3 ms·

Is it really that much a of problem that we won't be able to run specific software from sometime in the past? Historically relevant software should leave behin

Is it really that much a of problem that we won't be able to run specific software from sometime in the past? Historically relevant software should leave behind enough cultural artifacts that its impact can still be understood regardless of the ability to re-run that software as it existed originally. (video evidence, writings about the medium etc...) Imagine the case of emulators to see how this can easily become a recursive paradox. Today we have emulators that allows us to run most software from the beginning of computation. Will it be relevant to be able to run those emulators 100 years from now in their current form?

talmand 11y ago
There's a difference between studying something based on people's reactions to the subject as opposed to studying the subject itself. That would be like researching an old movie from just critic reviews without watching the movie itself. Depending on the purpose of the study you would want one, the other, or both.
itsybitsycoder 11y ago
Historians have always considered artefacts more valuable the closer they are to the original event. This is because the more steps removed you are, the more bias and mistakes can creep in, like a game of telephone. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Primary_source http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Primary_source
- glaberficken 11y ago
  Yes I understand the argument about primary sources =). My point is about the feasibility side of it (or lack of it). Why should we have the expectation that we are going to be able to archive everything just because now information is stored digitally? Seems a bit delusional assuming that it is possible at all to archive everything... well I agree that theoretically it is possible, but in practice as we are already seeing barriers pop up all the time. I would bet ancient people were faced with the same problems when dealing with written information.

talmand 11y ago

There's a difference between studying something based on people's reactions to the subject as opposed to studying the subject itself. That would be like researching an old movie from just critic reviews without watching the movie itself. Depending on the purpose of the study you would want one, the other, or both.

itsybitsycoder 11y ago

Historians have always considered artefacts more valuable the closer they are to the original event. This is because the more steps removed you are, the more bias and mistakes can creep in, like a game of telephone. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Primary_source http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Primary_source

glaberficken 11y ago
Yes I understand the argument about primary sources =). My point is about the feasibility side of it (or lack of it). Why should we have the expectation that we are going to be able to archive everything just because now information is stored digitally? Seems a bit delusional assuming that it is possible at all to archive everything... well I agree that theoretically it is possible, but in practice as we are already seeing barriers pop up all the time. I would bet ancient people were faced with the same problems when dealing with written information.