Can you explain your comment?
As I interpret it, you are saying that "bits is bits" is subhect to some sort of "telephone game"
effect? Can you explain and provide some scientific basis for your statements?
As I interpret Richard's comment, "bits is bits" means that what medium is used to store the bits is
less relevant because bit "fidelity" is cross-platform and not subject to specific media problems
like analog signals were. However, bit integrity must be retained platform-to-platform. There are
built-in algorhythms to insure this, but screwing up the bits can create unfixable problems, so many
copies in many places of anything valuable is the best plan.
-- Tom Fine
----- Original Message -----
From: "Don Cox" <[log in to unmask]>
To: <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Tuesday, July 09, 2013 7:49 AM
Subject: Re: [ARSCLIST] M-Disc
> On 08/07/2013, Richard L. Hess wrote:
>> We are now past the age of dedicated formats for most things and if we
>> are not we should be. It's all just bits and we should be dealing with
>> the bits. It's the only thing that will really be supported going
> So, basically a digital version of the word-of-mouth transmission that
> prevailed before the invention of writing.
> Don Cox
> [log in to unmask]