7 Dec
2009
7 Dec
'09
4:21 p.m.
Given the recent iteration of the recurrent "how will we save our data in N
years" thread, where N is Sufficiently_Large, I discovered this interesting
tool.
http://ollydbg.de/Paperbak/
There is something terribly attractive about this. I'm tempted to play with
it to see how practical it is, after I've ported it to Mac OS X, of course.
--
------------------------------------ personal: http://www.cameronkaiser.com/ --
Cameron Kaiser * Floodgap Systems * www.floodgap.com * ckaiser at floodgap.com
-- Wagner's music is better than it sounds. -- Mark Twain ---------------------
7 Dec
7 Dec
5:08 p.m.
Given the recent iteration of the recurrent "how
will we save our data in N
years" thread, where N is Sufficiently_Large, I discovered this interesting
tool.
? ? ? ?http://ollydbg.de/Paperbak/
There is something terribly attractive about this. I'm tempted to play with
it to see how practical it is, after I've ported it to Mac OS X, of course.
Interesting, but I think very impractical for use with inkjet or laser
printers. Inkjets can blur slightly over time, and laser printers have
that awful sticky problem.
--
Will
5:32 p.m.
On Mon, 7 Dec 2009, William Donzelli wrote:
Interesting, but I think very impractical for use with
inkjet or laser
printers. Inkjets can blur slightly over time, and laser printers have
that awful sticky problem.
Has anyone done any work on how long it takes for the sticky problem to
show itself? I remember some in 1989 or so that got sticky in a little
over a year. I can't remember much stuff newer than that going sticky.
Maybe modern toner doesn't do that anymore?
--
David Griffith
dgriffi at cs.csubak.edu
A: Because it fouls the order in which people normally read text.
Q: Why is top-posting such a bad thing?
A: Top-posting.
Q: What is the most annoying thing in e-mail?
5:28 p.m.
On Mon, 7 Dec 2009, David Griffith wrote:
My experience seems to indicate that it is a question of what you have the
printout next to. Three ring binders seem to be a problem. Other than that
I've rarely seen any issue.
Zane
printers.
Inkjets can blur slightly over time, and laser printers have
that awful sticky problem.
Has anyone done any work on how long it takes for the sticky problem to show
itself? I remember some in 1989 or so that got sticky in a little over a
year. I can't remember much stuff newer than that going sticky. Maybe modern
toner doesn't do that anymore? 
5:48 p.m.
On 7 Dec 2009 at 17:32, David Griffith wrote:
Has anyone done any work on how long it takes for the
sticky problem
to show itself? I remember some in 1989 or so that got sticky in a
little over a year. I can't remember much stuff newer than that going
sticky. Maybe modern toner doesn't do that anymore?
Shades of PaperBytes and Cauzin Softstrip.
My experience has xerox copy/laser printout stored in manila file
folders to be intact with minimal sticking after 30 years. The paper
may also be an issue.
What I didn't expect is old impact printer copy (printed with a
fabric ribbon on green-bar tractor-feed paper) to be subject to
fading. I've got copy from the 80's printed on various impact
printers that's barely legible after being stored in a file cabinet
the entire time.
I wonder if inkjet printout will suffer the same fate.
--Chuck
6:19 p.m.
On Mon, 7 Dec 2009, William Donzelli wrote:
There are archival ink cartridges, but they are
expensive as hell.
and "acid-free" paper
Something like Cauzin Softstrip sounds promising, but in x years, you
might have to build your own reader, and will others remember the
encoding? (think quipo!)
Have we even succeeded in figuring out Stonehenge and the Antikythera
mechanism?
6:25 p.m.
On Mon, 7 Dec 2009, Fred Cisin wrote:
On Mon, 7 Dec 2009, William Donzelli wrote:
If I were to sit down and designs something like this, I'd make sure it
would be easily reverse-engineerable. If we can assume The Future will
have scanners and computers capable of making use of them, each page would
have some sort of legend explaining how the dots are organized. That
should do it.
--
David Griffith
dgriffi at cs.csubak.edu
A: Because it fouls the order in which people normally read text.
Q: Why is top-posting such a bad thing?
A: Top-posting.
Q: What is the most annoying thing in e-mail?
There are archival ink cartridges, but they are
expensive as hell.
and "acid-free" paper
Something like Cauzin Softstrip sounds promising, but in x years, you
might have to build your own reader, and will others remember the
encoding? (think quipo!)
Have we even succeeded in figuring out Stonehenge and the Antikythera
mechanism?
6:35 p.m.
On Mon, 7 Dec 2009, David Griffith wrote:
If I were to sit down and designs something like this,
I'd make sure it
would be easily reverse-engineerable. If we can assume The Future will
have scanners and computers capable of making use of them, each page would
have some sort of legend explaining how the dots are organized. That
should do it.
What encoding shall the legend be in?
. . . and you will need some sort of "Rosetta Stone" multiple versions of
that, in case nobody reads English any more.
Yeah, I know, that's ridiculous. Society will never again forget entire
written languages, as they did with Egyptioan hieroglyphics and quipu.
Besides, we could always send John Titor back for some hardware.
--
Grumpy Ol' Fred cisin at xenosoft.com
7:22 p.m.
On 7 Dec 2009 at 18:25, David Griffith wrote:
If I were to sit down and designs something like this,
I'd make sure
it would be easily reverse-engineerable. If we can assume The Future
will have scanners and computers capable of making use of them, each
page would have some sort of legend explaining how the dots are
organized. That should do it.
Engraved on a gold-plated tantalum sheet, no doubt. Etched into a
slab of irridium would also do the trick. If it were cut into
granite, it'd probably end up as someone's kitchen counter.
If metallic however, the scrappers will do it in.
--Chuck
8 Dec
8 Dec
5:59 a.m.
On Mon, Dec 07, 2009 at 07:22:52PM -0800, Chuck Guzis wrote:
On 7 Dec 2009 at 18:25, David Griffith wrote:
Only to be melted down for jewelry, coins or industrial use once
civilisation has fallen far enough.
If I were to sit down and designs something like
this, I'd make sure
it would be easily reverse-engineerable. If we can assume The Future
will have scanners and computers capable of making use of them, each
page would have some sort of legend explaining how the dots are
organized. That should do it.
Engraved on a gold-plated tantalum sheet, no doubt. Etched into a
slab of irridium would also do the trick. If it were cut into
granite, it'd probably end up as someone's kitchen counter.
And if it is marble, it will be fed into kilns to get burnt lime[0].
If metallic however, the scrappers will do it in.
Yup.
Regards,
Alex.
[0] As happened to a _lot_ of roman and greek statues.
--
"Opportunity is missed by most people because it is dressed in overalls and
looks like work." -- Thomas A. Edison
7 Dec
7 Dec
6:46 p.m.
There are
archival ink cartridges, but they are expensive as hell.
and "acid-free" paper
Something like Cauzin Softstrip sounds promising, but in x years, you
might have to build your own reader, and will others remember the
encoding? (think quipo!) Have we even succeeded in figuring out Stonehenge and
the Antikythera
mechanism?
Yes, but I think the problem was that they deleted the source code out of
github. Those nuts.
--
------------------------------------ personal: http://www.cameronkaiser.com/ --
Cameron Kaiser * Floodgap Systems * www.floodgap.com * ckaiser at floodgap.com
-- Who are you going to believe, me or your own eyes? -- Groucho Marx ---------
9 Dec
9 Dec
11:26 a.m.
On Mon, Dec 7, 2009 at 6:58 PM, Bob Bradlee <caveguy at sbcglobal.net> wrote:
On Mon, 7 Dec 2009 18:19:26 -0800 (PST), Fred Cisin
wrote:
I think there is a working model of the Antikythera mechanism built
now. I think it has been figured out. I would say yes to both.
For really long term storage (1000 years or more) Paper buried in
anaerobic mud works.
Paxton
Astoria, Oregon
--
Paxton Hoag
Astoria, OR
USA
Have we even succeeded in figuring out Stonehenge
and the Antikythera
mechanism?
Stonehenge yes most definately.
the Antikythera mechanism many still feal no.
3:57 p.m.
For really long term storage (1000 years or more)
Paper buried in
anaerobic mud works.
With a good steganographic encoding algorithm, . . .
The Neimann-Marcus cookie hoax has been around longer than floppies.
Has there been any further progress in encoding bits in DNA?
How much longer before they find some of the previous messages?
("Sorry for the inconvenience")
4:09 p.m.
Fred Cisin wrote:
Umm ... Decoding is what I want ... "This segment of primevil soup
was brought to you by ..."
Has data storage in a crystal left the realm of si-fi?
Ben.
For really
long term storage (1000 years or more) Paper buried in
anaerobic mud works.
With a good steganographic encoding algorithm, . . .
The Neimann-Marcus cookie hoax has been around longer than floppies.
Has there been any further progress in encoding bits in DNA?
How much longer before they find some of the previous messages?
("Sorry for the inconvenience") 
4:21 p.m.
On Wed, 9 Dec 2009, Ben wrote:
Has data storage in a crystal left the realm of si-fi?
10+ years ago, I saw a demo of 3D data recording. They talked about
limiting factors being light wave-lengths, with TeraBytes per CC, and the
obligatory "Encyclopedia Britannica smaller than a sugar cube."
At that point, they had gotten it up to 27 bits (3 * 3 * 3) in a CC.
Never heard anything further.
But, I still don't think that ANY information lasts as long, nor
transmits as fast, as misinformation.
--
Grumpy Ol' Fred cisin at xenosoft.com
4:31 p.m.
But, I still don't think that ANY information
lasts as long, nor
transmits as fast, as misinformation.
Or whom Tiger Woods has slept with. Perhaps we can encode information in
celebrity sexual proclivities.
--
------------------------------------ personal: http://www.cameronkaiser.com/ --
Cameron Kaiser * Floodgap Systems * www.floodgap.com * ckaiser at floodgap.com
-- Are we not men? We are Klingons! -- Klingon-Devo Mix Masters, Inc. ---------
4:52 p.m.
On Wed, Dec 9, 2009 at 18:57, Fred Cisin <cisin at xenosoft.com> wrote:
Has there been any further progress in encoding bits
in DNA?
How much longer before they find some of the previous messages?
("Sorry for the inconvenience")
http://dresdencodak.com/2009/07/12/fabulous-prizes/
--
Joachim Thiemann :: http://www.tsp.ece.mcgill.ca/~jthiem
7 Dec
7 Dec
5:58 p.m.
Has anyone done any work on how long it takes for the
sticky problem to show
itself? ?I remember some in 1989 or so that got sticky in a little over a
year. ?I can't remember much stuff newer than that going sticky. Maybe
modern toner doesn't do that anymore?
Who knows?
Why gamble?
--
Will
9:04 p.m.
William Donzelli wrote:
Refresh your data by photocopying often?
There is
something terribly attractive about this. I'm tempted to play with
it to see how practical it is, after I've ported it to Mac OS X, of course.
Interesting, but I think very impractical for use with inkjet or laser
printers. Inkjets can blur slightly over time, and laser printers have
that awful sticky problem. 
11:58 p.m.
On 08/12/2009 01:08, William Donzelli wrote:
Interesting, but I think very impractical for use with
inkjet or laser
printers. Inkjets can blur slightly over time, and laser printers have
that awful sticky problem.
The sticky problem occurs if you have the printout next to some plastic
containing plasticisers. PVC is a prime culprit, but printouts stored
in ring binders with a sheet of acetate between the binder and the
prints seem to survive. I've had laser printout in binders like that
for 20+ years and no sign of stickiness.
--
Pete Peter Turnbull
Network Manager
University of York
5496
days inactive
5498
days old
23 comments
14 participants
participants (14)
-
als＠thangorodrim.de -
bfranchuk＠jetnet.ab.ca -
caveguy＠sbcglobal.net -
cclist＠sydex.com -
cisin＠xenosoft.com -
dgriffi＠cs.csubak.edu -
healyzh＠aracnet.com -
innfoclassics＠gmail.com -
joachim.thiemann＠gmail.com -
jules.richardson99＠gmail.com -
mcguire＠neurotica.com -
pete＠dunnington.plus.com -
spectre＠floodgap.com -
wdonzelli＠gmail.com