Ugh!
Bernhard Eversberg <ev_at_biblio.tu-bs.de> wrote:
> 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.
Just because it's unsustainable doesn't mean that that's not where we
are on the bell curve. Wake up, mate.
> 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.
Huh? If you already had these things I wouldn't be whinging now, would
I? If you were doing it right I wouldn't complain. But you're not. Not
all of it your fault, as resources as sparse; but if you can't defend
hire experts in certain fields and expand yourselves to fix these huge
problems, you won't get those experts, nor the funding, nor the
resources. If you're not putting up a fight, you have already lost.
"We don't have the resources" is slung around as a crap reason for not
dealing with the issue.
> 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?
You don't seem to get it. It's not about out-google anyone; it's about
using similar technologies to do similar things, but with a library
focus.
Btw, what do *you* mean by "really smart"? Because it wouldn't take
much smartness to outsmart what's currently being on offer.
>> 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.)
Ugh. Read this (fast forward to "LEARNING BY READING" for the impatient) ;
http://blog.steinberg.org/?p=11
I've been working in that business. Trust me, you guys don't know jack
about what is possible. And I don't think you *want* to know, because
that stuff doesn't fit into whatever infra structure you've got, it
means rethinking and redoing core values and direction.
> May it be that you loved and respected the library because it did
> not change and double every 11 hours?
No, that's why I love the Internet. How about, no, it was because of
the context and culture built up? I love that stuff! I love the books
and the context and the buildings and the lovely people who work
there. Don't you get it?! Why do you see this paranoid false dichotomy
everywhere?
Regards,
Alex
--
Project Wrangler, SOA, Information Alchemist, UX, RESTafarian, Topic Maps
--- http://shelter.nu/blog/ ----------------------------------------------
------------------ http://www.google.com/profiles/alexander.johannesen ---
Received on Tue Jul 06 2010 - 03:02:52 EDT