On Tue, May 5, 2009 at 9:11 PM, Aude wrote:
> On Tue, May 5, 2009 at 10:52 PM, Chad wrote:
>
>>
>> I mean from you to the list, but I only received the copy with your
>> reply, not the original. Hmm, no clue.
>>
>
> Check your spam folder. That's where it automatically went for me.
>
> -Aude
Th
On Tue, May 5, 2009 at 10:52 PM, Chad wrote:
>
> I mean from you to the list, but I only received the copy with your
> reply, not the original. Hmm, no clue.
>
Check your spam folder. That's where it automatically went for me.
-Aude
>
> -Chad
>
> _
On Tue, May 5, 2009 at 10:45 PM, Michael Bimmler wrote:
> On Tue, May 5, 2009 at 7:41 PM, Chad wrote:
>
>> Apologies if I sounded harsh in my original e-mail (I just re-read it now).
>
> No worries, I didn't consider it harsh.
>
>> I received the e-mail from you Michael, not from the OP, so I ass
On Tue, May 5, 2009 at 7:41 PM, Chad wrote:
> Apologies if I sounded harsh in my original e-mail (I just re-read it now).
No worries, I didn't consider it harsh.
> I received the e-mail from you Michael, not from the OP, so I assumed
> it was forwarded from a non-member.
>
Um...you did? That's
On Tue, May 5, 2009 at 10:39 PM, Michael Bimmler wrote:
> On Tue, May 5, 2009 at 7:38 PM, Al Tally wrote:
>> On Wed, May 6, 2009 at 3:31 AM, Chad wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> Why would you let this spam through?
>>>
>>
>> Someone let it through?
>
> No.
>
>
> --
> Michael Bimmler
> mbimm...@gmail.com
>
> _
On Tue, May 5, 2009 at 7:38 PM, Al Tally wrote:
> On Wed, May 6, 2009 at 3:31 AM, Chad wrote:
>
>>
>> Why would you let this spam through?
>>
>
> Someone let it through?
No.
--
Michael Bimmler
mbimm...@gmail.com
___
foundation-l mailing list
founda
On Wed, May 6, 2009 at 3:31 AM, Chad wrote:
>
> Why would you let this spam through?
>
Someone let it through?
--
Alex
(User:Majorly)
___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/list
On Tue, May 5, 2009 at 7:31 PM, Chad wrote:
>
> Why would you let this spam through?
>
No one approved it (see headers, there is no Approved-on line). But I
found a legacy entry in the "Always accept posts from these
non-members" filter for anth...@wikimedia.org... Well, I removed that
line now
On Tue, May 5, 2009 at 10:27 PM, Michael Bimmler wrote:
> We apologise for the commercial break...(sentence stolen from David Gerard)
>
> Michael
>
> On Tue, May 5, 2009 at 6:36 PM, Pat Compton wrote:
>> There's no time like the present, and isn't it time you got yourself a
>> beautiful designer
We apologise for the commercial break...(sentence stolen from David Gerard)
Michael
On Tue, May 5, 2009 at 6:36 PM, Pat Compton wrote:
> There's no time like the present, and isn't it time you got yourself a
> beautiful designer watch?
> http://oiwcvjoe.cn
>
> Visit Diam0nd Reps today and get a
On Tue, May 5, 2009 at 08:29, Thomas Dalton wrote:
> However, most information isn't lost because of disaster, it is lost
> because people don't think they need it any more and delete/destroy
> it. Can we trust whoever is around in the future to continue to
> preserve the history dumps they've bac
2009/5/5 Anthony :
> On Tue, May 5, 2009 at 6:35 PM, Thomas Dalton wrote:
>
>> Education
>> has value because of scarcity - someone with a degree can earn more
>> than someone without a degree because there are fewer people that can
>> do the jobs they can do.
>
>
> So if most people had a degree,
On Tue, May 5, 2009 at 6:35 PM, Thomas Dalton wrote:
> Education
> has value because of scarcity - someone with a degree can earn more
> than someone without a degree because there are fewer people that can
> do the jobs they can do.
So if most people had a degree, people with degrees would earn
2009/5/5 Anthony :
>> It clearly has value (otherwise there would be no such thing as
>> academia), but I don't think it has a well defined monetary value.
>
>
> How not? There's a certain price you'd be willing to pay for education,
> isn't there? It doesn't have an *intrinsic* monetary value, i
On Tue, May 5, 2009 at 6:28 PM, Anthony wrote:
> On Tue, May 5, 2009 at 5:42 PM, Thomas Dalton wrote:
>
>> You say "marginal utility" rather than just "utility",
>> but I don't pay a different amount for my first glass of water each
>> day than my second, even though the first is far more useful
On Tue, May 5, 2009 at 5:42 PM, Thomas Dalton wrote:
> 2009/5/5 Anthony :
> > I think economics does apply here because we are specifically asking an
> > economic question - how best to allocate our present resources (should
> the
> > WMF buy a server, or etch stuff on nickel plates). And I don't
David Goodman wrote:
> That is like saying, . Why should i backup my computer now, when there
> will be high capacity media in a few years, or when the next version
> of the OS will do it automatically.
>
> or, more closely,
> why should a books scanning project even be bothered with now. In
> fut
If scanning involves destroying or harming the books, which it does, and
future technologies can scan the pages without actually opening the books,
then it's clear which solution I would choose. In many cases we have extra
books though.
On Tue, May 5, 2009 at 3:48 PM, David Goodman wrote:
> That
That is like saying, . Why should i backup my computer now, when there
will be high capacity media in a few years, or when the next version
of the OS will do it automatically.
or, more closely,
why should a books scanning project even be bothered with now. In
future generation we might well have s
2009/5/5 Anthony :
> I think economics does apply here because we are specifically asking an
> economic question - how best to allocate our present resources (should the
> WMF buy a server, or etch stuff on nickel plates). And I don't think values
> have to be monetary in order to apply economic p
On Tue, May 5, 2009 at 2:24 PM, Thomas Dalton wrote:
> 2009/5/5 Anthony :
> > Not true. I'm considering the historical value, but I'm recognizing the
> > fact that it must be heavily discounted due to the fact that it takes
> place
> > so far in the future.
>
> I'm not convinced that discounting
On Tue, May 5, 2009 at 7:13 AM, David Gerard wrote:
> 2009/5/5 Aryeh Gregor :
>
>> Of course, since all of Wikimedia's data is freely available, anyone
>> else who'd like to store it in some durable form for any sum of money
>> is absolutely free to do so. Or they could give Wikimedia a directed
2009/5/5 Anthony :
> Not true. I'm considering the historical value, but I'm recognizing the
> fact that it must be heavily discounted due to the fact that it takes place
> so far in the future.
I'm not convinced that discounting to present value applies here. You
can't describe all of life in te
On Tue, May 5, 2009 at 12:09 PM, Thomas Dalton wrote:
> 2009/5/5 Anthony :
> > I would put a pretty large bet on the fact that someone is going to think
> > they need to keep Wikipedia long past the point where it's worth it to
> keep
> > it. Wrong decisions will be made to delete or oversight co
Because the rate of change of technological progress has presumably been
slower than it will be over the next 3000 years. Then again, given an AI
capable of digesting an enormous amount of information (for example, reading
the Wikipedia of 2050), it might find Brittany Spears just as interesting as
2009/5/5 Chad :
> In 3000 years, nobody will give a rat's ass about Britney Spears'
> discography (again, to pick a random example of "pop culture").
> That's a bet I'm willing to make.
Then why is this article so long:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Art_of_Ancient_Egypt
__
On Tue, May 5, 2009 at 12:51 PM, David Gerard wrote:
> 2009/5/5 Chad :
>
>> In 3000 years, nobody will give a rat's ass about Britney Spears'
>> discography (again, to pick a random example of "pop culture").
>> That's a bet I'm willing to make.
>
>
> Depends if they rediscover "publish or perish"
2009/5/5 Chad :
> In 3000 years, nobody will give a rat's ass about Britney Spears'
> discography (again, to pick a random example of "pop culture").
> That's a bet I'm willing to make.
Depends if they rediscover "publish or perish". The academic rat race
is a study in squeezing blood from whate
On Tue, May 5, 2009 at 12:09 PM, Thomas Dalton wrote:
> 2009/5/5 Anthony :
>> I would put a pretty large bet on the fact that someone is going to think
>> they need to keep Wikipedia long past the point where it's worth it to keep
>> it. Wrong decisions will be made to delete or oversight content
2009/5/5 Anthony :
> I would put a pretty large bet on the fact that someone is going to think
> they need to keep Wikipedia long past the point where it's worth it to keep
> it. Wrong decisions will be made to delete or oversight content, but
> whatever isn't oversighted or deleted will be kept b
On Tue, May 5, 2009 at 10:57 AM, Aryeh Gregor
> wrote:
> But if you don't postulate a catastrophic event that we can't plan
> for, like civilization ending due to an overnight thermonuclear war,
> then we don't need to plan in advance.
If you're building a fallout shelter, it wouldn't hurt to i
On Tue, May 5, 2009 at 11:29 AM, Thomas Dalton wrote:
> You make a good point, but that point applies just as well to any
> other time capsule plan and people still consider them worthwhile.
If you really want to spend your time and efforts based on what "people
still consider worthwhile"...
Oh
On Tue, May 5, 2009 at 10:12 AM, Thomas Dalton wrote:
> 2009/5/5 Aryeh Gregor
>
> >:
> > The utility of this project is virtually
> > zero from any perspective.
>
> I disagree. The short term utility is obviously zero, but the long
> term utility could be massive.
But what about the current pr
On Tue, May 5, 2009 at 11:29 AM, Thomas Dalton wrote:
> You make a good point, but that point applies just as well to any
> other time capsule plan and people still consider them worthwhile.
I don't. I think they're fairly silly.
> However, most information isn't lost because of disaster, it is
2009/5/5 Thomas Dalton :
> However, most information isn't lost because of disaster, it is lost
> because people don't think they need it any more and delete/destroy
> it. Can we trust whoever is around in the future to continue to
> preserve the history dumps they've backed up?
As I said, the I
2009/5/5 Aryeh Gregor :
> On Tue, May 5, 2009 at 10:32 AM, Thomas Dalton
> wrote:
>> But rebuilding civilisation is probably not the most likely use such
>> archives would be put to (it's just the most exciting, so the one I
>> mentioned). The historical and cultural value 1000 years from now of
On Tue, May 5, 2009 at 10:32 AM, Thomas Dalton wrote:
> But rebuilding civilisation is probably not the most likely use such
> archives would be put to (it's just the most exciting, so the one I
> mentioned). The historical and cultural value 1000 years from now of
> knowing what people 1000 years
2009/5/5 Aryeh Gregor :
> On Tue, May 5, 2009 at 10:12 AM, Thomas Dalton
> wrote:
>> I disagree. The short term utility is obviously zero, but the long
>> term utility could be massive. The contents of Wikimedia projects
>> could play a vital role in rebuilding civilisation - I call that
>> usefu
On Tue, May 5, 2009 at 10:12 AM, Thomas Dalton wrote:
> 2009/5/5 Aryeh Gregor :
>> The utility of this project is virtually
>> zero from any perspective.
>
> I disagree. The short term utility is obviously zero, but the long
> term utility could be massive. The contents of Wikimedia projects
> cou
On Tue, May 5, 2009 at 10:12 AM, Thomas Dalton wrote:
> I disagree. The short term utility is obviously zero, but the long
> term utility could be massive. The contents of Wikimedia projects
> could play a vital role in rebuilding civilisation - I call that
> useful.
Assuming civilization collaps
2009/5/5 Aryeh Gregor :
> Of course, since all of Wikimedia's data is freely available, anyone
> else who'd like to store it in some durable form for any sum of money
> is absolutely free to do so. Or they could give Wikimedia a directed
> grant. But it would be a waste of Wikimedia's money.
T
2009/5/5 Aryeh Gregor :
> The utility of this project is virtually
> zero from any perspective.
I disagree. The short term utility is obviously zero, but the long
term utility could be massive. The contents of Wikimedia projects
could play a vital role in rebuilding civilisation - I call that
usef
On Tue, May 5, 2009 at 9:17 AM, Thomas Dalton wrote:
> Certainly not large amounts of funds any time soon. If it could be
> done for $5k, I'd recommend doing it with WMF funds.
I'm pretty sure buying another server or offering a slightly higher
salary on the next job offering or just leaving the
2009/5/5 Anthony :
> On Tue, May 5, 2009 at 12:02 AM, Tim Starling wrote:
>
>> Personally I think it would be a waste of general funds, since I don't
>> expect we'll see the end of civilisation any time in the next year or
>> two.
>
>
> Umm, if civilization ends, we won't be around to see it, and t
On Tue, May 5, 2009 at 12:02 AM, Tim Starling wrote:
> Personally I think it would be a waste of general funds, since I don't
> expect we'll see the end of civilisation any time in the next year or
> two.
Umm, if civilization ends, we won't be around to see it, and the Wikimedia
Foundation missi
On Tue, May 5, 2009 at 12:02 AM, Tim Starling wrote:
>
> I can tell you what the Rosetta folks would say: they would say that
> they paid $125k to Norsam for 5 prototype discs, and that we are free
> to do the same. Norsam have developed this technology at great cost
> and expect a commercial retu
46 matches
Mail list logo
