Alexander Johannesen wrote:
>... (the 2003 estimates are no
> good; "According to an IBM study, by 2010, the amount of digital
> information in the world will double every 11 hours.";
They meant data. But even so, by now, every atom in the entire universe
would crack from an overload of bits it would have to carry.
That statement is unbelievable rubbish, exponential growth is
unsustainable, attempts end in disaster.
> but it is *ever* changing! The Internet doesn't stand still...
>...
> Make your own goddamn search engine! Compete with Google, ...
I'm not sure whether the entire hardware base in libraries on this
planet is anywhere close to Google's infrastructure, in substance
as well as in potential and connectivity. Let's not speak of
staff either. Oh I know, you are dreaming of something really smart
that requires no overkill machinery of planetary proportions.
A fine pipe dream, but I bet you are not the first to dream it.
Many others have struggled to out-Google the giant. To what effect?
> ... Where is the search engine that values knowledge rather
> than ads? Where is the search engine that archives the good stuff, who
> rates content, references and finds subjects, and makes good
> categorizing of it?
>
Up until now, that imaginary engine can run only on natural, not
artificial intelligence. And it seems to me that the artificial one can
only ever achieve a correlation with the real thing, not an
approximation to it. (The former can come close in some points and stray
spectacularly in others, the latter comes closer and closer in all
points. But for both, to come closer always gets harder.)
>
> You know, the library once was such a place where idealistic thinking
> bloomed. I don't see it anymore, and it saddens me *greatly* that the
> library I love and respect seems unable to move at a pace that will
> save it from going under.
>
May it be that you loved and respected the library because it did
not change and double every 11 hours?
B.Eversberg
Received on Tue Jul 06 2010 - 02:25:30 EDT