slashdot Mirror
Would it not be possible to specifically and intentionally (meaning specify in law or company policy that the funding would remain in place) plan to make sure that these were accessible and usable in 100 years. Archives and Archivist have already been doing this same thing for many years for other mediums. It would seem perfectly reasonable that if we as humans in current modern society are capable of data storage and retrieval from 100 years ago that it would be possible to do the same with new media for the next 100.
So far, I have not read a single limitation that cannot be solved with a few years and changes which improve the current tech. For example, eventually I believe that the battery life problem will be solved one way or another.
Can anybody think of really good reasons besides technical limitations, as great as they are, and many are listed above, that will keep stand alone devices around?
Also, after reading this I cannot help of think about Ghost in the Shell, and the Standalone Complex.
A Macbook Pro despite being a very nice piece of Hardware, does not meet several of the stated requirements in the OP. This is why it is a good idea to read the OP.
Be honest, how many of you followed the link above, but the first thing you looked at was the picture with the two women and Dwayne Johnson. (Ok, now be honest, how many of you followed the link after I mentioned Dwayne Johnson or the two women?)
Honestly, I could see this being a legitimate, "real world" or functional test type experiment. It would be difficult to make a contest like this something that is a perfect and "equal" or fair representation of the security of the OS's. It would however, provide an interesting look into how people generally perceive and go about attacking different systems. The amount of time or work put into finding cracks in the armor of one or the other is perhaps just as interesting as which would "fall first".
H.
Perhaps it should not be a question of the amount of money made, but the differences in how bands choose to interact with their audiences. The point is some bands care more about making large amounts of money, others care about quality music, and the vast majority fall somewhere along this spectrum. Honestly, I rarely support mainstream artist because I generally don't like what they produce, however clearly they are not attempting to win me as their audience since I generally label them outright. I support other artist that I like, partially because I like how they distribute their stuff. It might be less an issue of money and more and issue of ideology. Thanks