Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > sci.physics > #548880 > unrolled thread
| Started by | benj <none@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2016-01-28 17:31 -0500 |
| Last post | 2016-01-31 02:05 -0500 |
| Articles | 9 on this page of 69 — 10 participants |
Back to article view | Back to sci.physics
Hey Odd! benj <none@gmail.com> - 2016-01-28 17:31 -0500
Re: Hey Odd! Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-01-28 16:35 -0600
Re: Hey Odd! benj <none@gmail.com> - 2016-01-28 17:47 -0500
Re: Hey Odd! Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-01-28 17:12 -0600
Re: Hey Odd! Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-01-28 17:16 -0600
Re: Hey Odd! Mahipal <mahipal7638@gmail.com> - 2016-01-28 16:14 -0800
Re: Hey Odd! benj <none@gmail.com> - 2016-01-28 20:05 -0500
Re: Hey Odd! kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-01-29 12:34 -0800
Re: Hey Odd! Mahipal <mahipal7638@gmail.com> - 2016-01-29 13:36 -0800
Re: Hey Odd! benj <none@gmail.com> - 2016-01-28 19:55 -0500
Re: Hey Odd! Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-01-29 07:45 -0600
Re: Hey Odd! benj <none@gmail.com> - 2016-01-29 12:29 -0500
Re: Hey Odd! Fabian Russell <fb@zen.info> - 2016-01-29 17:47 +0000
Re: Hey Odd! Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-01-29 12:19 -0600
Re: Hey Odd! Fabian Russell <fb@zen.info> - 2016-01-29 18:43 +0000
Re: Hey Odd! jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-01-29 19:17 +0000
Re: Hey Odd! Fabian Russell <fb@zen.info> - 2016-01-29 21:59 +0000
Re: Hey Odd! Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-01-29 16:37 -0600
Re: Hey Odd! jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-01-29 22:40 +0000
Re: Hey Odd! Fabian Russell <fb@zen.info> - 2016-01-29 23:38 +0000
Re: Hey Odd! Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-01-31 13:19 -0600
Re: Hey Odd! Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-01-29 14:27 -0600
Re: Hey Odd! Fabian Russell <fb@zen.info> - 2016-01-29 22:11 +0000
Re: Hey Odd! Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-01-29 16:44 -0600
Re: Hey Odd! benj <none@gmail.com> - 2016-01-30 02:33 -0500
Re: Hey Odd! "Y.Porat" <y.y.porat@gmail.com> - 2016-01-30 22:53 -0800
Re: Hey Odd! Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2016-01-29 12:25 -0600
Re: Hey Odd! Fabian Russell <fb@zen.info> - 2016-01-29 18:38 +0000
Re: Hey Odd! Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-01-29 14:23 -0600
Re: Hey Odd! Fabian Russell <fb@zen.info> - 2016-01-29 22:20 +0000
Re: Hey Odd! Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-01-29 16:52 -0600
Re: Hey Odd! Fabian Russell <fb@zen.info> - 2016-01-29 23:54 +0000
Re: Hey Odd! Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-01-30 12:29 -0600
Re: Hey Odd! Fabian Russell <fb@zen.info> - 2016-01-30 20:43 +0000
Re: Hey Odd! benj <none@gmail.com> - 2016-01-31 00:07 -0500
Re: Hey Odd! Fabian Russell <fb@zen.info> - 2016-01-31 05:17 +0000
Re: Hey Odd! benj <none@gmail.com> - 2016-01-31 01:39 -0500
Re: Hey Odd! Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-01-31 13:25 -0600
Re: Hey Odd! Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-01-30 12:29 -0600
Re: Hey Odd! Fabian Russell <fb@zen.info> - 2016-01-30 20:51 +0000
Re: Hey Odd! benj <none@gmail.com> - 2016-01-31 00:16 -0500
Re: Hey Odd! Fabian Russell <fb@zen.info> - 2016-01-31 05:58 +0000
Re: Hey Odd! Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-01-31 13:29 -0600
Re: Hey Odd! Fabian Russell <fb@zen.info> - 2016-01-30 21:08 +0000
Re: Hey Odd! Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-01-31 13:33 -0600
Re: Hey Odd! Fabian Russell <fb@zen.info> - 2016-01-31 20:20 +0000
Re: Hey Odd! Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-01-31 14:48 -0600
Re: Hey Odd! Fabian Russell <fb@zen.info> - 2016-01-31 21:37 +0000
Re: Hey Odd! Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-01-31 16:00 -0600
Re: Hey Odd! Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-01-31 16:02 -0600
Re: Hey Odd! The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2016-02-01 00:03 -0800
Re: Hey Odd! The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2016-02-01 00:36 -0800
Re: Hey Odd! The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2016-02-01 14:18 -0800
Re: Hey Odd! The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2016-02-01 16:16 -0800
Re: Hey Odd! HVAC <mr.hvac@gmail.com> - 2016-01-29 10:41 -0800
Re: Hey Odd! benj <none@gmail.com> - 2016-01-29 14:22 -0500
Re: Hey Odd! Fabian Russell <fb@zen.info> - 2016-01-29 22:26 +0000
Re: Hey Odd! Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-01-29 16:59 -0600
Re: Hey Odd! Fabian Russell <fb@zen.info> - 2016-01-29 23:45 +0000
Re: Hey Odd! Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-01-31 13:19 -0600
Re: Hey Odd! Mahipal <mahipal7638@gmail.com> - 2016-01-30 14:55 -0800
Re: Hey Odd! Mahipal <mahipal7638@gmail.com> - 2016-01-29 10:55 -0800
Re: Hey Odd! benj <none@gmail.com> - 2016-01-29 13:47 -0500
Re: Hey Odd! Fabian Russell <fb@zen.info> - 2016-01-29 22:36 +0000
Re: Hey Odd! benj <none@gmail.com> - 2016-01-30 03:12 -0500
Re: Hey Odd! Fabian Russell <fb@zen.info> - 2016-01-30 18:49 +0000
Re: Hey Odd! benj <none@gmail.com> - 2016-01-30 23:52 -0500
Re: Hey Odd! Fabian Russell <fb@zen.info> - 2016-01-31 05:47 +0000
Re: Hey Odd! benj <none@gmail.com> - 2016-01-31 02:05 -0500
Page 4 of 4 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 [4]
| From | Mahipal <mahipal7638@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-30 14:55 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <add343b6-46c8-49ac-a07a-cc319e90e2f8@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #549255 |
On Friday, January 29, 2016 at 5:59:38 PM UTC-5, Odd Bodkin wrote: > On 1/29/2016 4:26 PM, Fabian Russell wrote: > > Wanna move? Dead-tree books are goddamned fscking heavy. > > > > You'll need small fleet of trucks with special permit whenever you > > change addresses. > > I think your powers of estimation are poor. The last time I moved, I had > 28 book boxes. Book boxes are the smallest moving boxes you can get, > because as you say, they are heavy. Each book box is about a cubic foot. > I think you'll see that 28 cubic feet does not represent a small fleet > of trucks. That's 60 linear feet of bookshelves, enough to fill shelves > on a 12' by 10' wall. > > A typical moving van has about 1800 cubic feet on the inside. That's > about 60 times the collection I just described to you, or about 18,000 > books. That's a small town public library's collection. I don't know > anyone ordinary that has a collection of paper books that size. > > Fabian, most people's collection of paper books is very easily moved and > they do it all the time with smallish rental vans. > > -- > Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables Hey Odd, ever been to those fancy shiny wooden book stores where they have the sliding ladders to get to the top Top TOP shelf books? It's good to be at the top! Especially when the sexy librarian wears a invisible pink miniskirt and always forgets what to put under where. -- Mahipal “IPMM... माहिपाल ७६३८: Turn The Page...”
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Mahipal <mahipal7638@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-29 10:55 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <7957bc55-7cae-4960-b5a5-40ddfd196a14@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #549155 |
On Friday, January 29, 2016 at 1:25:54 PM UTC-5, Sergio wrote: > On 1/29/2016 11:47 AM, Fabian Russell wrote: > > On Fri, 29 Jan 2016 07:45:32 -0600, Odd Bodkin wrote: > > > >> > >> I *make* bookcases, Ben. I don't have to buy them. > >> > >> You are the one trying to decide whether your ten bucks should be spent > >> on particle board shelves or board-and-cinderblock shelves. > >> > > > > Ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha! > > > > Bookshelves? What kind of outmoded fsck-sh!t is a bookshelf? > > > > I possess literally THOUSANDS of books. If I had to store them all > > on conventional shelves they would probably break the building > > foundation. Paper books are goddamned fscking HEAVY. > > > > No. My books are E-BOOKS. I can store thousands of volumes in > > a single desktop digital drive. > > > > Get up to modern times. Dead-tree books are dead. Digital is > > the new, and only, medium for books. > > > > Oh yea? Fabian is the one I side with. So yea. > wait till your ereader crokes w all yer books, and they are gone. > Or you lose that thumb drive, misplace the chip > Or your hard drive goes south with all your eBooks > CDs get scratched or katsup eats through the aluminum Get multiple backup devices and maintain them. Easy as Best Buy. > problem with ebook storage is the device failing, getting lost, > misplaced, or taken. > > or someone formats it Or someone you loved discards it into the Tuesday pickup of trash?! > Average lifespan of home electronic storage media is 3 to 5 years. > All hard drives fail. Formats change. > > Good old books on the shelf stay safe. Fire? Or the X-wife throws away, I mean recycles, let's be Green today, throws out your hard drives, along with all your books. O wait... she doesn't have the strength to throw out all the books! Thank God for heavy paper books! X-wife jokes never get old. Cheers! Regardless, I'd rather read ShakesHisSpeare on electronic media, for I can set the font size as my eyes require as a function of my ever changing but accurately predictable age, science sucks! -- get it?, then use silly reading glasses. Everything is unfolding as I have foreseen, save me being dropped into this well in my fancy office?! -- Mahipal “IPMM... माहिपाल ७६३८: The |meforce> awakens...”
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | benj <none@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-29 13:47 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <7tOqy.216391$Gc6.104488@fx08.iad> |
| In reply to | #549124 |
On 01/29/2016 12:47 PM, Fabian Russell wrote:
> On Fri, 29 Jan 2016 07:45:32 -0600, Odd Bodkin wrote:
>
>>
>> I *make* bookcases, Ben. I don't have to buy them.
>>
>> You are the one trying to decide whether your ten bucks should be spent
>> on particle board shelves or board-and-cinderblock shelves.
>>
>
> Ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha!
>
> Bookshelves? What kind of outmoded fsck-sh!t is a bookshelf?
>
> I possess literally THOUSANDS of books. If I had to store them all
> on conventional shelves they would probably break the building
> foundation. Paper books are goddamned fscking HEAVY.
>
> No. My books are E-BOOKS. I can store thousands of volumes in
> a single desktop digital drive.
>
> Get up to modern times. Dead-tree books are dead. Digital is
> the new, and only, medium for books.
>
Except of course that all (or most) of the dead tree books will still be
here long after your hard drive crashes and dies and all the BluRay
disks are nothing but errors. (I have the corrupted DVDs to prove it.)
And that doesn't even consider that no matter WHAT media you store your
books on in a few years no players will be available. How many working
floppy drives you have?
Odd is SO cool! Wooden toys and dead tree books. Now THAT is where it's at!
--
___ ___ ___ ___
/\ \ /\ \ /\__\ /\ \
/::\ \ /::\ \ /::| | \:\ \
/:/\:\ \ /:/\:\ \ /:|:| | ___ /::\__\
/::\~\:\__\ /::\~\:\ \ /:/|:| |__ /\ /:/\/__/
/:/\:\ \:|__| /:/\:\ \:\__\ /:/ |:| /\__\ \:\/:/ /
\:\~\:\/:/ / \:\~\:\ \/__/ \/__|:|/:/ / \::/ /
\:\ \::/ / \:\ \:\__\ |:/:/ / \/__/
\:\/:/ / \:\ \/__/ |::/ /
\::/__/ \:\__\ /:/ /
~~ \/__/ \/__/
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Fabian Russell <fb@zen.info> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-29 22:36 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <n8gpi842h9j@news6.newsguy.com> |
| In reply to | #549168 |
On Fri, 29 Jan 2016 13:47:31 -0500, benj wrote: > > Except of course that all (or most) of the dead tree books will still be > here long after your hard drive crashes and dies and all the BluRay > disks are nothing but errors. > Such is true only if you manage your digital collection like some silly housewife. As I emphasize elsewhere, if properly managed a digital collection can last a lifetime. By "properly managed" I mean frequent backups which include error correcting code such as PAR volumes. Proper management also requires adaptation to changing technologies. Don't forget, the entire LOC in digital format can be replicated faster than de-lousing a dead-tree collection. > > (I have the corrupted DVDs to prove it.) > I have digital media from 10-15 years ago. Not a single item is corrupted in any way. Those DVDs must be the cheapo brand. You should have used Taiyo Yuden disks. Blu-ray M-disc is currently the best solution.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | benj <none@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-30 03:12 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <ag_qy.238688$8V1.13638@fx28.iad> |
| In reply to | #549243 |
On 01/29/2016 05:36 PM, Fabian Russell wrote:
> On Fri, 29 Jan 2016 13:47:31 -0500, benj wrote:
>
>>
>> Except of course that all (or most) of the dead tree books will still be
>> here long after your hard drive crashes and dies and all the BluRay
>> disks are nothing but errors.
>>
>
> Such is true only if you manage your digital collection like some
> silly housewife.
>
> As I emphasize elsewhere, if properly managed a digital collection
> can last a lifetime.
>
> By "properly managed" I mean frequent backups which include error correcting
> code such as PAR volumes. Proper management also requires adaptation to
> changing technologies.
>
> Don't forget, the entire LOC in digital format can be replicated faster
> than de-lousing a dead-tree collection.
Sure "properly managed" not only means multiple copies but regularly
re-writing onto the current "in" media. In other words a lifetime of
constant attention, copying, error checking, and updating to the new
available media and associated drives, hardware and software.
Go to any large dead tree library and you can easily access books from
several centuries ago. More in some cases.
>> (I have the corrupted DVDs to prove it.)
>>
>
> I have digital media from 10-15 years ago. Not a single item is corrupted
> in any way.
Great proof. Oh, I ALWAYS Jay walk and have not been killed yet! That
PROVES that people dying is traffic is their own fault! Sweet! Proves
you got lucky, dude!
> Those DVDs must be the cheapo brand. You should have used Taiyo Yuden disks.
Some were, some weren't. Some were listed as "archival" at the time. It
meant something different back then. I love buying gumstick drives. I
just bought some and they come with a guarantee that says, I should not
expect them to actually work and if they corrupt data, they never
promised that they would remember anything! Sweet!
> Blu-ray M-disc is currently the best solution.
It is what I use at present, but is not the "best" solution.
A (genius) friend of mine and I have considered this problem of long
term storage and after review of ALL the problems have come the
conclusion that the "best" system is multiple servers which form mirrors
of each other configured with RAID drives. And protected by UPS systems.
As what you term "management" these must be all be replaced every so
many years and all software as well replaced. It's best if the mirror
servers are not at the same location.*
*My friend got trapped by this at his business. Had two mirror RAID
servers with all his data in the same room. Lightening strike nearby
took them ALL OUT! I mean OUT! ICs literally blown off the boards!
He was only saved by one of those places that take the disks apart and
remount them in a working drive. Cost him BIG BUCKS to get that done,
but saved the disaster.
This is about as reliable as it gets right now, but there is a lot of
attention that it requires to keep it safe. A bookshelf is virtually
maintenance free so long as it's in a reasonable living environment.
Hey, even books I stored in the basement (all those texbooks that ODD
loves so much) which are sort of nasty looking from the damp are still
able to provide error-free information for the most part. (Error-free in
the digital sense not as Libs alike Odd and HVAC understand it)
In the past I had the idea of making copies of everything on hard drives
in drawers and then putting those drives on the shelf as archival
storage. BAD IDEA! It turns out that hard drives just sitting for years
without operating tend to develop bearing problems and pretty soon they
won't spin up anymore! To fix that you have to periodically go through
your archive and spin everybody up for a bit! This is why the server
solution (where disks are constantly in use) was picked. You will note,
however, that the server solution requires not only an constant supply
of hardware and software but also electric power to keep it running. Ask
NSA what their electric bill is for recording the entire internet?
I've never even had bugs in my books. I guess that proves it's no problem.
--
___ ___ ___ ___
/\ \ /\ \ /\__\ /\ \
/::\ \ /::\ \ /::| | \:\ \
/:/\:\ \ /:/\:\ \ /:|:| | ___ /::\__\
/::\~\:\__\ /::\~\:\ \ /:/|:| |__ /\ /:/\/__/
/:/\:\ \:|__| /:/\:\ \:\__\ /:/ |:| /\__\ \:\/:/ /
\:\~\:\/:/ / \:\~\:\ \/__/ \/__|:|/:/ / \::/ /
\:\ \::/ / \:\ \:\__\ |:/:/ / \/__/
\:\/:/ / \:\ \/__/ |::/ /
\::/__/ \:\__\ /:/ /
~~ \/__/ \/__/
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Fabian Russell <fb@zen.info> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-30 18:49 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <n8j0j50i49@news6.newsguy.com> |
| In reply to | #549321 |
On Sat, 30 Jan 2016 03:12:54 -0500, benj wrote: > > Sure "properly managed" not only means multiple copies but regularly > re-writing onto the current "in" media. In other words a lifetime of > constant attention > Several terabytes, which is all a large e-book collection would require, does not necessitate "a lifetime of constant attention." A few hours, or at most a few part-time days, every few years is all it takes. > > Go to any large dead tree library and you can easily access books from > several centuries ago. More in some cases. > Unless those books have been printed on acid-free paper, they will inevitable deteriorate. A hundred-year-old book usually has very brittle pages that will fragment into pieces when handled. Indeed, what is primarily responsible for preserving those books is the total lack of handling which they experience. In most cases common books will deteriorate much sooner than a century. This is very true for cheap paperbacks, and many worthwhile titles are available only in that format. (I collect books on American serial killers which, because of the sordid nature of the subject, are published only as paperbacks.) I have some cheap paperbacks, only a few years old, that are already yellow and brittle. My plan is to cut these up to scan the pages followed by an OCR to convert to digital text. In this way these priceless (for me) paperbacks will be available much longer. > > the "best" system is multiple servers which form mirrors > of each other configured with RAID drives. And protected by UPS systems. > This certainly is not practical for the home e-book library. > > A bookshelf is virtually > maintenance free so long as it's in a reasonable living environment. > Sure. Like the Taj Mahal Storage hardware will inevitable improve. SSDs are common and they do not involve the spinning rust platters. SSDs currently have many shortcomings for long-term storage but eventually the technology should reach a point where one can write and store in an error-free mode forever.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | benj <none@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-30 23:52 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <4qgry.166771$Jt4.56746@fx22.iad> |
| In reply to | #549411 |
On 01/30/2016 01:49 PM, Fabian Russell wrote:
> On Sat, 30 Jan 2016 03:12:54 -0500, benj wrote:
>
>>
>> Sure "properly managed" not only means multiple copies but regularly
>> re-writing onto the current "in" media. In other words a lifetime of
>> constant attention
>>
>
> Several terabytes, which is all a large e-book collection would require,
> does not necessitate "a lifetime of constant attention." A few hours,
> or at most a few part-time days, every few years is all it takes.
Nope. There is a law of computing that goes that the size of the media
keeps expanding along with the transfer time so that the time it takes
to transfer all your "stuff" pretty much stays constant through the
years. Remember when all your "stuff" was a few floppies? Sure they were
slow too. No I've got fast disks but cripes I've got terabytes stacked
everywhere and I'm not even into movies and TV (that really soak up the
bytes)
>> Go to any large dead tree library and you can easily access books from
>> several centuries ago. More in some cases.
>>
>
> Unless those books have been printed on acid-free paper, they will
> inevitable deteriorate. A hundred-year-old book usually has very
> brittle pages that will fragment into pieces when handled. Indeed,
> what is primarily responsible for preserving those books is the total
> lack of handling which they experience.
Gosh, oddly ancient books are on acid-free paper until everyone got so
cheap.
> In most cases common books will deteriorate much sooner than a century.
> This is very true for cheap paperbacks, and many worthwhile titles
> are available only in that format. (I collect books on American serial
> killers which, because of the sordid nature of the subject, are published
> only as paperbacks.)
Of course it's not the paperback thing it's the paper thing. Yes, I've
got old paperback books and they do get brown brittle pages, but Some of
these are almost a century old too. The beauty of digital is that a
"reprinting" can be done with minimum hassle. With modern character
recognition there is some hope for reprinting old stuff. But the life
cycle of virtually all digital media is nothing like a century.
I do currently have a problem I'm struggling with. It's an adventure
game "Zork" game that a bunch of us wrote back in the 70s.
Unfortunately all I have now is a line printer printout of the source
code (written in JCL) You KNOW what trash line printer paper is! Been
trying to scan and recognize the printout but even with modern software
and careful tweaking of contrast, gamma, etc, the best I've been able to
do so far is get about 50% of it correct. Retyping a big stack of source
code in a language that is dead is not my idea of fun. Of course one
might argue the same holds for old brown paperbacks. I have scanned NEW
paperpacks, however with excellent results. Oddly the one thing that
doesn't convert is .jpg files of pages. You can look at them with an
eyeball and read them just fine. But the scanning software gives you
nothing but errors. However scanning with .tiff files and it's happy as
a clam.
> I have some cheap paperbacks, only a few years old, that are already
> yellow and brittle. My plan is to cut these up to scan the pages
> followed by an OCR to convert to digital text. In this way these
> priceless (for me) paperbacks will be available much longer.
>
>
>>
>> the "best" system is multiple servers which form mirrors
>> of each other configured with RAID drives. And protected by UPS systems.
>>
>
> This certainly is not practical for the home e-book library.
Works for me! You know there are these "home" server boxes that you can
buy. Some people are really hot on them. Me not so much. I went with a
real (linux) RAID server. Don't have mirrored servers (yet). I go with
Bluray M disks and gumsticks. The latter are handy and cheap but very
prone to failure.
>> A bookshelf is virtually
>> maintenance free so long as it's in a reasonable living environment.
>>
>
> Sure. Like the Taj Mahal
>
> Storage hardware will inevitable improve. SSDs are common and they do
> not involve the spinning rust platters. SSDs currently have many
> shortcomings for long-term storage but eventually the technology
> should reach a point where one can write and store in an error-free
> mode forever.
We all are waiting with baited breath for the next big thing. So far
nothing. Most things rotate. I go with Lenz's law (that would be Dave
Lenz a guy I went to school with) "If it rotates it sucks". As for SSD,
they are just gumsticks with a bandaid pasted on them. Hoping to save
your data by putting tiny charges on a microscopic piece of quartz is
certainly not very promising. No wonder HP won't promise that their
thumb drives will recall anything put in them.
Something effective is clearly waiting to be invented. I'd like to see
some fusible link technology at ultra high density in a kind of SSD ROM
format. Something relatively immune to heat, oxidation, charge leakage,
magnetization loss and all the rest and does not require any special
sensitive mechanical apparatus to read it.
Me want!
--
___ ___ ___ ___
/\ \ /\ \ /\__\ /\ \
/::\ \ /::\ \ /::| | \:\ \
/:/\:\ \ /:/\:\ \ /:|:| | ___ /::\__\
/::\~\:\__\ /::\~\:\ \ /:/|:| |__ /\ /:/\/__/
/:/\:\ \:|__| /:/\:\ \:\__\ /:/ |:| /\__\ \:\/:/ /
\:\~\:\/:/ / \:\~\:\ \/__/ \/__|:|/:/ / \::/ /
\:\ \::/ / \:\ \:\__\ |:/:/ / \/__/
\:\/:/ / \:\ \/__/ |::/ /
\::/__/ \:\__\ /:/ /
~~ \/__/ \/__/
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Fabian Russell <fb@zen.info> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-31 05:47 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <n8k75011mee@news3.newsguy.com> |
| In reply to | #549475 |
On Sat, 30 Jan 2016 23:52:15 -0500, benj wrote: > > Gosh, oddly ancient books are on acid-free paper until everyone got so > cheap. > Ancient books contain acid-free paper? I don't know much about the history of paper making. I'll have to find more about this. Whenever I peruse the old collection at the university library near my home I find most books have brittle pages. > > I do currently have a problem I'm struggling with. It's an adventure > game "Zork" game that a bunch of us wrote back in the 70s. > Unfortunately all I have now is a line printer printout of the source > code (written in JCL) You KNOW what trash line printer paper is! Been > trying to scan and recognize the printout but even with modern software > and careful tweaking of contrast, gamma, etc, the best I've been able to > do so far is get about 50% of it correct. > You may need to threshold the scanned images so the result is bi-tonal or black/white. You may also need to try a trainable OCR, where the software "learns" the particular typeface that is used. The open source (free) Tesseract OCR is trainable: https://github.com/tesseract-ocr > > Oddly the one thing that > doesn't convert is .jpg files of pages. You can look at them with an > eyeball and read them just fine. But the scanning software gives you > nothing but errors. However scanning with .tiff files and it's happy as > a clam. > JPEG compression is based on the discrete cosine transform which is essentially a fourier transform. Any sharp edges, such as the boundaries of text typeface, will experience severe ringing distortion. This is why JPEG should NEVER be used to compress text or similar patterns. TIFF, if it is compressed at all, is usually compressed with a different kind of algorithm and can be used on any type of image. > > Something effective is clearly waiting to be invented. > Of course. It's only a matter of time. The digital revolution is never going to stop. Sooner or later printed material, like the old "wet" photographic technology, will be supplanted. Regarding photography, I still recall how it was about ten years ago when many people were still defending film cameras and film technology. They would decry the new digital cameras and sensors as being inferior and desperately cling to the old methods. But now there is a barely a whimper from that crowd. They have lost the battle and have been converted to the new digital ways. The same will happen with the dead-tree book adherents.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | benj <none@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-31 02:05 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <Tmiry.241640$IX3.57592@fx36.iad> |
| In reply to | #549485 |
On 01/31/2016 12:47 AM, Fabian Russell wrote:
> On Sat, 30 Jan 2016 23:52:15 -0500, benj wrote:
>
>>
>> Gosh, oddly ancient books are on acid-free paper until everyone got so
>> cheap.
>>
>
> Ancient books contain acid-free paper?
>
> I don't know much about the history of paper making. I'll have to find
> more about this.
>
> Whenever I peruse the old collection at the university library near
> my home I find most books have brittle pages.
Actually I'm talking about a university library where I used to look up
old books and was amazed that really ancient books (like from beginning
of 1800s were still fine while newer ones were brown and brittle. At the
time I assumed it was a matter of cheapness like newsprint, but I think
it really had to do with how paper was made back then. I've seen TV
programs where they are looking through old government log books to find
the signature of Shakespeare etc. The pages are white (but faded) and
the pages turn just fine!
>> I do currently have a problem I'm struggling with. It's an adventure
>> game "Zork" game that a bunch of us wrote back in the 70s.
>> Unfortunately all I have now is a line printer printout of the source
>> code (written in JCL) You KNOW what trash line printer paper is! Been
>> trying to scan and recognize the printout but even with modern software
>> and careful tweaking of contrast, gamma, etc, the best I've been able to
>> do so far is get about 50% of it correct.
>>
>
> You may need to threshold the scanned images so the result is bi-tonal
> or black/white.
Been there done all that. Not good enough.
> You may also need to try a trainable OCR, where the software "learns"
> the particular typeface that is used.
My view too. So I put omnipage in "learn" mode. That's when conversion
went from mess up to about 50%. I don't think it's going to get better.
> The open source (free) Tesseract OCR is trainable:
>
> https://github.com/tesseract-ocr
>
>>
>> Oddly the one thing that
>> doesn't convert is .jpg files of pages. You can look at them with an
>> eyeball and read them just fine. But the scanning software gives you
>> nothing but errors. However scanning with .tiff files and it's happy as
>> a clam.
>>
>
> JPEG compression is based on the discrete cosine transform which is
> essentially a fourier transform. Any sharp edges, such as the boundaries
> of text typeface, will experience severe ringing distortion. This is
> why JPEG should NEVER be used to compress text or similar patterns.
Yup. Unfortunately there was this book (on a Kook topic natch) where all
I was able to obtain was the .jpg scan. It was so frustrating because if
you looked at the print out, it looked perfect and was easily readable,
but the OCR just would NOT recognize it. I had to re-type the whole damn
book in FRENCH no less. Brrrr!
> TIFF, if it is compressed at all, is usually compressed with a different
> kind of algorithm and can be used on any type of image.
Usually not compressed which is why it works so well. Pure data.
>> Something effective is clearly waiting to be invented.
>>
>
> Of course. It's only a matter of time.
>
> The digital revolution is never going to stop. Sooner or later
> printed material, like the old "wet" photographic technology,
> will be supplanted.
>
> Regarding photography, I still recall how it was about ten years
> ago when many people were still defending film cameras and film
> technology. They would decry the new digital cameras and sensors
> as being inferior and desperately cling to the old methods.
Tell me about it! What am I supposed to do with my darkroom and all the
gear? Junk! I've got movie cameras that you can't get film for. And if
you could get film you can't get it developed and if you developed it
yourself you can't buy developer. Nobody even knows what hydroquinone is
anymore. Where would you get any? A guy in a used camera shop told me
that there is this cult in New York somewhere that are still able to
develop movie film. All of it gone (including Kodak) and amazingly fast
too!
But there are always a few diehards. I hear there are cultists in
Kalifornia still making wooden toys!
> But now there is a barely a whimper from that crowd. They have
> lost the battle and have been converted to the new digital ways.
MY whimper is how to get rid of all the old gear. That's only part of
it. I've got an old TV projector the size of dog house and weight of a
compact car that is black and white and now in a standard that is long
gone. Talk about technology passing you by. Now a color movie quality tv
projector is cheap and in a small shoebox.
> The same will happen with the dead-tree book adherents.
Not until the permanent digital storage medium gets invented. You know
all the digital books the Pharaohs had are all gone. Only the ones
written on stone are still around! The idea of digital cuneiform storage
for REAL archival durations has been discussed. We decided data density
was too low and also problem was mechanical readers. But clay tablets
obviously have some lasting power!
--
___ ___ ___ ___
/\ \ /\ \ /\__\ /\ \
/::\ \ /::\ \ /::| | \:\ \
/:/\:\ \ /:/\:\ \ /:|:| | ___ /::\__\
/::\~\:\__\ /::\~\:\ \ /:/|:| |__ /\ /:/\/__/
/:/\:\ \:|__| /:/\:\ \:\__\ /:/ |:| /\__\ \:\/:/ /
\:\~\:\/:/ / \:\~\:\ \/__/ \/__|:|/:/ / \::/ /
\:\ \::/ / \:\ \:\__\ |:/:/ / \/__/
\:\/:/ / \:\ \/__/ |::/ /
\::/__/ \:\__\ /:/ /
~~ \/__/ \/__/
[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]
Page 4 of 4 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 [4]
Back to top | Article view | sci.physics
csiph-web