Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!husc6!bloom-beacon!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!uccba!uceng!dmocsny
From: dmocsny@uceng.UC.EDU (daniel mocsny)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.next
Subject: Re: Hundreds of books on an optical disk (Medium!)
Summary: Looking for the Rosetta Stone
Message-ID: <413@uceng.UC.EDU>
Date: 11 Nov 88 16:53:20 GMT
References: <968@accelerator> <-290109999@hpcupt1.HP.COM>
Organization: Univ. of Cincinnati, College of Engg.
Lines: 94

In article <-290109999@hpcupt1.HP.COM>, vitale@hpcupt1.HP.COM (Phil Vitale) writes:
> If there is ultimately no hardcopy -- relying on arbitrary numbers
> of backups gets scary.

I observe a fair number of people using computers. I have no statistics
to back me up, but I think a see a general trend: computer users with
less experience and sophistication are often quicker to hit the printers
for rough drafts, etc. That is, they tend to generate more hardcopy per
unit of work done. I say this not to disparage them. Present-day computers
are still brittle, expensive, and lacking adequate displays. Learning to
work with less paper takes practice and motivation. We are still a long
way from eliminating paper.

I do not expect this to always be true. Eventually, computers will be
cheap and reliable to the point of transparency. We will not fear relying
on them over paper any more than we currently fear relying on telephones
over couriers. (What?!? Your office has X telephones that you use
constantly, and you don't retain a comparable number of messenger boys
on your staff? What if something went...wrong????)

> "Who" decides what books are *important* enough to backup?  The number of
> works will not decrease, making the backup process an ever growing problem.

The only reason we have to ration our information recording is because
we have not yet mastered the art of doing it cheaply. This will
change. Have you seen the projected pricing on digital paper? A one GB
diskette for $5.  660 GB tape reels, at $0.005/MB.  The number of
works will increase, but storage technologies are advancing faster. I
expect to live to see the day when the average person can afford
storage capacity sufficient for today's Library of Congress.

> "Who" will insure that the copy of the book in front of you is really a
> copy of the original, or one that was modified along the way by a "concerned"
> individual/party/government when it was "backed-up."  (Orwell and 1984.)
> 
> (Not that these concerns are new to CD-ROMs, just that the potential
> for abuse seems greater.)

How do you know that a paper book is legitimate? I think this has more
to do with the number of copies than anything else, not to mention the
ease with which two copies may be compared. Which would you rather do,
verify that two paper books were identical, or type diff? You are right,
though, we need a central repository to maintain archived masters, since
electronic information invites editing.

> Electronic form is not the only way to preserve knowledge.  Books have
> been remarkably successful at preserving information across the ages.
> (Are we really going to have a CD-ROM reader capable of reading the
> disks we make today say 300 years from now?)

Books have been amazingly good, with maddening exceptions, of course. If
we were really into leaving a heritage, we would go back to clay tablets.
They resist burning better.

In 300 years our information technologies could be so ridiculously advanced
that we should have machines that could start with almost any chunk of
matter and tell whether or not it was an artifact. They should be
able to tell whether said artifact contains recorded information, and then
extract as much of it as remains. A CD-ROM would be easy pickings compared
to digging up clay tablets written in totally forgotten languages. However,
the beauty of electronic media is that they make information readily
available. Unless we suffer a breakdown in civilization (at which point
reading CD-ROMs will be the least of our worries), we can easily copy our
accumulated information to each succeeding storage technology that appears.
With paper you're stuck with what you've got. Time hates a static medium.

> I really enjoyed pouring over some of the original papers of da Vinci,
> Darwin, and Bach.  (Handling drafts, pencil-written by Tolkein, was quite
> a thrill for a young undergrad.)

I hope the manuscripts were not badly damaged by whatever you poured over
them. :-)

> Somehow the same information loses its impact
> when it is displayed on a
> CRT screen.

You'll never hear me claiming today's display technology to be anywhere
near adequate. It is improving, albeit much too slowly. I see no reason
to doubt that computer displays will eventually match our visual acuity.
I do doubt I will see that happen soon.

> Then again, it would have been nice to have some backup disks of the
> library at Alexandria before the fire ...

My sentiments exactly. Putting all your information on hard-to-copy
media and stacking them in one place is thumbing your nose at reality.
Then again, pity the poor despots who will be robbed of their ability
to make a shocking public spectacle. Somehow, typing rm * just doesn't
have the same impact as a big, roaring bonfire.

> Phil Vitale

Dan Mocsny