51–60 of 116 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You tell archive.org how often to archive a URL. So its not really up to their volunteers but the general population.
What are the odds that archive.org will be around in 137 years? The best bet would be the Library of Congress.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That is actually a serious issue that many scientists including historians, anthropologists and archaeologists are actually trying to find ways around. Digital storage is far more fragile than many physical storage mediums, digital data in many cases might also be indistinguishable from random data in such cases where it have been heavily encoded, encrypted, or the mata-data was lost. Time capsules are now becoming m…
> if you can turn an entire forest into a time capsule you might be able to preserve knowledge for a very very long time. I do like the idea that the information would be self-propagating, but who'd think to look in the DNA of some trees?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> if you can turn an entire forest into a time capsule you might be able to preserve knowledge for a very very long time. I do like the idea that the information would be self-propagating, but who'd think to look in the DNA of some trees?
Future humans that knew about it, future humans that had to rediscover DNA, evolved intelligent racoons, Eloi, Morlocks, aliens take your pick. The idea is just to have some way to ensure that enough information survives in persistent forms, you can store "important" (for scientific advancement) stuff in various types of media which is progressively harder to access and gets more and more dense, and eventually store…
[0] - the story of Biblical Deluge tells that part of the reason God had to sink the planet is that because angels descended from heaven and started breeding with people and corrupting them. If one believes in that story and is particularly imaginative, one had to ask just what level of technology did we have back then, after being 'corrupted' by what would be aliens?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Allot of people hunt for "treasures" in thrift shops, yard sales, and even auctions and then get them evaluated by more knowledgeable experts. When you buy enough "junk" that just looks old and or unique you'll eventually hit jackpot, I'm really not sure that the guy who bought the picture knew exactly it's value or it's historical significance, he just might had enough experience to estimate that it's more likely th…
My wife is a thrift store / garage sale junkie and it always goes one of two ways. 1) We end up with a junk piece of furniture that sits in our garage for months while she tries to either sell it for a few bucks or makes a run back to the thrift store to drop it off (majority of the time) or 2) She ends up finding a piece worth hundreds (sometimes thousands) that make it all worth it. She recently found a Paul McCobb…
"But does it scale?" :-)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I wish the article had gone into more detail about what the verification process is like.
Yeah, this. I don't see how they could possibly verify that this is actually an image of BtK when the face is so obscured and the provenance of the image so uncertain. Kagin's is being very cagey about it too: "Any qualified individual wishing to review the authentication dossier and discuss the potential acquisition of the Billy the Kid Croquet Match Tintype are welcome to contact..."
Apparently four people in the photo have also been identified as those known to associate with Billy the Kid, including Sally Chisum. Her diary seems to confirm this event taking place - which was a cattle drive and the wedding of Charlie Bowdre (on the horse).
Of all the photos being taken right now, it's odd to think there probably won't be discoveries of old photos in junk shops in 2150.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
What are the odds that archive.org will be around in 137 years? The best bet would be the Library of Congress.
Assuming there will be a technological civilization in 137 years, I give it more than 50% that archive.org will be present in some form directly descendent from the archive.org of today.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
My wife is a thrift store / garage sale junkie and it always goes one of two ways. 1) We end up with a junk piece of furniture that sits in our garage for months while she tries to either sell it for a few bucks or makes a run back to the thrift store to drop it off (majority of the time) or 2) She ends up finding a piece worth hundreds (sometimes thousands) that make it all worth it. She recently found a Paul McCobb…
> Kinda sounds a bit like venture capital... "But does it scale?" :-)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> if you can turn an entire forest into a time capsule you might be able to preserve knowledge for a very very long time. I do like the idea that the information would be self-propagating, but who'd think to look in the DNA of some trees?
Just make sure that while you're mucking with the DNA that you build in a display mechanism. Future races will get curious as to why trees display pictures on their trunks.
If you had bought this picture for $2 later to find out it's worth $5,000,000, would you feel an obligation to share some of the proceeds with the shop from which it was purchased?
Whenever something like this comes up (item bought at flea market and the like sells for millions), this question or similar gets asked. But why is that? The purchaser bought the photo at $2, which is what the store priced it at or was willing to part with the item. That's the only obligation the purchaser had. Pay the store money.
But I understand why this idea comes up. Put yourself in the shoes of the "junk shop" (from article) owner or flea market vendor. We're not talking about a high-end antique store. The seller is likely not wealthy. They're going to be devastated that they let this opportunity slip through their fingers.
A tip or kickback of, say, $25,000 would only be 0.5% of your pre-tax gains, but it would likely be a significant windfall for them, let them pay off some debt or take that vacation they've always wanted to. It's a nice gesture and would help take the edge off that anger and regret they'll inevitably feel for the rest of their life.
However, before I did that, I would consult a lawyer. On the one hand, sharing a small piece of the pie with them might give them something to lose and make it less likely they'd bring a frivolous but possibly expensive-for-you lawsuit against you – by an attorney who's working on commission and betting that you'll settle. On the other hand, giving them a cut might open the door for some line of reasoning or set some precedent that they're legally entitled to a portion of the proceeds. I don't know. That's why I'd consult a lawyer. :)