On 20/09/06, geni <geniice(a)gmail.com> wrote:
On 9/20/06, Delirium <delirium(a)hackish.org>
wrote:
> I guess as a reader I don't see the benefit
in *not* covering
> everything. I agree there is a slant towards more coverage of recent
> news events, but that's simply because they're easier to cover. The
> solution, IMO, is not to cover recent events less, but to cover older
> events more. I want to know the equivalent of this stuff for other time
> periods! Were there short-lived but at the time massively-covered
> events in the 1890s, equivalent to today's frenzies over child
> kidnappings? What about the thousands of political scandals, major and
> minor, that have at various times shortened governments' tenures, forced
> cabinet reshuffles, etc., etc.? It's all good info we're missing!
Problem is that a lot of the data that would be useful
in answering
your question is stored on microfilm and there isn't really a quick
way to scan that.
It'll come, it'll come. Dumping everything onto disk scans in the
first instance. Just under two years doubling time. You won't be
*able* to buy a disk smaller than a petabyte in twenty years.
(Googling "hard disk" "moore's law" leads me to [[Moore's
Law]], which
points me to [[Kryder's Law]], which is a useful study in hideous
self-reference and Wikipedia editorial decisions forming neologisms.
I'm so glad [[analogue disc record]] was moved before achieving any
currency anywhere else.)
- d.