Data Preservation and How Ancient Egypt Got It Right 313
storagedude writes to tell us that a storage geek has an interesting article on why ancient Egyptians were better than us at data preservation — and what we need to do to get caught up. "After rocks, the human race moved on to writing on animal skins and papyrus, which were faster at recording but didn't last nearly as long. Paper and printing presses were even faster, but also deteriorated more quickly. Starting to see a pattern? And now we have digital records, which might last a decade before becoming obsolete. Recording and handing down history thus becomes an increasingly daunting task, as each generation of media must be migrated to the next at a faster and faster rate, or we risk losing vital records."
Importance of information? (Score:5, Interesting)
So write it on rocks (Score:2, Interesting)
Etch barcodes into rocks.
Free flow of information better than rocks (Score:3, Interesting)
Yea, rocks don't need backups, but very few people could read them, and even less could 'etch' them.
I think the unprecedented decentralization and free flow of information of our time is far superior, even if the media we use is much less durable.
On the issue of formats he makes a very valid point tho. All we can do is support open formats and hope others follow our example so they gain momentum and become widespread and long lived.
Another case of wrong problem? (Score:5, Interesting)
This is another case of only seeing part of the problem. Data preservation is easy. The problem is, we generate massive amounts of data. Data doesn't have an expiration date. It doesn't automatically categorize itself, know its own relevance, or volunteer itself for tasks. See, the vast majority of "data" floating around can be safely discarded. Do you really need an ethernet sniff log of everything you've done on the internet over the past ten years? The government might want a copy, but chances are pretty good its just as useless to them as you. How about those four (broken) copies of that mp3 you downloaded from Shareaza? Or outdated installers of software? Is there a reason to keep around those Netware 3.12 floppies (besides impressing other old farts)?
The problem isn't preserving data, it's knowing when to let it go. We have many, many, many methods of data preservation. We are drowning in information. The internet is generating petabytes worth of data every day, and only the smallest fraction of that really has any reuse value. And most of that, in six months, or a few years, probably not. What we need is better methods of sorting data, and ways to expire data safely.
Also, we also need control over our data. Corporations have been trying to take that away now for years. You don't need a copy of our software that can run on any computer, we're going to mung it up so it only runs on one computer, and if you have to reinstall the operating system or change the video card or anything else, that copy will cease to work. An irony, really -- because I know plenty of people that love playing old video games whose manufacturers long ago gave up on, but won't release the copyright for. Fifty years from now, I doubt a single copy of the game will still exist -- the concept, maybe. But it will have died and yet someone will still own the copyright and think money could be made off it. When we buy a chunk of data, we need to be able to control it, not just use it in some narrowly-defined way. Because otherwise, what's the point of data preservation in the first place? To stockpile more useless data that -- even worse, holding onto could be a liability to you?
Re:Thank Goodness for ASCII Art (Score:5, Interesting)
Statues?
Even better: it is actually 3D.
Re:Preserving gibberish (Score:4, Interesting)
The Rosetta Disk [rosettaproject.org] has spiraling text that gets smaller and smaller, telling you implicitly that what you need is a magnifier. It doesn't explain how to build a microscope, though.
Re:Importance of information? (Score:1, Interesting)
On days when I see people condoning boiling animals alive and being alright with it, I don't really care what kind of looks I get for saying the things I say. It baffles me to see how people can possibly think in terms of "humans are the most intelligent animal on the planet, and thus must be the only animal that matters".
Even though I work in a science field (computer science), I can't see myself being in the industry for the rest of my life. For example, I spent a day last week freaking out at a co-worker who was arguing the scientific benefits of controlling the weather. Every major point of argument had to do with the benefits to mankind (no rain during sport activities, etc). No regard for what remapping weather conditions does for the rest of the planets' animal life. All people see is what's in it for them.
Re:no they don't. (Score:2, Interesting)
what is needed is two things. a way to store electricity that isn't chemical(battery
This part can probably be handled by memristors.
Re:Legal Requirements (Score:1, Interesting)
The major drawbacks of the "forest ecosystem farm" or whatever people will call them are an extremely high dependence on planning needs which can vary wildly from lot to lot, and they are not very suitable for current mechanization methods which will result in an increased need for human labor (which would be a relief to some people in the current economy.)
Re:Importance of information? (Score:3, Interesting)
"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it"
- George Santayana (1863 - 1952)
There are many things that we could note that would be very worthwhile for the future to know. What if we discovered a way to split the atom, and make a clean viable power source, but it was found that we could also use it as the most destructive weapon that man kind has ever known? Then again, with such historical knowledge, what would be done with it? Some would use it as a warning to avoid making such a power source, as it would destroy humanity again. Some would be determined to find how to do it, to make their own group (clan, tribe, culture, etc) the more powerful and oppress the weaker.
No matter what we pass on, there's no way for us to ensure that information is used properly. But at least we can try. In 10,000 years, I guarantee humanity will be nothing like it is now. Maybe we'll be a bigger, stronger, unified race. Maybe we'll have brought ourselves to the bring of extinction, and only small tribes survive.
One this is sure. The writings from 10,000 years ago will look like the hieroglyphs of the Egyptians. That knowledge was lost for centuries. It was through dumb luck that we rediscovered how to read it (finding the Rosetta stone), and even modern translations are hit and miss, and open to dispute.
If something was written in plain simple English now, what would they make of it? Scratches and symbols in stone? We have come to learn that the English language has 52 letters (26 upper and lower case) 10 numerals, and a whole variety of symbols indicating various things. When knowledge of the English language is long since dead, what is a comma or period? Just another character on the page (or stone)
It's optimistic to think that we could keep the knowledge alive. How many people today can read ancient Latin? I doubt more than a handful of people reading this could attempt it, and fewer could read it fluently. It's a scratched code. Now consider the English language. We have not only one script, but many. There are stylized scripts that even those familiar with the language have a hard time reading. How about cursive handwriting? English writing could be considered dozens if not hundreds of different "languages", each open for it's own deciphering.
I know I can't read hieroglyphs. I tried to learn. I haven't quite mastered it. I understand some concepts of the structure, but not enough to even attempt to form a single world or phrase. Could most people spot a cartouche, or understand it's special meaning? Sure, we have Wikipedia now, and I'm sure plenty of folks have gone there to see what it is, so they can reply "Oh, that's easy, it's a...." (no, I won't give the answer away)
So, even with the best attempts, it's virtually impossible to give them enough information to work with to translate everything with no knowledge of the language.
Try this.
Look at this picture [clipartof.com]
I, as a hopeful assistant to a future historian, put this picture with a word under it. This would hopefully assist the reader to understand our language. What was I trying to describe with the word? Man? Water? Wet? Carry? Transport? Labor? Maybe the word symbolizes slavery. The large man is our beast of burden, who must carry the water for... Maybe they'd reference the next picture and associate the two.
It's not an impossible game, just a very difficult one. How do you teach someone a language without having a frame of reference?
I saw it in a movie once. I can't remember which. He used a cup of black coffee in a white mug. He pointed at it and said "fervens". What does "fervens" mean? cup? coffee? liquid? water? fluid? black
The Bible on the other hand... (Score:3, Interesting)
That said, I am an atheist. I just don't discount the information that has been passed down for thousands of years as a bunch of hogwash, especially when much of it has in fact been proven true by following the text and discovering ancient ruined cities.
Re:Units question -- Libraries of Congress (Score:3, Interesting)
Can anyone tell me what the conversion factor is from Libraries of Congress to Libraries of Alexandria?
Yes.
Let the Iliad represent a typical ancient Greek text, occupying 24 scrolls. In a modern edition it occupies 1,589,248 bytes in Beta Code (= ASCII transliteration of ancient Greek), or 66,219 bytes per "book" (scroll).
Ptolemy II set a goal of half a million scrolls for the library. This is probably a pretty conservative estimate of the library's size at its height. However, let us work with conservative estimates. This gives us a ballpark figure of 33.1 billion bytes, or 30.8 gigabytes, for the Library of Alexandria.
For the Library of Congress, Wikipedia quotes figures of 20 TB and 10 TB. We take the more conservative estimate. That gives us a conversion rate of one Library of Congress to about 332 libraries of Alexandria.