> was clearly referring to the data retention time of those media, and that is indeed often quoted as being on the order of years, not thousands of years Corre

> was clearly referring to the data retention time of those media, and that is indeed often quoted as being on the order of years, not thousands of years Correct, but the primary reason those technologies have shorter retention times is because they are rewritable. It's an apples-to-oranges comparison that doesn't make any sense. It would make sense if the article was clear that this was about improving archival storage options, and then comparing to things like CDs/DVDs, tape, and film.