4 ms·
> Paying $12 to store a gigabyte of data for 100 years seems like a pretty intriguing deal as we emerge from an era of bit rot. As long as that data is decode-
by natep 14y ago
> Paying $12 to store a gigabyte of data for 100 years seems like a pretty intriguing deal as we emerge from an era of bit rot.
As long as that data is decode-able and more importantly, find-able (out of all the GBs frozen for 100 years, why would you want to look at any particular one of them?).
- jaggederest 14y agoTo be fair, if improvements in hardware and software continue at the rate they have been, or some moderate percentage thereof, in 100 years it will be no problem to trawl a few exabytes of data for anything interesting.
- sp332 14y agoThere's a blog that's analyzing Geocities, that's about 1 terabyte of 1 KB files. http://contemporary-home-computing.org/1tb/ http://contemporary-home-computing.org/1tb/ The analysis tracks changes in template design, follows modifications to logos and gifs, and unearths collections of shrines to dead children etc. But that's from when it was harder to make and upload data, so people only put meaningful (to them) stuff online. These days we'd have a hundred thousand copies of a few popular MP3's and everyone's crappy digital photos. The percentage of meaningful stuff would be a lot lower.
- bradfa 14y agoAs long as that data is decode-able and more importantly, find-able (out of all the GBs frozen for 100 years, why would you want to look at any particular one of them?) I'd store my pictures there. Finding old pictures of grandparents when they were little, or even older stuff, is amazing. Wouldn't it be cool if my descendants could still look at pictures of my family in 100 years? Provided that downloading from this 100 year store is something I could do X times per year, and so long as I could append more data to it over time, it's an interesting business model.