GENMSC-L ArchivesArchiver > GENMSC > 2010-07 > 1280585503
From: singhals <>
Subject: Re: Keeping track of paper files
Date: Sat, 31 Jul 2010 10:11:43 -0400
References: <firstname.lastname@example.org> <email@example.com> <firstname.lastname@example.org> <email@example.com><firstname.lastname@example.org>
There's a rather large gap between "can last" and "are accessible" and a
not-quite-so-large one between "are accessible" and "can be read."
First, there's the issue of platform -- from all the griping, it would
appear that MAC users can't read CDs produced on a PC. Anyone care to
hazard what's going to be dominant in a century?
Then we can discuss whether to use rtf or pdf or native-to-the-program
for saving. I've got some very old pdf files that the newest reader
can't /quite/ swallow whole. And I've received some rtf files that
won't open in any reader I've got, including WP, Word, and Open Office.
NOT to mention the Win7 versions that tack an x onto the extension.
As for paying someone to convert those to 22nd century formats -- how
much did you pay to have those wire cylinders converted to audio tape
when your gm died? As technology marches forward, the media in use in
the 22nd probably isn't going to look like the media of the late 20th,
so there's a good chance that no one will recognize that shiny
iridescent thin plastic donut as media. Then, someone has to have a
pretty good idea what's on it, and finally, he has to CARE about
whatever he thinks is on it. That's 3 for 3, and NOBODY pulls that off
--And just for grins, imagine finding this wire cylinder which material
stored with it leads you to think is a recording by Caruso. Your GM was
into Caruso, so you lay out a couple centuries to convert it ... and
discover it's gm's voice student doing scales off-key. Worth the $200?
Wanna try that on the next cylinder you find? Didn't think so. ;)
Then again, on that infamous 3rd hand -- I've got printout of the
core-dumps on a few runs. It's certainly paper, and the ink is still
visible, but I wouldn't call it accessible.
You can't win, and the table's bolted down.
> On 07/29/2010 09:04 PM, Brian wrote:
>> On Thu, 29 Jul 2010 19:10:58 -0400, Wes Groleau
>> <Groleau+> wrote:
>>> :-) That's what I used to do, except that I have a waterbed with no
>>> "under," so the boxes are all over the house. My new system enables
>>> me to start throwing them away a few at a time after making sure they're
>> Paper records can still exist after hundreds of years. I have serious
>> concerns about whether digitized records will be able to be read in
>> the future.
>> I'm a believer in the socks and suspenders theory. Digitizing records
>> is good but to me, having digital and paper records is better.
> Can if on the right paper and stored properly.
> Correctly stored& maintained digital records will also last hundreds of
> Having both offers an increased chance of survival into the future.
> An advantage with digital records is they can be stored in multiple
> locations for security. With paper records the copies are rarely as good
> as the originals. Since I live in Hurricane country I have the dilemma
> of safely storing my paper records while having them available for
> reference. Acessing high quality scanned copies eases this dilemma.