Websites 'must be saved for history' | Hacker News Reader

Websites 'must be saved for history'

guardian.co.uk

10 pointsnickb10 comments

Yes, I was surprised that it got no mention in the article. Still, it isn't a great idea to rely too much on any one source for all of this information. I do think that there is a very real problem caused by the lack of hard copies for most of our data. A lot of what we know about history comes to us in the form of written records, especially things such as letters or private journals. Computer communication works great at the time of use, but I do think that the general public needs to be more aware of the need to create permanent hard copies of anything that they might want to be saved for the future.

Couldn't agree more. I think there are some fascinating areas for research here. I was able to find this: http://www.clir.org/pubs/reports/rothenberg/research.html which is talking about how we can preserve digital documents for the future by creating a well-specified emulator of current software.

But short of dumping data to a machine-readable but paper-based (or microfilm) format, I don't think there are any really long-lasting options out there.

All I did was scan the article for a mention of archive.org and there was none and I was once again reminded of how these big media outlets get technology soooo wrong...

This will continue to happen. As technology continues to "grow" exponentially, finding journalists/bloggers who can keep up with it will be increasingly more difficult.

I wonder if we can measure the approach of The Singularity with it. If we define The Singularity as the milestone when technology progresses itself faster than humans can improve it, then the world must get more confused about technology as we approach that milestone.

Give more programmers/developers their own tech columns. They're the best people to know the cutting edge.

One problem is that ~90% of all published material is little better than white noise that should land in the bit bucket. The big problem is which ~10% is worth saving. The answer will be very different for each of us.

Another problem is that its hard enough to find something of significance in our current avalanche of bits. Imagine what it will be like after a few decades of exponential increase of essentially white noise. We will be saturated with bits we call information but will be unable to extract knowledge or understanding from it.

You could be better informed by listening to static on the radio. At least you could tell that a thunder storm is approaching.

Our information age will end up being rather ephemeral http://titocosta.tumblr.com/post/73083179/we-are-atlantis

No. What that misses is that while such formats are no longer popular, we haven't lost knowledge of how to read them.

My computer can't play tapes. But if I want to read a tape, I know exactly how I would go about having a tape played.

Besides, once information becomes about the specific file type on a hard drive, no reader is necessary. An mp3 file can be read by any computer with an mp3 player.

I always wondered, who pays for the saving of webpages?

If it's being proposed in the Grauniad: the taxpayer.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com