ZNAK SAGITE — više od fantastike — edicija, časopis, knjižara...

Kad god budeš imao poriv da me demantuješ, pokušaj da demantuješ sebe. To je lakši put.
Recimo, nikada nisi pravio papir, a ja jesam. Pročitaj još jednom onu Borhesovu priču o čoveku koji je savršeno pamtio jedan jedini dan. Na kraju, zamisli da imam i više i starije rukopise sa kojima se petljam da ih održim u čitljivom stanju.
Možda je bolje da neke važnije stvari zapišemo u kamen.


Eto, Bata našao prvi poklič u nizu onih koji će sjebati svaku aleksandrijsku biblioteku. I Hipatiju su ucapali iz istog razloga.

Ništa nisam shvatio šta ti dispjutuješ u mojim izjavama osim da se obojica slažemo da je kamen trajniji od papira.

Ja, dakle, ne mislim da je prvi problem sa digitalnim arhiviranjem to što digitalni formati nisu trajni, već da je to drugi problem. Kako sam rekao, problem sa trajnošću će možda nastupiti za deceniju ili dve najpre jer će tehnologije potrebne da se čita taj materijal biti tržišno potisnute, ali će problem sa pristupačnošću početi odmah jer za razliku od indeksiranih papirnih arhiva, skenovi ili digitalne fotografije tih istih arhiva neće imati lak način da se pretraže.

to ti tvrdiš ili si pročitao negdje?

u stvari, interesuje me kakvi se sve problemi stvaraju prilikom digitalizacije arhiva, pošto su do sada tvrdili da to sve glatko i savršeno ide. Ako imaš neki tekst tog tipa...

Ne tvrdim, ali slutim, a video si i sam u tekstu:

Quote"The people who use this research don't have any say in what is being saved or tossed aside," says Debi Daviau, president of the Professional Institute of the Public Service of Canada, which represents federal scientists.Tales of a shambolic "weeding" process, where books and documents deemed unnecessary were given away or trashed, have heightened fears that crucial environmental data will no longer be available to scientists. "It's a travesty," says Alain Sinclair, a federal fisheries scientist who retired four years ago and a former member of the Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada, the body mandated by federal law to advise the government on species at risk. "It's a real blow to the ability of people to do research," he added in a phone interview from B.C.

Dakle, sami naučnici koji koriste arhive nisu bili deo procesa digitalne prezervacije tih arhiva, a proces je način da državna administracija uštedi novac i, mnogi gunđaju, način da politička agenda koja poriče climate change uništi dokumentaciju koja bi taj climate change potvrdila na način kako to tvrde da se događa ti neki envajronmentalisti itd.

To sve na stranu, kako sami naučnici nisu imali pristup procesu digitalizacije, a taj proces je izveden pre svega kao mera štednje, meni je vrlo prirodno da pomislim kako nije bilo ni OCRovanja ni nekog velikog napora da se digitalne arhive učine pretraživim onako kako bi digitalna dokumentacija trebalo da bude po današnjim standardima, jer bi to naprosto koštalo previše. Dobar deo komentara na ovaj članak koje sam video onlajn (na primer na slešdotu) pominju druge slične poduhvate koji su dali samo gomilu beskorisnih PDF fajlova na kojima se em ništa ne vidi zahvaljujući lošem skeniranju em se ne mogu pretražiti nikako sem ručno.

Zameram ti ono šta ne razumem. Ne razumem potrebu da se bude, po svaku cenu, poslednji i po najnevažnijem pitanju.


Naravno da nam svima već bode oči problem pretraživanja. Čak, više nismo sigurni šta je podatak, a šta lupetanje. Ali, to nije prvi problem, jer su dugoročne slabosti daleko veći problem, a hronološko ređanje prevara. Tržišni napor da se generiše što naprednija softverska i hardverska baza ima za posledicu problem reproduktivnosti zabeleženih podataka, koji vodi u besmisleno bekapovanje baze podataka. Hronološki, taj problem je drugi po redu, ali po težini problema je ispred pretraživanja. Treći problem, a zapravo najveći je trajnost zabeleženih podataka u bazi. Zato sam pomenuo zapise u kamenu.


Kao dotrajali tehnolog, još se sećam redosleda u oceni nekog porizvoda: upotrebljivost, reproduktivnost (održavanje) i trajnost. Ima jasnih podataka da je najlakše nešto proizvesti, da je daleko skuplje održavanje, a od najvećeg značaja trajnost. Savremeni manir ponude na tržištu je dugoročno beskrajno štetan, pa se možedogoditi da nam potomci jednog dana raspolažu samo oni šta je urezano u kamenu.


Jel' to dovoljno?

Pa, dovoljno je utoliko što se sad preganjamo na semantičkom planu  A tu ti, kao pismen imaš beskrajnu prednost nadamnom, nepismenim.

Dakle, ako trajnost dolazi na red tek kad naši potomci stasaju za to da koriste naučne podatke arhivirane u našem vremenu onda meni zvuči kao da sam u pravu kad kažem da je prvi problem sa ovakvim arhiviranjem to što se smanjuje mogućnost upotrebe takve arhive u NAŠE vreme.

znači da pokupujem sve dobre knjige dok ih još ima?

ne vjerujem da je moguće da tehnologije pandrkne, jer i ovdje se vidi da iz nekih finansijskih-političkih razloga propada arhiva, dakle i dalje su to iste priče kao i prije 2000 godina

ali ipak mi zvuči nevjerovatno da u nekoj daljoj budućnosti neće postojati bar konverter formata, potpuno bi bezumno bilo da ne prilagode softver, mada sve nas to vraća na stari problem keša i ljudske nepažnje, a ne tehnologije

i stara biblioteka bi propala kada bi joj desetkovali kadar

Pa, ja zato i pričam o tome da će tržište i način na koje ono menja tehnologije dostupne u datom momentu biti problem. Nije da danas ne postoji način da pročitaš flopi disk namenjen kompjuteru Commodore 64 iz 1983. godine, samo je taj način LUDAČKI komplikovan i skup. E, sad, ako je arhiva instituta u kome radiš pohranjena na takve flopije tokom osamdesetih, jer je neko video progres u tom smeru, i, zbog štednje para, nije kasnije prebacivana na nove formate, tebi je ona danas fizički dostupna ali praktično nedostupna. Ne znam koliko je ovo čest problem, statistički gledano, ali sam pesimista.

De si flopije našo flopi pogledaš malo strože, a on rikne.

Pa, i CD koji je pre dvadesetpet godina bio čudo tehnologije se u smislu trajnosti prezervacije podataka pokazuje kao relativno nezadovoljavajuće rešenje. Popularnost optičkih medja u odnosu na magnetne je došla na ime toga što im je cena jako brzo pala a ne zato što su superiorniji u smislu trajanja...

 


Sasvim je moguće da si ti u pravu (čitaj dole ostatak).


Jednom davno kad sam se ja bavio istraživačkim radom, kolege su uvek smatrale da je tuđa problematika lakša i jednostavnija od njihove. Na sreću, nijednom šefu nije palo na um da im problematike zameni, pa da svi uživaju umesto da se muče. Zato ti i dalje veruj da je problem u čitanju danas, a ne jednog dana.


Malo i za Batu, da ne ostane prikraćen, mada je Meho prilično dobro odgovorio.


Možeš ti da pokupuješ sve dobre knjige, ali problem sa trajnošću je prično - trajan. Naime, već skoro dve stotine godina nemamo pouzdane tehnologije proizvodnje papira, tako da je veća šansa za očuvanje imati knjige stare 250 godina, što je gotovo nemoguće. Papirna pulpa, veziva, pa i pigmenti za štampu su u velikoj meri izrazito organskog porekla, pa je trajnost veoma ograničena. Jedno vreme sam sanjario da papir i pigmente za svoje knjige pravim sam. Tako bih zajebao sve dobitnike NiNove nagrade.


Sigurno da će u bliskoj budućnosti postojati "konverteri formata", ali nisam siguran da li će postojati "konverteri konvetera". Tako će se znati šta je objavila "Laguna", a ne šta su objavili "Everest media" ili "Tardis". Ili drugim rečima, znaćemo i dalje sve o grčkom Panteonu, a gotovo ništa o tračkim htonskim bogovima. Da budem maliciozan, neko će odjebati sve ono o čemu si do sada učio i imaćeš samo podatke o onima sa kojima se nikada nisi slagao il za njih čuo.

To je sve zatista jedan isti problem koji se replicira kroz istoriju. Evo, staroegipatska civilizacija je postojala hiljadama godina i ostavila veoma trajne zapise u kamenu pa je tumačenje njihovih zapisa bilo problem milenijumima. Dakle, imali smo svu informaciju na izvolte, na trajnom medijumu, ali nismo imali način da je dekriptujemo. Još u petom veku je urađen predlog dekripcije/ prevoda ovog pisma - veoma netačan - pa je onda prošao i ceo srednji vek pa i renesansa, da bi tek u dubokom prosvetiteljstvu i to nakon otkrića rozete (krajem osamnaestog veka) postalo moguće dekriptovati ih. Znači, informacija je bila sačuvana, medijum ju je preneo do nas, ali je nestao softver za dekrpiciju i morao je biti reverse-engineerovan od strane naučnika koji su imali državne pare da to rade jer su države to tada doživljavale kao dobru investiciju. Za dvadeset godina od danas će fajlovi rađeni u macromedia flashu biti nečitljivi za sve osim za najljuće hardcore hakere a reverse engineering potreban da bi se otvorili će biti em suludo skup em nezakonit.

da, ali KO je 1983. nešto prevodio u digitalni format?

pouzdano znam da je Al Gor kupio prvi kompjuter u Bijeloj kući, dakle 1992. godine

čisto sumnjam da je biblioteka Kongresa počela digitalizaciju prije 30 godina

a sve što je u eri windowsa mislim da ne može biti izgubljeno
povrh toga, biblioteka koja je digitalizovala mora i da odradi konvertovanje

btw, imam ja flopi 15 godina star koji radi!
doduše, nije korišćem, ali sve dokumente koje je imao sam povadio neoštećene

inače, valja napomenuti da čak i u vrijeme svitaka, glinenih ploča i papirusa, opstala je samo Laguna Platona i Aristotela a Everest Media Demokrita i Heraklita je poprilično nestala

dakle, kao što reče Meho, to nije ništa novo

uostalom, dovoljno je da jedna biblioteka na planeti uradi krštenu digitalizaciju

Ma, dobro, ja dajem nasumičan primer. Situacija je zapravo još gora  Pre trideset godina su arhive sa papira uobičajeno prebacivane na mikrofilmove, dakle na analogni format za koji danas, da bi pročitao, moraš da imaš vrlo specifičnu opremu koja načelno nije komercijalno dostupna niti za nju postoji mnogo servisa.

Drugo, bojim se da imaš SUMANUTO poverenje u "eru windowsa". Da li znaš koji je recimo bio preferirani spreadsheet program pre samo dvadeset godina u svetu ozbiljnog biznisa? Lotus 1-2-3, naravno. Excel danas ne može da otvori fajlove koje je pravio ovaj program. Ista firma je imala i popularan tekst-procesor, word pro i pogađaš, fajlovi koje je pravio word pro ne mogu se otvoriti danas popularnim tekst-procesorima (onima iz MS Officea ali ni onima iz Apache Open officea ili Libre Officea). Moja firma u kojoj sam radio do 2012. godine je koristila Word Pro (i Lotus 1-2-3) sve do 2005. godine. Kod kuće imam harddisk prepun arhiviranih dokumenata iz prve tri godine mog rada tamo koje danas ne mogu da otvorim bez trošenja mnogo novca ili korišćenja ilegalnog softvera.

A ovo je samo anegdotalni lični primer. "Era Windowsa" je era free market kapitalizma (silikonska dolina je u mnogo smislova libertarijanska utopija) a jedna od posledica toga je da mnoge tehnologije nastaju, budu jako popularne neko vreme a onda ih tržište ubije pre nego što iko stigne da smisli način da se informacija koju je ta tehnologija kreirala/ arhivirala prevede u neki oblik koji će je učiniti dostupnim narednoj generaciji. Dakle, naglašavam da se ovde ne radi o tome da recimo forenzičar sa velikim budžetom ne može da otvori stari fajl, već da normalna osoba, sa normalnim budžetom ne može da priušti da otvori stari fajl.


Ovo je samo jedan od razloga što digitalna levica insistira na open source tehnologiji. Closed source tehnologija, zaštićena patentima i komercijalnim preprekama je vrlo loša za čuvanje informacije.

Eto, sve znate samo biste da to i pokažete. Ja više nemam šta da dodam.

dobro, ali što se mikrofilmova tiče, jasno je da biblioteke imaju opremu za to, tako da je to i najmanji problem. doduše, naše biblioteke nisu ni koristile mikrofilm, bar ne u nekoj značajnoj mjeri

to što ozbiljan biznis ima problema sa formatima nije baš egzistencijalno pitanje za baštinu čovječanstva

open source u svakom slučaju može da otvori svaki doc format, kao i pdf, jpg, ja ne vidim razlog da ta tri formata nestanu jer su mnogo duže prisutni i mnogo rašireniji u populaciji

mene mnogo više brine što pdf zamjenjuju nekim epubmobidjvu sranjem, mada većinu toga Adobe otvara

možda je bila frka u prvim divljim godinama, ali mislim da Adobe i Microsoft teško mogu sada da nestanu

prije će facebook i twitter da se ugase nego ove dvije firme

stabilizovana je situacija i treba se držati njihovih formata

Quote from: scallop on 17-01-2014, 15:29:37
Eto, sve znate samo biste da to i pokažete. Ja više nemam šta da dodam.

Pa jeste, iskoristili smo priliku da se dohvatimo večitih tema.  Meni je ovo inače nešto o čemu često razmišljam jer mnoge igre stare jedva dvadeset godina danas je nemoguće legalno igrati sem ako ne potrošiš novac koji bi te svrstao u 1% najbogatije populacije - pre svega zahvaljujući closed source tehnologiji i tržišnim zakonitostima.

Bato, rekoh već da mislim da previše veruješ u stabilnost biznisa koji zapravo uopšte nije tako stabilan. Već rekoh, biblioteke i arhive koje imaju materijal mikrofilmovan nemaju NOVU tehnologiju da te mikrofilmove pregledaju, već samo staru koja se kvari i teško popravlja, a takođe nemaju pristupačnu tehnologiju da te mikrofilmove lako digitalizuju i digitalnu arhivu učine pretraživom. Sve je to dakle, tehnološki moguće ali je finansijski problematično. Dakle, baštinu čovečanstva ugrožavaju budžetska ograničenja, pre svega.

I open source jeste dobro rešenje, zato ga i pominjem, ali opet moramo imati na umu ovo drugo što pominjem: da bi open source softver mogao da otvori closed source format, on mora da ili dobije uvid u closed source kod od strane vlasnika patenta tog koda ili da ga reverse engineeruje. Ono prvo je finansijska prepreka za ogromnu većinu ljudi koji rade u open source okruženju (jer su u njega i ušli delom zato što im je closed source okruženje finansijski neizdrživo). Ovo drugo je legalna prepreka, pogotovo otkad korporacije imaju moć da proguraju zakone kao što je DMCA koji kriminalizuje reverse engineering ako uopšte postoji pretpostavka da bi se njime mogao prekršiti bilo koji drugi zakon.

Treće, ne bih se ja oslanjao na to da će Windows ili Adobe biti tržišni predvodnici ili čak da će postojati za dvadeset godina. Lotus koji je osamdesetih godina bio gigant u odnosu na Microsoft i dalje postoji ali je gotovo sve što je pohranjeno u nekom od njegovih closed source formata tebi nedostupno. Pre samo deset godina je flopi disk bio najrašireniji medijum za čuvanje digitalnih podataka u poslovnom i privatnom okruženju. Danas praktično ne možeš da kupiš kompjuter sa flopi drajvom. Ko je stigao/ imao para da prebaci podatke na optičke medije, stigao je. Taj se sada suočava sa širenjem filozofije koja optičke medije potiskuje za račun cloud storagea. Dakle, sad sve sa DVDjeva treba da prebacimo na (ironično, ponovo magnetni medij) server nekog komercijalnog storage provajdera. Misliš da mnoge biblioteke i razne druge (nekomercijalne ili komercijalne) arhive raznih instituta nisu prošle ovaj put?

Svako doba ima svoje probleme. Ranije je problem bio sporo i skupo kopiranje i skladištenje tekuće informacije, a danas je problem skupo pribavljanje i konvertovanje stare informacije.

Neću ništa da vam pričam o trajnosti emulzija i fotoosetljivog pigmenta. Zabluda je slatki zalogaj.

Jasno. Ali danas devedeset posto SVIH fotografija nkada ne vidi "materijalnu" formu već postoje ili samo kao digitalni zapisi na propadljivim fleš memorijama i harddiskovima (čiji je životni vek DALEKO kraći od papira ili filma) ili, još gore, kao postovi na instagramu. U slučaju zombi apokalipse koja bi ostavila svet bez pouzdanog snabdevanja električnom energijom, mi ne bismo imali praktično ni jednu zabelešku o tome kako je svet izgledao u poslednjih pet godina* 
















* blago preterivanje zarad komičnog efekta

zašto bi bilo ko prebacivao na cloud ili instagram bilo šta što mu stvarno znači? to nek rade hipsteri

možda sam ja optimista, ali uvijek kad se priča o zastarjevanju i kvarenju neke tehnologije ja se sjetim kubanskih automobila koji rade a stariji su od svih ljudi na forumu

finansije su uvijek problem, ali održavanje arhiva je oduvijek bilo skupo, štaviše, mislim da je u prošlosti bilo i skuplje

i da, svakako da mi više nemamo sve firme koje je imao Rokfeler, ali one koje jesu opstale, posebno naftne - zar neko sumnja da će biti vječne? Vječnije od nafte, to je moje mišljenje. BIće tu i kada Sunca ne bude

Period krvave akumulacije je završen, Microsoft je toliko na vrhu da više ne mora ni da bude kreativan, samo da kupi tog kreativca i ubaci ga u svoj kod

Microsoft više nije puka privatna korporacija, ili bi bar meni bilo suviše neozbiljno da država ne upliće prste u nešto o čega sada itekako zavisi (siguran sam da postoji razrađeni plan za borbu protiv zombi apokalipse!)

mislim, ono je gore tekst o nekoj kanadskoj biblioteci, teško da će se to desiti u Njemačkoj


uostalom, ne mislim da će biblioteke pobacati originale, a kada bi nestalo sve što je čovječanstvo stvorilo u zadnjih 15 godina ne bi bila neka šteta

Knjigu Svetlane Perišić, "Predmeti od kosti, roga i kamena" sam bukvalno nagazio u jednom od hodnika Biblioteke Grada Beograda. Pokupio sam je i sad je gledam. Ispuštena, skliznula u nekom od bacanja. Možda ne vredi ništa, ali ja je i dalje povremeno prelistam. Možda ne vredi ništa, ali ja znam kako je to deljano u mlađem neolitu.

Quote from: Meho Krljic on 17-01-2014, 15:03:47
Za dvadeset godina od danas će fajlovi rađeni u macromedia flashu biti nečitljivi za sve osim za najljuće hardcore hakere a reverse engineering potreban da bi se otvorili će biti em suludo skup em nezakonit.

U romanu 'Cosmonaut keep' Kena Meklauda pedesetak godina od danas, bradati hakeri vise u kafićima i reklamiraju set specifičnih veština kojima raspolažu noseći majice sa izbledelim logoima Oracle, Microsoft i sa pingvina : )

'Old programmers never die, thej just move over to legacy systems.'
Mali gikovski intermeco, samo nastavite

mazno si knjigu, scallope!

pa da, ali ta biblioteka se renovirala koliko se sjećam, dakle renovirala se da bi držala upravo knjige, a ne digitalnu bazu, možda je ispustila tu knjigu ali namjera je i dalje da se analogno ne baca (iako je neko ukrao Lakana, ruke mu otpale dabogda)

pa i sada imamo sabrana djela Slobodana Jovanovića u digitalnoj biblioteci, i Politiku do 1941. godine, ali ne vjerujem da su originali bačeni

niko se još ne oslanja samo na digitalne formate, ali onda kada se budu oslanjali to će biti toliko uniformisano da nikakvo tržište to neće moći da izdrobi

pa bilo je i drugih videokaseta sem VHS-a pa gdje su sad. Uniformizacija, standardizacija, masovna proizvodnja, sve je to back to the future

Ti se sećaš?   Ta knjiga je kod mene poslednjih dvadeset godina.

pa jbg, nisi rekao kad si je zdipio!

prije nekoliko godina se renovirala biblioteka, bilo je čisto rasulo s knjigama

Quote from: Bata Živojinović on 17-01-2014, 16:21:27
zašto bi bilo ko prebacivao na cloud ili instagram bilo šta što mu stvarno znači? to nek rade hipsteri

možda sam ja optimista, ali uvijek kad se priča o zastarjevanju i kvarenju neke tehnologije ja se sjetim kubanskih automobila koji rade a stariji su od svih ljudi na forumu

finansije su uvijek problem, ali održavanje arhiva je oduvijek bilo skupo, štaviše, mislim da je u prošlosti bilo i skuplje

i da, svakako da mi više nemamo sve firme koje je imao Rokfeler, ali one koje jesu opstale, posebno naftne - zar neko sumnja da će biti vječne? Vječnije od nafte, to je moje mišljenje. BIće tu i kada Sunca ne bude

Period krvave akumulacije je završen, Microsoft je toliko na vrhu da više ne mora ni da bude kreativan, samo da kupi tog kreativca i ubaci ga u svoj kod

Microsoft više nije puka privatna korporacija, ili bi bar meni bilo suviše neozbiljno da država ne upliće prste u nešto o čega sada itekako zavisi (siguran sam da postoji razrađeni plan za borbu protiv zombi apokalipse!)

mislim, ono je gore tekst o nekoj kanadskoj biblioteci, teško da će se to desiti u Njemačkoj


uostalom, ne mislim da će biblioteke pobacati originale, a kada bi nestalo sve što je čovječanstvo stvorilo u zadnjih 15 godina ne bi bila neka šteta

Ja bih voleo da imam tvoj optimizam, naravno. Ali pošto sam stariji, onda sam po prirodi džangrizaviji 

No, da sumiramo jer se mi ovde i ne raspravljamo sa nekih specijalno razdvojenih stanovišta: moj strah je pre svega vezan za to da: a) tehnologije napreduju brže nego ikad što podrazumeva sve veće cene transfera informacije iz formata u format jer su te transformacije sve češće i kompleksnije (od digitalnog formata očekujemo pretraživost i dostupnost kakve ranije nismo tražili), dok istovremeno b) opšti stav društava koje imaju tehnologiju je da je najbolje prepustiti razvoj tehnologije privatnom sektoru dok c) ta ista društava gotovo uniformno smatraju da javni sektor mora da štedi što više i tako su institucije često uterivane u saradnje sa privatnicima dok d) te iste privatnike ne ograničava ništa sem projekcije sopstvenih zarada i gubitaka. Tako američke obaveštajne agencije na kraju subkontraktuju privatnike da prisluškuju američke građane pa im se dogodi Snowden. Tako, bojim se i američke biblioteke svoje digitalne arhive poveravaju Microsoft Skydriveu ili već nekom drugom cloud storageu koji (zbog kombinacije tržišnih faktora, ali i faktora politike vezane za zaštitu intelektualne svojine) naprosto nije future proof onoliko koliko je to štampana knjiga (koja opet, zbog svoje fizičke propadljivosti nije "siguran" medij). Itd.

Quote from: Bata Živojinović on 17-01-2014, 16:21:27
zašto bi bilo ko prebacivao na cloud ili instagram bilo šta što mu stvarno znači? to nek rade hipsteri

hipsteri će jednog dana sve što je difitalizovano početi da vraćaju u papirnu formu.

da, ja sve te likove nazivam hipsterima, iako je tačnije ovo što tomat priča. Radikalni hipsteri bi ponovo organizovali Resavsku školu i krasnopisom ručno ''konvertovali'' knjige iz pdf-a i epub-a!

Hipsteri pozeri nose naočare i tablete!

Ovo što Meho spominje je gotvo izvjesno ako su države toliko propale da su spremne da žrtvuju sopstvenu kulturu. Dakle, moj optimizam se bazira samo na tome da države nisu toliko prsle, i da još imaju snage uprkos globalizaciji. Ako one to prepuste raznim privatnicima naravno da će sve propasti.

Ali interesuje me ovo pod a)
zar misliš da Google neće odraditi taj posao?

Pa, mislim da smo odavno izgubili poverenje u Google. Istina je da su sa androidom doveli open source softver na ogroman broj telefona i na tome ih moramo pohvaliti, ali istina je i da je njihov don't be evil slogan odavno prestao da išta vredi, da su net neutralityju okrenuli leđa čim su sami ušli u biznis internet provajdinga itd. tako da nemam previše nade u njih. Hoću reći, počinje da ozbiljno deluje da je cena koju plaćamo za googleove usluge previsoka za ono što nam daju, pa onda ovakve izjave deluju sasvim proročanski i nisam siguran da je to firma kojoj možemo da poverimo staranje o našoj kolektivnoj baštini.   

Quote from: Bata Živojinović on 17-01-2014, 21:07:55
Dakle, moj optimizam se bazira samo na tome da države nisu toliko prsle, i da još imaju snage uprkos globalizaciji. Ako one to prepuste raznim privatnicima naravno da će sve propasti.

Ako pretpostavimo da nas tvoja rečenica može vratiti u topik, bilo bi zgodno da svoj optimizam revaluiraš na primeru šta planira Detroit da se izvuče iz svoje bule. Zgodno je što razmišljaju i o rasprodaji muzejskih postavki. Jebe se državi za njihove muke što su najveći proizvođači izmestili svoje proizvodnje u Budžumburu ili neku drugu državu sa mufte radnom snagom, a oni koji su imali pare zbrisali iz grada. Municipalna teritorija grada je veličina Bačke, a negde sam pročitao i sada tamo ima cca. 100000 stanovnika koji još ne znaju gde bi. Zamalo Zombieland.

ne, ne mislim na staranje već na taj neki ultimate reader/player koji čita sve formate

njima je maltene u najsebičnijem interesu da to razviju


scallope, ne vidim kako kultura išta gubi time što Detroit nestaje sa mape. Šta sad i da prodaju muzejske postavke, biće prenesene u drugi grad i to je to. Ovdje pričamo o nekoj dostupnosti baštine, a ona je dostupna gdje god bila


kad je digitalna može da bude u jednom gradu za čitavu planetu, pitanje je samo da li je to tehnološki održivo i da lipostoji interes za to


je li naša baština preživjela Turke ili nije?

Quote from: Bata Živojinović on 17-01-2014, 21:43:00

scallope, ne vidim kako kultura išta gubi time što Detroit nestaje sa mape. Šta sad i da prodaju muzejske postavke, biće prenesene u drugi grad i to je to. Ovdje pričamo o nekoj dostupnosti baštine, a ona je dostupna gdje god bila

Tvoj odgovor više nije u okviru rečenice koju sam komentarisao. Mada sam očekivao tako nešto.

Quote from: Bata Živojinović on 17-01-2014, 21:43:00
je li naša baština preživjela Turke ili nije?

Naravno da nije. Osim ako ne misliš da je ono šta je preživelo sva naša baština. Jel' zaista misliš da smo imali samo Jefimijin vez? Đe nam je, bolan, muzika, gradska arhitektura, likovna umetnost?

muzika koju SPC i dalje smatra satanističkom ili gradovi koje nismo ni imali? Mi nismo nikad ni imali renesansu, samo ikone

ne kažem da se dosta toga nije izgubilo, već je to više primjer da jednostavno ne može da se izgubi nešto osim ako ljudi to ne žele da izgube

dovoljno je bilo par manastira da sačuva najvažnije

Quote from: scallop on 17-01-2014, 21:59:46

Tvoj odgovor više nije u okviru rečenice koju sam komentarisao. Mada sam očekivao tako nešto.

pa sad, ti si spustio pitanje sa države na lokalni nivo

lokalni nivo tu i tamo može da propadne, a cjelina i dalje ostaje

Ja sam spoznajno zabezeknut, što bi rekli teoretičari naučne fantastike. Pa samo moja Strumica je između 1514. i 1570. (turski indžijeli) imala 3000 stanovnika. Zabeleženo je jer je u tom periodu u gradu predominirala muslimanska populacija. Dubrovnik je na svakih pedeset kilometara držao skladišta robe, a studiralo se u Bolonji u XII veku, pre Bolonjske deklaracije. Logično je da ti nisi baštinio ništa. Dispossesed. 

I, ne migolji se više.

Srbi su studirali u Bolonji i Srbi su bili arhitekte turskih gradova?

koliko znam, priča se o našoj baštini

Za Bolonju znam, jer je urezano i na zidu u Bolonji. Što se tiče arhitekture, jel' ti misliš da osvajanjem neke zemlje lokalna kultura prestaje? Ili svi pokupe pinkle i odu u pečalbare. Neimar Rade (Radovan) se upisa po svim jadranskim crkvama. E, ne ide to tako. Neki odu, a neki ostanu. Promene veru, stil, narudžine se menjaju, ali nikad ne ostaju samo seljoberi. Kol'ko je vremena trebalo da se iz sevdalinki vratimo do Ortodox Celtsa, ihaj! Naravno da je lokalni izgled gradova vremenom promenio strukturu, gradske crkve su mahom porušene, stare zgrade su nestale, ali znamo da su bile tu. Čak ni jedenje prasetine nije zaboravljeno. Međutim, neko je pobacao naše banke podataka u đubre. Nisu im trebale u krojenju nove civilizacije, pa su nas svinjarski knezovi sačekali sa fesovima i jataganima. Da ovi naši epski fantastičari znaju više nego što je zapisano u narodnim junačkim pesmama (zato tebi ne zameram što ne znaš više), možda bismo imali i bolje knjige danas.

moraćeš prvo da se dogovoriš sam sa sobom da li je postojala srpska arhitektura ili nije - crkve nisu srpska arhitektura. AKo promijeniš vjeru i stil to jopet nije srpska arhitektura

fesova i jatagana nije bilo, ali nemojmo da se foliramo - i u vrijeme Nemanjića mi smo već bili Orijent. Nije valjda da misliš da su velikaši bili neka gospoda u odnosu na svinjarske knezove? Ne samo da oni nisu već je i vizantijski car imao potpuno azijatske metode vladanja. Oči ''svetog'' Milutina sve govore.

jedenje prasetine je inat a ne sačuvana baština

inače, vrlo zanimljivo je dizanje u nebesa jedne inferiorne kulture poput srpske srednjevijekovne

gdje je taj bolonjsko-srpski Bokačo, ako mogu da znam? Možda je neki srpski tajkun poslao sina tamo ali gdje je srpski Dante? Srpski Ticijan? Srpski Toma Akvinski? Neće da bude da su ih Turci uništili, ne mogu da unište nešto što nikad nije postojalo.

i jopet, o kakvoj muzici je riječ, jel ja propuštam nešto ili čak ni na Zapadu nije bilo krštene muzike do prije 500 godina? Kakva je to muzika postojala u Srbiji Nemanjića, stvarno me zanima.

Mislim, tvrdiš da ne znam ništa a nudiš mi opšte fraze. Imena konkretna, građevine konkretne, konkretna umjetnička djela, konkretna muzika, to se traži.

Nevezano za Nemanjiće i petsto godina pod braćom Turcima, evo veoma svežeg primera kako closed source tehnologija (dakle, nešto zaštićeno patentom koji drže privatne firme i što se plaća da bi moglo da se korisit, istim tim firmama, i što će biti zamenjeno nečim drugim čim prestane da bude tržišno isplativo) ulazi i u mesto koje je paradigma open source platforme za prezervaciju ljudskog znanja.

Naime, Wikimedia Foundation razmatra mogućnost da u hostovanim video klipovima dopusti MP4/ h264 format. U ovom trenutku vodi se rasprava o tome koliko je ova promena paradigme korisna ili štetna za wikipediju i njihove druge projekte, ali ako pretegne mišljenje da korist nadmašuje štetu (a korist je utoliko što mnogi telefoni koji su  zarobljeni closed source tehnologijama ne mogu da otvore video klipove trenutno hostovane na wikipediji jer nemaju podršku zaopen source formate), a, po reakcijama, deluje da hoće, eto nam direktnog vezivanja repozitorija globalnog znanja za korporacijski bottom line. Naravno, ovo je za sada sasvim simbolička stvar ali mislim da ukazuje na zabrinjavajući smer o kome pričam.

Pa, nije zgodno da te učim od početka. Trebalo bi najpre da saznam šta zaista znaš o baštini uopšte, pa da taj pojam prenesemo na određeni lokalitet i vremenski period. Parcijalnim testiranjem fragmentarnim podacima utvrdio sam da je tvoje znanje zasnovano na prilično površnim informacijama i bogatoj skepsi, a metod diskursa na upornom omalovažavanju. Zašto bih se, onda, uopšte baktao s tobom?


Moja tvrdnja da se baština može osakatiti, da se može omalovažavati, ali da se ne može jednostrano negirati, može da se raspravlja u atmosferi zasnovanoj na otvorenosti uma, ili na open mind diskursu, ako ti se više sviđa. Na tvoj način nikako ne može.


Da bi bilo jasnije, postaviću nekoliko premisa sa kojih je moguće započeti promišljanje:


1. Sve istorije su po karakteru komparativne.


2. Sve istorije imaju periode uspona, stagnacije, recesije i nestajanja.


3. Sve istorije su pod uticajem prethodnih ili istorija u okruženju.


4. Proučavanje istorije civilnog života na različitim teritorijama recentnog je karaktera i tek se sklapa opšta slika iz parcijalnog poznavanja pojedinih kultura.


Dakle, treba najpre uporediti sadržinu pojedinih istorijskih perioda bilo gde u Evropi. Strukturu vlasti, dinastičkih veza, komunikacija bismo trebali da znamo, njome se istorija doskora najviše bavila. Mnogo je zgodno što je Dušanov zakonik opstao, pa se može zaključiti da je taj zakonik vrhunski domet kulture, a još bolje je da je sličan zakonik, u isto vreme doneo i vladar Svetog Rimskog carstva Karlo V. Meni je vrh što postoji i bratsko Dušanovo pismo istom u kome se izražava sreća da su slovenski vladari u istom trenutku vladari Zapadnog i Istočnog Rimskog carstva.


Naravno, ti ćeš sad pitati, a gde je ostalo. Pozvaću se na tačku 4. Pošto je prošlo vreme iskopavanja dragocenih predmeta sa dobrom prođom na aukcijama, na redu su možda značajniji detalji. Još pre nekoliko decenija niko ne bi obratio pažnju na nalaz niza privatnih pisama na drvenim tablicama rimskih vojnika u Britaniji. Danas je već apsurdan podatak da su u Srbiju rudarstvo i metalurgiju doneli Saski rudari, jer je dokumentovano da su na našim prostorima, sa sedam milenijuma trajanja najstariji bar u Evropi. I to nam kopaju Englezi, oni isti koje na marginalna iskopavanja vodi Toni Robinson sa Time Team ekipom. Moji prijatelji, od kojih su neki na nivou Indiane Jonesa, tvrde da na našim prostorima Balkana nije otvoreno više od 3% lokaliteta. Ko se ovde time može baviti kad Korać za magistralna iskopavanja u Viminacijumu dobije od države 8000 € godišnje?


Evo, već sam se umorio, a da nisam ni zagrebao. Usput moram i da proveram da li u mojoj tintari nešto nije oštećeno, jer ćeš i ti proveravati. Već je stigao i Meho, sa onim šta on najbolje zna, pa ću u ćošak, dok me ne prođe.


ed. Karlo IV. Znao sam da ću negde da se zajebem.

koliko znam, ni to Sveto Rimsko Carstvo nije bilo ništa bolje po pitanju kulture, Zapad je bio jedna primitivna oblast maltene sve do 15. vijeka, o nivou do kojeg su spali tokom Srednjeg vijeka da ne pričam, Turci su melem za njih. Sveto Rimsko carstvo je apsolutno na začelju što se tiče ukupne razvijenosti tadašnjih zemalja, ispred njega su i Mlečani i Đenovljani.

imali su arapske prevode Aristotela i Platonov Timaj, za sve ostalo nikad nisu čuli

do 15. vijeka savsim je jasno da su civilizacijski predvodnici bili Arapi i Vizantinci

ali što je još važnije, Srbi nisu imali ni to

lijepo pitam i ne dobijam odgovor - srpska filozofija gdje je, gdje je srpska poezija u Srednjem vijeku, gdje je srpsko slikarstvo, imena i prezimena, umjetnička djela konkretna

kultura nije rudarstvo, pričamo o baštini a ne rudarstvu, a carom Dušanom niko pametan se ne ponosi, jedini iz dinastije Nemanjića koji nije proglašen za sveca, zna se zašto

čak i Milutin s kurjačkim očima je proglašen

rasprava je počela oko tvrdnje da je mnogo štošta izgubljeno pod Turcima, ja još nisam čuo šta je to izgubljeno


P.S. siguran sam da će neko kroz 500 godina da isto ovako priča o Putinovom pismu Vučiću, samo što to neće vrijediti ni pišljiva boba

Ti se slobodno pridruži onima koji veruju da nema, ja ću ostati uz one koji čekaju da se nađe.

vjera je ipak riječ koja bi trebalo da se stavi nakon zareza

sad ne postoji nikakav dokaz da je Srbija bila kulturno razvijena zemlja

postoje dokazi da je jedan kralj silovao jedanaestogodišnju djevojčicu, da je drugi vadi oči svom ocu, da je treći načeo Vizantiju i tako oslabio odbranu od Turaka, kao i da je taj isti postavio svog savjetnika za patrijarha

za to postoje dokazi a za to što ti tvrdiš postoji samo vjera

Lako bih našao analogije na svim ostalim dvorovima tog vremena, ali si slab i nespreman sagovornik. Idi, nateži se sa ocenjivačima filmova ili sa Mehom oko igrica. Tu su ti bolje šanse.

lako bi našao analogije i za Bokača i Dantea i Tomu Akvinskog, ali evo mrzi te već pet postova

Toma Akvinski je mažnjavao od Aristotela, a biće i od sv. Save. Verovatno postoje i ekvivalenti za Bokača i Dantea, ali nije preteklo. Napisaću ja ako bude trebalo.

mažnjavao od svetog save ahahhaha

pa hajde dokaži te ludorije koje izgovaraš

Još o Kanadi i repozitorijima znanja koji se, neko bi rekao sistematski zatiru:


Health Canada library changes leave scientists scramblingMain Health Canada research library closed, access outsourced to retrieval company

Quote
Health Canada scientists are so concerned about losing access to their research library that they're finding workarounds, with one squirrelling away journals and books in his basement for colleagues to consult, says a report obtained by CBC News.
The draft report from a consultant hired by the department warned it not to close its library, but the report was rejected as flawed and the advice went unheeded.
Before the main library closed, the inter-library loan functions were outsourced to a private company called Infotrieve, the consultant wrote in a report ordered by the department. The library's physical collection was moved to the National Science Library on the Ottawa campus of the National Research Council last year.


"Staff requests have dropped 90 per cent over in-house service levels prior to the outsource. This statistic has been heralded as a cost savings by senior HC [Health Canada] management," the report said.
"However, HC scientists have repeatedly said during the interview process that the decrease is because the information has become inaccessible — either it cannot arrive in due time, or it is unaffordable due to the fee structure in place."
A recently retired Health Canada pathologist agreed with this assessment.
"I look at it as an insidious plan to discourage people from using libraries," said Dr. Rudi Mueller, who left the department in 2012.
"If you want to justify closing a library, you make access difficult and then you say it is hardly used."
Staff borrowed students' library cards The report noted the workarounds scientists used to overcome their access problems.
Mueller used his contacts in industry for scientific literature. He also went to university libraries where he had a faculty connection.
The report said Health Canada scientists sometimes use the library cards of university students in co-operative programs at the department.
Unsanctioned libraries have been created by science staff.
"One group moved its 250 feet of published materials to an employee's basement. When you need a book, you email 'Fred,' and 'Fred' brings the book in with him the next day," the consultant wrote in his report.
"I think it's part of being a scientist. You find a way around the problems," Mueller told CBC News.
Librarians missed after cuts One of the problems Mueller couldn't work around was the disappearance of librarians who could help him in his search for scientific literature. The report said the number of in-house librarians went from 40 in 2007 to just six in April 2013.
"The librarian would sit down with me and specifically design the searches for what I needed," said Mueller.
"A librarian is far better at doing a literature search than I am," added Mueller. "It's their profession."
James Turk, executive director of the Canadian Association of University Teachers, sympathized with Mueller's frustration.
"Knowledgeable and expert librarians and archivists are invaluable resources in helping you find what you want," he said.
"So they [Health Canada] are not just closing physical collections of books. They are getting rid of the guides to those collections."
New Democrat health critic Libby Davies said her own staff know the value of the parliamentary library.
"My staff can do so much in sort of Googling around and trying to find this and that or stuff that may come into us. But being able to use the experts and to get their assistance makes a world of difference," Davies said.
Davies said Health Minister Rona Ambrose should ask her department what the situation is like today at Health Canada.
"I think the minister should dig deeper and follow this up and find out what's really gone on and review why this report was just shelved," Davies said.
One of the stated goals of Health Canada's contracting out of library services was to save money. According to the report, though, the new arrangement is more expensive.
The report stated that in the 2008-09 fiscal year, Health Canada Library Services had a staff of 36 and a budget of $1.75-million. In 2013-14 there is a staff of 6 and a budget of $2.67-million.
In addition, Health Canada researchers now have to pay a $25.65 retrieval fee plus the cost of a courier to get a book from the National Science Library. For a scanned document, it now costs $9 plus a $4 to $8 copyright fee.
Quality of work at risk Turk worried about the effect this change would have on Canada's international reputation.
"Scientifically, we are going to be a third-rate country," he said.
A lasting regret for Mueller is that by the end of his career at Health Canada, he didn't feel satisfied with quality of his work. And he put the blame for that squarely on cutbacks in the department's libraries.
"If I tell my children what I have done, I am not as proud as I would like to be."
In the end, the report recommended moving the physical collection back to Health Canada and increasing library staff from six to between 15 to 20.
According to Health Canada, the report was a draft and contained many factual inaccuracies.
"[The report] was returned to its author for corrections, which were never undertaken. As such, the recommendations are based on inaccurate information and have not been accepted," Health Canada wrote in response to questions from CBC News.
A letter to CBC News from a lawyer representing the consultant refuted Health Canada's claims.
"It is the case that the consultant provided a draft report to Health Canada and that some changes were requested," the letter said.
"The changes requested were however neither 'many' in number nor 'factual' in nature. The consultant met with the client to review the comments after which the requested changes were made immediately.
"A final report was promptly submitted. Representations that our client provided a factually inaccurate report and then neglected to respond to requests for changes are untrue," the lawyer's letter says.
Health Canada also said this week it has consulted with employees and addressed many of their concerns.
With files from Susan Lunn

Dva odlična teksta o Bitcoinu. Prvi je iz NYT-a, piše ga čovek sa ozbiljnom reputacijom i veoma je optimističan. Drugi je reakcija na prvi, isto od strane ozbiljnog čoveka i predstavlja uvažavajuću kritiku nekih od elemenata prvog teksta. Vrlo zanimljivo za čitanje.



Why Bitcoin Matters By MARC ANDREESSEN

Quote
Editor's note: Marc Andreessen's venture capital firm, Andreessen Horowitz, has invested just under $50 million in Bitcoin-related start-ups. The firm is actively searching for more Bitcoin-based investment opportunities. He does not personally own more than a de minimis amount of Bitcoin.






A mysterious new technology emerges, seemingly out of nowhere, but actually the result of two decades of intense research and development by nearly anonymous researchers.
Political idealists project visions of liberation and revolution onto it; establishment elites heap contempt and scorn on it.
On the other hand, technologists – nerds – are transfixed by it. They see within it enormous potential and spend their nights and weekends tinkering with it.




Eventually mainstream products, companies and industries emerge to commercialize it; its effects become profound; and later, many people wonder why its powerful promise wasn't more obvious from the start.
What technology am I talking about? Personal computers in 1975, the Internet in 1993, and – I believe – Bitcoin in 2014.
One can hardly accuse Bitcoin of being an uncovered topic, yet the gulf between what the press and many regular people believe Bitcoin is, and what a growing critical mass of technologists believe Bitcoin is, remains enormous. In this post, I will explain why Bitcoin has so many Silicon Valley programmers and entrepreneurs all lathered up, and what I think Bitcoin's future potential is.
First, Bitcoin at its most fundamental level is a breakthrough in computer science – one that builds on 20 years of research into cryptographic currency, and 40 years of research in cryptography, by thousands of researchers around the world.
Bitcoin is the first practical solution to a longstanding problem in computer science called the Byzantine Generals Problem. To quote from the original paper defining the B.G.P.: "[Imagine] a group of generals of the Byzantine army camped with their troops around an enemy city. Communicating only by messenger, the generals must agree upon a common battle plan. However, one or more of them may be traitors who will try to confuse the others. The problem is to find an algorithm to ensure that the loyal generals will reach agreement." 
More generally, the B.G.P. poses the question of how to establish trust between otherwise unrelated parties over an untrusted network like the Internet.
The practical consequence of solving this problem is that Bitcoin gives us, for the first time, a way for one Internet user to transfer a unique piece of digital property to another Internet user, such that the transfer is guaranteed to be safe and secure, everyone knows that the transfer has taken place, and nobody can challenge the legitimacy of the transfer. The consequences of this breakthrough are hard to overstate.
What kinds of digital property might be transferred in this way? Think about digital signatures, digital contracts, digital keys (to physical locks, or to online lockers), digital ownership of physical assets such as cars and houses, digital stocks and bonds ... and digital money.
All these are exchanged through a distributed network of trust that does not require or rely upon a central intermediary like a bank or broker. And all in a way where only the owner of an asset can send it, only the intended recipient can receive it, the asset can only exist in one place at a time, and everyone can validate transactions and ownership of all assets anytime they want.
How does this work?
Bitcoin is an Internet-wide distributed ledger. You buy into the ledger by purchasing one of a fixed number of slots, either with cash or by selling a product and service for Bitcoin. You sell out of the ledger by trading your Bitcoin to someone else who wants to buy into the ledger. Anyone in the world can buy into or sell out of the ledger any time they want – with no approval needed, and with no or very low fees. The Bitcoin "coins" themselves are simply slots in the ledger, analogous in some ways to seats on a stock exchange, except much more broadly applicable to real world transactions.
The Bitcoin ledger is a new kind of payment system. Anyone in the world can pay anyone else in the world any amount of value of Bitcoin by simply transferring ownership of the corresponding slot in the ledger. Put value in, transfer it, the recipient gets value out, no authorization required, and in many cases, no fees.
That last part is enormously important. Bitcoin is the first Internetwide payment system where transactions either happen with no fees or very low fees (down to fractions of pennies). Existing payment systems charge fees of about 2 to 3 percent – and that's in the developed world. In lots of other places, there either are no modern payment systems or the rates are significantly higher. We'll come back to that.
Bitcoin is a digital bearer instrument. It is a way to exchange money or assets between parties with no pre-existing trust: A string of numbers is sent over email or text message in the simplest case. The sender doesn't need to know or trust the receiver or vice versa. Related, there are no chargebacks – this is the part that is literally like cash – if you have the money or the asset, you can pay with it; if you don't, you can't. This is brand new. This has never existed in digital form before.
Bitcoin is a digital currency, whose value is based directly on two things: use of the payment system today – volume and velocity of payments running through the ledger – and speculation on future use of the payment system. This is one part that is confusing people. It's not as much that the Bitcoin currency has some arbitrary value and then people are trading with it; it's more that people can trade with Bitcoin (anywhere, everywhere, with no fraud and no or very low fees) and as a result it has value.
It is perhaps true right at this moment that the value of Bitcoin currency is based more on speculation than actual payment volume, but it is equally true that that speculation is establishing a sufficiently high price for the currency that payments have become practically possible. The Bitcoin currency had to be worth something before it could bear any amount of real-world payment volume. This is the classic "chicken and egg" problem with new technology: new technology is not worth much until it's worth a lot. And so the fact that Bitcoin has risen in value in part because of speculation is making the reality of its usefulness arrive much faster than it would have otherwise.
Critics of Bitcoin point to limited usage by ordinary consumers and merchants, but that same criticism was leveled against PCs and the Internet at the same stage. Every day, more and more consumers and merchants are buying, using and selling Bitcoin, all around the world. The overall numbers are still small, but they are growing quickly. And ease of use for all participants is rapidly increasing as Bitcoin tools and technologies are improved. Remember, it used to be technically challenging to even get on the Internet. Now it's not.
The criticism that merchants will not accept Bitcoin because of its volatility is also incorrect. Bitcoin can be used entirely as a payment system; merchants do not need to hold any Bitcoin currency or be exposed to Bitcoin volatility at any time. Any consumer or merchant can trade in and out of Bitcoin and other currencies any time they want.
Why would any merchant – online or in the real world – want to accept Bitcoin as payment, given the currently small number of consumers who want to pay with it? My partner Chris Dixon recently gave this example:
"Let's say you sell electronics online. Profit margins in those businesses are usually under 5 percent, which means conventional 2.5 percent payment fees consume half the margin. That's money that could be reinvested in the business, passed back to consumers or taxed by the government. Of all of those choices, handing 2.5 percent to banks to move bits around the Internet is the worst possible choice. Another challenge merchants have with payments is accepting international payments. If you are wondering why your favorite product or service isn't available in your country, the answer is often payments."
In addition, merchants are highly attracted to Bitcoin because it eliminates the risk of credit card fraud. This is the form of fraud that motivates so many criminals to put so much work into stealing personal customer information and credit card numbers.
Since Bitcoin is a digital bearer instrument, the receiver of a payment does not get any information from the sender that can be used to steal money from the sender in the future, either by that merchant or by a criminal who steals that information from the merchant.
Credit card fraud is such a big deal for merchants, credit card processors and banks that online fraud detection systems are hair-trigger wired to stop transactions that look even slightly suspicious, whether or not they are actually fraudulent. As a result, many online merchants are forced to turn away 5 to 10 percent of incoming orders that they could take without fear if the customers were paying with Bitcoin, where such fraud would not be possible. Since these are orders that were coming in already, they are inherently the highest margin orders a merchant can get, and so being able to take them will drastically increase many merchants' profit margins.
Bitcoin's antifraud properties even extend into the physical world of retail stores and shoppers.
For example, with Bitcoin, the huge hack that recently stole 70 million consumers' credit card information from the Target department store chain would not have been possible. Here's how that would work:
You fill your cart and go to the checkout station like you do now. But instead of handing over your credit card to pay, you pull out your smartphone and take a snapshot of a QR code displayed by the cash register. The QR code contains all the information required for you to send Bitcoin to Target, including the amount. You click "Confirm" on your phone and the transaction is done (including converting dollars from your account into Bitcoin, if you did not own any Bitcoin).
Target is happy because it has the money in the form of Bitcoin, which it can immediately turn into dollars if it wants, and it paid no or very low payment processing fees; you are happy because there is no way for hackers to steal any of your personal information; and organized crime is unhappy. (Well, maybe criminals are still happy: They can try to steal money directly from poorly-secured merchant computer systems. But even if they succeed, consumers bear no risk of loss, fraud or identity theft.)
Finally, I'd like to address the claim made by some critics that Bitcoin is a haven for bad behavior, for criminals and terrorists to transfer money anonymously with impunity. This is a myth, fostered mostly by sensationalistic press coverage and an incomplete understanding of the technology. Much like email, which is quite traceable, Bitcoin is pseudonymous, not anonymous. Further, every transaction in the Bitcoin network is tracked and logged forever in the Bitcoin blockchain, or permanent record, available for all to see. As a result, Bitcoin is considerably easier for law enforcement to trace than cash, gold or diamonds.
What's the future of Bitcoin?
Bitcoin is a classic network effect, a positive feedback loop. The more people who use Bitcoin, the more valuable Bitcoin is for everyone who uses it, and the higher the incentive for the next user to start using the technology. Bitcoin shares this network effect property with the telephone system, the web, and popular Internet services like eBay and Facebook.
In fact, Bitcoin is a four-sided network effect. There are four constituencies that participate in expanding the value of Bitcoin as a consequence of their own self-interested participation. Those constituencies are (1) consumers who pay with Bitcoin, (2) merchants who accept Bitcoin, (3) "miners" who run the computers that process and validate all the transactions and enable the distributed trust network to exist, and (4) developers and entrepreneurs who are building new products and services with and on top of Bitcoin.
All four sides of the network effect are playing a valuable part in expanding the value of the overall system, but the fourth is particularly important.
All over Silicon Valley and around the world, many thousands of programmers are using Bitcoin as a building block for a kaleidoscope of new product and service ideas that were not possible before. And at our venture capital firm, Andreessen Horowitz, we are seeing a rapidly increasing number of outstanding entrepreneurs – not a few with highly respected track records in the financial industry – building companies on top of Bitcoin.
For this reason alone, new challengers to Bitcoin face a hard uphill battle. If something is to displace Bitcoin now, it will have to have sizable improvements and it will have to happen quickly. Otherwise, this network effect will carry Bitcoin to dominance.
One immediately obvious and enormous area for Bitcoin-based innovation is international remittance. Every day, hundreds of millions of low-income people go to work in hard jobs in foreign countries to make money to send back to their families in their home countries – over $400 billion in total annually, according to the World Bank. Every day, banks and payment companies extract mind-boggling fees, up to 10 percent and sometimes even higher, to send this money.
Switching to Bitcoin, which charges no or very low fees, for these remittance payments will therefore raise the quality of life of migrant workers and their families significantly. In fact, it is hard to think of any one thing that would have a faster and more positive effect on so many people in the world's poorest countries.
Moreover, Bitcoin generally can be a powerful force to bring a much larger number of people around the world into the modern economic system. Only about 20 countries around the world have what we would consider to be fully modern banking and payment systems; the other roughly 175 have a long way to go. As a result, many people in many countries are excluded from products and services that we in the West take for granted. Even Netflix, a completely virtual service, is only available in about 40 countries. Bitcoin, as a global payment system anyone can use from anywhere at any time, can be a powerful catalyst to extend the benefits of the modern economic system to virtually everyone on the planet.
And even here in the United States, a long-recognized problem is the extremely high fees that the "unbanked" — people without conventional bank accounts – pay for even basic financial services. Bitcoin can be used to go straight at that problem, by making it easy to offer extremely low-fee services to people outside of the traditional financial system.
A third fascinating use case for Bitcoin is micropayments, or ultrasmall payments. Micropayments have never been feasible, despite 20 years of attempts, because it is not cost effective to run small payments (think $1 and below, down to pennies or fractions of a penny) through the existing credit/debit and banking systems. The fee structure of those systems makes that nonviable.
All of a sudden, with Bitcoin, that's trivially easy. Bitcoins have the nifty property of infinite divisibility: currently down to eight decimal places after the dot, but more in the future. So you can specify an arbitrarily small amount of money, like a thousandth of a penny, and send it to anyone in the world for free or near-free.
Think about content monetization, for example. One reason media businesses such as newspapers struggle to charge for content is because they need to charge either all (pay the entire subscription fee for all the content) or nothing (which then results in all those terrible banner ads everywhere on the web). All of a sudden, with Bitcoin, there is an economically viable way to charge arbitrarily small amounts of money per article, or per section, or per hour, or per video play, or per archive access, or per news alert.
Another potential use of Bitcoin micropayments is to fight spam. Future email systems and social networks could refuse to accept incoming messages unless they were accompanied with tiny amounts of Bitcoin – tiny enough to not matter to the sender, but large enough to deter spammers, who today can send uncounted billions of spam messages for free with impunity.
Finally, a fourth interesting use case is public payments. This idea first came to my attention in a news article a few months ago. A random spectator at a televised sports event held up a placard with a QR code and the text "Send me Bitcoin!" He received $25,000 in Bitcoin in the first 24 hours, all from people he had never met. This was the first time in history that you could see someone holding up a sign, in person or on TV or in a photo, and then send them money with two clicks on your smartphone: take the photo of the QR code on the sign, and click to send the money.
Think about the implications for protest movements. Today protesters want to get on TV so people learn about their cause. Tomorrow they'll want to get on TV because that's how they'll raise money, by literally holding up signs that let people anywhere in the world who sympathize with them send them money on the spot. Bitcoin is a financial technology dream come true for even the most hardened anticapitalist political organizer.
The coming years will be a period of great drama and excitement revolving around this new technology.
For example, some prominent economists are deeply skeptical of Bitcoin, even though Ben S. Bernanke, formerly Federal Reserve chairman, recently wrote that digital currencies like Bitcoin "may hold long-term promise, particularly if they promote a faster, more secure and more efficient payment system." And in 1999, the legendary economist Milton Friedman said: "One thing that's missing but will soon be developed is a reliable e-cash, a method whereby on the Internet you can transfer funds from A to B without A knowing B or B knowing A – the way I can take a $20 bill and hand it over to you, and you may get that without knowing who I am." 
Economists who attack Bitcoin today might be correct, but I'm with Ben and Milton.
Further, there is no shortage of regulatory topics and issues that will have to be addressed, since almost no country's regulatory framework for banking and payments anticipated a technology like Bitcoin.
But I hope that I have given you a sense of the enormous promise of Bitcoin. Far from a mere libertarian fairy tale or a simple Silicon Valley exercise in hype, Bitcoin offers a sweeping vista of opportunity to reimagine how the financial system can and should work in the Internet era, and a catalyst to reshape that system in ways that are more powerful for individuals and businesses alike.

On the Matter of Why Bitcoin Matters

Quote
Marc Andreessen was a big part of turning the Web into a mainstream experience, but seems to misunderstand Bitcoin profoundly, writes Glenn Fleishman.Glenn Fleishman in The Magazine on Medium


Update: Marc Andreessen has been ridiculously gracious on Twitter, responding to questions my article raised posed to him by other people on the social network, and directly to me. I'd suggest reviewing his Twitter feed as a good adjunct to reading this critique.
Marc Andreessen wrote an essay for the New York Times about Bitcoin, "Why Bitcoin Matters," in which he attempts to explain the relevancy of the digital currency for the future of commercial transactions. He uses analogies, allegories, history, and ostensible facts to build his case.
However, I believe he fundamentally misrepresents or misunderstands key aspects of the technology, ecosystem, and impact, despite Andreessen Horowitz, of which he is a founding partner, having just under $50m in investment (fully disclosed) in "Bitcoin-related startups." I own no Bitcoins; Marc has a "de minimis" amount. (I will note that someone owning Bitcoin investments and not Bitcoins is the same as owning gold-mine investments and no gold.)
I recently spent weeks researching an article about the technology challenges affecting Bitcoin for the Economist: "Bitcoin under Pressure." Some of my insight is drawn from talking to miners, academics, and software engineers about Bitcoin's past, present, and future.Pained analogies to the pastAndreessen attempts to draw a parallel between the birth of the personal-computing era and the explosion of the publicly accessible Internet and Bitcoin. These are fundamentally flawed analogies.

A mysterious new technology emerges, seemingly out of nowhere, but actually the result of two decades of intense research and development by nearly anonymous researchers....What technology am I talking about? Personal computers in 1975, the Internet in 1993, and – I believe – Bitcoin in 2014.

There's a significant difference between anonymous and unheralded or perhaps even so many millions of people we don't track them individually. While there are a number of significant milestones and breakthroughs in both PCs and the Internet on the road to mass adoption, there is no single figure like Satoshi Nakamato, the pseudonymous creator of the Bitcoin protocol and initial software implementation. (He may be an individual or a collective that operated under that name.) We know where CPUs, MS-DOS, TCP/IP, SSL, and the like came from and sometimes even every step of their design. (Marc was involved in creating SSL, for instance.)
Personal computers were the result of continuous innovation and change in which part of the developments remained proprietary (such as chip-making technology), and part was fully exposed to the light of day in academic research and shipping products. (Read John Markoff's excellent book, What the Dormouse Said: How the Sixties Counterculture Shaped the Personal Computer Industry, for some insight into the cultural aspects.)
The Internet grew as a result of well-documented government funding and with the initial participation of many thousands of people in academia, government, and private industry working together. Much of this was public, and I could list off hundreds of people involved in the creation of the Internet, and the popularization of the Web—including Andreessen!
Andreessen wants to paint parallels to show how Bitcoin has a fundamentally similar origin story, when there is little in common. By trying to normalize Bitcoin against previous technologies—PCs being primarily hardware with a significant software component and the Internet primarily data with a significant hardware component—he wants a general audience to accept that an entirely philosophical and intangible new thing is the same as these familiar old things.Trust me, even though you don't know meI agree with Andreessen that Bitcoin is the first practical, large-scale mechanism to deal with the problem of decentralizing trust—no parties need know each other nor trust each other for transactions to complete successfully, verifiably, and irrevocably.
Bitcoin has a remarkable set of interlocking mechanisms that make it exceedingly hard for any individual or group to accumulate enough power to distort the public block chain, a sequence in which one set of transactions builds upon the next. If such distortion took place, it would become known, and various scenarios have been painted about what kind of response would occur. (Some suggest Bitcoin would collapse, and thus that no party would engage in attempting it, however impractical it would be to achieve.)
The scale of computation required at the moment for Bitcoin's operations, discussed in my Economist article, is so large that only a government-scale effort would be able to overcome the system's checks and balances. These operations are run by what you could consider as volunteers, called miners, who receive a reward in Bitcoins for their efforts as part of the system's basic infrastructure. (Bitcoin's worldwide computational output is currently nearing 200 exaflops—200,000 petaflops—or 800 times the combined capacity of the top 500 supercomputers in the world.)
I also agree completely with Andreessen that Bitcoin can be used for an enormous number of non-currency related purposes in which permanent, irreversible proofs of transactions are required. Bitcoin's procedure of building a chain, in which each link is cryptographically related to the link before it, means that after an hour or so, it should be impossible even with a world superpower's efforts to reverse out a transaction.
Further, these transactions can be proven to have been created by a party who possesses a private key; no other party can create such a proof. (The key can be stolen, thus changing ownership, but that stands outside of Bitcoin's reliability.) One of the fundamental current software architects of Bitcoin, Mike Hearn, explained to me how such transactions could be used to validate identities for discussion forums and for passports.
But here's where Andreessen gets squishy. He wants to define Bitcoin as both a currency and a "new kind of payment system." The former is a matter of debate; the latter is provably true today, whether it persists or not.
As a payment system, he asserts Bitcoin has enormous advantages over current credit-card and bank-processing networks.

Bitcoin is the first Internetwide payment system where transactions either happen with no fees or very low fees (down to fractions of pennies). Existing payment systems charge fees of about 2 to 3 percent – and that's in the developed world. In lots of other places, there either are no modern payment systems or the rates are significantly higher.

That contains a bunch of problematic statements. Without getting into the weeds, many Bitcoin transactions can be carried out without fees or very low fees, but transactions are only committed into the global block chain when miners accept those transactions: miners create links in the chain that are built of transactions. The minimum rate to pay, when a fee is paid, is based on the size of the transaction in bytes, and starts at 0.0001 BTC. The average is currently about 20¢ at the current exchange rate, even if the transaction involves millions of Bitcoins. One can pay more, however.
Transactions with higher fees attached are committed more quickly. As the rate of transactions has increased, the fee has seemingly become more important, as no-fee and low-fee transactions can linger for longer periods without being built into a block and made permanent and thus useful for consummating a deal. This is an ongoing concern, and Bitcoin's software team has a plan to offer more flexibility with how fees are set. (The team has no specific power; it has to convince a supermajority of participants in the Bitcoin ecosystem to adopt software updates.)
Andreessen masks several upcoming problems with his seemingly straightforward statement:

   
• Bitcoin is somewhat illiquid and highly volatile, and the fees for moving Bitcoins in and out of legal tender, like dollars, can be in the several percentage point range. It's not always easy or possible to convert from Bitcoin to cash, and the volatility means the potential loss (or gain) of dollars before the exchange closes.
• Bitcoin miners receive an award of 25 coins each time they succeed at a computational problem that allows them to add a permanent link to the chain. That's $25,000 every eight minutes or so right now at the current exchange rate. However, the reward drops in half every four years or so. In mid-2016, it will drop to 12.5 coins. The total number of coins that will ever be made is fixed.
• The system gives up these coins, diluting the pool of money at a fixed rate, to miners, which represents a kind of hidden fee, like issuing new shares in a company and giving them to employees. The speculation and volatility currently hides the effects of coin creation as a dilution.
• As the production of coins drops, mining fees are expected to pick up the slack. While they will almost certainly not rise to the current rate used in credit-card transactions, they will likely be non-trivial to keep miners rich in incentives to operate their computer gear (which is currently hard to keep profitable because of the rapid increase in computational power across the network).

Andreessen then moves into advantages related to fraud:

...there are no chargebacks – this is the part that is literally like cash – if you have the money or the asset, you can pay with it; if you don't, you can't. This is brand new. This has never existed in digital form before.

But that is only true within the Bitcoin system. As far as can be determined, transactions are irreversible after a short period of time and cannot be counterfeited. The system doesn't prevent theft or misuse.
Chargebacks occur in the credit-card processing world, as do stopped checks, because of a dispute between a buyer and seller. Credit-card companies and banks mediate in disputes as a backstop to keep buyers happy and because of oceans of government regulations. On the other side, sellers by percentage of sales volume tend to be multi-billion-dollar companies, who otherwise have a lot of leverage against consumers and most other businesses.
When Andreessen says there are no chargebacks this is the point of view of a merchant or seller who deals with fraud. He writes,

...people can trade with Bitcoin (anywhere, everywhere, with no fraud and no or very low fees)...

The seller can't be defrauded. The buyer can.
Because a Bitcoin transaction can't be reversed, it means that the party transferring value has no recourse within the Bitcoin system to reverse or dispute a transaction. (Hearn told me there's actually a mechanism for using third-party dispute-mediation process in the Bitcoin specification, but it's not implemented in a way to which users have access.)
Thus, someone who wants their money back has to go to court, and companies that accept Bitcoin as payment aren't above the law. This will move chargebacks from intermediary mediated settlements to small-claims court and higher civil courts.
Bitcoin doesn't eliminate fraudulent transactions; it only eliminates counterfeit payments. This can, of course, save many tens or hundreds of billions of dollars a year globally and translate to more efficiency in commerce. But removing the intermediary also removes recourse outside of courts, and the cost and nature of that can't be determined.
Because Bitcoin is like untraceable cash, the process for solving a dispute would likely follow the same rules as for cash. When a transaction occurs over the Internet, the odds of recovering one's Bitcoins when a seller fails to meet his or her obligations is the same as if you'd sent a wad of bills in an envelope through the mail.
It also glosses over theft. Because Bitcoin relies entirely on the private retention of secrets (private keys that prove ownership of given Bitcoins), a stolen Bitcoin is only traceable within the system to a certain extent, and thefts of millions and tens of millions of dollars have already occurred. Because committed transactions are irreversible, stolen Bitcoins are valuable and nearly laundered.
The discussion of fees and fraud thus also excludes the overhead to businesses. Companies will have to deal with fraud under the laws of the government under which they operate. If a firm processes a $10m order paid for with Bitcoins, and then it is determined the Bitcoins were stolen—what happens then?

...many online merchants are forced to turn away 5 to 10 percent of incoming orders that they could take without fear if the customers were paying with Bitcoin, where such fraud would not be possible.

It's perfectly possible; it just doesn't happen at the payment level. It happens a "layer up" in the societal compact in which commerce occurs.
We already have laws in America (and most countries) about receiving counterfeit currency (it is valueless to the recipient when discovered) and about fraudulent transactions: the wronged party can clawback money from whatever parties accepted it, even if the parties accepted it without knowing it was stolen. (This is partly how the Madoff trustee has reclaimed lost billions from those who received payouts.)Cash, check, or charge?

Critics of Bitcoin point to limited usage by ordinary consumers and merchants, but that same criticism was leveled against PCs and the Internet at the same stage.

The issues for PCs and the Internet were about utility, not about whether or not they actually existed and had value. You could buy a PC; you could get an Internet connection. The cost and complexity of both started out so high, that early adoption was low, but the curve of acceleration for uptake was extremely high.
With Bitcoin, we already have hard cash and credit cards that can be used for digital transactions, and we can transfer money as bits. Bitcoin is a replacement or supplement for an existing creaky and somewhat broken system that nonetheless works.
So Andreessen pivots. Is it a currency or a payment system? If value is retained and used entirely within the system, it's a form of currency. But he writes:

Bitcoin can be used entirely as a payment system; merchants do not need to hold any Bitcoin currency or be exposed to Bitcoin volatility at any time. Any consumer or merchant can trade in and out of Bitcoin and other currencies any time they want.

That's currently not true at the scale at which Andreessen envisions this working. However, greater adoption could switch the verity of this statement and allow low-fee (but some fee) Bitcoin exchanges that take place in short periods of time. It's simply not the case today. Much of his argument, including instant transactions at Target (your Bitcoin account is instantly filled if needed; Target instantly exchanges Bitcoins back to dollars), relies on such a future.
On another front, Andreessen overstates how readily trackable Bitcoins are when discussing theft and illegal activities:

Bitcoin is pseudonymous, not anonymous. Further, every transaction in the Bitcoin network is tracked and logged forever in the Bitcoin blockchain, or permanent record, available for all to see. As a result, Bitcoin is considerably easier for law enforcement to trace than cash, gold or diamonds.

This is only the case because of the current implementation. I wrote about a paper delivered in October that showed how readily transactions could be "unpeeled" and tracked to given addresses, but not to individuals. However, the paper's authors note that relatively minor changes in the Bitcoin software libraries would dramatically reduce such tracking. It's almost a mistake that tracking today is possible.
Further, there are proposals for fully untraceable alternative currencies. Zerocoin, initially a proposal for inserting such capability inside Bitcoin, will launch as a freestanding currency. Using zero-knowledge proofs, people will be able to push coins into Zerocoin's blockchain and take coins out later without any mathematical ability for outside parties to connect the transactions. It's a laundering service, without any negativity meant. It breaks the chain of knowledge.
Finally, Andreessen moves to the problem of "unbanked" and "underbanked" individuals: the huge number of people in the world who have no access to conventional banking or only limited access and face high fees for use. But he seems to ignore the current existence of mobile payments, such as M-Pesa, which provide Bitcoin-like benefits in an existing ecosystem. Bitcoin has to beat mobile payments for ubiquity, ease, and control in such markets.
(He covers a lot more in this essay, which I either lack enough domain-specific knowledge to discuss, or which is more related to its use as a currency.)
The surprising part to me in this essay is the conclusion:
Far from a mere libertarian fairy tale or a simple Silicon Valley exercise in hype, Bitcoin offers a sweeping vista of opportunity to reimagine how the financial system can and should work in the Internet era, and a catalyst to reshape that system in ways that are more powerful for individuals and businesses alike.
On that, we both agree. Bitcoin shows a path for massively more secure, reliable, and sensible ways to store value and move it around. As a currency, I have little faith that it will become a replacement for dollars, euros, or renminbi. As a model for a future payment and transaction system, I believe it's already shown its value.

---

Glenn Fleishman is the editor and publisher of The Magazine, and a frequent contributor to the Economist. He hosts the podcast, The New Disruptors. He's been on the Internet and its predecessors since 1986, and founded one of the first Web hosting companies in 1994—thanks in part to Marc's Netscape.
This article was produced by The Magazine. It costs $1.99 per month for two issues or $19.99 per year for 26, and subscriptions include free access to over 150 past articles — our full archive. We commission original reported articles and essays, and run five in each issue every two weeks. You can get a free, seven-day trial via our iOS app or our Web site to try us out.