Message 00219: Re: full JITF report
- To: "Carl Malamud" <xxxx@media.org>
- Subject: Re: full JITF report
- From: "Aaron Swartz" <xx@aaronsw.com>
- Date: Thu, 11 Sep 2008 23:59:11 -0400
- Dkim-signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:received:received:message-id:date:from:sender :to:subject:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type :content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition:references :x-google-sender-auth; bh=v3EhDhmfSn5goGS2yS6Cl09biDDnxaWUXNWCsByr95Q=; b=PQa7SLxcHA052Ak8GvzM10gN3s/4cJYHrKHJeyNWiYVdNxVMXXJO59/B3bKYKl4eDT oOstJRMP+k9ogrWQiDiZnjjokrGG+2zZgrWBYmZvc4XXSoCOL9ReOBOutElY1xTwBsod OHBoWYEOjoMz0Co8oxahLe5k8mHYb5PzE+ufc=
- Domainkey-signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=message-id:date:from:sender:to:subject:in-reply-to:mime-version :content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition :references:x-google-sender-auth; b=aOTtDCPM0cCgmvTcsfBdgkPyBYFG4sY7H8kYi5XL79ClT1JD88zWKL3jUJ7ndnwTba HPMgdEd4gyIxCQUT79Udt9colh28cf16CuhOAkGxGroOCEESLCbBuD1th1E9r3fDC5JS dU/NFVUq/Hg6U6Rhu5erAQSStIlunT1GkAnNw=
- In-reply-to: <332C9ADB-22B9-40C0-B3DB-0B25614063B3@media.org>
- References: <dc21c7860809111729r6881a56bl80d47040ac35fee9@mail.gmail.com> <332C9ADB-22B9-40C0-B3DB-0B25614063B3@media.org>
- Sender: xxxxxxx@gmail.com
Cool. We found a couple of bugs with corner cases but I think
everything's fixed now. Schultze is going to start deploying to
libraries next week.
On Thu, Sep 11, 2008 at 11:56 PM, Carl Malamud <xxxxxxx@media.org> wrote:
> Yeah, that's a healthy gross margin. I think I actually had that in one of
> the early drafts, but it got cut at some point. I was thinking of doing a
> second stab at pacer propaganda. Maybe that's a good lead.
>
> BTW, your sample files look fine ... my note had to do with postprocessing
> and that shouldn't impact data gathering.
>
> On Sep 11, 2008, at 5:29 PM, Aaron Swartz wrote:
>
>> Me and Schultz were looking at
>> http://pacer.resource.org/recycling.html and noticed that the actual
>> report says that they made $60M from PACER that year and spent $11M
>> operating it. This seems like numbers worth including.
>>
>
>
A service of Public.Resource.Org.