1909:"Digital Resource Lifespan"

This forum is for the individual discussion thread that goes with each new comic.

Moderators: Moderators General, Prelates, Magistrates

User avatar
Rombobjörn
Posts: 130
Joined: Mon Feb 27, 2012 11:56 am UTC
Location: right between the past and the future

Re: 1909:"Digital Resource Lifespan"

Postby Rombobjörn » Wed Nov 01, 2017 5:21 pm UTC

ProphetZarquon wrote:Randall forgot my personal favorite: UTF-8 formatted .txt files. Since 1993 & counting, never had an issue opening one. I still have my first copy of The Anarchist's Cookbook, copied from a Kaypro II running CP/M on a 5-1/4" floppy to an 8088XT running MS-DOS on a 30mb hard drive to an IBM PS/2 286 on 20mb hard drive to an Asus 486 on a 3.5" floppy to a 1.2gHz Pentium on a 100mb Zip drive to a Core 2 Duo on a CD-R to an i7 system on a 128gb solid state drive, which was finally backed up to a 1tb hard drive & archived, as there's a newer copy to carry around. That original .txt file still opens just fine on any PC I've ever used (including mobile).

You're lucky that file was written in English, because it has passed through at least four different character encodings. Those encodings are all incompatible with each other, but they're all backward-compatible with ASCII so that English speakers don't notice the difference. Pretty much any other language would have used some non-ASCII characters and you would have needed to transcode the file several times.

User avatar
orthogon
Posts: 2725
Joined: Thu May 17, 2012 7:52 am UTC
Location: The Airy 1830 ellipsoid

Re: 1909:"Digital Resource Lifespan"

Postby orthogon » Wed Nov 01, 2017 5:54 pm UTC

ProphetZarquon wrote:
wumpus wrote:How long will it take to get a pdf variant that won't include javascript (or flash and EXE exploit holes)? I've been fond of the format since .ps were available on ftp, but can't recommend an Adobe format for "digital resource lifespan".

PS: what does it take to replace microfilm lamps with high-lifespan LEDs?


As far as security goes, just disable scripting & external plugin use entirely, in your PDF reader. When's the last time you had a .pdf file with actual Flash content in it, anyway? I keep it turned off & I've never run into a .pdf that wouldn't display that way.

Yeah, it annoys me that pdf seems to include so many pointless features that nobody asked for and nobody uses, but which result in a bloated reader and large attack surface, which in turn leads to daily security updates. Meanwhile the putative portability is ... less than perfect. I quite often get pdfs that "can't be opened".

Spoiler:
To be fair, one time this happened I spent an hour or two cursing Adobe, before I opened the file up in a hex editor and found it was a completely different, older, format with the same extension (a Project Definition File or something).
xtifr wrote:... and orthogon merely sounds undecided.

Geekoid
Posts: 31
Joined: Fri Mar 13, 2009 3:06 pm UTC

Re: 1909:"Digital Resource Lifespan"

Postby Geekoid » Wed Nov 01, 2017 7:44 pm UTC

Just embed the data in porn images. It will be around, somewhere, forever.

Geekoid
Posts: 31
Joined: Fri Mar 13, 2009 3:06 pm UTC

Re: 1909:"Digital Resource Lifespan"

Postby Geekoid » Wed Nov 01, 2017 7:49 pm UTC

Phasma Felis wrote:Digital preservation is a fascinating and criminally undervalued field. There's detailed standards out there for ways for digital information to survive (and remain readable) many years after the deaths of both the individuals and the institutions that maintained them--just for one example, by periodically transcoding all files in the archive into more current/accessible formats, while also retaining all earlier versions *and* complete specifications for all of them.

Hardly anyone *follows* those standards. But they do exist.



A library is just place the stores data.

A librarian is a person who maintains and understand the catalog system of the library.

It doesn't have to be physical like a traditional library.

Standard does't matter.

So you basically just described a library.

Mabuse7
Posts: 5
Joined: Sat Jun 03, 2017 1:07 pm UTC

Re: 1909:"Digital Resource Lifespan"

Postby Mabuse7 » Fri Nov 03, 2017 4:02 pm UTC

DavCrav wrote:
qvxb wrote:This is why we need more monks majoring in computer science.


Not the monks! They destroyed more classical works of science for their stupid fairy stories than fire and flood. OK, probably not that many, but many. Some Greek works only survive because the monk involved wasn't very good at washing the original away.


Not true.

https://historyforatheists.com/2017/09/the-archimedes-palimpsest/

Kit.
Posts: 1020
Joined: Thu Jun 16, 2011 5:14 pm UTC

Re: 1909:"Digital Resource Lifespan"

Postby Kit. » Fri Nov 03, 2017 5:17 pm UTC


Do you enjoy reading that crap?

Mabuse7
Posts: 5
Joined: Sat Jun 03, 2017 1:07 pm UTC

Re: 1909:"Digital Resource Lifespan"

Postby Mabuse7 » Fri Nov 03, 2017 8:17 pm UTC

Kit. wrote:

Do you enjoy reading that crap?


He can be overly polemical at times, but as someone with a long standing interest in medieval history I find these pieces a succinct corrective to the falsehoods spread by many on the internet in order to spread some simplistic science vs religion narrative.

Kit.
Posts: 1020
Joined: Thu Jun 16, 2011 5:14 pm UTC

Re: 1909:"Digital Resource Lifespan"

Postby Kit. » Fri Nov 03, 2017 9:33 pm UTC

Mabuse7 wrote:He can be overly polemical at times,

First of all, I found there no justification for your "Not true". Granted, that writing style didn't encourage me to try very hard...

...but still, mentioning that one possibly Christian guy paid attention to Archimedes in the 5th century (or whenever, I'm not going to reopen it), and another, this time definitely Christian guy also was interested in Archimedes in the 9th century, does not make it "not true" that one of Archimedes' works is only available to us because some Christian guys in the 13th century did not manage to completely destroy a copy of it made by probably yet another Christian guy in the 10th century.

Mabuse7 wrote:but as someone with a long standing interest in medieval history I find these pieces a succinct corrective to the falsehoods spread

"Corrective"? Do you mean that someone from the other side actually cares to read that rant?

TimONeill
Posts: 4
Joined: Fri Nov 03, 2017 11:10 pm UTC

Re: 1909:"Digital Resource Lifespan"

Postby TimONeill » Fri Nov 03, 2017 11:23 pm UTC

Kit. wrote: Granted, that writing style didn't encourage me to try very hard...


What "writing style"?

...but still, mentioning that one possibly Christian guy paid attention to Archimedes in the 5th century (or whenever, I'm not going to reopen it), and another, this time definitely Christian guy also was interested in Archimedes in the 9th century, does not make it "not true" that one of Archimedes' works is only available to us because some Christian guys in the 13th century did not manage to completely destroy a copy of it made by probably yet another Christian guy in the 10th century.


It seems you didn't read my article very carefully at all. Firstly, I detail several scholars in the sixth century, one probably Christian and the others definitely so, who who were not just "interested in Archimedes" but who were directly responsible for the transmission of his works to the present day. All modern editions of Archimedes depend on manuscript traditions that derive from the compilations of Isidore of Miletus. These in turn were used by Leo the Mathematician (c. 790-c. 869) whose school produced the three strands of manuscript tradition that derived from Isidore, one of which is represented by the Codex C text found in the Archimedes Palimpsest. That particular manuscript, in turn, was produced by another Christian scribe sometime in the tenth century. And not long after the priest in Jerusalem recycled it, William of Moerbeke was working in Constantinople copying and translating the other works of Archimedes, preserving several of them from loss in the process.

To characterise this as somehow NOT meaning that these guys, working over several centuries maintaining these works over multiple copies, preserved this work and claiming that one guy recycling one copy of one of those works is somehow evidence of the neglect of these works is totally ridiculous. Maybe you should actually bother reading the article next time.

"Corrective"? Do you mean that someone from the other side actually cares to read that rant?


I'm not sure who "the other side" might be. But I can assure you that the stats on my blog and my Twitter feed indicate that many thousands of people have read my "rant". Perhaps you need to ask yourself what is driving your clumsily inaccurate and curiously emotional reaction to it.
Last edited by TimONeill on Sat Nov 04, 2017 2:54 am UTC, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Soupspoon
You have done something you shouldn't. Or are about to.
Posts: 2538
Joined: Thu Jan 28, 2016 7:00 pm UTC
Location: 53-1

Re: 1909:"Digital Resource Lifespan"

Postby Soupspoon » Sat Nov 04, 2017 1:00 am UTC

Welcome, Tim. Either your Google-Fu is strong, or you have an admirer tip you off. Or you juzt harvest and regularly review the Referer metadata in a timely manner, perhaps.

Can't speak for anyone else, but the writing style reminds me of my own, left unfettered. A tendency towards rambling Wall Of Text in an attempt to bring forth absolutely every minutiae of thought. Without reading elsewhere on the site (I represent two or three visits to the linked page, if it doesn't boil down to unique visitors) I see a certain tone to the term New Atheist, which I can infer the meaning of and attitude to, though thankfully you switch to "anti-theist" at least one point, to correct the usual problem with the usual terminology.

And, frankly, I spent those multiple visits coming back and re-ploughing through your presentation of the subject, and yet I haven't yet reached the bottom. Or even half way, I think (the tab's closed, but I recall seeing the scroll-bar indicator being disappointingly too near the top, still, when last glanced at). I'd argue against the "succinct corrective" description, but I'm not a laconic person myself, so can't really complain!

I don't think I'm going back. No sign of a revelation that intersects with my current interests. Looks heart-feltedly written, but I'm not the audience for it (neither aligned nor counter-aligned to your viewpoint). If you've put as much effort into the rest of the site, then I'm impressed but it's not somewhere I'd revisit. But, still, all power to your keyboard…!

TimONeill
Posts: 4
Joined: Fri Nov 03, 2017 11:10 pm UTC

Re: 1909:"Digital Resource Lifespan"

Postby TimONeill » Sat Nov 04, 2017 2:22 am UTC

Soupspoon wrote:Welcome, Tim. Either your Google-Fu is strong, or you have an admirer tip you off. Or you juzt harvest and regularly review the Referer metadata in a timely manner, perhaps.


I check the stats on my blog each morning and occasionally if a referring link catches my eye, I click on it. Since I enjoy
xkcd comics, I wondered why someone on a xkcd forum would be linking to one of my articles. Even more occasionally, if I see someone saying something very interesting or very stupid about my stuff, I'll comment, as I have here.

Can't speak for anyone else, but the writing style reminds me of my own, left unfettered. A tendency towards rambling Wall Of Text in an attempt to bring forth absolutely every minutiae of thought.


Sorry if you found that article "rambling" but I can assure you it has a very carefully thought out and logical structure. And the whole idea of my articles is to capture the kind of detail that New Atheist references to history usually lack, so I make no apologies about the "minutiae". The fact that most anti-theists don't actually bother with historical "minutiae" (i.e. the important technical details required for a good understanding of the past) is actually precisely the problem my blog is addressing. This is why New Atheists bungle history so regularly.

Without reading elsewhere on the site (I represent two or three visits to the linked page, if it doesn't boil down to unique visitors) I see a certain tone to the term New Atheist, which I can infer the meaning of and attitude to, though thankfully you switch to "anti-theist" at least one point, to correct the usual problem with the usual terminology.


No, I'm not "correcting" anything. I use "New Atheist" and "anti-theist" interchangably and explain what I mean by the former term in my FAQ.

And, frankly, I spent those multiple visits coming back and re-ploughing through your presentation of the subject, and yet I haven't yet reached the bottom. Or even half way, I think (the tab's closed, but I recall seeing the scroll-bar indicator being disappointingly too near the top, still, when last glanced at). I'd argue against the "succinct corrective" description, but I'm not a laconic person myself, so can't really complain!


Someone else used the word "succinct". I'm actually going for "sufficiently detailed", which sometimes means long and complex articles. Given the subject matter, it's not surprising this one clocks in at 5,169 words. Several of my other articles are twice that or more.

I don't think I'm going back. No sign of a revelation that intersects with my current interests. Looks heart-feltedly written, but I'm not the audience for it (neither aligned nor counter-aligned to your viewpoint). If you've put as much effort into the rest of the site, then I'm impressed but it's not somewhere I'd revisit. But, still, all power to your keyboard…!


Okay. My target audience is pretty specialised, though it must be reasonably big since I get a lot of traffic. All the best.

FriendOfFred
Posts: 2
Joined: Sat Nov 04, 2017 2:24 am UTC

Re: 1909:"Digital Resource Lifespan"

Postby FriendOfFred » Sat Nov 04, 2017 2:36 am UTC

Kit. wrote:First of all, I found there no justification for your "Not true". Granted, that writing style didn't encourage me to try very hard...

...but still, mentioning that one possibly Christian guy paid attention to Archimedes in the 5th century (or whenever, I'm not going to reopen it), and another, this time definitely Christian guy also was interested in Archimedes in the 9th century, does not make it "not true" that one of Archimedes' works is only available to us because some Christian guys in the 13th century did not manage to completely destroy a copy of it made by probably yet another Christian guy in the 10th century.


Well, technically it's true that the only copy we have is one that someone tried to erase ("destroy") in order to reuse the material, much as you delete files from your hard drive to make room for new ones. What's not true is that this had anything to do with some conflict between science and "stupid fairy stories".

In particular, since you can't be bothered to reopen the article, note that there was nothing special at the time about the copy that was erased. It was just one out of many that were made and used (by Christians, since that seems to be the issue) all during the Middle Ages.

Mabuse7
Posts: 5
Joined: Sat Jun 03, 2017 1:07 pm UTC

Re: 1909:"Digital Resource Lifespan"

Postby Mabuse7 » Sat Nov 04, 2017 8:51 am UTC

Wow, I did not expect that to happen. And for the record I apologise for misusing the word "succinct", I just meant that Tim's blog provides good complete answers to common misconceptions and contrivances about the medieval era.

Kit.
Posts: 1020
Joined: Thu Jun 16, 2011 5:14 pm UTC

Re: 1909:"Digital Resource Lifespan"

Postby Kit. » Sat Nov 04, 2017 9:44 am UTC

TimONeill wrote:What "writing style"?

Disgusting. Made of hateful rant.

TimONeill wrote:It seems you didn't read my article very carefully at all.

That's what I said.

TimONeill wrote:Firstly, I detail several scholars in the sixth century, one probably Christian and the others definitely so, who who were not just "interested in Archimedes" but who were directly responsible for the transmission of his works to the present day. All modern editions of Archimedes depend on manuscript traditions that derive from the compilations of Isidore of Miletus. These in turn were used by Leo the Mathematician (c. 790-c. 869) whose school produced the three strands of manuscript tradition that derived from Isidore, one of which is represented by the Codex C text found in the Archimedes Palimpsest. That particular manuscript, in turn, was produced by another Christian scribe sometime in the tenth century. And not long after the priest in Jerusalem recycled it, William of Moerbeke was working in Constantinople copying and translating the other works of Archimedes, preserving several of them from loss in the process.

So, how many Greek texts by Archimedes collected by Byzantine survived?

TimONeill wrote:To characterise this as somehow NOT meaning that these guys, working over several centuries maintaining these works over multiple copies, preserved this work and claiming that one guy recycling one copy of one of those works is somehow evidence of the neglect of these works is totally ridiculous.

If a claim seems ridiculous to you, you'd better check that it's not you who invoked that straw man. At least if you are talking to an opponent that can answer.

What we are actually talking about, is that thanks to that one guy who did his job poorly, now after some restoration we have one non-translated (or quite close to non-translated) copy of some of Archimedes' works. Thanks to hundreds of other such guys, who did their job well, the rest is lost.

You need to be very... hmm... partisan to call that "preservation".

TimONeill wrote:Maybe you should actually bother reading the article next time.

That's unlikely, unless you completely rewrite it before that "next time".

TimONeill wrote:
"Corrective"? Do you mean that someone from the other side actually cares to read that rant?

I'm not sure who "the other side" might be.

Oh, who could that be... maybe the ones you were supposed to correct?

TimONeill wrote:But I can assure you that the stats on my blog and my Twitter feed indicate that many thousands of people have read my "rant".

Oh, sure. And one of them is me.

But of course, it's quite possible that quite a lot of people share your hatred, so your texts don't look disgusting to them.

TimONeill wrote:Perhaps you need to ask yourself what is driving your clumsily inaccurate and curiously emotional reaction to it.

You are making judgements before knowing the facts. Right here, in this quote.

As to my reaction to the link:

1. The linked text is irrelevant. It does not try to address the topic about monks being or not being good librarians. It tries to address the topic about Christianity being or not being "anti-science" in practice.

2. The linked text is full of hate. Which means that the author's point of view is highly biased. While by itself that does not necessarily mean that the arguments are inaccurate, the chances of the opposite are very slim, and very likely not worth investigating. The quality of the reference is the responsibility of whoever provides the link to back their claims, and if they did not manage to find anything better, then, well....

ETA:
FriendOfFred wrote:What's not true is that this had anything to do with some conflict between science and "stupid fairy stories".

Indeed. It is not a conflict between science and dogma (and no one, as far as I remember, claimed so in this thread). It is a conflict between information and agenda.

FriendOfFred wrote:In particular, since you can't be bothered to reopen the article, note that there was nothing special at the time about the copy that was erased.

As well as about all other copies of this and similar works. The one thing that was somehow "special" was that Archimedes temporarily lost his popularity at this point of European history.

Now imagine that all librarians in the world are destroying all the "non-special" copies of the book that temporarily lost popularity. Would you call them good librarians?

As gathering and copying texts of others is not a sign of scientific achievements (which are ultimately in creating your own works, not in hoarding the copies of works by others), as destroying the (becoming irrelevant) texts of others to give space to more actual texts is not a sign of being bad at science (who needs to keep their personal copies of the books on phlogiston when oxygen has already been discovered?). However, a good scientist is not necessarily a good librarian - I'd actually expect a good scientist to be a bad librarian.

FriendOfFred wrote:It was just one out of many that were made and used (by Christians,

By monks. By people with their own agenda, different from preservation of information not associated with what they personally or their cult is currently interested in.

TimONeill
Posts: 4
Joined: Fri Nov 03, 2017 11:10 pm UTC

Re: 1909:"Digital Resource Lifespan"

Postby TimONeill » Sat Nov 04, 2017 9:08 pm UTC

Kit. wrote:
TimONeill wrote:What "writing style"?

Disgusting. Made of hateful rant.


Gosh. My article barely rises about wry disdain for people who don't check their facts and those who distort history to fit an ideological agenda. Perhaps you need to ask yourself why this engenders your "disgust" and make you think I "hate" these people. You seem weirdly emotionally invested.

That's what I said.


Then we're agreed that you didn't actually read the article very well and your interpretation of it is poor as a result.

So, how many Greek texts by Archimedes collected by Byzantine survived?


All of the works of Archimedes that we have today are thanks to those Byzantines. That's kind of the point.

What we are actually talking about, is that thanks to that one guy who did his job poorly, now after some restoration we have one non-translated (or quite close to non-translated) copy of some of Archimedes' works. Thanks to hundreds of other such guys, who did their job well, the rest is lost.


And this is utter crap. "Who did his job poorly"? "Who did their job well"? Please cite the evidence that the "job" of these Byzantine clerics was to destroy the works of people like Archimedes. Then explain why Eutocius of Ascalon, Anthemius of Tralles, Isidore of Miletus, Leo the Mathematician, William of Moerbeke and all the many scribes and scholars between them didn't get the memo that their "job" was to destroy these works and why, stupidly, they were painstakingly copying, translating, studying and preserving them. Good luck.

You need to be very... hmm... partisan to call that "preservation".


*Chuckle* Ummm, no.

Kit.
Posts: 1020
Joined: Thu Jun 16, 2011 5:14 pm UTC

Re: 1909:"Digital Resource Lifespan"

Postby Kit. » Sun Nov 05, 2017 11:21 am UTC

TimONeill wrote:
Kit. wrote:
TimONeill wrote:What "writing style"?

Disgusting. Made of hateful rant.

Gosh. My article barely rises about wry disdain for people who don't check their facts and those who distort history to fit an ideological agenda.

That's not true. You resort to name calling ("New Atheists"), although, as you must know, there is nothing particularly "new" and nothing particularly "atheistic" in portraying pre-Renaissance Europe as "dark ages" "hostile to science".

TimONeill wrote:
That's what I said.

Then we're agreed that you didn't actually read the article very well and your interpretation of it is poor as a result.

No, we aren't. We are in agreement on the premise of this non sequitur, but not on the conclusion.

TimONeill wrote:
So, how many Greek texts by Archimedes collected by Byzantine survived?

All of the works of Archimedes that we have today are thanks to those Byzantines. That's kind of the point.

That's kind of a weak point.

All of the works of Archimedes that we have today are thanks to Archimedes.
Thanks to those Byzantines, all of the works of Archimedes that we have today have passed through another bottleneck.

The bottleneck in the form of the author is expected and inevitable here (by definition).
The bottleneck in the form of a single library is a sign of poor librarianship.

But let's return to my question. So, the original language representations of those works are all lost, except of the ones from that poorly erased source?

TimONeill wrote:
What we are actually talking about, is that thanks to that one guy who did his job poorly, now after some restoration we have one non-translated (or quite close to non-translated) copy of some of Archimedes' works. Thanks to hundreds of other such guys, who did their job well, the rest is lost.

And this is utter crap. "Who did his job poorly"? "Who did their job well"? Please cite the evidence that the "job" of these Byzantine clerics was to destroy the works of people like Archimedes.

Oh, a straw man again. Why am I not surprised?

rmsgrey
Posts: 3109
Joined: Wed Nov 16, 2011 6:35 pm UTC

Re: 1909:"Digital Resource Lifespan"

Postby rmsgrey » Sun Nov 05, 2017 12:31 pm UTC

Is now a good time to point out that the BBC hates Doctor Who because they destroyed a bunch of episodes from the 60s and 70s?

Never mind that they did that to every show at the time, and Doctor Who is the second most preserved show of the era - it's clearly all part of a deliberate conspiracy by the BBC because the powers that be always hated the show!

Or how about my school teachers who'd routinely wipe the board clean several times during each lesson? Clearly they have no love of learning, otherwise they'd have a constant supply of new boards, and ship the filled ones to be stored and archived!

Kit.
Posts: 1020
Joined: Thu Jun 16, 2011 5:14 pm UTC

Re: 1909:"Digital Resource Lifespan"

Postby Kit. » Sun Nov 05, 2017 1:57 pm UTC

rmsgrey wrote:Is now a good time to point out that the BBC hates Doctor Who because they destroyed a bunch of episodes from the 60s and 70s?

Never mind that they did that to every show at the time, and Doctor Who is the second most preserved show of the era - it's clearly all part of a deliberate conspiracy by the BBC because the powers that be always hated the show!

Or how about my school teachers who'd routinely wipe the board clean several times during each lesson? Clearly they have no love of learning, otherwise they'd have a constant supply of new boards, and ship the filled ones to be stored and archived!

That depends. Are you proposing to preserve data by leaving it before a teacher on the board?

TimONeill
Posts: 4
Joined: Fri Nov 03, 2017 11:10 pm UTC

Re: 1909:"Digital Resource Lifespan"

Postby TimONeill » Sun Nov 05, 2017 10:12 pm UTC

Kit. wrote:That's not true. You resort to name calling ("New Atheists"), although, as you must know, there is nothing particularly "new" and nothing particularly "atheistic" in portraying pre-Renaissance Europe as "dark ages" "hostile to science".


This is ridiculous. The term "New Atheists" is not "name calling" - it's a well-known term to refer to the latest crop of anti-religious atheist activists and one I use as a shorthand term, as I explain in my blog's FAQ. There's nothing pejorative about it. Some atheists object to it for the rather strange reason that, as you say, "there's nothing new about it". This is weird, since the term is not actually saying there is anything particularly novel or unique about the current wave of anti-religious zealots, the word "new" here simply means "the latest", much like "New Wave". Others have happily embraced the term, unless you think Victor Stenger was somehow insulting himself along with Dawkins, Hitchens, Harris etc when he wrote his book The New Atheism (Prometheus, 2009).

And no, there is nothing especially atheistic about the outdated and rejected Conflict Thesis or the equally antiquated idea that the whole of the Middle Ages were a "dark age". Those dusty nineteenth century ideas still permeate popular culture and are still accepted uncritically by many people who aren't very literate in the history of science or history generally. It's just that many New Atheists are among those who accept these dated ideas and base arguments on them.

All of the works of Archimedes that we have today are thanks to Archimedes.
Thanks to those Byzantines, all of the works of Archimedes that we have today have passed through another bottleneck.

The bottleneck in the form of the author is expected and inevitable here (by definition).
The bottleneck in the form of a single library is a sign of poor librarianship.


Total garbage. Anyone with a well-informed grasp of pre-modern textual transmission knows that any book in any period that relied purely on manuscripts had the odds of survival stacked against it. Even the most popular and widely copied books only existed in a few thousand copies at any given time. More obscure and technical works had far, far fewer copies - perhaps a few hundred or even less. As I explain in the article you didn't bother to read, Archimedes' works had the odds even more against their survival, because their language was difficult and their contents were highly technical and only of interest to a few people. So there were always only a tiny number of copies. It's actually remarkable they survived at all and they only did so thanks to these Christian scholars and the scribes who connect them.

For a good indication of exactly how high the odds were that a book would not survive, see my more recent article "The Lost Books of Photios' Bibliotheca". Photios details 297 separate works, of which 63% were by Christians and 37% by pagan or Jewish authors. Of these, only 35.13% of the Christian works are extant today, while the survival rate of the pagan and Jewish works was 37.61%. This indicates two things: (i) Christian works were not somehow more likely to survive than non-Christian ones and (ii) ALL texts, before the advent of printing vastly increased the number of available copies, were lucky to survive the centuries. This is not due to "poor librarianship", it's simply a function of a small number of manuscript copies of any given work and of time.

But let's return to my question. So, the original language representations of those works are all lost, except of the ones from that poorly erased source?


Yes. Thanks to William of Moerbeke's translations, the Codex A and Codex B texts preserved by the Byzantine scholars survives while the Greek manuscripts he worked from are, like the majority of manuscripts in any period before printing, lost.

TimONeill wrote:And this is utter crap. "Who did his job poorly"? "Who did their job well"? Please cite the evidence that the "job" of these Byzantine clerics was to destroy the works of people like Archimedes.

Oh, a straw man again. Why am I not surprised?


What "straw man"? I'm quoting you. The words "did his job poorly" and "did their job well" are yours. What "job"? Try to make what you're saying more clear.
Last edited by TimONeill on Sat Nov 11, 2017 1:07 pm UTC, edited 1 time in total.

HammerOn1024
Posts: 1
Joined: Mon Nov 06, 2017 12:57 pm UTC

Re: 1909:"Digital Resource Lifespan"

Postby HammerOn1024 » Mon Nov 06, 2017 1:01 pm UTC

Hi all... first post.

Uhummm... <Best Monty Python God voice here> You forgot the stone and clay tablet! :-)

Keybounce
Posts: 100
Joined: Fri May 29, 2009 1:41 am UTC

Re: 1909:"Digital Resource Lifespan"

Postby Keybounce » Mon Nov 06, 2017 5:36 pm UTC

JohnTheWysard wrote:Two extremes:

Sumerian cuneiform tablets (properly baked): 3500BCE - millenia hence
Abacus (soroban, suan-pan): until it gets tilted or shaken


Or the computer used by executives, hold upside down and shake to get more writing space.

(is classic Dilbert too out-of-date for here nowadays?)
<this space on hold>

User avatar
Soupspoon
You have done something you shouldn't. Or are about to.
Posts: 2538
Joined: Thu Jan 28, 2016 7:00 pm UTC
Location: 53-1

Re: 1909:"Digital Resource Lifespan"

Postby Soupspoon » Mon Nov 06, 2017 6:28 pm UTC

I had already been reminded of this sort of thing.

(Even older than Y2K, but here usefully tied down to an era to make the mere youngsters amongst us realise how far back it goes, whilst us oldies get to have great pride, or mortal sorrow, at the extra decade or three we demonstrably have under our belts.)


Return to “Individual XKCD Comic Threads”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: JPatten, mscha and 77 guests