The next big thing in technology?

[Rhino]

I just got this and thought I'd share it with the newsgroup. It's a nice
spoof of techno-hype, isn't it? ;-)

============================================================
Introducing the new Bio-Optic Organized Knowledge device, trade
named: BOOK

BOOK is a revolutionary breakthrough in technology: no wires, no
electric circuits, no batteries, nothing to be connected or switched
on. It's so easy to use, even a child can operate it.

Compact and portable, it can be used anywhere -- even sitting in an
armchair by the fire -- yet it is powerful enough to hold as much
information as a CD-ROM disc. Here's how it works:

BOOK is constructed of sequentially numbered sheets of paper
(recyclable), each capable of holding thousands of bits of
information. The pages are locked together with a custom-fit device
called a binder, which keeps the sheets in their correct sequence.

Opaque Paper Technology (OPT) allows manufacturers to use both sides
of the sheet, doubling the information density and cutting costs.
Experts are divided on the prospects for further increases in
information density; for now, BOOKs with more information simply use
more pages.

Each sheet is scanned optically, registering information directly
into your brain. A flick of the finger takes you to the next sheet.
BOOK may be taken up at any time and used merely by opening it.

Unlike other display devices, BOOK never crashes or requires
rebooting, and it can even be dropped on the floor or stepped on
without damage. However, it can become unusable if immersed in water
for a significant period of time. The "browse" feature allows you to
move instantly to any sheet and move forward or backward as you wish.
Many come with an "index" feature, which pinpoints the exact location
of selected information for instant retrieval.

An optional "BOOKmark" accessory allows you to open BOOK to the exact
place you left it in a previous session -- even if the BOOK has been
closed. BOOKmarks fit universal design standards; thus, a single
BOOKmark can be used in BOOKs by various manufacturers. Conversely,
numerous BOOKmarkers can be used in a single BOOK if the user wants
to store numerous views at once. The number is limited only by the
number of pages in the BOOK.

You can also make personal notes next to BOOK text entries with an
optional programming tool, the Portable Erasable Nib Cryptic
Intercommunication Language Stylus (PENCILS).

Portable, durable, and affordable, BOOK is being hailed as a
precursor of a new entertainment wave. Also, BOOK's appeal seems so
certain that thousands of content creators have committed to the
platform and investors are reportedly flocking. Look for a flood of
new titles soon.
============================================================

Curiously enough, I was talking to a friend a few weeks back about the
various formats available for storing information and asked him which format
he would use if he wanted to keep something for a very long time. He told me
about reading an article where experts had pondered that very question.
After considerable weighing of the pros and cons, the experts had decided
that books were the best overall solution; specifically books using
acid-free paper that were stored in controlled humidity environments. I had
assumed that a CD or a hard drive or someother electronic format would win
but good old paper had triumphed.

 

[Chris Uppal]

Rhino quoted:

Introducing the new Bio-Optic Organized Knowledge device, trade
named: BOOK

It won't catch on until they work out how to make porn BOOKs.

-- chris

 

[Thomas Weidenfeller]

I had
assumed that a CD or a hard drive or someother electronic format would win
but good old paper had triumphed.

Look up the expected lifespan of a CD. You might be shocked. Depending
on whom you belief and which type it is, you find values between just 5
to ten years, or probably a hundred years.

Still, hundred years is nothing in historic dimensions. And then you
have to solve the problem of getting a player in 100 years ...

/Thomas

 

[Michael Redlich]

Curiously enough, I was talking to a friend a few weeks back about the
various formats available for storing information and asked him which format
he would use if he wanted to keep something for a very long time. He told me
about reading an article where experts had pondered that very question.
After considerable weighing of the pros and cons, the experts had decided
that books were the best overall solution; specifically books using
acid-free paper that were stored in controlled humidity environments. I had
assumed that a CD or a hard drive or someother electronic format would win
but good old paper had triumphed.

Rhino:

Thanks for sharing that...

Back in the early 90s, computers where supposed to create the
"paperless office" So much for that paradigm...

Mike.

--- ACGNJ Java Users Group (http://www.javasig.org/)

 

[Oliver Wong]

Introducing the new Bio-Optic Organized Knowledge device, trade
named: BOOK

Yes, but does it run Linux?

Curiously enough, I was talking to a friend a few weeks back about the
various formats available for storing information and asked him which
format he would use if he wanted to keep something for a very long time.
He told me about reading an article where experts had pondered that very
question. After considerable weighing of the pros and cons, the experts
had decided that books were the best overall solution; specifically books
using acid-free paper that were stored in controlled humidity
environments. I had assumed that a CD or a hard drive or someother
electronic format would win but good old paper had triumphed.

When NASA sends material messages (as opposed electromagnetic messages,
or laser/radio signals) into space, where it is difficult to control the
environment in any way at all, let alone humidity, they use gold-anodized
aluminum plaques, and inscribe their message onto it.

http://spaceprojects.arc.nasa.gov/Space_Projects/pioneer/PNimgs/Plaque.gif

- Oliver

 

[Chris Uppal]

When NASA sends material messages (as opposed electromagnetic
messages, or laser/radio signals) into space, where it is difficult to
control the environment in any way at all, let alone humidity, they use
gold-anodized aluminum plaques, and inscribe their message onto it.

It'd be nice if they put even a fraction as much effort into creating a
sensible "text" in the first place.

-- chris

P.S. Yes, I do realise that it was only a publicity stunt so it doesn't
actually matter ;-)

 

[Bent C Dalager]

Curiously enough, I was talking to a friend a few weeks back about the
various formats available for storing information and asked him which format
he would use if he wanted to keep something for a very long time. He told me
about reading an article where experts had pondered that very question.
After considerable weighing of the pros and cons, the experts had decided
that books were the best overall solution; specifically books using
acid-free paper that were stored in controlled humidity environments. I had
assumed that a CD or a hard drive or someother electronic format would win
but good old paper had triumphed.

This isn't really all that surprising. Modern storage media have a
number of requirements guiding their design and "must last more than a
few decades" is simply not one of them. You are expected to have
replaced/upgraded your system several times over within that
timespan. (Yes, I know that this occasionally doesn't happen but it is
what is _supposed_ to happen.)

I am sure we (we as in the human race) could come up with some really
long-term ultra-persistent high-density storage medium if we really
sunk some resources into it but as there isn't much of a market for
that kind of product, it's not something that is just going to happen
all on its lonesome.

Ironically, the superiority of paper over modern media might be a
consequence of industry today having better product development
methodologies than back in the middle ages and beyond. Today, if they
have good research telling them that buying a slightly cheaper dye for
CD-Rs will reduce the lifespan from 100 years to 10 years and they
expect that 10 years is good enough for 99% of the market, then this
is what they will do. In the olden days, they wouldn't have the
technological know-how to be able to make that kind of decision, so
they might end up over-engineering the product. (To the extent that
what they did was "engineering" anyway. They might just have gotten
lucky.)

Incidentally, this is also why I think that what NASA heralds as an
outstanding success in having the Mars rovers last for months and
months after their best-before dates is actually more of a failure on
their part. If they wanted rovers that would last years, then that is
what they should have designed for in the first place. If they only
needed them for a couple of months, however, they could obviously have
gotten away with less expensive products, thereby freeing funds for
more research on other missions. It seems clear that the developers
didn't really have a clear idea what kind of environment they were
designing for and so they drastically over-engineered the rovers. (Not
that I blame them for that - many things we simply don't know yet -
but it's still not an example of excellent product design.)

Of course, the same philosophy applies to software: don't spend
precious resources building features you won't actually be needing.

Cheers
Bent D

 

[Monique Y. Mudama]

Incidentally, this is also why I think that what NASA heralds as an
outstanding success in having the Mars rovers last for months and
months after their best-before dates is actually more of a failure
on their part. If they wanted rovers that would last years, then
that is what they should have designed for in the first place. If
they only needed them for a couple of months, however, they could
obviously have gotten away with less expensive products, thereby
freeing funds for more research on other missions. It seems clear
that the developers didn't really have a clear idea what kind of
environment they were designing for and so they drastically
over-engineered the rovers. (Not that I blame them for that - many
things we simply don't know yet - but it's still not an example of
excellent product design.)

Having worked in the aerospace industry, I can almost guarantee you
that the rover's level of quality depended on the traditional "fast,
cheap, or good: choose two" rule. There just isn't the funding to do
as good a job as you'd like.

 

[Ingo R. Homann]

Hi,

I think, today, for most information there is no optimal medium - not
electronic nor BOOK:

What would be the advantage for future generations to have all the
knowledge from the past on *paper*? It is simply impossible to search
for the information they will need. It is practically impossible to make
backups - or do you really want to copy 1.000.000.000.000 pages of
paper? (And of course you do need some backups because paper burns very
good! ;-) Making a copy decreases the quality significantly. You cannot
easily update the information you stored. You need thousands of rooms to
store the paper. ...

The one and only solution for this is to store the information
electronically and to convert it every - lets say 20-30 years - so that
they are readable (and indexable) by the technology that is up-to-date
at that moment. Of course, this is expensive (hardware and
software-formats change). But it is less expensive than to solve the
problems you have with paper!

Ciao,
Ingo

 

[Roedy Green]

t is practically impossible to make
backups - or do you really want to copy 1.000.000.000.000 pages of
paper?

We lost the library at Alexandria due to a ancient version of Bush.
Even if the backup itself is delicate, if copying is cheap enough,
there may be enough copies to survive, so long as mankind does not go
through a period where he cannot refresh copies.

We are in such better position than in the ancient world where your
only option was hiring a scribe to hand-write new copy.

 

[Ingo R. Homann]

Hi,

...
We are in such better position than in the ancient world where your
only option was hiring a scribe to hand-write new copy.

I am not sure if we are in a better position: Is it really
faster/easier/cheaper to copy 100.000.000.000 (paper-)pages
semi-automaticaly, than to copy 10.000 pages manually (by hand-writing)?

Ciao,
Ingo

 

[Monique Y. Mudama]

1.000.000.000.000 pages of paper? (And of course you do need some
backups because paper burns very good! ;-)

I think I remember hearing that stacks of paper actually don't burn
well at all -- there's too little available oxygen. Crumpled paper,
of course, is a different story.

 

[Thomas Weidenfeller]

I think I remember hearing that stacks of paper actually don't burn
well at all -- there's too little available oxygen. Crumpled paper,
of course, is a different story.

This is how it looks when a few tenth of thousands of historic books
burn. And they do burn:

http://www.anna-amalia-library.com/
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/dd/Brand_Anna_Amalia_22.30Uhr.JPG
http://www.thueringen.de/de/index.a...ngen.de/de/politisch/aktuell/17511/index.html


50.000 historic books completely lost, 60.000 more damaged in one night.
The library didn't have a decent fire extinguishing system, because they
planed to move into a new building "real soon now" ... famous last words.

/Thomas

 

[Ingo R. Homann]

Hi,

I think I remember hearing that stacks of paper actually don't burn
well at all -- there's too little available oxygen. Crumpled paper,
of course, is a different story.

Well, a stack of paper does not burn as fast as crumpled paper, that's
right. But it does burn at least as good as wood.

Ciao,
Ingo

 

[Monique Y. Mudama]

Hi,


Well, a stack of paper does not burn as fast as crumpled paper,
that's right. But it does burn at least as good as wood.

Yeah, you're probably right.

 

[Monique Y. Mudama]

This is how it looks when a few tenth of thousands of historic books
burn. And they do burn:

http://www.anna-amalia-library.com/
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/dd/Brand_Anna_Amalia_22.30Uhr.JPG
http://www.thueringen.de/de/index.a...ngen.de/de/politisch/aktuell/17511/index.html


50.000 historic books completely lost, 60.000 more damaged in one night.
The library didn't have a decent fire extinguishing system, because they
planed to move into a new building "real soon now" ... famous last words.

Oof.

 

[P.Hill]

This isn't really all that surprising. Modern storage media have a
number of requirements guiding their design and "must last more than a
few decades" is simply not one of them. You are expected to have
replaced/upgraded your system several times over within that
timespan. (Yes, I know that this occasionally doesn't happen but it is
what is _supposed_ to happen.)

I am sure we (we as in the human race) could come up with some really
long-term ultra-persistent high-density storage medium if we really
sunk some resources into it but as there isn't much of a market for
that kind of product, it's not something that is just going to happen
all on its lonesome.

Luckily as the uses for modern media increases so do the different
markets, not all of which have the same requirements that generated the
initial technology. Now that most major libraries in the world have at
least some electronic material, there is a growing market for something
which does last longer. The first baby step along that path was
different but more expensive material for CDs, no where near a long
term solution, just longer than the mass market version.

The problem of the availability of a reader will continue to be a problem.

(To the extent that
what they did was "engineering" anyway. They might just have gotten
lucky.)

It certainly was engineering, they didn't use certain dies and certain
skins arbitrarily, consider the difference between the nearly faded
US Declaration of Independence, and various manuscripts from much longer
ago. The one used fine but off-the-shelf ink, while many from longer
ago where thinking about longer term and using something known to be better.

-Paul

 

[Ingo R. Homann]

Hi,

Luckily as the uses for modern media increases so do the different
markets, not all of which have the same requirements that generated the
initial technology. Now that most major libraries in the world have at
least some electronic material, there is a growing market for something
which does last longer. The first baby step along that path was
different but more expensive material for CDs, no where near a long
term solution, just longer than the mass market version.

The problem of the availability of a reader will continue to be a problem.

IMHO, it's not only the problem of availability:

Would you really *like* to handle several 8"-disks today to "read" a
single book on an 12"-monochrome-display?

I think, technology always advances, and it is *really* a good idea to
copy the data form one medium to another every 20-30 years. I think is
is much cheaper to do such copying, than to get a *really* old drive
(which does not work in modern computers) and because of this, also get
an *really* old computer (from which perhaps you cannot copy the data).

And, as I said, it is not only cheaper, but also much more comfortable.

Ciao,
Ingo

 

[P.Hill]

I think, technology always advances, and it is *really* a good idea to
copy the data form one medium to another every 20-30 years.

Despite it being a really good idea, this solution pales when compared
to 'old dusty books on shelves'. Coping, be it old manuscripts or
computer media, is an active solution -- it requires someone to continue
to do something within the life span of storage technology. Old books,
manuscripts and monuments are only limited by the much longer life span
of changing use and tastes in human languages and a societies caring
about a text. That is a much longer life cycle -- not an infinite one
-- but one on a time scale of 100s to 1000s of years for written
languages. The examples of Greek and Roman texts eventually copied
several time into Arabic and eventually recopied many times into Latin
which were eventually copied into many modern languages. Each of those
required a 'media' change roughly every 500 years and a recopy more
often just to keep the reading 'technology' and storage technology (the
humans usable. Those where the books people cared about. Then
consider the modern recovery of ancient texts found in Egypt or
Ethiopia. The 'refresh' to new 'media' might have only occurred after
1500-2000 years. Now that's a shelflife!

Meanwhile, recovering the ability to read Mayan hieroglyphics took
near 100 years, but luckily the media, aka the stone monuments (but not
the manuscripts) has a much better shelflife than computer media.

-Paul

 

[Ingo R. Homann]

Hi,

Despite it being a really good idea, this solution pales when compared
to 'old dusty books on shelves'. Coping, be it old manuscripts or
computer media, is an active solution -- it requires someone to continue
to do something within the life span of storage technology. Old books,
manuscripts and monuments are only limited by the much longer life span
of changing use and tastes in human languages and a societies caring
about a text. That is a much longer life cycle -- not an infinite one
-- but one on a time scale of 100s to 1000s of years for written
languages. The examples of Greek and Roman texts eventually copied
several time into Arabic and eventually recopied many times into Latin
which were eventually copied into many modern languages. Each of those
required a 'media' change roughly every 500 years and a recopy more
often just to keep the reading 'technology' and storage technology (the
humans usable. Those where the books people cared about. Then
consider the modern recovery of ancient texts found in Egypt or
Ethiopia. The 'refresh' to new 'media' might have only occurred after
1500-2000 years. Now that's a shelflife!

Meanwhile, recovering the ability to read Mayan hieroglyphics took
near 100 years, but luckily the media, aka the stone monuments (but not
the manuscripts) has a much better shelflife than computer media.

I see your point and agree to it (somehow

But I think, there are two points you did not consider:

(1) A few thousands years ago, there were much less information to
store. The gogols of data we have today, cannot be stored in a similar
way - it is just to much: (a) It would be just too much paper and you
would need extremely large buildings to store the stacks of paper. (b)
Who should read them? You need some kind of indexing-machanism, and a
normal "table of contents" does not really fit the modern requirements.
There *must* be a possibility to do an advanced full-text-search. (Why
do you think, google is so successful?)

(2) If you want to store your "stacks of paper" in a *safe* way
(especially in this amounts), this is also an "active solution". The
buildings have to be air-conditioned, you need sprinklers against fire
(which needs to be maintenanced), you need a security firm and so on...
I think, just copying "some" DVDs every 20 years is *much* cheaper!

Ciao,
Ingo