19 Jun
2005
19 Jun
'05
12:34 p.m.
> I guess you didn't notice that I posted the
same link on Thursday. :)
The overall scope of the New Scientist article is about the same as
the MIT Technology Review article, but the substance is remarkably
different.
In the New Scientist article, hobbyists (like us) come to the rescue
to enable the libraries and archivists to get at the old stuff.
In the MIT Technology Review article, only major defense companies
gunning for the $100M+ contracts are players. No grass-roots
involvement at all.
A few years ago, esp. when Simson Garfinkel was a regular writer
(and editor?), I really enjoyed MIT Technology Review. The past
couple of months it has taken a major turn towards venture-capital
and defense contractors.
Tim.