[ARC5] [Vintage-Military-RADAR] Re: [MRCA] AN/PRC-74 Schematics

[J. Forster]

What can I say? I agree.

Scanning and then encrypting public documents is NOT 'a good thing' IMO.
Both BAMA and the VMARS Manuals site make them available freely, no
strings attached.

-John

============


> John,
>
> I agree with you that Google's treatment of these documents creates a
> problem.   It will pan out just as you describe - with vital information
> being lost (unless action is taken).
>
> The question for us all is - what to do about it?
>
> Clearly Google's copies cannot be relied on.   And Google appears to be
> impervious to any sort of appeals to deal with the problem.   As soon as
> they take a partial copy, the document is then "in danger".   At least
> it is, if they literally have the _only_ (partial) copy.
>
> I suggest the following actions by the "vintage electronics community"
> are needed to ensure that we lose as little as possible:
>
> /
> 1.  Make sure our copies are complete./
>
> I know the large pages are a pain for those scanning with A4/US Letter
> size scanners - however do your best to capture it all, since expert
> treatment can digitally piece together the separate bits of the diagram.
>
> /
> 2.   Provide free access to all responsible researchers/users/restorers
> so that they hold their own copies//, and we have as much material
> distributed around the world as possible./
>
> One threat to the material is all the usual hazards - hardware failure
> (HDD going down, etc), fire, earthquake, theft, and lack of care in
> general.   The only safeguard against these threats is to get as many
> copies as possible in as many hands as possible around the world.
>
> Some groups (e.g. the "WS19 group")  believe in putting draconian
> restrictions on access to documents.   But in the long term, their
> actions are similar to Google's.    Contributors think the stuff is safe
> with groups like the WS19 one - but is it?   We really have no idea.
> All we know is that getting accessible copies out of them is nigh on
> impossible. (I don't count files encrypted with near unbreakable
> passwords as "accessible").  If the password is ever lost to a file -
> then that file becomes useless.
>
> An example of how allowing (or at least not preventing) copies to be
> taken are old audio recordings that are now being recovered by the
> BBC.   The BBC itself had long scrubbed old recordings of many programs
> now regarded as all-time "classics".    Copies are turning up in
> people's lofts and being made available to everyone.   No - its not an
> ideal way to ensure things survive - but life is unpredictable, and this
> works to a degree.
>
> The BAMA site is a good example of how to do this.  I got the vmars
> archive working along the same lines about 10 years ago, where stuff is
> freely given away.
>
>
> /3.  Try and get everyone to realise that sharing stuff is ultimately
> better for everyone - including the sharer.
>
> /In the UK, it has become socially unacceptable to drink and drive.
> People who think it OK to horde rare items that should be part of our
> common heritage, and refuse to allow access by anyone else, need to be
> regarded in the same way.  The problem isn't restricted to sharing old
> electronic manuals - you will find the archeological world has it in
> bucket loads.
>
>
> /4. //We, collectively, need to keep an eye on what Google is scanning
> in our own field.   If they ever scan something not widely available
> elsewhere, we need to take steps to get a full copy asap./
>
> The PRC-74 manual that started this thread is not under much threat as
> far as I know.   But there is some WWII era (and earlier) material that
> is.
>
> I am not sure how this would be done practically.  Chances are that
> Google doesn't publish a list of all the stuff it has scanned.   Someone
> on here may know more.
>
>
> Richard
> G7RVI
>
> On 01/12/2012 19:40, J. Forster wrote:
>>
>> Nick,
>>
>> I'm not saying Google is not doing a service by scanning a lot of stuff.
>> I
>> like their patents a lot.
>>
>> BUT, my concern is long term. I grew up in the era before Xerox and
>> scanners technical information was hard to get. If you were really
>> lucky,
>> you got a poor copy of a schemat for a unit. Mostly you got nothing.
>>
>> Yes, there were a very few books, but they had little but schemats and
>> "conversion" information.
>>
>> I don't care immediately that Google's scans don't have oversized
>> prints,
>> but, in the future when the HC gets even rarer than it is now, the loss
>> will be irretrievable.
>>
>> Already, there are sets whose doc is essentially mythical. I have two
>> such
>> at least.
>>
>> It's almost the same argument as preserving the diversity of critters
>> and
>> plants worldwide.
>>
>> The custodians of documents will just remember that 'Google scanned our
>> library', so we can toss out all the dusty manuals to make room for the
>> latest romance novel or Time magazine. They will not remember that the
>> prints were not scanned.
>>
>> That's the crux of the argument. Google, by scanning it incompletely, is
>> hastening the very loss of information they are seeking to preserve.
>>
>> YMMV,
>>
>> -John
>>
>> =============
>>
>> > Well, you guys should definitely ask for your money back! Oh
>> wait.......
>> >
>> > Me, I'm grateful to Google for the several million pages they've
>> given us
>> > for free that are quite useful and readable. Ok they aren't perfect
>> and
>> > are missing some of my favorite govt pubs but it sure is worth at
>> least
>> > what they charge.
>> > Cheers
>> > Nick
>> >
>> >
>> > On Dec 1, 2012, at 2:04 PM, "Kenneth G. Gordon"
>> <kgordon2006 at frontier.com <mailto:kgordon2006%40frontier.com>>
>> > wrote:
>> >
>> >> On 29 Nov 2012 at 18:53, J. Forster wrote:
>> >>
>> >>> IMO, this Google program is run by complete cretins. And, it seems
>> >>> there is no way to contact Google.
>> >>
>> >> You are absolutely correct. I cannot believe the lousy quality of the
>> >> scans of
>> >> books we have found on Google: missing pages, duplicated pages,
>> >> off-square pages, folded edges, etc., ad nauseaum.
>> >
>> >
>>
>>
>
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
>