This assumes, however, that we are not generating so much stuff that there will be plenty of stuff for historians to look at. (We probably generate enough paper stuff alone to keep thee future guys busy for ever.) If the digital stuff survives at all, they'll have plenty; if it doesn't, then what I delete won't matter either.
Steven Desjardins Department of Chemistry Washington and Lee University Lexington, VA 24450 (540) 458-8873 FAX: (540) 458-8878 [EMAIL PROTECTED] >>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] 01/26/04 02:29PM >>> Hi, William Robb wrote: > We're not talking jigh art here, we are talking record shots that are no > longer relevant, or test shots on film that is no longer available, or on > equipment that I no longer have, and that sort of thing. Better not let any historians hear you talking like that. You just committed the most heinous crime of all in their books. I think "record shots that are no longer relevant" would give most of them hissy fits that lasted a week. Last year, the British Museum (home of the Elgin marbles, and many other priceless artefacts) was asked to name its ten most treasured posessions. Number one was some Roman postcards from the forts on Hadrians wall on the England/Scotland border, written on slivers of wood. When found, they were just blackened organic material. Once preserved and deciphered, they told the modern world more about the everyday life of people in that part of the empire than we have gleaned from centuries of other artefacts. They are a unique record, preserved only by a coincidence of conditions. At the time they were created they were as disposable as digital files are nowadays. You never know what will be important. You certainly can't guess. mike
