Date disaster in 30 year's time?
in [UK Mac]
|
Prev: iTunes - sync Gmail contacts ?
Next: Bookmark Syncing
From: Rowland McDonnell on 4 Mar 2010 13:58 D.M. Procida <real-not-anti-spam-address(a)apple-juice.co.uk> wrote: > Peter Ceresole <peter(a)cara.demon.co.uk> wrote: > > > Anybody generating files *now* that need to function operationally then > > will become aware of the problem quite soon- if they aren't already- and > > will set about copying and updating their important files to a 64-bit > > (or more) system. If they don't, they deserve to fail. > > This is the kind of thing that makes me doubt that digital archives of > photographs will last longer than physical ones. The archivists are well aware of that sort of problem and they're working on it. But normal domestic archives of pictures are at risk. I have pictures on floppy disc that would be unreadable unless I had access to *that* one application which is only available as an old 68k app and obviously can't run on OS X. They don't particularly matter, and I used the app to convert them to something readily readable these days. But - well, when was the last time you met an app capable of reading Thunderscan files? Used to be the commonest scanner on Macs, and so a very commonly used file format. Even Graphic Converter doesn't seem to have heard of it. Rowland. -- Remove the animal for email address: rowland.mcdonnell(a)dog.physics.org Sorry - the spam got to me http://www.mag-uk.org http://www.bmf.co.uk UK biker? Join MAG and the BMF and stop the Eurocrats banning biking
From: Rowland McDonnell on 4 Mar 2010 13:58 J. J. Lodder <nospam(a)de-ster.demon.nl> wrote: > D.M. Procida <real-not-anti-spam-address(a)apple-juice.co.uk> wrote: > > > Peter Ceresole <peter(a)cara.demon.co.uk> wrote: > > > > > Anybody generating files *now* that need to function operationally then > > > will become aware of the problem quite soon- if they aren't already- and > > > will set about copying and updating their important files to a 64-bit > > > (or more) system. If they don't, they deserve to fail. > > > > This is the kind of thing that makes me doubt that digital archives of > > photographs will last longer than physical ones. > > Why? A .jpeg will sill be a .jpeg hundred years hence, > and there is no reason at all > why it wouldn't be possible to display it, > using a suitable app, if the medium is still readable, Assuming such an application is indeed available, and assuming that the medium is still readable, yes. But you can't rely on either being the case. > PS If long term survival bothers you it might be a good idea > to include 10% par2 with your images. That type of thing will eventually be standard for long-term archiving, I suspect. Rowland. -- Remove the animal for email address: rowland.mcdonnell(a)dog.physics.org Sorry - the spam got to me http://www.mag-uk.org http://www.bmf.co.uk UK biker? Join MAG and the BMF and stop the Eurocrats banning biking
From: Peter Casserole on 4 Mar 2010 21:06 On Thu, 4 Mar 2010 18:45:36 +0000, Rowland McDonnell wrote: > Rowland McDonnell <real-address-in-sig(a)flur.bltigibbet.invalid> wrote: > >> R <me32(a)privacy.net> wrote: >> >>> Richard Tobin <richard(a)cogsci.ed.ac.uk> wrote: >>> >>> > Unix uses the number of seconds since Jan 1 1970. It traditionally >>> > stores this in a 32-bit signed integer, which will overflow in >>> > 2038. Presumably this will have changed to a 64-bit integer long before >>> > then. >>> >>> I'm running the 64-bit kernel. Would that use 64-bit time? >> >> The Project 2038 Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ) >> >> <http://www.deepsky.com/~merovech/2038.html#What_operating_systems_and_p >> latforms_are_affected_by_it> >> >> Has an answer. > > No, I'm stupid and mis-read it. It doesn't. > > Sorry. You fucked up twice in the same thread. The cobwebs are building in the corners of your mind, Rowlie. Good thing that no one pays attention to you any more. -- " I have a balanced view of women. I can see the real thing. Unlike you, I don't try to pretend that women are all nice people. Some women - and you're a classic example - are very nasty." Rowland McDonnell - The Mysognist Series - 29 Nov 2007
From: J. J. Lodder on 5 Mar 2010 05:14 wRowland McDonnell <real-address-in-sig(a)flur.bltigibbet.invalid> wrote: > Peter Ceresole <peter(a)cara.demon.co.uk> wrote: > > > R <me32(a)privacy.net> wrote: > > > > > > Well, checking Palm desktop running (very nicely) under OS10.4.11, in > > > > mid-Feb 2040 it wraps round to 1904. > > > > > > That's true of real time, too. Physicists haven't noticed. > > > > They probably have- or they've seen it but not understood the > > significance... > > No-one understands time, not yet. Because there is nothing to understand. > Hell, no-one understand gravity and > it's a damned sight easier to investigate than time. That's the hard one. > > I absolutely love entanglement, for instance, which proves that we > > really haven't got a handle on what our universe is like. > > I think you'll find that a lot of modern quantum mechanics are getting > there these days, or at least, getting a handle on the next stage - none > of them are daft enough to think that the next stage is the last one. > > Once upon a time, Richard Feynmann's point that anyone who thinks they > understand quantum mechanics, doesn't - that was true. A much abuse quote. Feynman's idea was not to provide an excuse for all kids of obscurantism. > But since I left > university in 1990, an awful lot of new thinking has turned up and I > have an idea that the old cop-out Copenhagen interpretation (grossly > simplified: `Stop talking and do the maths') isn't going to last much > longer. That's not Bohr, it's also Feynman. He jokingly paraphrased Mussolini as; 'BELIEVE! OBEY!! COMPUTE!!!' > The thing is, anyone who's thinks they're barking up the right tree in > interpreting "what `reality' `really' `is'" sounds like a lunatic who's > been at the LSD - when heard by normal people. Certainly, the ideas > expressed by modern physicists does result in them meeting most of the > tick-boxes for a diagnosis of psychotic. You are projecting? > I can't follow the detail, but I do find the battles fascinating to read > about. Einsteinian relativity is due to be shot down in flames any day > now - but I'd not bet on what'll replace it. There's the string > theorists and the Modified Newtonian Dynamics crowd both with a case > that's looking more and more testable every day. That's what they have been saying for 50 years now. In fact the opposite is true: string theory has been a miserable failure. > ... which means it'll be something else that turns up and takes over, > I'll bet. One may hope so, and enough OT for now, Jan -- "Behind it all is surely an idea so simple, so beautiful, that when we grasp it - in a decade, a century, or a millennium - we will all say to each other, how could it have been otherwise? How could we have been so stupid for so long?" (John Archibald Wheeler)
From: whisky-dave on 5 Mar 2010 06:28
"J. J. Lodder" <nospam(a)de-ster.demon.nl> wrote in message news:1jevm6t.1pma4wq1glg0a2N(a)de-ster.xs4all.nl... > wRowland McDonnell <real-address-in-sig(a)flur.bltigibbet.invalid> wrote: > >> Peter Ceresole <peter(a)cara.demon.co.uk> wrote: >> >> > R <me32(a)privacy.net> wrote: >> > >> > > > Well, checking Palm desktop running (very nicely) under OS10.4.11, >> > > > in >> > > > mid-Feb 2040 it wraps round to 1904. >> > > >> > > That's true of real time, too. Physicists haven't noticed. >> > >> > They probably have- or they've seen it but not understood the >> > significance... >> >> No-one understands time, not yet. > > Because there is nothing to understand. yes there is, the idea that time only travels in one direction. >> Hell, no-one understand gravity and >> it's a damned sight easier to investigate than time. > > That's the hard one. Hopefully the LHC will find something. Hopefully soemthing more than bagles gum up the works. |