'5D' discs can store data until well after the sun burns out

[BorisTheAnimal]

They're like Superman's memory crystals, but real.



Source: '5D' discs can store data until well after the sun burns out

 

[whs]

And it will last 13,8 Billion years - not 13.7 or 13.9.

They think that they have created a means to preserve the information. The opposite is true though. In 50 years nobody will have the tools to read those files and nobody will remember how to create them. Example: try to read an 8-track tape today. The only known safe way to preserve information is paper - at least up to now.

 

[ThrashZone]

Pretty cool add there with a flexible cellphone seems Apple was first to test it too with the bendable iphone 6

 

[BorisTheAnimal]

And it will last 13,8 Billion years - not 13.7 or 13.9.

It doesn't really matter most of us will fade away but only a few will maybe be able to live that long.

 

[Lady Fitzgerald]

And it will last 13,8 Billion years - not 13.7 or 13.9.

They think that they have created a means to preserve the information. The opposite is true though. In 50 years nobody will have the tools to read those files and nobody will remember how to create them. Example: try to read an 8-track tape today. The only known safe way to preserve information is paper - at least up to now.

Maybe, maybe not. The reason other media went the way of the dodo is it didn't hold enough data, it wasn't permanent enough, or better media was developed. However, now that data is being digitized instead of stored in analog format, it shouldn't be a big deal for data storage banks to use computers to update data still on media that is becoming obsolete onto newer media. It would be like a server farm converting from one size HDD to larger ones or even SSDs. The fact that so much data can be stored is such a small space strongly suggests it could be viable for longer than many, if not most, of us will be around.

 

[Clairvaux]

And it will last 13,8 Billion years - not 13.7 or 13.9.

They think that they have created a means to preserve the information. The opposite is true though. In 50 years nobody will have the tools to read those files and nobody will remember how to create them. Example: try to read an 8-track tape today. The only known safe way to preserve information is paper - at least up to now.

Exactly. That's what's fascinating. We're still digging up unknown documents printed or written on paper centuries ago, and other ones made of clay or stone thousands of years ago. And yet, I'll never be able to read again the "archives" I have saved myself on some 3 1/2" floppy disks, which I still keep somewhere in a drawer.

I witnessed the birth of the CD-R, and we were told at that time that it was practically eternal, that they would last for centuries, certainly for one's lifetime. One or two decades later, we were warned that it was a most unreliable means of storage, that you should check them every six months or so, that maybe you could hope to keep data intact on them for a year but that you should not rely on it. Even hard disks, with all their moving parts and electronics, are supposed to be a more reliable archival support than CD-Rs...

I often read people objecting that paper burns, but actually, that's not true : paper does not burn. It may burn, of course, if cought in a blaze, but the point is, most paper documents do not burn, and are still there to be read centuries later.

So yes, when I read that sort of announcement, I tend to take it with a truckload of salt. I have read hundreds of such pieces of "breaking news" in my lifetime, and most of them have not even materialised to begin with.

 

[Layback Bear]

Who do we contact in 13.8 years to RMA a problem disc?

 

[Lady Fitzgerald]

...I'll never be able to read again the "archives" I have saved myself on some 3 1/2" floppy disks, which I still keep somewhere in a drawer...

And whose fault is it that you didn't upgrade your data storage from floppies to newer, more current media before floppy drives became obsolete? Technology isn't stagnant; it keeps evolving, and sometimes devolving—the latest is not always the greatest—so one has to keep their data storage media current to avoid losing data. I've gone from keeping data on 5.25" floppies to 3.5" floppies in Commodore 64 format to Windows based IDE HDDs to SATA HDDs and I'm not far away from abandoning HDDs for SSDs. Eventually, assuming I live that long, the SSDs will be replaced with something else and something else after that so on and so forth for as long as I live, then my descendants will get it and, hopefully, they will continue the process. This includes my photos (digital photos do not fade, btw), books, music, and, eventually, my movies. I can store 616 CD albums in two different formats, plus all the liner notes, in only 314 GB, a fraction of the 2TB HDD it's stored on. My books (several thousand, well over half of which I have read) occupy only 35GB, including the ones I scanned to PDF (I still have close to a thousand to go). My 34,00 photos take up only 80GB (and I still have physical ones I haven't scanned yet). I do not worry about losing any of all that because I maintain multiple backups at home, in my safe deposit box in the fireproof safe anchored in bedrock at my credit union (I saw it being built; it makes Fort Knox look insecure), and in a paid cloud backup.

Paper isn't as great of a media as you think. The birth records of millions of Irish people were lost to fire during the 1916 Rising. My Mama has no photos, birth records, etc. of her immediate family due to a house fire when she was a child. Huge volumes of literature are lost when publishers quit printing books and the extant copies eventually molder away, fade, gets eaten by insects, fall apart from misuse or excessive use, get lost in political and/or religious purges, etc. Old paper documents are routinely destroyed because there isn't room to store them properly (or even improperly).

One huge advantage of digital archival is the ability to affordably store huge amounts of data, easily search and access it, and both easily and affordably backup the data, including georedundancy, which ensures that a disaster in one part of the world will not irrevocably destroy data since it is replicated in one or more places elsewhere. It is also easy to transfer archived data to more current media as the old media starts to wear out.

A friend of mine works for the ASU Library and is part of an archival project that searches for documents for eventual digital archival. Once digitally archived, it will not be necessary for anyone to go to umpteen physical locations to dig through reams of documentation to find what one is looking for; anyone with the appropriate permissions will be to quickly search within minutes, or maybe hours, from one location for data that otherwise would have taken weeks to months, or even years, and traveling to multiple locations to find State documents. Add to that data will no longer be subject to loss from disasters such as fire flood (yes, it floods in AZ), vandalism, censorship, etc.

Commercial server farms already are adopting newer media to gain more storage space within existing facilities, to make data more accessible, and to avoid obsolescence that can cause data to become irretrievable.

 

[Lady Fitzgerald]

Who do we contact in 13.8 years to RMA a problem disc?

I'm thinkin', by then, it will be out of warranty,

 

[Layback Bear]

I was hoping their would be a couple billion years grace period.

 

[Lady Fitzgerald]

I was hoping their would be a couple billion years grace period.

Greedy much? Besides, global warming will have rendered polar bears extinct long before then.

 

[Layback Bear]

I'm safe; me and Al Gore are buddies. I just put on my summer fur and use Al's refrigerated swimming pool. Add a little sun block lotion and I will be a happy bear.

My buddy Al.

 

[Lady Fitzgerald]

I'm safe; me and Al Gore are buddies. I just put on my summer fur and use Al's refrigerated swimming pool. Add a little sun block lotion and I will be a happy bear.

My buddy Al.

View attachment 382197

Your name wouldn't be Thornton, would it?

 

[Layback Bear]

Another old friend. He introduced me to Al.
Thornton traded a bunch of carbon credits for bitcoins and bought a house on the beach with them.

 

[Lady Fitzgerald]

Another old friend. He introduced me to Al.
Thornton traded a bunch of carbon credits for bitcoins and bought a house on the beach with them.

LOL! About those old girlfriends...

 

[Clairvaux]

...I'll never be able to read again the "archives" I have saved myself on some 3 1/2" floppy disks, which I still keep somewhere in a drawer...

And whose fault is it that you didn't upgrade your data storage from floppies to newer, more current media before floppy drives became obsolete? Technology isn't stagnant; it keeps evolving, and sometimes devolving—the latest is not always the greatest—so one has to keep their data storage media current to avoid losing data.

Thank you for caring, and for learning me something I don't know. What you describe is precisely the problem.

Many people who make a living archiving documents describe it exactly the way you do, except they present it as an issue. I'm glad for you you've managed to digitise every scrap of paper pertaining to your life since the Commodore 64 was around, but most people can't do that -- and coming to think of it, most institutions devoted to archival can't either.

Of course paper gets lost or destroyed. Most everything from the past has been, and will be. Including all your digitised archives, which, if you've been persistent enough to keep, future generations will not care to maintain.

The point is, if you just stack old papers in a suitcase in the attic, and do nothing, your grandchildren will still be able to read them. If you leave a colour portrait of a loved one in a tomb in Fayoum, and do nothing, future generations will be able to look at them several thousands years later. If you do the same thing with Commodore floppies, super-duper glass media or whatever, it's guaranteed nobody will be able to read them in a very short while.

There's no way I could digitise the thousands of books I own, a sizeable amount of which have been bequeathed to me by departed relatives -- after having crossed a few borders, and lived through a few wars and revolutions. Mind you, many of them are in a better condition than brand-new books printed and sold today.

Even if I had the funds of, say, Donald Trump, I still could not digitise them. You can't digitise the weight of a book, the feel of paper, the dry flowers that have been pressed between the pages.

 

[Clairvaux]

Who do we contact in 13.8 years to RMA a problem disc?

I believe you meant 13.8 billion years, but the funny thing is, your remark is still relevant taking the billion out.

 

[Lady Fitzgerald]

...I'll never be able to read again the "archives" I have saved myself on some 3 1/2" floppy disks, which I still keep somewhere in a drawer...

And whose fault is it that you didn't upgrade your data storage from floppies to newer, more current media before floppy drives became obsolete? Technology isn't stagnant; it keeps evolving, and sometimes devolving—the latest is not always the greatest—so one has to keep their data storage media current to avoid losing data.

Thank you for caring, and for learning me something I don't know. What you describe is precisely the problem.

Many people who make a living archiving documents describe it exactly the way you do, except they present it as an issue. I'm glad for you you've managed to digitise every scrap of paper pertaining to your life since the Commodore 64 was around, but most people can't do that -- and coming to think of it, most institutions devoted to archival can't either.

Of course paper gets lost or destroyed. Most everything from the past has been, and will be. Including all your digitised archives, which, if you've been persistent enough to keep, future generations will not care to maintain.

The point is, if you just stack old papers in a suitcase in the attic, and do nothing, your grandchildren will still be able to read them. If you leave a colour portrait of a loved one in a tomb in Fayoum, and do nothing, future generations will be able to look at them several thousands years later. If you do the same thing with Commodore floppies, super-duper glass media or whatever, it's guaranteed nobody will be able to read them in a very short while.

There's no way I could digitise the thousands of books I own, a sizeable amount of which have been bequeathed to me by departed relatives -- after having crossed a few borders, and lived through a few wars and revolutions. Mind you, many of them are in a better condition than brand-new books printed and sold today.

Even if I had the funds of, say, Donald Trump, I still could not digitise them. You can't digitise the weight of a book, the feel of paper, the dry flowers that have been pressed between the pages.

You keep missing the point. As long as media is kept up to date, data will be accessible. Your Fayoum example fails to mention of the thousands, if not millions of portraits that get lost because the media they are on and/or are made of is perishable and NOT easily and affordably replicable. Photographs fade over time. Dried flowers are a pale imitation that fails to catch the glory of a bloom unlike a digital copy of the original.

Digitizing books does not require the funds of Donald Trump. I spent around $300 for a paper cutter that could cut the spines off books and around $450 for a duplexing ADF scanner (which included Adobe Acrobat Standard and other software) to scan the pages liberated from the book spines. Frankly, I don't give the north end of a south bound furry little rodent about the feel or smell of books; reading from a TV screen or other monitor, or an e-book reader is far more pleasant. I definitely didn't like the weight of one banker box full of books, let alone forty of them and the amount of precious space they took up. I prefer the content over the container.

Many classic movies have been lost because the film they were on deteriorated. You may have hung onto numerous books over the years but, for every book you have saved, thousands, if not millions or more were lost due their fragile nature and couldn't be preserved or replicated. If my house burns down today, the only books I will lose are the ones that haven't been digitized yet. The others have been backed up and are easily recovered.

You are sadly mistaken about future generations not caring about data that people have preserved. It is a treasure trove to future historians. Families do want to know about their forbearers, something you have already admitted to about yours. I would kill to know what my maternal grandfather looked like; he passed away before I was born and all pictures of him were destroyed in a fire. I only have vague memories of my paternal grandfather as an old man, who passed away when I was very young. No one kept any photos of him from when he was younger. Granted, some mementoes can't be digitized, such as my paternal grandfather's old railroad watch, my uncle's WWII Navy pea coat, some of my Mama's jewelry, or many of my Daddy's tools (including some his father's), all of which I still have (though many of the tools were stolen shortly before he passed away); my sister also has many mementoes. However, all could be easily lost in a robbery, fire, storm, etc. That's why I have photos of all them, which are thoroughly backed up, so their memory can preserved no matter what may happen.

If you want to live in the past and be bound to your fragile, vulnerable possessions, go for it. I, and many other people prefer more practical and safer ways of maintaining data.

 

[Layback Bear]

I'm a history lover. So anyway history can be saved is a great thing. I don't really care how it's done as long as it is done.
I personally have hundreds of book and yes I also save things digitally.

 

[Clairvaux]

Lady Fitzgerald # 8 & #18

I will never understand the way some computer types (and now ladies, it seems) insist in turning light-hearted, anecdotical discussions about the use of technology into flaming wars, personal agression and claims that only morons do things differently from them.

Your suggestions that "I want to live in the past", "be bound to my fragile, vulnerable possessions", that I'm "sadly mistaken" or that it is "my fault" if I can't read old floppies anymore are downright insulting, condescending, and have no place in a civilised conversation of any sort.