Slashdot Mirror


Scientists Unveil Most Dense Memory Circuit Ever Made

adamlazz writes "The most dense computer memory circuit ever fabricated, capable of storing around 2,000 words in a unit the size of a white blood cell, was unveiled by scientists in California. The team of experts at the California Institute of Technology (Caltech) and the University of California, Los Angeles (UCLA) who developed the 160-kilobit memory cell say it has a bit density of 100 gigabits per square centimeter, a new record. The cell is capable of storing a file the size of the United States' Declaration of Independence with room left over."

249 comments

  1. Press Conference Transcript by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Funny

    [unveiling the most dense memory circuit ever made]
    Dr. Tufnel: Look... densest memory circuit ever, so dense you can't even see the data on it, so dense it's never been used.
    Reporter: [points his finger] It's never been used ...?
    Dr. Tufnel: Don't touch it!
    Reporter: We'll I wasn't going to touch it, I was just pointing at it.
    Dr. Tufnel: Well... don't point! It can't be used.
    Reporter: Don't point, okay. Can I look at it?
    Dr. Tufnel: No, no. That's it, you've seen enough of that one.

  2. DNA memory by CRCulver · · Score: 2, Interesting

    I know DNA has been proposed as a storage mechanism before. Since the immense human genome fits inside a cell, wouldn't DNA offer much denser storage?

    1. Re:DNA memory by phoenixwade · · Score: 4, Insightful

      As a Read only option, I suspect. The problem isn't really data density, it's data access speed. Three terrabytes of storage isn't going to do you much practical good if it takes two hours to find and recover the bit of information you want.

      --
      A positive attitude may not solve all your problems, but it will annoy enough people to make it worth the effort.
    2. Re:DNA memory by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Three terrabytes of storage isn't going to do you much practical good if it takes two hours to find and recover the bit of information you want.

      There is a large class of data storage requirements that could be met with a two hour seek time. As long as the throughput is there, it could replace tape drive type storage applications, for example.

      Or extremely large databases, which may be 99.995% write. Archival storage would be another example, if the medium proved hardy enough.

      While it won't replace RAM or hard drives, I would LOVE to see extremely high density storage of this type.

    3. Re:DNA memory by Speed+Pour · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Not a reliable media. Biological media, especially if it's based on Human DNA would potentially suffer from disease or short lifespan (begging the question of a special environment to keep it functional and stable). Non-living cells of DNA could be used to circumvent disease and lifespan issues, however they would deteriorate far more rapidly under any known method of reading (be it electrical, photo-reactive, irradiated, or chemical)

      A further set of issues, irradiation. Especially at such a small size, there's a higher danger of DNA material becoming corrupt due to mutation. Inside of a box filled with magnetic fields, electrical fields, high temperature, and continually higher frequency RF...well, I wouldn't be confident that my G wouldn't randomly mutate into a C.

      It's not a bad idea at all, it's just that science isn't anywhere close to being capable of using this as a reliable medium inside of a computer.

      As others have said, it seems that it would have to be read-only unless somebody figures out how to control irradiated mutation...then who needs a computer, we can change our own DNA to become more capable than any computer we could ever build. Wow, I've seen too many episodes of Dark Angel

      --
      - Nobody would know what RTFA meant if it didn't need to be said all the time
    4. Re:DNA memory by lazybratsche · · Score: 1

      Even if you could control all external sources of mutagenesis, a lot of mutation is caused by inherent flaws in cellular processes. DNA replication, even after error correction mechanisms, still makes about 1 mistake per ten billion nucleotides copied -- roughly on the order of one error for every few rounds of cell replication. Additionally, there are plenty of free radicals and other reactive molecules naturally floating around our cells, each capable of causing mutations. Of course, with current technology the data access time would be ridiculous. Whole genome sequencing, at this time, takes months or years to complete, and it ain't cheap or easy. Perhaps you could come up with an "addressing" scheme where you access sequence X by adding some transcription factor, and sequencing the resultant transcript. With current technology, this could "only" take a few days to access a small piece of data. Foreseeable technology might reduce this to hours. Even then, a useful data storage scheme using regulatory networks would be an impressive feat of genetic engineering.

    5. Re:DNA memory by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Finally. Someone has asked and answered the RIGHT question.

  3. Really? by HBI · · Score: 5, Funny

    The cell is capable of storing a file the size of the United States' Declaration of Independence with room left over."

    Not in Microsoft Word format. Maybe ASCII.

    --
    HBI's Law: Frequency of calling others Nazis is directly correlated with the likelihood of the accuser being Communist.
    1. Re:Really? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Troll

      Considering the way your independence is shrinking by the day, I guess it will soon fit (in word format).

    2. Re:Really? by lordmatthias215 · · Score: 1

      Right, because the Declaration of Independance is totally a part of our legal system, and is revised everytime one of our civil liberties is limited by law or policy.

    3. Re:Really? by LighterShadeOfBlack · · Score: 4, Funny

      Wait, so how many United States' Declaration of Independence do you get per Libraries of Congress? At room temperature, obviously.

      --
      Spelling mistakes, grammatical errors, and stupid comments are intentional.
    4. Re:Really? by Frogbert · · Score: 4, Funny

      I think I speak for the rest of the world when I say 'How the fuck long is the Declaration of Independence?"

    5. Re:Really? by pavium · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      So the US Declaration of Independence has become a standard size for a document?

      As a proud Brit, I HAVE NO IDEA how large the USDI is, nor why you'd want to devote some exotic storage technology to preserving it.

    6. Re:Really? by Americano · · Score: 5, Funny

      You know, I'm pretty sure the British government received a copy of it... look around, maybe you still have it. :)

    7. Re:Really? by gravij · · Score: 1

      I think I speak for the rest of the world when I say 'How the fuck long is the Declaration of Independence?"
      Perhaps more importantly how many Declarations of Independence are in one Library of Congress?
    8. Re:Really? by HBI · · Score: 4, Informative

      Original text from NARA
      Wikipedia

      Microsoft Word say:

      3 pages
      8 paragraphs
      111 lines
      1338 words
      6782 characters
      8114 characters (with spaces)

      --
      HBI's Law: Frequency of calling others Nazis is directly correlated with the likelihood of the accuser being Communist.
    9. Re:Really? by Runefox · · Score: 5, Funny

      1338 words
      So if the "The" at the beginning of the bolded opening sentence were dropped, the USA would instantaneously be the best place on earth?

      --
      Screw the rules, I have green hair!
    10. Re:Really? by UbuntuDupe · · Score: 1

      Hey, that reminds me -- do y'all have the fourth of July in G/B?

    11. Re:Really? by Xzzy · · Score: 2, Funny

      I don't understand your American units of measurement, what I really need to know is how much memory this is in VW beetles.

    12. Re:Really? by bob.appleyard · · Score: 1

      No.

      --
      How dare you be so modest!! You conceited bastard!!
    13. Re:Really? by Sam+Ritchie · · Score: 2, Funny

      We've certainly got it in Australia. I can't imagine the sort of trouble we'd have if we jumped straight from the 3rd to the 5th.

      --
      This sig is false.
    14. Re:Really? by terrymr · · Score: 1

      To quote king george "Nothing important happened today". Of course he didn't have the benefit of instant communication :-)

    15. Re:Really? by AlHunt · · Score: 1

      >Not in Microsoft Word format. Maybe ASCII

      I'm pretty sure the original Constitution was written in plain text. I don't think they had big enough hard drives back then to store it in Word or WP.

      --
      1 in 4 Maine children in struggle with hunger.
    16. Re:Really? by lhbtubajon · · Score: 2, Funny

      No way, MS will have a patch for Outlook to handle that shortly.

    17. Re:Really? by mysticgoat · · Score: 1

      160 kilobits = _ 10,000 _ traditional 16 bit words
      ____________ = _ 20,000 _ bytes
      ____________ = __ 3,333 _ MavisBeaconWords (avg 5char/word w singlespace word separators)
      ____________ = ______ 2.5 typewrittenPages (apx)

      Meanwhile, when saved to the desktop on a WinXP NTFS box, a Word97 document containing one character requires 19 kilobytes of storage. So:

      bytes (from above): 20,000
      less W97 overheads: 19,455 (19 KB less the 1 byte of content in the test file)
      __________________ -------
      ______________________ 544 bytes
      _______________________ 91 MavisBeaconWords

      So W97 could store a moderate length paragraph in this puppy, while a text editor could store the rough draft of a crappy sophomore school paper. Which just goes to show that people who write with Word are clearly more succinct, concise, and cogent than people who write with vi or emacs.

      The Microsoft Office 2007 Legacy and Mission: To boldly, italicly, strongly, & emphatically go where no word processor has ever bothered to go before.

    18. Re:Really? by Dunbal · · Score: 2, Funny

      As a proud Brit, I HAVE NO IDEA how large the USDI is

            Oh it's quite short really, and it goes:

            "Sod you, you limey bastards - we've had enough! We're not giving one more cent to your lunatic King, and you can tell him we are personally going to chop down all our trees, so THERE!"

      --
      Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
    19. Re:Really? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      why the loss in accuracy... We need a smaller unit, like bread boxes and/or toasters.

    20. Re:Really? by bruno.fatia · · Score: 1

      Now with Office 2007 and completely new file types it may fit! The file format has been completely revised so the competi^H^H^H^H^H^H^H compression ratio is much bigger now!

    21. Re:Really? by Poltras · · Score: 1

      Well that would fit the definition of habeas corpus, though, wouldn't it. Oh sorry I'll get back to topic before it turns out politics.

    22. Re:Really? by It+doesn't+come+easy · · Score: 1

      Hmmm, your extrapolation is in error. Saving a one byte document will only tell you the minimum block size for a file on the disk. If your one byte document (Word or otherwise) requires 19 kb on your disk, you will also find that a 18 kb document will require 19 kb of storage. The Word format does require massive amounts of overhead compared to ASCII but within reason, any Word document from 1 byte to 19 kb will require the same amount of storage. Now, if you were to reformat your drive to use a smaller block size, you could store smaller files more efficiently at the sacrifice of total usable storage capacity (and of course there is a system limitation of how many blocks or sectors the file system and OS can track -- I don't know what limits NTFS has personally).

      Not to disagree that Word (any version) wastes tons of storage space with all of the garbage the format stores but it's not a 19 kb to 1 ratio between Word and ASCII (probably more like 20 to 1 average).

      --
      The NSA: The only part of the US government that actually listens.
    23. Re:Really? by pipingguy · · Score: 1

      I'd be more worried about the Constitution. Apparently that thing has a variety of read/write/execution states.

    24. Re:Really? by lostguru · · Score: 1

      hogsheads, casks, and demijohns

      *end train sequence*

      --
      Jayne: "These are stone killers, little man. They ain't cuddly like me."
      98% of America's teens drink alcohol, smok
    25. Re:Really? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      explanation for the new guy?

    26. Re:Really? by jawtheshark · · Score: 1

      any Word document from 1 byte to 19 kb will require the same amount of storage

      I doubt that. Default cluster size of NTFS is 4KiB. So, a 4096 byte large file will take the same amount on disk as the 1 byte file. The 4097 byte file, though, will use up two clusters. Linky for the unbelievers. In Windows, you can always right click on a file and it will report both usages: "Size" and "Size on Disk". I just tried with a 17KiB ODS file that I had lying around: "Size = 16771 Bytes", "Size on Disk = 20480 Bytes". Exactly as expected.

      Note that the actual sector size on most harddisks is 512Bytes.

      Finally: the article is talking about RAM, where each byte is individually accessible, so your whole argumentation has no point at all in this context.

      --
      Ahhh...the great dumpster continuum. Many a free computer will be found there. -- sowth (748135)
    27. Re:Really? by Rosonowski · · Score: 1

      too bad you're not 'leet' enough to get it... *wink wink nudge nudge*

      --
      01101001 01100001 01101101 01101110 01101111 01110100 01100001 01101100 01100001 01110111 01111001 01100101 01110010
    28. Re:Really? by WillerZ · · Score: 1
      Default cluster size of NTFS is 4KiB. So, a 4096 byte large file will take the same amount on disk as the 1 byte file.


      It never used to - NTFS used to store the content of very short files in the MFT, so they only consume as much space as storing the name of the larger file.
      --
      I guess today is a passable day to die.
    29. Re:Really? by jawtheshark · · Score: 1

      Oh, I didn't know that particular trick. Thanks for pointing it out.

      --
      Ahhh...the great dumpster continuum. Many a free computer will be found there. -- sowth (748135)
    30. Re:Really? by 5of0 · · Score: 1

      End what?

      --
      You all have Oo.o and Firefox, so get World Wind.
    31. Re:Really? by TheRaven64 · · Score: 2, Funny

      Of course we do. When did you think we celebrate Thanksgiving?

      --
      I am TheRaven on Soylent News
    32. Re:Really? by somersault · · Score: 1

      So you're saying that I can finally run Office on 100 octane fuel?

      Besides, I thought they were going a more open XML based route after all those court cases, but I guess that's just me being naieve.

      --
      which is totally what she said
    33. Re:Really? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      To quote ED
      LEEB haxoring is haxoring that is greater than LEET, or 1337 haxoring. As everyone knows, 1337 lesser than 1338. Therefore, true haxors refer to themselves as LEEB.
    34. Re:Really? by tchdab1 · · Score: 1

      I can store a copy of the Declaration of Independence?
      So it's apparently useless.

      It should store a copy of the Bill of Rights - I think we're going to need to restore that sometime in the future.

    35. Re:Really? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      However, obviously the leetest haxors of all refer to themselves as leet (in base 30), since 580049 is way more than 1338.

    36. Re:Really? by It+doesn't+come+easy · · Score: 1

      Finally: the article is talking about RAM, where each byte is individually accessible, so your whole argumentation has no point at all in this context.

      I'm constantly amazed at how idiotic most Slashdotter's responses are. You do realize I was commenting on the previous POSTER'S ANALYSIS, not the article?

      So if the default NTFS cluster size is 4,096 bytes, and the previous poster is accurately reporting the size he saw, one might guess his drive isn't formatted to the default cluster size? Imagine that.

      Of course, I guess we could all believe that the Word 97 format is so bad that it takes 20,000 bytes to store one character. That makes perfect sense.

      --
      The NSA: The only part of the US government that actually listens.
    37. Re:Really? by jawtheshark · · Score: 1

      It constantly amazes me how idiotic replies can get when you nail someone on a technical error. I do realise that the original poster was talking about file sizes, but you *had* to bring file systems into it. I have news for you: if I load a file in memory, I can exactly allocate the memory required. That file of 19KByte will be 19KByte in memory if I load it directly. Sure, I won't be doing much with it, but nobody was talking about program datastructures either. So, the original poster was still talking about sizes, same as in the article!

      So, there you enter, with pointing out that the filesystem is organized differently and on top of that fail to get the technical details right. Sure, NTFS can have clusters in different sizes, but fact is: according to that table, any reasonable harddisk will have 4096Byte clusters. You have to specifically override it (that's stated in the knowledge base article). I'd challenge you to find a home-user PC that has cluster sizes different than 4096Bytes! Not talking about manually tweaked servers, or so where I trust that a competent admin will make the right choices. Even with tweaked servers, look at this: The maximum default cluster size under Windows XP is 4 kilobytes (KB) because NTFS file compression is not possible on drives with a larger allocation size.. That's a good reason to stick to the 4K cluster.

      You also should do something about your reading comprehension. The article talks about a 160kbit capacity. The original poster converted this to bytes. A bit shoddily, but correctly according to SI Standards. 160 Kbit / 8bit = 20 KByte. K=1000, and thus 20000KByte is the capacity from the article. Nothing about his filesystem. The only thing that comes from the filesystem in the original posters post, is the 19455Byte figure, and that once clearly is the "Size" indicator and not the "Size on Disk" indicator.

      The originals poster only error was to use the doc format, because it contains metadata. Metadata doesn't grow in the same way as the text, so the 19K overhead he claimed will not grow to 38K when he types his second character. He was indeed trying to ridicule the word format. He was aiming for a Funny, and you just were plain technically wrong.

      --
      Ahhh...the great dumpster continuum. Many a free computer will be found there. -- sowth (748135)
    38. Re:Really? by It+doesn't+come+easy · · Score: 1

      Meanwhile, when saved to the desktop on a WinXP NTFS box, a Word97 document containing one character requires 19 kilobytes of storage.

      From you: Nothing about his filesystem.

      Really.

      --
      The NSA: The only part of the US government that actually listens.
    39. Re:Really? by jawtheshark · · Score: 1

      Yeah, but 19455 is is no way (integer)divisible by 512 and in such way you *knew* he was talking about actual file sizes and not about stored-on-disk sizes. That 19455 would have been the same reported on ext2, ext3, ReiserFS, xfs, zfx, hfs, HPFS and fucking FAT.

      I have no idea why he included that, but that specification had no sense at all.

      Okay, let's settle this: I was wrong that he did not specify the filesystem. I apologize for that, but you could have nicely pointed this out. I'm not a bad guy, I know when to apologize. You admit you were technically in the wrong, and we're clear.

      Personally, I was more pissed that you attacked me and called me an IDIOT than anything else. If you would have kept a civilised tone, I would not have taken the same tone. My own post was technical, and neutral. I was not impolite at all (in the original post).

      --
      Ahhh...the great dumpster continuum. Many a free computer will be found there. -- sowth (748135)
    40. Re:Really? by mysticgoat · · Score: 1

      There is some serious misinformation about disk storage technology in this thread, and some of it is in parent post.

      This isn't the place for teaching the subject. There was a time when part of my job involved using Mace Utilities and similar tools to repair logically damaged hard drives or recover "erased" information. I pretty much know what I am talking about.

      My post of yesterday says that there is a fixed overhead of 19 KB for a Word97 file. There is also a variable overhead that depends on whether the formatting tables and structures defined in the fixed section are populated and the amount and complexity of that presentational metadata.

    41. Re:Really? by It+doesn't+come+easy · · Score: 1

      At least we agree on one thing...we both think the other is a blithering idiot.

      Just kidding. I appreciate your apology and it speaks well of your character. I apologize also for starting off so crass when I responded back to you. It was a poor choice. Heh, for a while I was wondering if we were going to reach the limit on how many response levels the slashcode will support on a single comment.

      --
      The NSA: The only part of the US government that actually listens.
    42. Re:Really? by jawtheshark · · Score: 1

      Apology accepted. I think we agree about something else: I think you're a decent person for accepting my "proposal of truce" :-) Glad to see there are still reasonable slashdotters.

      --
      Ahhh...the great dumpster continuum. Many a free computer will be found there. -- sowth (748135)
  4. Yes but.... by Hubertus_BigenD · · Score: 1

    The important question is how much pr0n can i fit on the head of a pin?

    1. Re:Yes but.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      About 1024 images of the best porn imaginable: http://www.maxitmag.com/images/stories/news/nvidia /8800gtx.jpg

      Check out the the knobs on that baby!

    2. Re:Yes but.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      A random sample of one "Its peanut Butter Jelly Time" flash animation has them at around 780k.
      I am sure someone with accurate pin head dimensions can tell us all how many bananas can dance on the head of a pin...

    3. Re:Yes but.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      The important question is how much pr0n can i fit on the head of a pin?

      Why? Is that all you have to work with?

    4. Re:Yes but.... by boriquajake · · Score: 1

      Holy crap, that was genius. How is that not modded up to a five? "pr0n" and medieval theology in the same post?!

      --
      I only scored 35% on the Nerd Test, I'm sorry.
    5. Re:Yes but.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Surely you meant to ask: How many teen angels can I fit on the head of a pin?

  5. Public Service Announcement by mrsam · · Score: 5, Funny

    Please post all "Libraries Of Congress" jokes in this thread. Help keep Slashdot clean. Thank you.

    1. Re:Public Service Announcement by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      1 Library of Congress = ? Declaration of Independence

      Library of Congress in Declaration of Independences

      Declaration of Independence in bytes

      Damn, didn't work in google calculator.

    2. Re:Public Service Announcement by kalpaha · · Score: 4, Informative

      Stop opressing me, I can post where ever I wanna!

      But seriously, using the estimate from wikipedia: "It is estimated that the print holdings of the Library of Congress would, if digitized and stored as plain text, constitute 17 to 20 terabytes of information", we can use google to calculate how many such chips would be required to store the US Library of Congress:

      Enter into google: (20 terabytes) / (160 kilobytes) = 134 217 728

      Now, with some reasearch into White Blood Cells, we learn that a normal human has between 7000 and 25,000 white blood cells in a drop of blood. So going with a conservative estimate of 10,000 white blood cells per a drop of blood, we could store the Library of Congress in
      134 217 728 / 10 000 = 13 421.7728 drops of blood.

      That's not very accurate, let's try to get a better estimate. Wikipedia to the resque:

      There are normally between 4×10^9 and 1.1×10^10 white blood cells in a litre of healthy adult blood.

      Again, with a conservative estimate of 7 x 10^9 white blood cells per liter, we get
      134 217 728 / (7 * (10^9)) = 0.0191739611

      Entering into google 0.0191739611 liter to centiliter, we get
      0.0191739611 liter = 1.91739611 centiliter

      In other words, storing the whole Library of Congress using these chips would take about half a shotglass of blood.

    3. Re:Public Service Announcement by lostguru · · Score: 1

      don't you mean the CIC



      infocalypse

      --
      Jayne: "These are stone killers, little man. They ain't cuddly like me."
      98% of America's teens drink alcohol, smok
    4. Re:Public Service Announcement by TheRaven64 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Entering into google 0.0191739611 liter to centiliter, we get ...depressed that someone needs a calculator to multiply by 100 in base 10?
      --
      I am TheRaven on Soylent News
    5. Re:Public Service Announcement by tehcyder · · Score: 1
      1.91739611 centiliter

      In other words, storing the whole Library of Congress using these chips would take about half a shotglass of blood.

      Who uses "centiliters"? What you mean is 19ml and in the UK a shot of spirits in a pub is 25ml, so I suppose a shot's about right (UK spirit measures are pretty ungenerous).
      --
      To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
    6. Re:Public Service Announcement by kalpaha · · Score: 1

      In Finland, a shot glass is commonly four centiliters, often referred to "four cents" (although the bars must also serve 2cl or 20ml shots).

  6. The real question is... by ENOENT · · Score: 5, Funny

    how many Libraries of Congress you can fit into an elephant with this technology.

    --
    That's "Mr. Soulless Automaton" to you, Bub.
    1. Re:The real question is... by adpsimpson · · Score: 5, Insightful

      In all seriousness, I know how long a London Bus is, I know that an elephant is pretty heavy, I know roughly how much shelf space the Encyclopedia Britannica takes up and I know tall buildings can be quite tall.

      But I have no real concept of how big a white blood cell is, or how much some thousand words (how many thousand? It's out my mind now that it's off the screen...) really is.

      For all I know, the hard drive in my computer could be storing 600 birthday cards per germ already and I wouldn't have a clue.

      Anyone care to quote how fast the Concorde went in Ford Escorts per millisecond? (the link will give you a good start)

      --
      Is crushing a suspect's child's testicles illegal?
      John Yoo: "No, [if] the President thinks he needs to do that."
    2. Re:The real question is... by joe_bruin · · Score: 3, Funny

      how many Libraries of Congress you can fit into an elephant with this technology.

      So you want to know the LoC / metric pachyderm of this technology? I'm not sure, but don't go by what it says on the box, they define a kilo-Library of Congress to be 1000 LoCs, not 1024.

    3. Re:The real question is... by Bogtha · · Score: 5, Funny

      how many Libraries of Congress you can fit into an elephant with this technology.

      Well, this page estimates LoC at 10 terabytes, which works out to 81920 gigabits. According to the article, a bit density of 100 gigabits per square inch means that you'd need 819.20 square inches to store the Library of Congress.

      According to this page, an elephant can reach 11 feet tall, or 132 inches, and 30 feet long, or 360 inches. According to this page, an elephant can reach 6'4" wide, or 76 inches. That's a dimension of 132 x 360 x 76 inches, or 3,611,520 square inches — assuming cubic elephants (there's a phrase you don't hear every day!).

      Given these figures, a reasonable first guess would be that you could fit approximately 4,400 Libraries of Congress into an elephantine memory circuit. Or, if you prefer to work with more manageable quantities, 4.4 megalocs per kilophant.

      How long before Google add LoCs to their calculator?

      --
      Bogtha Bogtha Bogtha
    4. Re:The real question is... by skribe · · Score: 4, Funny

      African or Asian elephant?

      --
      Blog
    5. Re:The real question is... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

      Don't you mean African or European? Wait...what? Oh...wrong species, move along, nothing to see here.

      Its a question of weight ratios

    6. Re:The real question is... by Assassin+bug · · Score: 1

      His link followed to a page on African elephants. The largest of the elephants.

    7. Re:The real question is... by Drooling+Iguana · · Score: 4, Funny

      But African elephants are non-migratory!

      --
      ... I'm addicted to placebos
    8. Re:The real question is... by that+this+is+not+und · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I have three sets of Encyclopedia Britannica, so know well how much space it takes up. One is the last set where the volumes are a single series from A-Z, the second is the following year when they split it to several series (Macropedia, Micropedia, I think are two of the designators) and the third is an early 20'th century set in leather bound octavio size volumes.

      It's more fun to browse through a volume of it on a rainy day than it is to hyperlink all over wikipedia.

    9. Re:The real question is... by maxume · · Score: 2, Funny

      O.K., but how many elephants can you fit into a Library of Congress?

      --
      Nerd rage is the funniest rage.
    10. Re:The real question is... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      According to the article, a bit density of 100 gigabits per square inch
      I'm not entirely sure, but I think the inch and the centimetre may be considered different units now.
    11. Re:The real question is... by Sloppy · · Score: 1

      Obviously, 1/4400 of an elephant should fill the library. Duh!

      --
      As copyright owner of this comment, I authorize everyone to defeat any technological measure which limits access to it.
    12. Re:The real question is... by SinGunner · · Score: 1

      Why are your three-dimensional objects being measured in square inches? Are you dimensionally dificient?

    13. Re:The real question is... by bozendoka · · Score: 1, Funny
      4.4 megalocs per kilophant

      That's it. I'm turning off my PC and going to bed. There's no way I'm going to see anything funnier than this today.

      Well done.
      --
      "You will soon be more aware of your growing awareness." - My first recursive fortune cookie!
    14. Re:The real question is... by RicktheBrick · · Score: 1

      There has been very little progress in ram memory(ddr) in the last five years especially compared to the progress made in the late 90's. According to Moore's law we should have had 2Giga bit chips in 2002 and 4Gig bits chip in 2004 and 8Giga bit chips in 2006 but it seem we are still stuck at the 1Giga bit level. I hope someone can figure out a way to get us back on track with the doubling of memory chips.

    15. Re:The real question is... by Brickwall · · Score: 1

      Also, I believe African elephants don't carry coconuts.

      --
      What was once true, is no longer so
    16. Re:The real question is... by PitaBred · · Score: 1

      But what if they gripped it by the husk? Could two of them carry one?

    17. Re:The real question is... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "megalocs per kilophant" ...that is wonderful

    18. Re:The real question is... by Captain0Flash · · Score: 0

      It's not a question of how he grips it! It's simple aerodynamics! A bird of that si- oops.

    19. Re:The real question is... by dgatwood · · Score: 1

      how many Libraries of Congress you can fit into an elephant with this technology.

      So you want to know the LoC / metric pachyderm of this technology? I'm not sure, but don't go by what it says on the box, they define a kilo-Library of Congress to be 1000 LoCs, not 1024.

      Well, the real answer to his question is twelve... but only if you get to know the elephant REALLY well first....

      :-D

      --

      Check out my sci-fi/humor trilogy at PatriotsBooks.

    20. Re:The real question is... by kalpaha · · Score: 2, Funny

      Sorry to rain on your parade, but according to this page, the volume of blood in an elephant is: about 9.5% to 10% of body weight. Using this page to get an estimate of an elephant's mass, we learn that they are on average 5000kg. So they contain roughly 500 liters of blood.

      As per my calculations in another post, we can fit a library of congress into 0.0191739611 liters of blood. So we can fit roughly 26,000 libraries of congress into 500 liters of blood.
      (500 liters) / (0.0191739611 liters) = 26 077.0321

      We have to take into consideration that I used an estimate of 20 terabytes for the LoC, if we half the number, then we get the figure 13,000 LoCs per elephant, which is already closer to your estimations. If we furthermore use a lower figure of 3500kg for the weight of an elephant, and consider that it's blood volume is 9.5% of it's weight, that yields 3 500 * (9.5%) = 332.5 liters of blood.

      Enter into google: ((332.5 liters) / (0.0191739611 liters))/2
      (remember, we divide by two because your estimate was 10 terabytes per LoC, whereas my earlier results went with 20 terabytes) and the result is
      ((332.5 liters) / (0.0191739611 liters)) / 2 = 8 670.61319

      In other words, I'd say we can fit between 8670 and 26,000 Libraries of Congress in an elephant. I guess your results fit within the margins of error: Elephantology (much less LibraryOfCongressology) is not an exact science.

    21. Re:The real question is... by edwdig · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I think the issue is more one of market demand. Who cares if you can put 8 GB on a stick if 99% of the potential customers are running an OS that can barely handle 4 GB ?

      Sure, there's the high end Unix crowd that would go crazy over that stuff, but trying asking SGI or the Itanium department how profitable it is to cater to that market nowadays.

      Also, don't forget that Windows hasn't had a major upgrade since 2001. Windows upgrades are a large factor in how much RAM people need.

    22. Re:The real question is... by lostguru · · Score: 1

      i love it


      into the sig it goes

      --
      Jayne: "These are stone killers, little man. They ain't cuddly like me."
      98% of America's teens drink alcohol, smok
    23. Re:The real question is... by OldManAndTheC++ · · Score: 2, Funny

      assuming cubic elephants

      You know, if elephants were cubic, they would be much easier to store and transport.

      Which reminds me of an old joke: a dairy farmer wanted to increase the milk output of his cows. A friend suggested he ask the local university for advice, and he eventually found a physics professor who was willing to help. After a few weeks of waiting, the farmer got a call from the professor, who claimed to have found a way to triple the milk production! The farmer raced to the university, where the professor sat him down in front of a blackboard, upon which he had drawn a circle. And then the professor said:

      "First, we assume a spherical cow..."

      --
      Soylent Green is peoplicious!
    24. Re:The real question is... by somersault · · Score: 1

      Very true, you can get 2GB micro SD flash cards are are about half an inch by quarter of an inch, and about a mm thick (I suck with inches :p maybe 1/16th of an inch?).. crazy.. I know they're not quite the same as normal RAM in your computer, but electronic storage capacity is still improving at an impressive rate.

      --
      which is totally what she said
    25. Re:The real question is... by Heian-794 · · Score: 1

      Keep in mind that before the Library of Congress developed their own system of measurement, a kilo-LoC was 999.999 LoCs. The Dewey Decimal System doesn's have a 1000.000.

    26. Re:The real question is... by jonasj · · Score: 2, Funny
      they define a kilo-Library of Congress to be 1000 LoCs
      You can implement a kilo-Library of Congress in a thousand lines of code? Impressive.
      --
      You know, Microsoft's street address also says a lot about their mentality.
    27. Re:The real question is... by kabocox · · Score: 1

      how many Libraries of Congress you can fit into an elephant with this technology.

      They haven't found a way of making the elephant large enough to house the library of congress yet. If you want only the data of the library of congress (what file size is that anyway?) just copy it to a flashdrive, DVD disc, or harddrive and feed it to the elephant. I'm not sure which tech would allow you to store your information recoverably inside of an elephant though. I'd go with a flashdrive and a zip lock baggy if I were you.

    28. Re:The real question is... by Veggie13 · · Score: 1

      Note that you assumed 100 gigabits per square inch. The article clearly says per square centimeter. Despite all this arguement about 2D units being useless anyway, your calculations are necessarily wrong. Good try though.

    29. Re:The real question is... by Kaki+Nix+Sain · · Score: 1

      A hollow volume with the same volume as an elephant is not an elephant. You should be trying to work out how many of these chips you could feed to a real elephant.

      --

      (C) Kaki Sain, 2011. By reading this, you have illegally copied my property to your brain.

    30. Re:The real question is... by 246o1 · · Score: 1

      If you change your estimate of the Library of Congress to take up LESS space, you actually should multiply the number of them that fit in an elephant by two. So your upper boundary would be 52 kiloLoCs, and your lower boundary more like 17.24 KLCs

      --
      Although the moon is smaller than the earth, it is farther away.
  7. nice storage density by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I gotta get some of these in my cluster!

  8. COMPARISONISTICS! by adam.dorsey · · Score: 5, Funny

    The cell is capable of storing a file the size of the United States' Declaration of Independence with room left over. Yeah, but how many 747s does it weigh? ...no, wait, how many Sears Towers is its height?

    Damn, none of my vague comparisons fit...

    WAIT! How many angels can dance on it? That one is for small stuff, right?
    --
    You are still innocent until proven guilty. What's changed is what they do to innocent people. - notnAP, #26891325
    1. Re:COMPARISONISTICS! by GigsVT · · Score: 1

      No. It's Libraries of Congress per 747 when measuring information density.

      --
      I've had enough abrasive sigs. Kittens are cute and fuzzy.
    2. Re:COMPARISONISTICS! by timeOday · · Score: 1
      Yeah, but how many 747s does it weigh? ...no, wait, how many Sears Towers is its height?
      This is such a cliche on slashdot.

      Give the summary credit for stating the following: "100 gigabits per square centimeter." That is a fine way to measure storage density.

    3. Re:COMPARISONISTICS! by Feanturi · · Score: 1

      Actually, the summary made me think of the cliche instantly with this line:

      The cell is capable of storing a file the size of the United States' Declaration of Independence with room left over.

      I mused to myself, "Cool, now we can measure storage in USDoIs!" I fully expected to see the very posts you are complaining about after that.

    4. Re:COMPARISONISTICS! by Bender0x7D1 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Um... gigabits per square centimeter is a horrible storage density metric. We need to deal with volume - unless we suddenly moved to a 2-dimensional universe - and even volume isn't perfect. For a drive platter do you only count the magnetic medium, or the underlying material as well? What about the space between platters or the read/write mechanism? I could have great storage density, but it wouldn't do me much good if I needed an entire scanning tunneling microscoope to read it.

      --
      Reading code is like reading the dictionary - you have to read half of it before you can go back and understand it.
    5. Re:COMPARISONISTICS! by dbIII · · Score: 1

      Don't lose it! You'll end up with a King called George!

    6. Re:COMPARISONISTICS! by DirePickle · · Score: 1

      DoIs per white blood cell is a perfectly cromulent unit of measurement.

    7. Re:COMPARISONISTICS! by eMbry00s · · Score: 1

      First off, the memory in question in this article is in "memory circuit" form - meaning we are not talking about HDDs, platters or read-heads of any kind. Second, gigabits per square centimeter is a great way of measuring how much space you can fit on a platter in the HDD business. After that comes how many platters you can fit in a 3.5" case and such, which does matter, but this isn't the ground that the HDD companies are competing at in the eyes of the consumer - they always report in storage per area.

    8. Re:COMPARISONISTICS! by cnettel · · Score: 1

      Your argument about drive platters rather indicates exactly why area density makes quite a bit of sense, as long as the technology used is inherently two-dimensional.

    9. Re:COMPARISONISTICS! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      WAIT! How many angels can dance on it? That one is for small stuff, right?

      Eight if they are skinny, four if they are fat.

  9. DNA-memory and computer bio-viruses by HTH+NE1 · · Score: 3, Insightful

    I know DNA has been proposed as a storage mechanism before. Since the immense human genome fits inside a cell, wouldn't DNA offer much denser storage?

    And have a stray biological virus get in and alter my computer's DNA-based memory?

    I wouldn't want to think what the computer would use to alter its DNA-based memory fast enough to be useful, let alone what would happen if it escaped and latched onto an organism.

    --
    Oh, say does that Star-Spangled Banner entwine / The myrtle of Venus with Bacchus's vine?
    1. Re:DNA-memory and computer bio-viruses by SP33doh · · Score: 5, Funny

      oh god the science fiction! IT BURNS!

    2. Re:DNA-memory and computer bio-viruses by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > And have a stray biological virus get in and alter my computer's DNA-based memory?

      uh yeah. i'd be a lot more worried about a stray biological virus getting OUT and altering my DNA-based self!

  10. Yeah, thanks by d12v10 · · Score: 3, Insightful

    You know what I hate? Articles that show the scale of whatever they're talking about in obscure ways, like "size of a red blood cell" or "as long as eighteen schoolbuses lined end to end". Next time, just tell us the actual size and we can make that approximation ourselves!

    d12

    1. Re:Yeah, thanks by Wooloomooloo · · Score: 4, Funny

      Yeah, comparing the size of things to lined up schoolbuses is pointless unless you specify whether they're european or african schoolbuses...

      *stings on drums*

    2. Re:Yeah, thanks by MyLongNickName · · Score: 2, Funny

      Yeah, I wish they would have said something like: "...developed the 160-kilobit memory cell say it has a bit density of 100 gigabits per square centimeter"

      --
      See my journal for slashdot ID's by year. Mine created in 2005. http://slashdot.org/journal/289875/slashdot-ids-by-year
    3. Re:Yeah, thanks by Dunbal · · Score: 2, Informative

      like "size of a red blood cell"

            The "size" of a red blood cell is around 7 micrometers thick, and around 30 micrometers in diameter IIRC... can't remember white blood cells but they're quite a bit bigger.

      --
      Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
    4. Re:Yeah, thanks by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      To make it even more vague, they did not mention whether it was the short bus Dubya rode to school in, or if it was in the big bus everyone else took to school.

  11. Hard drive application by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

    With 100 Gigabits per square cm, that means that a standard 3.5" platter would hold about 25 Tb of data, or about 3.1 terabytes of data.

    Not as impressive with the new 1 TB drives coming out now.

    1. Re:Hard drive application by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes, but how many platters are in a TB hard drive?

    2. Re:Hard drive application by Firehed · · Score: 2, Interesting

      3.1TB per platter, times probably four or five platters. You're looking at 12.4TB - most impressively, you "lose" more than a full terabyte due to the stupid *B/*iB capacity notation (down to 11.2TiB).

      Still fairly impressive if you ask me. But, more importantly, memory circuit says "flash" to me (I can't be bothered to read TFA). That'll make for a very large stick, or a massive internal flash drive - the latter really appeals to me, as seek time can be a real killer and flash effectively doesn't have one.

      --
      How are sites slashdotted when nobody reads TFAs?
    3. Re:Hard drive application by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You're forgetting most high capacity drives use more than one platter (after all, if you only need to add 1-2 platters to double-triple your storage, that's good for the marketing department). Still, I'd still be impressed even if this cell had less density than a magnetic disk. We're talking about bulk storage of vaguely magnetized areas on a piece of metal (with drive heads fabricated with much the same nanometer-scale manufacturing techniques used to make microchips) vs. a complete semiconductor device replicated zillions of times across the surface of a chip. Semiconductors usually don't win that contest.

      Of course, it's undoubtably more expensive, but still pretty impressive.

    4. Re:Hard drive application by kebes · · Score: 2, Informative

      Although the news writeup doesn't make this clear, the original scientific paper is comparing the data density achieved with RAM, not with hard disks. What they are doing is minituarizing high-speed volatile random-access memory. Although a 3 terabyte hard disk may not excite you, would you be impressed with 3 terabytes of RAM?

      If we could increase the data-density of RAM by a few orders of magnitude (without sacrificing access times, of course), we could avoid one of the main bottlenecks in modern computers.

  12. How does this compare to DNA bit density? by maynard · · Score: 3, Informative

    Rough comparison here. Short answer: DNA is far more dense information storage than this technology. Never mind that human white blood cells also contain the machinery to both compute and replicate data stored within DNA (as well as replicating the computation machinery).

    Biology still wins. But nanotechnology creeps ever closer year by year...

    1. Re:How does this compare to DNA bit density? by P3NIS_CLEAVER · · Score: 0, Troll

      White blood cells are formed within the bones from stem cells. They do not replicate DNA.

      --
      Please sign petition to restore sanity to our banking system!!!

      http://financialpetition.org/
    2. Re:How does this compare to DNA bit density? by maynard · · Score: 2, Informative

      This is generally true. Good counterpoint. However, there are some types of white blood cells that do replicate. IIRC (and please correct me if I'm wrong), when a T4 cell matches the protein key of an infection agent, it will notify the nearest white blood cell of the same protein type. This will signal that white blood cell to replicate, which then mounts an attack against the infection.

      This is an overly simplistic explanation, I'm sure.

    3. Re:How does this compare to DNA bit density? by phoenixwade · · Score: 0, Troll

      1. Find hooker
      2. Rent hooker
      3. Make Lots of White blood cells
      4. Profit!!

      --
      A positive attitude may not solve all your problems, but it will annoy enough people to make it worth the effort.
    4. Re:How does this compare to DNA bit density? by dEnY_cOnFoRmItY · · Score: 0

      actually they do when they get exposed to the right antigen/co-stimulatory molecules, they become activated then among other processes they clone themselves, this is true for both t-lymphocytes http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/T_cell#T_cell_activat ion and b-lymphocytes http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/B_cell#Activation_of_ B_cells

    5. Re:How does this compare to DNA bit density? by P3NIS_CLEAVER · · Score: 0, Troll

      From TFA: (first line) "All T cells originate from hematopoietic stem cells in the bone marrow."

      --
      Please sign petition to restore sanity to our banking system!!!

      http://financialpetition.org/
    6. Re:How does this compare to DNA bit density? by P3NIS_CLEAVER · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      and then "Helper T cells, (Th cells) are the "middlemen" of the adaptive immune system. Once activated, they divide rapidly and secrete small proteins called cytokines that regulate or "help" the immune response."

      death by TFA!

      --
      Please sign petition to restore sanity to our banking system!!!

      http://financialpetition.org/
    7. Re:How does this compare to DNA bit density? by Dunbal · · Score: 1

      This is generally true. Good counterpoint. However, there are some types of white blood cells that do replicate

            This is why I have always loathed immunology, heh heh heh... take your CD4's and CD8's and CD16's and CD"n"'s and shove em. And if your short on lube I can give you a whole lot of complement and interleukins to ease the pain... :)

      --
      Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
  13. Says nothing about the size of support circuitry by Cracked+Pottery · · Score: 4, Funny

    However, 32 of them should be enough for anybody.

  14. DNA has fault tolerance. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

    DNA has built-in fault tolerance. By contrast, this new memory circuit by Caltech would vaporize once an alpha particle hits it.

    1. Re:DNA has fault tolerance. by glwtta · · Score: 4, Informative

      DNA replication has fault tolerance, DNA itself corrupts all the time. Hell, you store it twice in every cell and still have all these problems with integrity (of course that's a large part of what DNA is for, but for computer systems that part is irrelevant).

      I just can't see biological systems ever achieving the kind of consistency we expect from computers. Do we really want to go to the good old days of running a computation several times and taking the average result as the answer?

      --
      sic transit gloria mundi
    2. Re:DNA has fault tolerance. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Might make a good genetic algorithm generator, though.

    3. Re:DNA has fault tolerance. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ah, memories...

      9 * 9 = 80.99999

    4. Re:DNA has fault tolerance. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Maybe if they can come up with a reliable check sum algorithm for DNA based computer memory they can cure cancer and every other disease. Wouldn't the drug companies be pissed if some computer geek in his parents basement put them out of business.

    5. Re:DNA has fault tolerance. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually, most, if not all, of the mutations in DNA is in the coded section (as opposed to the uncoded section, officially know as "junk"), which makes up about 1/3 of the DNA strand. Thus if we learn to encode data on the "junk" part, it might survive longer.

    6. Re:DNA has fault tolerance. by soft_guy · · Score: 1

      Do we really want to go to the good old days of running a computation several times and taking the average result as the answer? No, I don't want to go back to using Microsoft products.
      --
      Avoid Missing Ball for High Score
    7. Re:DNA has fault tolerance. by somersault · · Score: 1

      Not unless you design a way to correct it rather than just detect that it's broken..

      --
      which is totally what she said
    8. Re:DNA has fault tolerance. by glwtta · · Score: 1

      Actually, most, if not all, of the mutations in DNA is in the coded section (as opposed to the uncoded section, officially know as "junk"), which makes up about 1/3 of the DNA strand. Thus if we learn to encode data on the "junk" part, it might survive longer.

      I'm not following. Mutations happen completely at random, the difference is that there will be selective pressure on the ones in the coding regions (3-5% of the genome, if you are generous), whereas the rest of them do nothing and just float in and out. Most of the time the (coding) mutations will be detrimental, so they are going to be selected against, which is why the coding regions are so highly conserved (makes sense, really).

      --
      sic transit gloria mundi
    9. Re:DNA has fault tolerance. by mr_mischief · · Score: 1

      Especially on old Intel Pentiums with division bugs.

    10. Re:DNA has fault tolerance. by krishn_bhakt · · Score: 1

      "Hell, you store it twice in every cell"

      Are you talking about alleles or reverse complement strand?

      --
      The Answer Lies in The Genome
    11. Re:DNA has fault tolerance. by glwtta · · Score: 1

      I was talking about the double strandiness, to me there seems to be enough allele variation for it to be more than mere "redundancy". But yeah, it depends on how you look at it.

      --
      sic transit gloria mundi
    12. Re:DNA has fault tolerance. by kabocox · · Score: 1

      I just can't see biological systems ever achieving the kind of consistency we expect from computers. Do we really want to go to the good old days of running a computation several times and taking the average result as the answer?

      Well if you can do that 100 or a 1000 times faster than any other method using that scale, then yes we would. If we could figure out a better way less error prone way of computing at that scale, then we'd do that. Why are we researching DNA based processing? Because it is a "cheap" shortcut for working at that scale. If our other tools get better, we wouldn't bother with DNA processing.

  15. Which words? by R3d+M3rcury · · Score: 4, Interesting

    [...] capable of storing around 2,000 words [...] Which words? "Antidisestablishmentarianism" or "It"? What about languages where words take up one character like Chinese and Japanese?
    1. Re:Which words? by Nyago · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I assumed a word in the data storage sense. n bits to a word. Then I thought "wait a minute, which architecture?".

      --
      Reality is fluffy!
    2. Re:Which words? by isny · · Score: 1

      English also has a few words that take up one character.

    3. Re:Which words? by toejam316 · · Score: 1

      Wouldn't you assume they'd use the same standard as the adverage touch typing test where 4 characters including spaces etc. = 1 word?

    4. Re:Which words? by merreborn · · Score: 1

      When discussing computer memory, a "Word" is usually either 16, 32, or 64 bits. For the intel x86 architecture, a "word" is 16 bits. So in ASCII, "it" (being two ASCII bytes) fits in a "word". The ascii representation of the word "string" would require 3 "words". (neglecting a null character for string termination)

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Word_(computing)

    5. Re:Which words? by spoop · · Score: 2, Informative

      A word is 16 bits or so I think.

      --
      I blame geof's speakers.
    6. Re:Which words? by biscon · · Score: 1

      Your geekbadge have been revoked (as well as the people who modded you insightful)

    7. Re:Which words? by springbox · · Score: 2, Informative

      In the x86 world it is.. A word can be the width of the bus on other architectures.

    8. Re:Which words? by settrans · · Score: 1

      Heh. I automatically assumed it meant 2 bytes by word.

      --
      "When I wake up in the morning I piss cryptographic excellence." - Bruce Schneier
    9. Re:Which words? by Frogbert · · Score: 1

      Isn't it 16bit values?

      Actually now I have a look at the Wikipedia topic I fear I'm opening a can of worms.

    10. Re:Which words? by spootle · · Score: 1

      african or european bus?

    11. Re:Which words? by Kopretinka · · Score: 1

      youngster!

      --
      Yesterday was the time to do it right. Are we having a REVOLUTION yet?
    12. Re:Which words? by Jerf · · Score: 1

      It's like they went out of their way to pick the most vague word possible.

    13. Re:Which words? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Add something like UTF-16 into the mix to really make your head hurt.

    14. Re:Which words? by afterhoursdjs.org · · Score: 1

      I assume we can compare this to WPM typing speed. IIRC, The average English word is 7 characters including the space when typed. I haven't read through the thread yet, perhaps someone has clarified.

    15. Re:Which words? by chris_eineke · · Score: 3, Funny
      n bits to a word. Then I thought "wait a minute, which architecture?".

      Since they're red blood cells, which are essential to life, to the universe, and everything, I would say it's going to 42 bits to a word. :P
      --
      "All you have to do is be fragile and grateful. So stay the underdog." Chuck Palahniuk, Choke
    16. Re:Which words? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ok. Name 27.

    17. Re:Which words? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Assuming txt spk cnts, there's a, b, c, f, I, k, n, O, p, r, u, x, y, @, #, $, &, 0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9

    18. Re:Which words? by spiderbiten · · Score: 1

      And, is it unladen?

    19. Re:Which words? by JCOTTON · · Score: 1
      Probabilistically too late to be modded up, but a word, in the morse code sense, is the word "PARIS". That is, five letter words, with a space. When you say that you are sending or copying 13 words per minute, that is a very definite speed, not obscure at all. PARIS is just the right combination of dits and dahs to fall into the average, statistically speaking.

    20. Re:Which words? by mr_matticus · · Score: 1

      Incidentally, this is 5.25 bytes, or pretty damn close to a common definition for word length (5).

    21. Re:Which words? by WillerZ · · Score: 1

      word = 32-bits

      System/360 fo' life!

      --
      I guess today is a passable day to die.
    22. Re:Which words? by spun · · Score: 1

      It's like someone went somewhere to do something with less than precise units of language.

      --
      - None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
    23. Re:Which words? by Teancum · · Score: 1

      Yeah, you've opened a can of worms here.

      To really mess things up here, I remember back in my (analog pre-computer days) typewriter class where the instructor suggested that to determine a classical "words per minute" for typing that written English had on average five characters per word.

      That is at least a reasonable approximation that does have some standard to compare to that is outside of the realm of computer science, even though the number "five" doesn't really fit in too well with binary numbers as a divisor.

      2000 words (English) = 10K bytes (roughly) is a good translation.

      BTW, the Gutenberg version of the Declaration of Independence is a bit larger than this (with headers), but not by much.

  16. Come now. by mcrh · · Score: 1

    I think you'll find that I'm much denser than this.

  17. Not in what little Japanese I know... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    > What about languages where words take up one character like Chinese and Japanese?

    While you raise a good point, you have to remember that kanji would have to be multi-byte characters, anyhow (there's waaaaaaaaaay more than 256 of them, trust me on this).

    Also, although I'm only familiar with Chinese via my studies of Japanese, Japanese words rarely take up just one character (at least in the simplistic texts I read--I hold open the possibility that a higher percentage of kanji can be used if they ignore the Ministry of Education guidelines and use every available kanji or something). In Japanese, they have two different syllabaries (one for words of Japanese origin called hiragana, and another for foreign words, sound effects and probably other misc. things called katakana) which supplement the kanji they imported from China. They still need the kanji, BTW, because there are too many homophones (words that would be spelled the same and which mean completely different things), so they use the different kanji to make distinctions, although they do, for example, use kanji for a verb with hiragana to conjugate it. Very few words seem to be just one syllable.

    Granted, that's now a whole different tangent than what you were saying, but I do agree with your premise that it would be a LOT more useful if they'd just tell us the actual capacity of the damn thing instead of giving us useless metaphors :-)

    1. Re:Not in what little Japanese I know... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I do agree that Kanji takes up many bits per character, but congee is FAR more tasteful in general use. Especially if nouc mam is involved.

    2. Re:Not in what little Japanese I know... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I go with kimchi, myself.

  18. How do you unveil something this small? by solafide · · Score: 1

    Eh? Isn't it already veiled by virtue of its size, and if it has another veil which is removed (thus the unveiling) it's still kinda difficult to see...

  19. pathetic by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    not funny

    please be to try these search terms: OOG_THE_CAVEMAN; hot grits; Natalie Portman; *BSD is dying

  20. "Most dense"? by hjo3 · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Why not just say "densest"?

    1. Re:"Most dense"? by da_flo · · Score: 1

      Maybe they're dense about grammar.

    2. Re:"Most dense"? by nomadic · · Score: 1

      The correct term is "most densified".

    3. Re:"Most dense"? by Iamthefallen · · Score: 2, Funny

      Because "most dense" is more gooder grammar.

      --
      Wax-Museum Fire Results In Hundreds Of New Danny DeVito Statues
    4. Re:"Most dense"? by glwtta · · Score: 1

      Why not just say "densest"? Because you could say "having highest densiness" instead.

      --
      sic transit gloria mundi
    5. Re:"Most dense"? by stonecypher · · Score: 1

      Anyone who says "most dense" when they mean "smallest" isn't going to pick up on the semi-subtlety of "densest."

      Maybe you've forgotten, but when you apply the word dense to a single object, it refers to the object's density, not how many of them are packed into a given area. Given that many early ICs were made with lead, and that these are made with silicon, they're not anywhere near the densest ever, and to be clear, they're actually not the most densely packed ever either (thanks to 3d FRAM such as made by Matrix Semiconductor.) Besides, when one says "dense" to refer to things like jungles and populations, it's a descriptive term regarding the feeling of crowdedness, not some ephemeral measurement of the space inbetween circuits.

      If you're going to correct someone's language usage, don't reconjugate words if the words were ill chosen; prefer to help them use the right terms, rather than to teach them to correctly use the wrong phrase. If someone says they remember it smelling more purple, you don't tell them it smelled purpler, but rather explain to them that purple doesn't come in through the nose without a hell of a lot of acid.

      The words they're looking for are "smallest," "best packed," and so on, but those don't make good advertising copy, so the advertisers came up with densest, which the reviewers happily glommed onto, which spread to the editors (poor excuses that ZD and their ilk have for editors as they may be,) and by now have become common usage. And yes, everyone knows what they mean, and yes, that's usually good enough. That said, when you criticize someone's language use, you open yourself to more of the same.

      The only thing sadder than poor grammar is a poor excuse for a grammarian. I don't know that you even rise to the level of grammatist.

      --
      StoneCypher is Full of BS
    6. Re:"Most dense"? by slackarse · · Score: 1

      Don't you mean most good grammar?

      --
      Come to Australia so we can strip search you and rob you of your internets, pr0n, rights and freedoms.
    7. Re:"Most dense"? by hjo3 · · Score: 1

      Wow, talk about condescending. I was just wondering why the headline was wordier than it needed to be.

      Also, this: "...it's a descriptive term regarding the feeling of crowdedness, not some ephemeral measurement of the space inbetween circuits." Is bullshit. "Feeling of crowdedness" *is* an "ephemeral measurement."

      Did you write the headline? Because I'm having a hard time understanding why you'd lash out at someone over such an insignificant question.

    8. Re:"Most dense"? by stonecypher · · Score: 1

      Wow, talk about condescending.

      You get what you give.

      Because I'm having a hard time understanding

      Obviously.

      --
      StoneCypher is Full of BS
    9. Re:"Most dense"? by hjo3 · · Score: 1

      It took you five days to come up with that?

    10. Re:"Most dense"? by stonecypher · · Score: 1

      It took me five days to bother to read my response list. Some of us have better things to do.

      --
      StoneCypher is Full of BS
  21. Very few details by SmlFreshwaterBuffalo · · Score: 5, Insightful
    The article is very lacking in detail.
    • Is this volatile or non-volatile memory?
    • What size word are they using?
    • If non-volatile, what kind of endurance can be expected? What about data retention? It doesn't matter how small the memory is if the data only lasts 5 minutes. (Yes, I'm sure there would be applications even for that, but you get the point.)
    • What are the write and read times?
    • If volatile, does the data need to be refreshed continuously, or will it hold its value as long as power is applied?
    • How much power is required for different operation?
    Okay, so maybe I was expecting too much. But they could've at least given some of the most basic details, like word size (damned marketing dept!).
    1. Re:Very few details by LighterShadeOfBlack · · Score: 1

      Well they also say it stores 160kb, aka 20kB, so presumably by 2000 words they mean words of ten characters (or nine plus spaces) encoded in ASCII. Doesn't really matter, the 160kb is the important bit.

      --
      Spelling mistakes, grammatical errors, and stupid comments are intentional.
    2. Re:Very few details by StikyPad · · Score: 3, Informative

      This one is a bit better, but apparently the Nature article will be released tomorrow, which I assume would have the sort of detail you're asking for.

    3. Re:Very few details by mysticgoat · · Score: 1

      These are good questions!

      I can only answer a couple of them at the moment.

      Is this volatile or non-volatile memory?

      It is non-volatile... so long as nobody sneezes.

      What size word are they using?

      This should have been obvious from the context of TFA. They are using MavisBeaconWords. These have the equivalent length of 5 ascii characters plus one spacer character, so the conversion is 1 MavisBeaconWord = 6 bytes (assuming ascii encoding).

    4. Re:Very few details by EERac · · Score: 2, Informative
      More details can be found in the nature article (available to subscribers only) here. There is also a news feature and editors summary. For those without a subscription:
      1. The memory is nonvolatile (technically speaking), but bits decay in about an hour.
      2. The technology is not at the point were word length is a concern. The researchers were reading and writing individual bits. About half of all bits were deemed defective (having an on/off ratio of less that 1.5)
      3. As said above, bits last for about an hour. I'm sure they intend to improve this.
      4. Bits were written using .2 second pulses of 1.5 volts and read using .2 volts. I doubt any attempt was made to optimize these quantities. Remember, voltages are not being applied directly to the molecules storing information, they are applied to sets of perpendicular nanowires. The electrodes controlling these nanowires might be the cause of the slow switching time.
      5. There is no mention of power requirements in the article
      As you can see, this technology is not coming to market any time soon. The research demonstrates that a grid of nanowires can control a layer of programmable molecules, yielding a very high storage densities. High defect rates, however, may require a large overhead (think of the size of the defect map required). More importantly, the nanowires that form the grid cannot yet be individually controlled. In this experiment, electrodes were used to turn on 2 to 4 nanowires at a time. To date, no reliable way of controlling many individual nanowires has been experimentally demonstrated.
  22. Yahoo! I can multiply! by scdeimos · · Score: 2, Informative

    The Yahoo! News article got the figures wrong. To get only 2,000 words (a computer term, not a linguistic one) out of 160-kbits they'd have to be 80-bit words. The article at Technology Review has better maths and more information to boot.

  23. RTFS! by KNicolson · · Score: 1
    developed the 160-kilobit memory cell

    Therefore, 160 kb divided by 2000 English words, and assuming that we encode them in a 6-bit encoding, gives us over 13 letters per word, or call it 12 when allowing for punctuation.

    Alternatively, assuming ASCII encoding, that still gives us exactly 10 characters per word, or call it 9 when allowing for punctuation.

    Wikipedia claims that the average English word length is 5 plus one punctuation character.

  24. tracking nuclei as memory by planckscale · · Score: 1

    Say you have a sliver of very thin metal disk just several atoms thick that spins. At a reoccurring predetermined time, a photon or particle gun shoots energy at the disk at a very specific location and say every 1 ms rpm, it misses an atom and hits a detector. However, if on the last pass, it's time is changed by .5ms and at 9.5ms that energy is obstructed and doesn't hit the detector. If this continues could you reasonably determine that the photon has been obstructed by a nucleus? Then once you've mapped all the locations (times) of all the nuclei in the metal, you take another disk and spin it underneath it and map the locations of it's nuclei. Then maybe a third disk. Couldn't you build a kind of memory gate just by determining the location of nuclei, and the timing of those photons that reach the detector? Then you wouldn't have to build nanoscale structures, or magnetic pits at all, you just use the existing atomic structure of the material itself?

    --
    Namaste
    1. Re:tracking nuclei as memory by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Unfortunaltely, photons ``bounce off'' the ``electron cloud'', they don't see the nucleus, not even with powerful lasers. But the more important question is even if it were to work, how would one write to such a memory?

    2. Re:tracking nuclei as memory by pHpDude · · Score: 1

      Sure. No, wait... sure.

    3. Re:tracking nuclei as memory by Dunbal · · Score: 1

      Unfortunaltely, photons ``bounce off'' the ``electron cloud'', they don't see the nucleus, not even with powerful lasers.

            First of all, my lasers are mounted on sharks' heads, so they are much more powerful.

            Second, we strip away all those pesky electrons by completely ionizing the material which oops, won't keep still all of a sudden... uhh nevermind ;)

      --
      Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
  25. Something doesn't add up... by oskard · · Score: 1

    ... who developed the 160-kilobit memory cell ... So 160,000 bits = 2,000 words.

    160000 / 2000 = 80

    One word = 80 bits?

    I've never heard of an 80-bit word architecture.

    Unless of course they're speaking of an MS Word architecture, in which case even the byte count would be bloated :P
    --
    Sigs are for Terrorists.
    1. Re:Something doesn't add up... by glwtta · · Score: 1

      I've never heard of an 80-bit word architecture.

      Are you sure they don't mean '80 / 8 = 10' - an estimate for average English word length? Pretty hight though, I think it's usually about 6 (counting the space, even).

      --
      sic transit gloria mundi
    2. Re:Something doesn't add up... by Rick+Genter · · Score: 1

      Don't forget 16-bit characters (UTF-16?). Then you would be at 5 characters per word.

      --
      Don't underestimate the power of The Source
    3. Re:Something doesn't add up... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Then use UTF-8.

    4. Re:Something doesn't add up... by stonecypher · · Score: 1

      In context, they mean real words, not the storage unit "word." They're talking about libraries, books, and text documents. Ten bytes per word is, if anything, generous.

      --
      StoneCypher is Full of BS
    5. Re:Something doesn't add up... by 140Mandak262Jamuna · · Score: 1
      I've never heard of an 80-bit word architecture.

      I had not either. But I had a bug in the Linux port of my code and discovered that deep inside the floating point processor of 32 bit intel chips, there are 80 bit registers and all intermediate calculations are accurate upto 80 bits and final result gets truncated and stored in 64 bit double words. I had to fiddle with compiler flags to disable the "extra" accuracy. A tree I was building was using 80 bit accurate key during insertion and 64 bit accurate stored value during the fetch.

      And yes, there are places with 80 bit words.

      --
      sed -e 's/Chuck Norris/Rajnikant/g' joke > fact
  26. Obl. football field? by Roadmaster · · Score: 1

    capable of storing around 2,000 words in a unit the size of a white blood cell, Yeah so.. how many words in a unit the size of a football field? remember that's the only area measuring unit we understand!!
    1. Re:Obl. football field? by 1310nm · · Score: 1

      And for a control, how many words during a football game between AIDS-infected monkeys?

    2. Re:Obl. football field? by Dunbal · · Score: 1

      And for a control, how many words during a football game between AIDS-infected monkeys?


            Or, how many AIDS infected monkeys would it take to randomly type one of Shakespeare's plays during a football game?

      --
      Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
    3. Re:Obl. football field? by mysticgoat · · Score: 1

      Is that an English football, or an American football?

      Sorry everybody, I just couldn't resist.

      Must control these Montyesque fingertappings...

    4. Re:Obl. football field? by MLease · · Score: 1

      Is that an English football, or an American football?

      What?! I don't know that! AAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHhhhhhhhhh.....

      -Mike

      --
      I'm sorry; I don't know what I was thinking!
  27. Research abstract by FleaPlus · · Score: 4, Informative

    The piece on Yahoo! News was pretty low on details, so here's the abstract from the Nature paper:

    A 160-kilobit molecular electronic memory patterned at 1011 bits per square centimetre

    Jonathan E. Green1,4, Jang Wook Choi1,4, Akram Boukai1, Yuri Bunimovich1, Ezekiel Johnston-Halperin1,3, Erica DeIonno1, Yi Luo1,3, Bonnie A. Sheriff1, Ke Xu1, Young Shik Shin1, Hsian-Rong Tseng2,3, J. Fraser Stoddart2 and James R. Heath1

    The primary metric for gauging progress in the various semiconductor integrated circuit technologies is the spacing, or pitch, between the most closely spaced wires within a dynamic random access memory (DRAM) circuit1. Modern DRAM circuits have 140 nm pitch wires and a memory cell size of 0.0408 mum2. Improving integrated circuit technology will require that these dimensions decrease over time. However, at present a large fraction of the patterning and materials requirements that we expect to need for the construction of new integrated circuit technologies in 2013 have 'no known solution'1. Promising ingredients for advances in integrated circuit technology are nanowires2, molecular electronics3 and defect-tolerant architectures4, as demonstrated by reports of single devices5, 6, 7 and small circuits8, 9. Methods of extending these approaches to large-scale, high-density circuitry are largely undeveloped. Here we describe a 160,000-bit molecular electronic memory circuit, fabricated at a density of 1011 bits cm-2 (pitch 33 nm; memory cell size 0.0011 mum2), that is, roughly analogous to the dimensions of a DRAM circuit1 projected to be available by 2020. A monolayer of bistable, [2]rotaxane molecules10 served as the data storage elements. Although the circuit has large numbers of defects, those defects could be readily identified through electronic testing and isolated using software coding. The working bits were then configured to form a fully functional random access memory circuit for storing and retrieving information.


    Also, an interesting bit from the very end of the paper:

    Many scientific and engineering challenges, such as device robustness, improved etching tools and improved switching speed, remain to be addressed before the type of crossbar memory described here can be practical. Nevertheless, this 160,000-bit molecular memory does indicate that at least some of the most challenging scientific issues associated with integrating nanowires, molecular materials, and defect-tolerant circuit architectures at extreme dimensions are solvable. Although it is unlikely that these digital circuits will scale to a density that is only limited by the size of the molecular switches, it should be possible to increase the bit density considerably over what is described here. Recent nano-imprinting results suggest that high-throughput manufacturing of these types of circuits may be possible29. Finally, these results provide a compelling demonstration of many of the nanotechnology concepts that were introduced by the Teramac supercomputer several years ago, albeit using a circuit that contained a significantly higher fraction of defective components than did the Teramac machine4.

  28. so dense that... by nemmo723 · · Score: 1

    light bends around it?

    (i just had to post this one.. )

  29. I'd be willing to bet the iterface is bigger... by weffew... · · Score: 1
  30. For some reason these analogies do not impress me by Retired+Replicant · · Score: 1

    I thought white blood cells were giant honking cells. Aren't they much bigger than the size of the manufacturing process used to fabricate modern computer chips? I would have thought a piece of silicon the size of a white blood cell would be able to store more than 2000 words.

  31. I thought my memory circuits were densest by second+class+skygod · · Score: 1

    ... Umh, what were we talking about again?

  32. LOCs? by RedWizzard · · Score: 1

    The cell is capable of storing a file the size of the United States' Declaration of Independence with room left over." How many Libraries Of Congress per Volkswagon Beetles is that?
    1. Re:LOCs? by Dunbal · · Score: 1

      How many Libraries Of Congress per Volkswagon Beetles is that?


            So someone with AIDS and a low white cell count now has to worry about loosing their vocabulary, among other things?

      --
      Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
    2. Re:LOCs? by WillerZ · · Score: 1
      loosing their vocabulary


      On what are they letting it loose?
      --
      I guess today is a passable day to die.
  33. Give us furlongs. by EmbeddedJanitor · · Score: 1

    chains, slugs, inches of mercury... at least these are defined units

    --
    Engineering is the art of compromise.
  34. DANG! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "The cell is capable of storing a file the size of the United States' Declaration of Independence with room left over."

    Dang, I'm gonna hafta get me some new reading glasses for this!

  35. if it were an iPod... by OrangeTide · · Score: 1

    it could hold .008 songs.

    --
    “Common sense is not so common.” — Voltaire
  36. M&Ms by TopSpin · · Score: 1

    Give the summary credit for stating the following: "100 gigabits per square centimeter." That is a fine way to measure storage density.

    Some NPR page has the volume of an M&M at 0.636cm^3. So this new ditty will store 7.95 GB in the space of an M&M.

    Plain.

    --
    Lurking at the bottom of the gravity well, getting old
    1. Re:M&Ms by Dunbal · · Score: 1

      So this new ditty will store 7.95 GB in the space of an M&M.

            A chocolate M&M, or a peanut M&M? They're not the same size!!! See perhaps the Skittles or Smarties units would have been more appropriate, since these are of uniform size.

      --
      Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
    2. Re:M&Ms by lostguru · · Score: 1

      european or african skittle


      *mumble*

      --
      Jayne: "These are stone killers, little man. They ain't cuddly like me."
      98% of America's teens drink alcohol, smok
  37. Re:mod doYwn by siphonophore · · Score: 1

    whoa! it's the black hole of moderation!

    --
    Dance like you're hurt, Love like you need money, and work when somebody's watching.
    -Scott Adams
  38. No, The *real* real question is... by theshowmecanuck · · Score: 1

    How many Libraries of Congress come OUT of an elephant in a year?

    --
    -- I ignore anonymous replies to my comments and postings.
  39. Yes but can it stop a 747 in flight? by peektwice · · Score: 1

    The cell is capable of storing a file the size of the United States' Declaration of Independence with room left over.
    Is no one listening? See my previous comment on dumbed down descriptions at http://yro.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=218008&cid =17700180 Change the names of the products/devices/discoveries/inventions or whatever, and you'll know how I feel about this type of crap. I mean, are they storing it as Unicode, Ascii, EBCDIC, cause the storage requirement varies. TFAuthor could have just said it could store one byte with LOTS of room left over.
    --
    Other than this text, there is no discernible information contained in this sig.
  40. HD-DVD Back-Up by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    OK- How HD-DVD's can I back up on my middle finger if I stick it in my 2.0 USB port?

  41. we're better than biology by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    We (well, some humans) already have the technology (since the late 1980's) to move individual single atoms and arrange them in any pattern we like. We can also view and take pictures of the atoms/patterns. So technically we have DNA beat (since each "bit" of the DNA consists of multi-atomic amino acids). However, for us reading and writing the single atom data is super hard and time consuming. So DNA only wins if you specify highest density with faster read out time + write time summed

    We have DNA beat when it comes to data read/write time (look at DRAM) and also access time. It's only on a combination of fast read/write and storage density that DNA wins out on.

    I hate being pedantic but wanted to point that out. Go humans!

  42. Enough of this small talk by Bill+(Unique+as+my+n · · Score: 1

    What was/is the LARGEST electronic memory storage circuit?

    1. Re:Enough of this small talk by WillerZ · · Score: 1

      Well, the first valve-based stuff is probably what you're looking for.

      I suspect that iron-core memory was denser than this stuff:

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Core_memory

      --
      I guess today is a passable day to die.
    2. Re:Enough of this small talk by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not sure, but some mercury delay line memory was pretty huge.

  43. My turn.... by sfeinstein · · Score: 1

    capable of storing around 2,000 words in a unit the size of a white blood cell
    ...
    The cell is capable of storing a file the size of the United States' Declaration of Independence


    OK. "Declarations of Independence per white blood cell" is officially the coolest unit ever.

    I suppose that is the small unit and the largest one for practical purposes would be Libraries of Congress per Spleen.
    --
    "Whether or not you believe me, I'm right" -RWF
  44. Dense??? by sconeu · · Score: 1

    I don't know... I think the memory cells in some of my users' brains are denser. And I don't mean in the storage capacity sense.

    --
    General Relativity: Space-time tells matter where to go; Matter tells space-time what shape to be.
  45. It's THAT small? by snailmail16 · · Score: 1

    I can just see it now:

    "Hey, anyone have a copy of the Declaration of Independence on them?"
    [Rummaging through pockets] "Yeah I know I've got it here somewhere."

    ...10 minutes later...

    "NOBODY MOVE! I DROPPED MY MEMORY CELL!"

  46. How about standards? Who needs it anyway? by ukoda · · Score: 1

    Why measure in white blood cells? I thought the accepted standards were Jumbo Jets, Football fields or Statutes of Libertys, unless you are in Europe were the metric equivalent is the simpler Eiffel Towers? It's all a mute point anyway as Bill pointed out 640K is more than enough for anyone and he's, like, mega rich so he has to be right, right?

  47. I've been around comupters too long by grahamsz · · Score: 1

    I immediately wondered if they were using a 16-bit word length or some different architecture.

  48. Sorry have to finish it by painQuin · · Score: 3, Funny

    Really? Are you sure? What do you have between the third and the fifth then?

    --
    A guilty conscience means at least you've got one.
    1. Re:Sorry have to finish it by lostguru · · Score: 1

      42nd duh

      --
      Jayne: "These are stone killers, little man. They ain't cuddly like me."
      98% of America's teens drink alcohol, smok
  49. Amazing compression stats on the Constitution by Eternal+Vigilance · · Score: 2, Funny

    The Bush Administration says it can now represent the whole thing with a single "NOT" gate.

  50. How many rods to the hogshead? by serviscope_minor · · Score: 1

    "capable of storing around 2,000 words in a unit the size of a white blood cell"

    "The cell is capable of storing a file the size of the United States' Declaration of Independence with room left over."

    Talk about units wierd enough to be meaningless.

    I'm going to tag this rodstothehogshead.

    --
    SJW n. One who posts facts.
    1. Re:How many rods to the hogshead? by IHC+Navistar · · Score: 1

      Jumbo jets, Statues of Liberties, etc. are all large enough for people to roughly compare size with. Nobody can see a white blood cell, or can make a practical comparison of it to other easily observable things. I can easily compare a 747 other things, such as a yacht or football field because they are both commonly observed and easily observed. Comparing the physical size of a white blood cell to the data size of the Declaration of Independance is a little difficult, since the average person (or even supehuman, unless your are a die-hard Geek) can observe the data size of the Declaration of Independace without a computer or other computational device, and cannot judge the size of a white blood cell without having observed it through a microscope. It's like asking someone what their height in angstroms or parsecs is.

      Of course, with any reference object, the whole principle of using comparative measurements is meaningless unless you understand the actual size of what objects are being compared. It was just a rough, albeit somewhat confusing, comparison between physical size and data size.

      I think what they were trying to say is that the data density is higher in the amount of physical space occupied by a white blood cell than is occupied by the same data set on a hard disk platter.

      Speaking of obscure and confusing measurements, I would love to hear of someone who correctly uses obscrue, overly technical, or ancient measurements to correctly list their physical characterists on their next tax return or census form.

      Weight: 44,528,163,360,000,000,000,000,000,000 Gigaelectronvolts
      Height: 16 729 333 475 172.748 X-Units
      Date Of Birth: 423964800 Unix Timestamp Date
      Age: 72,532,800,000,000,000 Shakes

      --
      Knowing Google's lust for data collection, the Soviet Union is still alive and well inside the psyche of Sergey Brin....
  51. Yeah, but... by Billy+the+Mountain · · Score: 1

    How many Theodore Kaczynski Unibomber Manifestoes can it store? That's the real question.

    --
    That was the turning point of my life--I went from negative zero to positive zero.
  52. I'm just wondering... by Pecholata · · Score: 0

    To get a better idea of it in the real world,

    how many installations of Duke Nukem forever could be made on a Beowulf cluster of white cells? :-)

  53. outsourcing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Last I heard African countries began outsourcing their elephant jobs to India.

  54. maths.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    off topic but...

    whats the deal with the word "maths"

    I've been through some pretty advanced high school math and 4 years of a very math intensive comp sci program. Not once have I seen or heard the term "maths" anywhere but /.

  55. Your math? by Just+Some+Guy · · Score: 1

    Even worse: I get 3.5in -> 9.6in^2 * 2 sides -> 124cm^2 * 100Gb/cm * 1B/8b -> 1.55GB per platter, and that's assuming the entire platter is writeable including the spindle (which obviously isn't true).

    --
    Dewey, what part of this looks like authorities should be involved?
  56. That's nothing. by silentounce · · Score: 1

    I just developed a 161-kilobit memory cell that has a bit density of 100 gigabits per square centimeter. That's right, one more. Most blokes, are at 160. But I'm at 161 for when I need that extra push!

    --
    There are many tongues to talk, and but few heads to think. -Victor Hugo
  57. really dense? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I fail to understand how 100 gigabits/cm2 is impressive (especially for a technology that is said to be available in 2020). 8GB SDHC Cards are currently available. In other words, a 64 gigabits card with the overall dimension of 24 x 32 x 2.1mm including connector, plastic shell, etc. Compared to 100 gigabits/cm2 a simple SDHC Card does sound quite close in density! AC

  58. Other Option by Luxifer · · Score: 1

    The other option is to use the U.S. bill of rights. Since it keeps getting smaller, you should be able to store it on smaller and smaller objects. Eventually it could be stored as a binary 0.

  59. Everybody, be careful! by cheezfreek · · Score: 2, Funny

    Don't accidentally swallow these things. Too many, and you might end up with the Library of Alexandiarrhea.

  60. ih by Rideak · · Score: 1

    si siht detpyrcne

  61. Bottoms Up by baby_robots · · Score: 1

    I am currently working towards a PhD in a simmilar field. Let me tell you why I find this exciting. If you take a look at the article in Nature, you'll find that the switch is significantly different than those we see today. It is simply one molecule with an on-off state. This is the first time that a synthetic moleculular machinge has been incorporated into a working memory storage device. Rather than having to lithograph every junction, the molecules simply bind to the silicon wires to create a memory device. Working towards devices from much smaller molecular parts, rather than wittling large blocks of material, has been demonstrated to be a feasible next step in miniturization of electronics.