On Tue, May 5, 2009 at 12:02 AM, Tim Starling tstarl...@wikimedia.org wrote:
I can tell you what the Rosetta folks would say: they would say that
they paid $125k to Norsam for 5 prototype discs, and that we are free
to do the same. Norsam have developed this technology at great cost
and
On Tue, May 5, 2009 at 12:02 AM, Tim Starling tstarl...@wikimedia.orgwrote:
Personally I think it would be a waste of general funds, since I don't
expect we'll see the end of civilisation any time in the next year or
two.
Umm, if civilization ends, we won't be around to see it, and the
2009/5/5 Anthony wikim...@inbox.org:
On Tue, May 5, 2009 at 12:02 AM, Tim Starling tstarl...@wikimedia.orgwrote:
Personally I think it would be a waste of general funds, since I don't
expect we'll see the end of civilisation any time in the next year or
two.
Umm, if civilization ends, we
On Tue, May 5, 2009 at 9:17 AM, Thomas Dalton thomas.dal...@gmail.com wrote:
Certainly not large amounts of funds any time soon. If it could be
done for $5k, I'd recommend doing it with WMF funds.
I'm pretty sure buying another server or offering a slightly higher
salary on the next job
2009/5/5 Aryeh Gregor simetrical+wikil...@gmail.com:
The utility of this project is virtually
zero from any perspective.
I disagree. The short term utility is obviously zero, but the long
term utility could be massive. The contents of Wikimedia projects
could play a vital role in rebuilding
2009/5/5 Aryeh Gregor simetrical+wikil...@gmail.com:
Of course, since all of Wikimedia's data is freely available, anyone
else who'd like to store it in some durable form for any sum of money
is absolutely free to do so. Or they could give Wikimedia a directed
grant. But it would be a waste
On Tue, May 5, 2009 at 10:12 AM, Thomas Dalton thomas.dal...@gmail.com wrote:
I disagree. The short term utility is obviously zero, but the long
term utility could be massive. The contents of Wikimedia projects
could play a vital role in rebuilding civilisation - I call that
useful.
Assuming
On Tue, May 5, 2009 at 10:12 AM, Thomas Dalton thomas.dal...@gmail.com wrote:
2009/5/5 Aryeh Gregor simetrical+wikil...@gmail.com:
The utility of this project is virtually
zero from any perspective.
I disagree. The short term utility is obviously zero, but the long
term utility could be
2009/5/5 Aryeh Gregor simetrical+wikil...@gmail.com:
On Tue, May 5, 2009 at 10:12 AM, Thomas Dalton thomas.dal...@gmail.com
wrote:
I disagree. The short term utility is obviously zero, but the long
term utility could be massive. The contents of Wikimedia projects
could play a vital role in
On Tue, May 5, 2009 at 10:32 AM, Thomas Dalton thomas.dal...@gmail.com wrote:
But rebuilding civilisation is probably not the most likely use such
archives would be put to (it's just the most exciting, so the one I
mentioned). The historical and cultural value 1000 years from now of
knowing
2009/5/5 Aryeh Gregor simetrical+wikil...@gmail.com:
On Tue, May 5, 2009 at 10:32 AM, Thomas Dalton thomas.dal...@gmail.com
wrote:
But rebuilding civilisation is probably not the most likely use such
archives would be put to (it's just the most exciting, so the one I
mentioned). The
2009/5/5 Thomas Dalton thomas.dal...@gmail.com:
However, most information isn't lost because of disaster, it is lost
because people don't think they need it any more and delete/destroy
it. Can we trust whoever is around in the future to continue to
preserve the history dumps they've backed
On Tue, May 5, 2009 at 11:29 AM, Thomas Dalton thomas.dal...@gmail.com wrote:
You make a good point, but that point applies just as well to any
other time capsule plan and people still consider them worthwhile.
I don't. I think they're fairly silly.
However, most information isn't lost
On Tue, May 5, 2009 at 10:12 AM, Thomas Dalton thomas.dal...@gmail.comwrote:
2009/5/5 Aryeh Gregor
simetrical+wikil...@gmail.comsimetrical%2bwikil...@gmail.com
:
The utility of this project is virtually
zero from any perspective.
I disagree. The short term utility is obviously zero, but
On Tue, May 5, 2009 at 11:29 AM, Thomas Dalton thomas.dal...@gmail.comwrote:
You make a good point, but that point applies just as well to any
other time capsule plan and people still consider them worthwhile.
If you really want to spend your time and efforts based on what people
still
On Tue, May 5, 2009 at 10:57 AM, Aryeh Gregor
simetrical+wikil...@gmail.comsimetrical%2bwikil...@gmail.com
wrote:
But if you don't postulate a catastrophic event that we can't plan
for, like civilization ending due to an overnight thermonuclear war,
then we don't need to plan in advance.
If
2009/5/5 Anthony wikim...@inbox.org:
I would put a pretty large bet on the fact that someone is going to think
they need to keep Wikipedia long past the point where it's worth it to keep
it. Wrong decisions will be made to delete or oversight content, but
whatever isn't oversighted or deleted
On Tue, May 5, 2009 at 12:09 PM, Thomas Dalton thomas.dal...@gmail.com wrote:
2009/5/5 Anthony wikim...@inbox.org:
I would put a pretty large bet on the fact that someone is going to think
they need to keep Wikipedia long past the point where it's worth it to keep
it. Wrong decisions will be
2009/5/5 Chad innocentkil...@gmail.com:
In 3000 years, nobody will give a rat's ass about Britney Spears'
discography (again, to pick a random example of pop culture).
That's a bet I'm willing to make.
Depends if they rediscover publish or perish. The academic rat race
is a study in
On Tue, May 5, 2009 at 12:51 PM, David Gerard dger...@gmail.com wrote:
2009/5/5 Chad innocentkil...@gmail.com:
In 3000 years, nobody will give a rat's ass about Britney Spears'
discography (again, to pick a random example of pop culture).
That's a bet I'm willing to make.
Depends if they
2009/5/5 Chad innocentkil...@gmail.com:
In 3000 years, nobody will give a rat's ass about Britney Spears'
discography (again, to pick a random example of pop culture).
That's a bet I'm willing to make.
Then why is this article so long:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Art_of_Ancient_Egypt
On Tue, May 5, 2009 at 7:13 AM, David Gerard dger...@gmail.com wrote:
2009/5/5 Aryeh Gregor simetrical+wikil...@gmail.com:
Of course, since all of Wikimedia's data is freely available, anyone
else who'd like to store it in some durable form for any sum of money
is absolutely free to do so.
On Tue, May 5, 2009 at 2:24 PM, Thomas Dalton thomas.dal...@gmail.comwrote:
2009/5/5 Anthony wikim...@inbox.org:
Not true. I'm considering the historical value, but I'm recognizing the
fact that it must be heavily discounted due to the fact that it takes
place
so far in the future.
I'm
2009/5/5 Anthony wikim...@inbox.org:
I think economics does apply here because we are specifically asking an
economic question - how best to allocate our present resources (should the
WMF buy a server, or etch stuff on nickel plates). And I don't think values
have to be monetary in order to
That is like saying, . Why should i backup my computer now, when there
will be high capacity media in a few years, or when the next version
of the OS will do it automatically.
or, more closely,
why should a books scanning project even be bothered with now. In
future generation we might well have
If scanning involves destroying or harming the books, which it does, and
future technologies can scan the pages without actually opening the books,
then it's clear which solution I would choose. In many cases we have extra
books though.
On Tue, May 5, 2009 at 3:48 PM, David Goodman
David Goodman wrote:
That is like saying, . Why should i backup my computer now, when there
will be high capacity media in a few years, or when the next version
of the OS will do it automatically.
or, more closely,
why should a books scanning project even be bothered with now. In
future
On Tue, May 5, 2009 at 5:42 PM, Thomas Dalton thomas.dal...@gmail.comwrote:
2009/5/5 Anthony wikim...@inbox.org:
I think economics does apply here because we are specifically asking an
economic question - how best to allocate our present resources (should
the
WMF buy a server, or etch
On Tue, May 5, 2009 at 6:28 PM, Anthony wikim...@inbox.org wrote:
On Tue, May 5, 2009 at 5:42 PM, Thomas Dalton thomas.dal...@gmail.comwrote:
You say marginal utility rather than just utility,
but I don't pay a different amount for my first glass of water each
day than my second, even though
2009/5/5 Anthony wikim...@inbox.org:
It clearly has value (otherwise there would be no such thing as
academia), but I don't think it has a well defined monetary value.
How not? There's a certain price you'd be willing to pay for education,
isn't there? It doesn't have an *intrinsic*
On Tue, May 5, 2009 at 6:35 PM, Thomas Dalton thomas.dal...@gmail.comwrote:
Education
has value because of scarcity - someone with a degree can earn more
than someone without a degree because there are fewer people that can
do the jobs they can do.
So if most people had a degree, people
On Tue, May 5, 2009 at 08:29, Thomas Dalton thomas.dal...@gmail.com wrote:
However, most information isn't lost because of disaster, it is lost
because people don't think they need it any more and delete/destroy
it. Can we trust whoever is around in the future to continue to
preserve the
On Tue, May 5, 2009 at 7:31 PM, Chad innocentkil...@gmail.com wrote:
Why would you let this spam through?
No one approved it (see headers, there is no Approved-on line). But I
found a legacy entry in the Always accept posts from these
non-members filter for anth...@wikimedia.org... Well, I
On Wed, May 6, 2009 at 3:31 AM, Chad innocentkil...@gmail.com wrote:
Why would you let this spam through?
Someone let it through?
--
Alex
(User:Majorly)
___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe:
On Tue, May 5, 2009 at 7:38 PM, Al Tally majorly.w...@googlemail.com wrote:
On Wed, May 6, 2009 at 3:31 AM, Chad innocentkil...@gmail.com wrote:
Why would you let this spam through?
Someone let it through?
No.
--
Michael Bimmler
mbimm...@gmail.com
On Tue, May 5, 2009 at 10:39 PM, Michael Bimmler mbimm...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, May 5, 2009 at 7:38 PM, Al Tally majorly.w...@googlemail.com wrote:
On Wed, May 6, 2009 at 3:31 AM, Chad innocentkil...@gmail.com wrote:
Why would you let this spam through?
Someone let it through?
No.
On Tue, May 5, 2009 at 7:41 PM, Chad innocentkil...@gmail.com wrote:
Apologies if I sounded harsh in my original e-mail (I just re-read it now).
No worries, I didn't consider it harsh.
I received the e-mail from you Michael, not from the OP, so I assumed
it was forwarded from a non-member.
On Tue, May 5, 2009 at 10:45 PM, Michael Bimmler mbimm...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, May 5, 2009 at 7:41 PM, Chad innocentkil...@gmail.com wrote:
Apologies if I sounded harsh in my original e-mail (I just re-read it now).
No worries, I didn't consider it harsh.
I received the e-mail from you
On Tue, May 5, 2009 at 10:52 PM, Chad innocentkil...@gmail.com wrote:
I mean from you to the list, but I only received the copy with your
reply, not the original. Hmm, no clue.
Check your spam folder. That's where it automatically went for me.
-Aude
-Chad
On Tue, May 5, 2009 at 9:11 PM, Aude aude.w...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, May 5, 2009 at 10:52 PM, Chad innocentkil...@gmail.com wrote:
I mean from you to the list, but I only received the copy with your
reply, not the original. Hmm, no clue.
Check your spam folder. That's where it
40 matches
Mail list logo
