Yes, I agree.  Never throw out old data.  Often you miss the important
points the first time or two thru.  Often you entirely miss new
information you weren't originally looking for!

*************************************************************************
*                                                                       *
*       Anthony Moss                    voice  (334)844-9257            *
*       101 Cary Hall                   fax    (334)844-4065            *
*       Zoology and Wildlife Science    email  [log in to unmask]  *
*       Auburn University                                               *
*       Auburn, AL 36849                                                *
*                                                                       *
*************************************************************************


On Mon, 20 Apr 1998, Treiman, Allan wrote:

> I have to speak up here. In addition to microscopy, I
> also do planetary spectroscopy. A student of mine
> is working on infrared reflectance spectra from Mariner
> 6 and 7, which flew by Mars in 1969. The original data was
> lost in the early 70s; she discovered the original 7-track
> tapes with the spectra and calibrations, has recovered most of
> them, and is finding much more in those spectra than was ever
> originally thought of. Granted, this is a unique case and a
> unique data set. But I would not discard old data merely
> because it was old.
>   Allan Treiman
> Lunar and Planetary Institute
> 3600 Bay Area Boulevard
> Houston, TX  77058-1113
>  (281) 486-2117
>  [log in to unmask]
>
> >----------
> >From:  robert palmer[SMTP:[log in to unmask]]
> >Sent:  Sunday, April 19, 1998 8:41 AM
> >To:    [log in to unmask]
> >Subject:       Re: CONFOCAL Digest - 16 Apr 1998 to 17 Apr 1998
> >
> >And to all this, I would ask if anyone can provide me with an example of
> >someone wanting (or should I say, really needing) to examine raw data from
> >even five years ago?  Perhaps some legal types can make a case for this
> >"need" (i.e., my client gets off if they can't produce the original data),
> >but I challange those from the ivory towers to document going back to data
> >acquired more than five years ago and really making something out of a
> >reanalysis.  My philosophy is that data is NOT like wine - you use it
> >within a relatively short time frame or you forget about it.  It does not
> >become better or more informative with age - in fact, just the opposite.  I
> >don't save string or rubber bands either...
> >Rob Palmer
> >CEB/UT
> >
> >>At 12:07 AM 4/18/98 , Doug Cromey <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> >>>"Digital information lasts forever, or five years -- whichever comes
> >>>first,"
> >>>says a senior computer scientist at RAND Corp.  The problem is that
> >>>computer
> >>>experts are finding out that under less-than-optimal conditions, digital
> >>>tapes and disks, including CD-ROMs, can deteriorate in as little as five to
> >>>10 years.  And the decay, although it happens gradually, isn't evident
> >>>until
> >>>it's too late, says the founder of Voyager Co., which makes commercial
> >>>CD-ROM books and games.  "CDs have a tendency to degrade much faster than
> >>>anybody, at least in the companies that make them, is willing to predict."
> >>
> >>I'm not a data storage expert, so take this for what it's worth, but I've
> >>been hearing about the imminent decay of CDs periodically since I worked at
> >>a radio station almost 15 years ago. I have yet to see even one documented
> >>case of a CD or CD-ROM where the data decayed because of age or "bit rot".
> >>I'm sure they don't last forever, but so far they seem to be hardier than
> >>the experts keep saying.  (Tapes and disks are a different story, of
> >>course.)
> >>------------------------------------------------------------------
> >>Jeff Metzner ([log in to unmask])     Universal Imaging Corporation
> >>Product Manager, MetaMorph          502 Brandywine Parkway
> >>http://www.image1.com               West Chester, PA 19380-4292
> >
>