41–50 of 139 posts
Error correction for these is going to be interesting, even a speck of dust could obscure many megabytes of data.
If this is real and can be commercialized it could lead to some pretty devastating fallout for the entertainment industry. You've got to know that there are a few obsessive archivists out there with pretty comprehensive collections of films spread across rooms of RAID arrays. When they can start backing those collections up for friends onto a single disc, ie a single disc that has more films than you could possibly w…
If this is real and can be commercialized it could lead to some pretty devastating fallout for the entertainment industry. You've got to know that there are a few obsessive archivists out there with pretty comprehensive collections of films spread across rooms of RAID arrays. When they can start backing those collections up for friends onto a single disc, ie a single disc that has more films than you could possibly w…
Books are small enough that this has pretty much already happened (search for "library genesis").
If this is real and can be commercialized it could lead to some pretty devastating fallout for the entertainment industry. You've got to know that there are a few obsessive archivists out there with pretty comprehensive collections of films spread across rooms of RAID arrays. When they can start backing those collections up for friends onto a single disc, ie a single disc that has more films than you could possibly w…
> more films than you could possibly watch in your lifetime I was curious if this statement was true... So assuming, 4.4 GB her HD film & 2 hrs long each, you can fit roughly 232 films per TB or 232,000 films total (for 1000 TB), that's 464,000 hours of HD content or 53 years (!) back to back. So, yes, that statement is true. Now the next logical question: Has the human race produced 464,000 hours of video content? L…
So, that would be 4,640 minutes or less than a week. Lower quality, and probably with (near) duplicates, but I guess it is safe to say we have that amount of video.
Another way to look at it: I expect we produce more content in unique wedding videos every year (at an hour each, that takes half a million weddings or a million people marrying. At an average of one marriage per life and a life expectancy of 75 year, that takes a population of 75 million people)
Seems a little past it's prime. Why would you want this when you have the internet?
Bandwidth. What if I could hand you the totality of Netflix, iTunes, etc.? Not wait for it to download, but transfer large chunks of the Internet in seconds? and no longer have to hope that, say, Netflix won't lose vast sections of their library for contractual reasons (as it has done of late)? Backups: permanent archiving of everything you have all on one disc. It makes vast swaths of data yours, in your hand, under…
Totally side-steps last mile monopolies as well. Don't want to work with us? We'll drop an LTE chipset in as well for the admin stuff. Redbox In Your Home.
If this is real and can be commercialized it could lead to some pretty devastating fallout for the entertainment industry. You've got to know that there are a few obsessive archivists out there with pretty comprehensive collections of films spread across rooms of RAID arrays. When they can start backing those collections up for friends onto a single disc, ie a single disc that has more films than you could possibly w…
> more films than you could possibly watch in your lifetime I was curious if this statement was true... So assuming, 4.4 GB her HD film & 2 hrs long each, you can fit roughly 232 films per TB or 232,000 films total (for 1000 TB), that's 464,000 hours of HD content or 53 years (!) back to back. So, yes, that statement is true. Now the next logical question: Has the human race produced 464,000 hours of video content? L…
Far more than that... YouTube alone claims "100 hours of video are uploaded to YouTube every minute":
https://www.youtube.com/yt/press/statistics.html
...which comes out to 144kh/day. In other words, one of these discs would be enough to store ~3 days worth of contributions to YouTube. So a box of these discs, let's say 1000 of them - which isn't all that big (e.g. http://www.amazon.co.uk/Neo-Aluminium-Storage-1000-sleeves/d... ), could hold an archive of every single video that has ever been uploaded to YouTube.
I am now reminded of this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y_UmWdcTrrc
Edit: got beaten to mentioning YouTube, but there's many other video sharing sites on the Internet, and of course there are probably countless hours of one of the types of video the Internet is well known for: porn.
I see where they mention writing the data, but does anyone see how/if they are reading the data? From his other pubs [1], it looks like a two-photon process is involved as part of writing in deep-subdiffraction limit for lithography. Will be fun to try and reverse that. [1] http://www.swinburne.edu.au/engineering/cmp/profile.php?memb... Edit: Paper that this PR refers to is here: http://www.nature.com/ncomms/2013/130…
The real breakthrough would be a way for regular CD/DVD drives to at least be able to read the new format. But I doubt that this will be practical for consumers. Most consumers dont really need a CD drive anymore, companies like Apple arent even including them in laptops any longer.
Digital downloads is all the rage right now, but people will still want to archive their downloads.
1000 terabytes = 8,000,000,000 megabits 8,000,000,000 / 400 = 20,000,000 seconds (7.6053 months)