[V8] Complications: Bentley Type 44 manual discs

[Scott Simmons]

Thanks for the correction.  Now I know (...and knowing..............)...

Back to manuals.. I have the V8 manuals printed in binders, but they're 
from a very large .pdf file.  I prefer the physical copy of books and 
catalogs over digital copies, and I can't really explain why.  I like to 
mark pages with fingers, flip back and forth, etc. etc. 

I have two copies of the V8 manuals, one printed in 1989 and one in 1993 
(or 1994).  The 1989 is mostly original with a few mechanic's notes here 
and there, but only covers the PT and is lacking in quite a few 
sections.  The 1994 edition is full with PT and ABH engines, and has a 
lot more info in it (airbag, e.g.), but it's a HORRIBLE translation.  
Example?  It instructs to tighten the small bolt at the bottom of the 
right t-belt cover (under oil pump) to 78 ft lbs.  ... wait, what?  That 
bolt's only 2" long and 8mm.. well, it appears that whomever translated 
it didn't understand how German's write their 1's.  With big heads.  And 
how 7's are crossed.  It's written in 3 different fonts, too, weird.

I'm unfamiliar with the Bentley program, is it in pdf format?

I have two laptops.  One's Win95, shoot.. um.. 300Mhz maybe?  I used it 
only for VAG-COM, but the battery's toast.  That one's free for the 
taking.  The other one I have still has a good battery, so it I keep. :)

~Scott S.

cobram at juno.com wrote:

> That article is about a specific industry storing terabytes of data in 
> mostly proprietary formats.  Not exactly something I'd use to back up 
> (pun intended) a blanket statement about digital storage.  I keep very 
> few personal archives on 35mm emulsion.
>  
> As an article it also had many mistakes and offered more lay opinion 
> than fact (the NYT, say it ain't so.)  I won't go into it too far 
> because of NAC, unless we're talking about Ronin, but the math in the 
> article is a little off, a digital archive is ready "out of the box" 
> whenever you decide to distribute or sell it, you plug in a cable or 
> access a server.  A film master has to be copied (not cheap), 
> assembled, and the way things are now...digitized, edited and enhanced 
> before it's ready for the market, I don't see any of those costs 
> factored in.  Me thinks the report the article is based on is a 
> Chicken Little alarm sent out by an industry (film archiving) which 
> may be rendered obsolete in the not too distant future.
>  
> The Viking space probe reference in the article serves to contradict 
> the premise that digital media "lose the data faster", since the data 
> was about all there, main problem being the way in which data was 
> recorded back then.  The data stream from Viking was kind of like 
> writing a 1000 page book and not including any spaces or punctuation.
>  
> MAC-for our purposes digital beats analog and paper by leagues, we can 
> consult most of the list archives and we can backup a pdf version of 
> the manual a whole lot easier than a paper one.  BTDT about 50 times 
> on the pulp version many moons ago. (You out there Mike?)  ;-)
>  
> BCNU,
> http://www.geocities.com/cobramsri/
> "In my many years I have come to a conclusion
> that one useless man is a shame, two is a law firm,
> and three or more is a congress."
>  
>  
> Scott Simmons <indischrot at gmail.com <mailto:indischrot at gmail.com>> writes:
> > Hey there,
> >
> > Here's my source:
> > http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/23/business/media/23steal.html
> >
> > ~Scott S.
> >
> > cobram at juno.com <mailto:cobram at juno.com> wrote:
> >
> > > Scott Simmons <indischrot at gmail.com <mailto:indischrot at gmail.com> 
> <mailto:indischrot at gmail.com>>
> > writes:
> > > > Not sure where I read it, but apparently it costs more to store
> > data
> > > > on digital medium than analog.  Also, digital mediums will lose
> > the
> > > > data  faster than analog.  Something like.. a DVD will lose
> > integrity
> > > > after 10 years?
> > > >
> > > > Throwing that out there,
> > > > Scott S.
> > > 
> > > You read it wrong or whoever wrote it is seriously misinformed. 
> > > Digital media lasts much longer, and digital data does not degrade
> >
> > > over time, nor does it degrade from copying.  There are a whole
> > new
> > > generation of solid state "hard drives" coming on-line now, which
> > have
> > > no moving parts and make an airplanes black box look like an old
> > > cassette tape for maintaining data integrity.  Like all things
> > > electronic, they're very expensive and only used in critical
> > > applications for now, like in medical devices, but as they gear up
> >
> > > production they'll get cheaper and cheaper.
> > > 
> > > A DVD will last from 50-300 years, nothing touches the media, life
> >
> > > span is solely dependent on the type of material used to make the
> >
> > > disk.  This is for brand name quality media  There is plenty of
> > poorly
> > > made junk on the market, some of the cheap no-name dye-based DVD-R
> > and
> > > DVD+R discs are so badly manufactured that you're lucky if you can
> >
> > > read the data after a week.
> > > 
> > > The real problem lies with the media becoming technically obsolete
> >
> > > after 20 to 30 years, decades or centuries before it physically
> > > deteriorates.  Makes it tough to set a standard, for the time
> > being
> > > PDF is about as good as it gets, the good news is that as
> > > improved formats come out, they are including some pretty decent
> > > translation interfaces which convert the old format seamlessly.
>  
>