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

[J. Forster]

This is a good idea, IMO.

In addition to the PRC-138 (?) TM that triggered this recent email
exchange, there was a similar incident about doc on another manpac supply
maybe 6 monts or a year ago. Anyone remember?

Best,

-John

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




> John,
>
> I agree with all your suggestions.
>
> I'm going to write a letter to the CEO of Google. The more specific the
> letter is the more likely it will have some impact. I will post a copy of
> the letter here in the belief that many here will print out the letter,
> sign
> their name, and also send it to the Google CEO. That address will be part
> of
> the letter.
>
> What I need to know is the complete official name and/or number of some
> SPECIFC documents that we KNOW are in Googles collection AND have missing,
> incomplete or illegible diagrams or other missing or faulty parts. Help me
> out here folks! I'm relying on you to send this information because I
> don't
> know of any. More is better than less.
>
> Even if Google does nothing, a list of the faulty documents will be useful
> to this group. Knowing at least some of the faulty documents will allow
> this
> group to make some complete copies.
>
> Oh, since I am a member of only the armyradios yahoo group and this email
> will be going to other groups, you might want to email the document
> names/number directly to me (g u y h a r r e l l at b e l l s o u t h dot
> n
> e t) in addition to responding to your group.
>
> Guy
> KD5QQG
>
>   -----Original Message-----
>   From: armyradios at yahoogroups.com [mailto:armyradios at yahoogroups.com]On
> Behalf Of Richard Hankins
>   Sent: Monday, December 03, 2012 5:59 AM
>   To: Vintage-Military-RADAR at yahoogroups.com
>   Cc: ArmyRadios at yahoogroups.com; ARC5 at mailman.QTH.net; VMARS Mail List
>   Subject: [armyradios] Re: [Vintage-Military-RADAR] Re: [ARC5] [MRCA]
> AN/PRC-74 Schematics
>
>
>
>   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>
>     > 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.
>     >
>     >
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>