Slashdot Mirror


New DVDs For 1,000-Year Digital Storage

anonymous cowpie sends word of a Utah startup that is about to introduce technology for writing DVDs that can be read for 1,000 years after being stored at room temperature. (Ordinary DVDs last anywhere from 3 to 12 years, on average.) The company, Millenniata, is said to be in the final stages of negotiation with Phillips over patent licensing and plans to begin manufacture in September. 1,000-year "M-ARC Discs" are expected to retail for $25-$30 at first, with the price coming down with volume. "Dubbed the Millennial Disk, it looks virtually identical to a regular DVD, but it's special. Layers of hard, 'persistent' materials (the exact composition is a trade secret) are laid down on a plastic carrier, and digital information is literally carved in with an enhanced laser using the company's Millennial Writer, a sort of beefed-up DVD burner. Once cut, the disk can be read by an ordinary DVD reader on your computer."

274 comments

  1. Posting.... by c00rdb · · Score: 4, Funny

    Posting to prevent accidental mod.

    1. Re:Posting.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Slashdot gives mod points to folks whose karma is so low they start at -1 for all posts?

    2. Re:Posting.... by bertoelcon · · Score: 1

      There are no "accidental" mods, morons just get mod points sometime.

      --
      Anything can be found funny, from a certain point of view.
  2. How do we KNOW that.. by NervousNerd · · Score: 5, Interesting

    How do we KNOW that they'll REALLY last 1,000 years?

    1. Re:How do we KNOW that.. by localman57 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I don't know. But it's interesting to think that people watching the DVDs 1000 years from now will probably find our speech as odd and different as we find Beowulf now...

    2. Re:How do we KNOW that.. by AHuxley · · Score: 2, Informative

      A lifetime estimation study would be done.
      Extended incubation tests, at ~ 80ÂC, 85%RH ect.
      Accelerated ageing should give the user some idea, not that many of us will get to ask for a 'return' for faulty goods.

      --
      Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
    3. Re:How do we KNOW that.. by kannibal_klown · · Score: 5, Funny

      I don't know. But it's interesting to think that people watching the DVDs 1000 years from now will probably find our speech as odd and different as we find Beowulf now...

      Yeh, they'll find it odd how we call it Christmas instead of XMas. How we saw Ask instead of Aks. And these rain forests we keep talking about.

    4. Re:How do we KNOW that.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Obviously the product was first marketed on the 17th of July, 1009.

    5. Re:How do we KNOW that.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They're making a black hole with LHC so they can test it.

    6. Re:How do we KNOW that.. by elrous0 · · Score: 3, Funny

      John Titor told us.

      --
      SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
    7. Re:How do we KNOW that.. by notseamus · · Score: 4, Funny

      Ah, you talk like a fag, and your shit's all retarded.

      --
      I dreamed of Freud: What does this mean?
    8. Re:How do we KNOW that.. by fuzzyfuzzyfungus · · Score: 1

      Hwæt! The unauthorized recollection or recitation of this copyrighted Epic is illegal.

    9. Re:How do we KNOW that.. by A.+B3ttik · · Score: 4, Funny

      How do we KNOW that they'll REALLY last 1,000 years?

      People from the future told us. They also told us to bury more porn.

    10. Re:How do we KNOW that.. by Joce640k · · Score: 1

      ...and will there be any DVD readers 1,000 years from now?

       

      4Gb of storage is already getting quite small. By the time this gets to market it will be too late to be useful.

      --
      No sig today...
    11. Re:How do we KNOW that.. by cashman73 · · Score: 2, Interesting

      The problem is, after we've evolved several generations, our porn won't be nearly as enticing to future generations as it is to us. They'll be wondering where the extra pair of titties is? ;-)

    12. Re:How do we KNOW that.. by Krneki · · Score: 2, Funny

      Ask Philip J. Fry.

      --
      Love many, trust a few, do harm to none.
    13. Re:How do we KNOW that.. by ReiVaX18 · · Score: 1

      Probably the same way they knew cdrs were gonna last for hundreds of years when they came out

      --
      If people do not believe that mathematics is simple, it is only because they do not realize how complicated life is. -
    14. Re:How do we KNOW that.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      parent is not flamebait. people who dont understand common cultural references (idiocracy in this case) shouldn't be allowed to mod posts.

    15. Re:How do we KNOW that.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They'll find it odd that we stored information on shiny drink coasters and think about how stupid we were to believe there would be any device around capable of spinning and reading such ancient, quaint "optical media". Then the Capt. will ask Data to build something to read it and he will get some of the degraded information from the device.

    16. Re:How do we KNOW that.. by AdmiralXyz · · Score: 1

      In the unlikely event that you RTFA, you'll notice there is an entire section devoted to that exact question.

      --
      Dislike the Electoral College? Lobby your state to join the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact.
    17. Re:How do we KNOW that.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      We don't know they will. But rest assured that a thousand years from now, your distant descendants can file a suit in small claims court for false advertising if your home movies won't play.

      The legal system works!

    18. Re:How do we KNOW that.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They tested it. Duh.

    19. Re:How do we KNOW that.. by pHus10n · · Score: 1

      Mod parent Funny. It's a reference from Idiocracy.

    20. Re:How do we KNOW that.. by msormune · · Score: 3, Funny

      The rain what now?

    21. Re:How do we KNOW that.. by A.+B3ttik · · Score: 4, Funny

      Good god, I hadn't thought of that.

      I'm sure the multi-endowed tentaclebeasted transfurry lolirape stuff that comes out of Japan and /b/ is _nothing_ compared to the unfathomable transdimensional Lovecraftian virtual Horror-Porn that our descendants will be fapping to in .

    22. Re:How do we KNOW that.. by zarmanto · · Score: 1

      How do we KNOW that they'll REALLY last 1,000 years?

      I dunno, but I hear they have rock-solid proof... something to do with a borrowed Delorean, if I'm not mistaken.

    23. Re:How do we KNOW that.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What else would you store on a DVD that expensive?

    24. Re:How do we KNOW that.. by CarpetShark · · Score: 3, Interesting

      rain forests

      Rain?

      For rests?

      Fascinating. Just 2,000 years ago, rain was a torture method. And just 1,000 years later, it seems to have developed into some the much-mentioned but never seen "rest and relaxation". So much of our past is yet to be discovered.

    25. Re:How do we KNOW that.. by stms · · Score: 1

      Not to mention the fact that DVD readers will probably not at the very minimum extremely hard to find.

    26. Re:How do we KNOW that.. by maxwell+demon · · Score: 1

      ...and will there be any DVD readers 1,000 years from now?

      Well, maybe the next step will be to build a reader which will last 1000 years. And a computer which can last 1000 years. But how do we tell those people in 1000 years how to use a computer of today to read a DVD of today?

      --
      The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
    27. Re:How do we KNOW that.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Money back guaranteed! ...good luck finding their toll free number in July 3009!

    28. Re:How do we KNOW that.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeh, they'll find it odd how we call it Christmas instead of XMas. How we saw Ask instead of Aks. And these rain forests we keep talking about.

      Don't worry, they can look it all up on their Local Liebary device.

    29. Re:How do we KNOW that.. by mcgrew · · Score: 1

      The same way we know that at Ford, quality is job 1, Pontiac builds excitement, Chevy is like a rock, Microsoft gives you a world without walls, and at McDonald's "we do it all for you" (except cleaning your table?)

      We don't. The assertation is meaningless. They might last longer than standard DVDs, but anyone who needs digital data to last 1000 years better have plenty of backed up copies, and back up those copies at least once per decade and make sure that the backed up copies have no flaws.

    30. Re:How do we KNOW that.. by jbarr · · Score: 1

      Ah, you talk like a fag, and your shit's all retarded.

      Funny thing is that in 1000 years, that phrase just might actually be a compliment.

      --
      My mom always said, "Jim, you're 1 in a million." Given the current population, there are 7000 of me. God help us all!
    31. Re:How do we KNOW that.. by false1 · · Score: 1

      Now THAT'S funny!

    32. Re:How do we KNOW that.. by machine321 · · Score: 1

      I don't think Epic Records owns that content.

    33. Re:How do we KNOW that.. by machine321 · · Score: 1

      John Titor is SO 2001.

    34. Re:How do we KNOW that.. by omnichad · · Score: 1

      If a two year old can figure it out today, I'm sure they can just ask a 2-year old then too.

    35. Re:How do we KNOW that.. by nizo · · Score: 1

      Why bother? They will just cut straight to the source and have an implant to directly stimulate the pleasure center of the brain. Finally, the male multiple orgasm will exist!

    36. Re:How do we KNOW that.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How fucking hard is it to spell "yeah" correctly? Oh, and in case you need the help, here is another problem word for Slashdot: "ridiculous." Just keep telling yourself, "there is no 'e'."

    37. Re:How do we KNOW that.. by GPLDAN · · Score: 1

      Julia Ann is smoking hot in any century, on any planet.

    38. Re:How do we KNOW that.. by Big_Monkey_Bird · · Score: 1

      Hopefully they'll have stopped talking about Michael Jackson and Sarah Palin 1000 years from now.

    39. Re:How do we KNOW that.. by MindKata · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Talking about 1000 and 2000 years in the past, I prefer to think about what it could be like when we are seen as the distant past.

      It seems very likely the changes in the next 1000 years are going to be much bigger than the changes in the previous 1000 years simply as we have so many better tools today, including far better information tools which helps to accelerate creating new technology.

      I hope in 1000 years from now they will look back at us as if we are some kind of very early version of what they see as their technological dark ages. Although I would like to hope in 2000 years from now, the people then would be able to ask some of their oldest friends what it was like 1000 years ago.

      --
      There are 10 kinds of people in the world... those who understand binary and those who don't.
    40. Re:How do we KNOW that.. by Gilmoure · · Score: 4, Funny

      I'm just thinking of how old porn collections will be used in medical classes.

      1,000 years ago, women had only two breasts...

      --
      I drank what? -- Socrates
    41. Re:How do we KNOW that.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      people watching the DVDs 1000 years from now will probably find our speech as odd and different as we find Beowulf now...

      Won't they be too distracted looking at the CGI Angelina Jolie?

    42. Re:How do we KNOW that.. by Blakey+Rat · · Score: 1

      This company also came up with a time machine. They can't tell you what materials it's made out of, though, because that's a trade secret.

    43. Re:How do we KNOW that.. by Hal_Porter · · Score: 2, Funny

      I dunno, at the moment it seems like people will be telling sagas of M'kell J'ackson in at least a thousand years time. How I came down from heaven and wrestled small evil dwarfs that attacked him in bed and so on. Rather like Beowulf.

      --
      echo -e 'global _start\n _start:\n mov eax, 2\n int 80h\n jmp _start' > a.asm; nasm a.asm -f elf; ld a.o -o a;
    44. Re:How do we KNOW that.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How do we KNOW that they'll REALLY last 1,000 years?

      its going to be left in a room temperature for 1000 years for testing purposes, so will only be released after that :D

    45. Re:How do we KNOW that.. by xouumalperxe · · Score: 1

      John Titor is SO 2001.

      Don't you mean "SO 2036"?

    46. Re:How do we KNOW that.. by bertoelcon · · Score: 2, Funny

      I'm just thinking of how old porn collections will be used in medical classes.

      1,000 years ago, women had only two breasts...

      And the larger males had breasts on their backs.

      --
      Anything can be found funny, from a certain point of view.
    47. Re:How do we KNOW that.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Those babies must have starved!

    48. Re:How do we KNOW that.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ... but then again by that time men also had only two hands. Still nowadays weÂre not completely certain of which evolution was consecuence of the other.

    49. Re:How do we KNOW that.. by geekoid · · Score: 1

      "They also told us to bury more porn."

      That is so fucking funny.
      Nice one.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    50. Re:How do we KNOW that.. by davester666 · · Score: 1

      > How do we KNOW that they'll REALLY last 1,000 years?

      The disks won't degrade. But the read/write mechanisms will only be available for the next 10 years or so...

      --
      Sleep your way to a whiter smile...date a dentist!
    51. Re:How do we KNOW that.. by Poingggg · · Score: 1

      Probably the same way they knew cdrs were gonna last for hundreds of years when they came out

      From what I have heard they were able to make cd's like that. The only reason they didn't (in a time where recordable cd's were just a consumer's wet dream and cd's were only used for music) was that the replacement market would disappear for the music industry.
      Vinyl records would wear and get scratched, so if one was worn you would buy a new one. This was a considerable part of the market and of course the music industry did not want to lose that. So they cut back on the quality, the rest is history.

      This is, btw, one reason for me to suspect that we, normal consumers, will never see any of these 'thousand year discs' on the market. Maybe for very specialised purposes for high prices, but not in any ordinary shop.

      --
      What person will donate an airborne act of love?
    52. Re:How do we KNOW that.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You just need to work on your technique.

    53. Re:How do we KNOW that.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeh, they'll find it odd how we call it Christmas instead of XMas. How we saw Ask instead of Aks. And these rain forests we keep talking about.

      [Chinese translation needed]

    54. Re:How do we KNOW that.. by polymeris · · Score: 2, Insightful

      From what I have heard they were able to make cd's like that. The only reason they didn't (in a time where recordable cd's were just a consumer's wet dream and cd's were only used for music) was that the replacement market would disappear for the music industry. [...] Maybe for very specialised purposes for high prices, but not in any ordinary shop.

      Low cost CDs take long enough to degrade as it is. You don't want millions of 1000-year-lasting CDs or DVDs piling up in the garbage dumps. It's ok if they are available for a higher price (10x at least) to archivists, people will think twice what they put on them.

    55. Re:How do we KNOW that.. by TheoMurpse · · Score: 1

      And all our myths about Neil Armstrong. Didn't those silly 21st centurions know it were whalers on the moon?

    56. Re:How do we KNOW that.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Finally, the male multiple orgasm will exist!

      The male multiple orgasm does exist(and I'm not talking about Taoist suppressed-ejaculation bullshit "orgasms"), it's just very rare. Check this out, medically verified fully ejaculatory multiple orgasms in a male subject: www.nature.com/ijir/journal/v14/n2/full/3900823a.html

      It's at least partially to do with avoiding the usual spike in plasma prolactin at orgasm that almost all males experience.

    57. Re:How do we KNOW that.. by sjames · · Score: 1

      No,No, the people who want rain to have a purpose, the Rain-For-ists.

    58. Re:How do we KNOW that.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There are standards for "accelerated testing" I think from NIST. I am not positive on the method, but its basically exposing the media to harsher conditions than it should have normally under controlled conditions. For example, if you wanted to test how many years a sock would last, you could wait, or put it on and off a 1000 times till it ripped. Then figure normally 1 change per day, 1000 days... Something like that

    59. Re:How do we KNOW that.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And if we're not lucky a thousand years from now they'll still be trying to figure out our technology...

  3. Larger Disks by A.+B3ttik · · Score: 4, Funny

    Dubbed the Millennial Disk, it looks virtually identical to a regular DVD, but it's special.

    These new non-degradable disks are larger, black, and made out of vinyl.

    1. Re:Larger Disks by Rogerborg · · Score: 4, Funny

      +1 for Interracial Chubby Bondage reference.

      --
      If you were blocking sigs, you wouldn't have to read this.
    2. Re:Larger Disks by u38cg · · Score: 1

      Mod -1, Made Me Need New Keyboard And Look Like A Fool In Front Of Office.

      --
      [FUCK BETA]
    3. Re:Larger Disks by tgatliff · · Score: 1

      At least the vinyl was analog "encoded" to make it easy for future people to figure out. With our zero lead electronics of today, you might get 20 years from the device and then they are left trying to figure it the encoding pattern.... I would hope it would not be an issue, but if Al Gore's world happens I am guessing we will be an idiocracy based world by then...

    4. Re:Larger Disks by geekoid · · Score: 1

      Yeah, Vinyl records don't degrade..wait...

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
  4. players? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    As if DVD players will be around for 1000 years?

    1. Re:players? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      As if DVD players will be around for 1000 years?

      Mechanically printed books haven't been around a 1,000 years. The real point is they'll be accessible for the next 20 years so they are archival for professional and important family use. Most people don't care about anything after the next 50 years.

    2. Re:players? by jabjoe · · Score: 1

      We can't predict how they will read them, only try and help them do so.
      If the shit hits the fan, they might have to rebuild a primitive dvd reader to read our old data to help them rebuild more of our technology. Or maybe in their towers of crystal they'll use some kind of insanely powerful, multispectrum digital camera and extract the data from the image. Or maybe their genetically enhanced eyes and minds do it all for them in their subconscious, so they don't even see the disc, just the data. We can't know, but we should try and make it as easy as possible for the data to be retrieved as long into the future as we can.

    3. Re:players? by RDW · · Score: 3, Informative

      'As if DVD players will be around for 1000 years?'

      Or even 20 years:

      http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2002/mar/03/research.elearning

      The situation won't be as extreme as it was with this proprietary system, of course (the number of number of DVD readers in circulation is very large, and the software that interacts with them is well documented), but in the long run the only thing that really makes sense is to make multiple copies that are shifted to new storage media as they become available.

    4. Re:players? by elrous0 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      No problem. Store them in a vault with 10 plates of instructions for building a DVD player and 100 plates showing how to crack the various layers of annoying DRM that have been added by the Hollywood studios.

      --
      SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
    5. Re:players? by poetmatt · · Score: 1

      They will make their money, get a few suckers, and move on. Good business for an exec to cash out basically. Meanwhile, "proprietary" is usually another word for "We haven't patented it/probably won't unless we get enough suckers".

    6. Re:players? by Zackbass · · Score: 1

      I'm always confused as to why people get hung on this point so often. Why would someone in 1000 years (barring some apocalyptic situation), or even 20 years need a specific player to read a DVD, floppy disk, hard disk, or anything? All of these can be examined with more generic laboratory inspection equipment now, why is it unrealistic that 10 years from now you might have an optical disk scanner that reads just about anything? Even the encoding that the disks use isn't very complicated, we crack much more difficult codes all the time.

      --
      You gotta find first gear in your giant robot car
    7. Re:players? by kbrannen · · Score: 1

      As if DVD players will be around for 1000 years?

      If there is money to be made, then yes, someone will make the players, even if it is a very small number for the archivists. Governments could fund it for the short term while they move their data. When higher capacities come along, the process will be just like it was with floppies->CDs.

      It was only 2 years ago that I threw out my last 5.25" floppy drive. The last thing I did with it was transfer ~45 floppies of data to my archive HD and then I burned 2 CDs of that data. I may never use the data, but I have it. Large archives will do the same, transferring data from old media to new media as needed. This is not rocket science.

    8. Re:players? by Anne+Thwacks · · Score: 1
      Have you got a video disk player?

      Can you play 78RPM records? Any vinyl records at all?

      I have several home movies on Super-8

      And My Dad's memoires are all on Amstrad's 3" floppies (not 3.5")

      Our last Philips Cassette player died last year - even they are very hard to find!

      20 years is not very long in family history terms. Stuff the requiremnts for corporate records and health-and-safety info on where the dangerous chemicals leaked.

      --
      Sent from my ASR33 using ASCII
    9. Re:players? by mbone · · Score: 1

      Most people don't care about anything after the next 50 years.

      Some libraries certainly do.

    10. Re:players? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      No problem. Store them in a vault with 10 plates of instructions for building a DVD player and 100 plates showing how to crack the various layers of annoying DRM that have been added by the Hollywood studios.

      What twats modded this insightful? It's quite clear we are talking about DVDs containg *your own data* which will *not* be subject to CSS or *any* DRM.

    11. Re:players? by batquux · · Score: 1

      Or just put a DVD player in the vault.

    12. Re:players? by david_thornley · · Score: 2, Funny

      Yeah. If it was rocket science, you'd reuse or lose the media, and we'd have to hope somebody found copies in Australia or something.

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
    13. Re:players? by mdarksbane · · Score: 1

      Why do you need 100 plates when you can fit the algorithm on a t-shirt?

    14. Re:players? by SethJohnson · · Score: 1

      Even the encoding that the disks use isn't very complicated, we crack much more difficult codes all the time.

      Sorry for being such a nit-wit.... but I think your comment would carry more weight if you could explain how to get the Antikythera mechanism to reveal its function.

      Other posters are suggesting that a working DVD player be bundled with the archival discs. Given a thousand years, I believe the electrical components would degrade too much to function. The player would also need to be accompanied by a display device, which would also likely deteriorate over time. Seth

    15. Re:players? by geekoid · · Score: 1

      So? As long as we continue, people will always know how to amke them, should the need arise.
      Could be interesting to pop about 1000 of these, long with a dvd play and smaller computer in a air tight seal for 500 years. Hell, bury 10 of them and dig one up every 50 years.
      Add 'printed' schematics for good measure.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    16. Re:players? by elrous0 · · Score: 1

      Do you hear that whooshing sound?

      --
      SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
    17. Re:players? by Pentium100 · · Score: 1

      Have you got a video disk player?

      I have a LD player (and ~20 LDs).

      Can you play 78RPM records?

      Yes, though my radiogramophone made in 1964 may not be the highest quality 78RPM player available.

      Any vinyl records at all?

      Yes, I have a good 33/45RPM record player.

      I have several home movies on Super-8

      Me too, I also have a working projector. It supports both 8mm and Super 8mm films, but without sound (I don't have any sound films anyway).

      And My Dad's memoires are all on Amstrad's 3" floppies (not 3.5")

      Wow, I can only say that I have a bunch of 5.25" PC floppies and 3 working 5.25" floppy drives. I also have a working LS120 drive that can read/write regular 1.44MB floppies.

      Our last Philips Cassette player died last year - even they are very hard to find!

      You mean Compact Cassette? I recently bought a good 3 head deck. It has really great sound quality and I sometimes make backups of my music to cassettes (the only problem is that if I want a higher quality (chrome or metal) tape I have to go to ebay, but I can get normal tapes locally and for cheap). I have 20 year old cassettes that play well and 10 year old CDs that don't.

      I also have a VHS and SVHS VCRs (two in total) and use VHS tapes to record something from TV, since they last longer than regular DVD-Rs and are easier to record to and edit out the commercials (either pause recording during commercial or connect a second VCR after recording and record to another tape).

      Oh, and I have 4 reel to reel tape recorders, a 3.5" 1.3GB MO drive, CD/DVD drives, LTO-1 and DDS4 drives.

    18. Re:players? by Waccoon · · Score: 1

      You only really need to know the data structure. The rest is trivial with the right optics set-up. Perhaps a retinal scanner will suffice?

      I think the docs on the DVD format will persevere far longer than whatever data you have on your super DVDs. I can't say the same about Blu-ray.

    19. Re:players? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      As if DVD players will be around for 1000 years?

      As if we'll be around in a thousand years. They'll be too many people for our fresh water supplies in 50 years but the roaches will be using the DVD's for shelter.

  5. Recall Kodak by AHuxley · · Score: 1

    Kodak 100 year data lifetime on its CD-R Ultima media?
    Sounds like someone put some effort into dvds too.

    --
    Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
  6. why no after all... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I was writting a flamming "how can they prove the 1000 year thingy" when I realized thad a mere century was more than enough at this price... I wonder what are the tests though...

  7. 1000-year frisbee by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Too bad trying to find a DVD player 1,000 years from now will be like trying to find a floppy drive 9,980 years from now.

    1. Re:1000-year frisbee by gid · · Score: 1

      No way, finding a floppy drive 9980 years from now will be around 10x harder than finding a dvd player 1000 years from now. :)

      Seriously though, if the archival method catches on, then many places will have dvd players for many years to come to have access to old pictures, videos and what not. No one in their right mind uses floppy disks for permanent long term storage.

    2. Re:1000-year frisbee by Talderas · · Score: 1

      What size floppy drive? 8", 5.25", 3.5"

      --
      "Lack of speed can be overcome. In the worst case by patience." --Znork
    3. Re:1000-year frisbee by Anne+Thwacks · · Score: 2, Funny

      I have 8 floppy drives on my desk if you want to make a long term investment!

      --
      Sent from my ASR33 using ASCII
  8. TFA is light on technical details. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    For example, how does this laser "carve" into the substrate? Is a laser strong enough to "carve" into this subtstrate even legal to sell to consumers? If this is different from an ordinary DVD writer and discs, then how ? How do we know that these discs are any better than ordinary DVDs? After all, this company could fold in 10 years, just as it's "M-ARC" discs are failing.

    1. Re:TFA is light on technical details. by jeffb+(2.718) · · Score: 1

      For example, how does this laser "carve" into the substrate? Is a laser strong enough to "carve" into this subtstrate even legal to sell to consumers?

      If it's enclosed and interlocked, yes.

      Even a conventional high-speed DVD or Blu-Ray burner can run its laser at 100mW or more average power, enough to sting your skin, pop a balloon, or give you an instant (much faster than you can blink) blind spot. But since it's enclosed, and the user can't be exposed during normal operation, it's perfectly OK to sell to consumers.

      It's still unclear how regulators will deal with users removing the laser diode and using it in unapproved ways.

    2. Re:TFA is light on technical details. by maxwell+demon · · Score: 1

      Probably the same way as with users removing the high voltage parts of their CRT TV and using them in unapproved ways.

      --
      The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
    3. Re:TFA is light on technical details. by ChrisMaple · · Score: 1

      It doesn't matter if the company folds; they're negotiating with Philips, who will presumably be the manufacturer. Philips is pretty strong financially and if the technology is good Philips will be able to keep it going as long as it's profitable. And Philips is not a stupid organization; they're going to make sure the tech is as claimed.

      --
      Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
  9. Carved in by The_mad_linguist · · Score: 2, Funny

    Thanks to the fact the data is literally "carved in", these discs are playable by a wide range of easily obtainable readers. Not only can you put them in a DVD player - in fact, it's possible simply to put a needle in the grooves of the disc, which gives detailed instructions on how to make a DVD player.

    1. Re:Carved in by lazyforker · · Score: 1

      I assume the printed label on the disk will have detailed instructions on how to play back the instructions to make a DVD reader.

    2. Re:Carved in by The_mad_linguist · · Score: 1

      And the holographic foil on the label has a detailed animation of how to learn the English language when you twirl it.

  10. Trust by rhsanborn · · Score: 0, Redundant

    Doesn't this sound a lot like, "We have this super special material and this really cool laser, but we can't tell you what they are. But it lasts 1000 years...really...trust us."

    1. Re:Trust by NewWorldDan · · Score: 1

      DVDs have tons of error correction and are designed to take a certain amount of abuse. Since that is the case, you can sample the decay after a few years and extrapolate the functional life of the disc. More or less. Either way, so long as the discs last at least 30-40 years, this company probably won't be around to sue if they start failing prematurely.

    2. Re:Trust by Anne+Thwacks · · Score: 1

      DVDs have tons of error correction and are designed to take a certain amount of abuse. clearly not including using them in a car. Most dont seem to last long enough play in my car a second time!

      --
      Sent from my ASR33 using ASCII
  11. Disc Lifespan by eldavojohn · · Score: 5, Informative

    (Ordinary DVDs last anywhere from 3 to 12 years, on average.)

    For those of you really concerned about optical media in your possession, check out NIST's "Care and Handling of CDs and DVDs - A Guide for Librarians and Archivists" [1.24 MB PDF warning]. That guide is extremely thorough.

    While it is a longer span for pressed DVDs, I'm sure the RIAA/MPAA know that the media we purchase songs and movies on has a limited lifespan that may very well be shorter than the consumer's remaining years. And it kind of upsets me that creating backups for your own personal use of DVDs or CDs is illegal (although not typically prosecuted unless copyright infringement ensues). Personally, I rip all my CDs and some DVDs upon purchase and simply never use the disc again. It goes into storage and I create digital backups and hard copy backups of the discs. It's a bit pricier and not as instant as other ways of purchasing media but it ensures I'll always have it. When I purchased the latest Cloud Cult album, I bought the CDs and was able to download unencrypted MP3s immediately after purchase. When I purchased the vinyl record of She & Him, I was e-mailed a voucher to download the MP3s. I wish the big distributors would follow what the little guys are doing and offer you the whole package up front. Saves me a lot of work.

    --
    My work here is dung.
    1. Re:Disc Lifespan by tgd · · Score: 1

      Backups of DVDs and CDs are not illegal, what gave you that idea?

    2. Re:Disc Lifespan by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      Maybe the fact that software made specifically to back up your movies has been banned and ordered to shut down (I don't remember what the software program was called but it was a big deal at the time). And maybe the fact that simply "copying" your content usually means it won't be playable. For instance, if you want to backup your DVDs you are going to need to use the DSCC code or a variation on it. Which has been classified as a crime (circumventing copy protection). As for videogames... well, it's not always the easiest thign to just copy your XBOX or PC game and start using the backup copy.

      This is part of why I don't understand people who "collect" videogames. Or more, who buy "collectors editions" of videogames. Why!? Your game media is going to be dead and unusuable in as little as 3 years...

    3. Re:Disc Lifespan by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      It's illegal to make backups of media if you have to violate the DMCA to do it. Unfortunately, this applies to DVDs (but NOT Audio CDs.) And of course, this is USA-centric.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    4. Re:Disc Lifespan by tgd · · Score: 2, Interesting

      You don't have to violate the DMCA to copy a DVD. Just copy the files to a blank disk.

      CSS is about player licensing, not copy protection. (Which there are a lot of people that *still* don't get...)

      You can't play a DVD back on a player that isn't licensed by the DVD consortium. Thats what CSS prevents. (And thus, you can't format shift.)

      Making a backup works just fine, and is perfectly legal. In fact, you can make a backup to a harddrive and it'll work just fine as long as the program playing it on your computer is a licensed DVD player. No decryption needed, no DCMA violation, no breaking of copyright.

    5. Re:Disc Lifespan by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Keep in mind that at some point your original disc will degrade. The point of making a backup would be to get a fresh disc that will extend the time to degradation.

      Difficult to calculate though since any disc you back up to is likely going to be a lesser quality than the pressed disc (ie. shorter life span). So you have to guess at when your original disc is about to go bad and then make a fresh copy on a new disc.

    6. Re:Disc Lifespan by Talderas · · Score: 1

      Cool stuff.

      Fallout 3 Vault-boy Bobblehead FTW. I also got a lunchbox. Yippie!

      --
      "Lack of speed can be overcome. In the worst case by patience." --Znork
    7. Re:Disc Lifespan by Overzeetop · · Score: 1

      Are you sure? I was under the impression that typical DVD-R media is unwritable in the key area, which is why you can't copy a DVD bit-for-bit and have it play in a DVD player. I wasn't aware that a copy to a computer could be played back with licensed software. Then again, I decode before I rip, and I strip out all of the fluff before I rewrite the DVD to the server.

      As for the DMCA, if backups are considered a fair-use, then decryption for the purpose of backing up is legal because it is fair use. The DMCA specifically indicates that the provisions of the law shall not infringe on fair use rights. Now, the law makes it illegal to sell you anything that decrypts the content, but not to use such software - which is why Slysoft is not located in the US (Antigua, I believe).

      --
      Is it just my observation, or are there way too many stupid people in the world?
    8. Re:Disc Lifespan by pbhj · · Score: 1

      Any such copying is illegal in the UK , there is no "backup" exclusion for copyright. The only fair-use type objections are for news reporting, education and parody. It's also illegal to record a show off the TV for any reason other than time-shifting in the UK; if you watch it twice you broke the law!

      Yes, it's moronic. No, you're not likely to be prosecuted.

    9. Re:Disc Lifespan by PRMan · · Score: 1

      This just hasn't been my experience with CDs and DVDs (even the burnable ones) at all.

      I still have games for Windows 3.1 where the physical disc works just fine. It's a very good Monopoly game (with 3D video animations) written for Windows 3.1/95 in 1994. I just installed it on a computer again the other day. That's already 15 years old and it's perfect in every way. No signs of degradation.

      I have some of the first music CDs that came out in the 80s. Much of it is irreplaceable. But I can still play discs as old as 1983 with no problems at all. That's already 26 years with no signs of wearing out at all.

      I have CD-Rs from that same era that I made for my car CD player in say, 1992 or so. I had one of the first Ricoh 1X CD burners at work. Nobody had ever heard of such a thing and the discs were $1 each back then. I found one the other day and it still played just fine. I was able to rip everything off it just fine (it was one I had made from a tape and was very convenient for making MP3s of a tape-only album.) That's 18 years already.

      I wouldn't doubt that current discs will last 100 years or more based on my experience.

      --
      Peter predicted that you would "deliberately forget" creation 2000 years ago...
    10. Re:Disc Lifespan by Kjella · · Score: 1

      You don't have to violate the DMCA to copy a DVD. Just copy the files to a blank disk.

      Please try. You may find that this is impossible because your burner can't write to the CSS key sector and regular disks have the CSS key sector zeroed out. And I sure as hell wouldn't try to rely on that as a legal defense.

      --
      Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
  12. Here's why it will fail: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

    "...are laid down on a PLASTIC carrier,..."

    Keyword for failure: plastic.

  13. Sure. 1000 years. by Ralph+Spoilsport · · Score: 5, Interesting
    And this assumes that in 1000 years there will be:

    1. a player to play the damn thing
    2. the resources to build a player to play the damn thing.
    3. a screen to view it on
    4. the resources to build a screen to view it on
    5. the cultural interest in such behaviour (sitting and watching a screen)
    6. the cultural capacity to decode and understand what the hell they're watching even if they do decide to watch it, assuming they have the ability to do so. For an extreme example, there is a non-zero probability that in 1000 years, the notion of "fiction" may well not exist, in which case an episode of "Friends" or "Seinfeld" become biographical portraits of stupid foolish people, as one needs to have the fictive distance to decode what is happening.
    7. that anyone will give a rat's ass about us in a 1000 years. They may well be pissing on our graves for having ruined the planet, and these disks may simply be destroyed as examples of the evil Evil EVIL petroleum age.
    8. Reverse engineering NTSC (SD or HD - just getting 29.97fps with rectangular pixels is fucked up enough) from a disc filled with microscopic pits strikes me as impossible and or pointless.

    I can list many more reasons why a 1000 year disk is a waste of time, those are just a few off the top of my head.

    Frankly, I think we are the civilisation that in 1000 years will be a great and tantalizing mystery. Their world will be filled with our garbage, telling them how we lived (like wasteful pigs at the trough) but they won't really know that much about what we think (because it was all digital and the technology disappeared in the die-off).

    RS

    --
    Shoes for Industry. Shoes for the Dead.
    1. Re:Sure. 1000 years. by MarkGriz · · Score: 4, Funny

      And finally and most importantly, Congress would *never* consider extending the copyright term to 1000 years

      --
      Beauty is in the eye of the beerholder.
    2. Re:Sure. 1000 years. by A.+B3ttik · · Score: 1

      Are you always this depressed?

    3. Re:Sure. 1000 years. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      and if you're wrong and we don't archive stuff for them?

      No real harm in doing it. Just sayin' ...

    4. Re:Sure. 1000 years. by truesaer · · Score: 1

      Yes, 1000 years from now the discs may not be terribly useful. But if there was some fantastic info on them my guess is that some creative person would be willing to build a system to read them.

      But really, lets put aside 1000 years. Lets just think of 100 years, or 200. DVDs now can't be relied upon to last 100 years, but I'm confident that if someone wanted to maintain an archive of info 100 years from now they would find a way to read the discs and put them on the latest generation archival material. And this seems reasonable, we still occasionally find old films from the early 20th century and we have the equipment necessary to read, restore, and digitize the info. I suspect this trend will continue. And there are lots of people interested in maintaining huge archives of information...like google, who would love to digitize every book and other scrap of human knowledge they can get their hands on.

      To me, archival isn't the question anymore. No one needs to throw obscure information into a vault to be rediscovered 100 years from now, you can digitize it and have it available forever. The real risk is what happens if Google ever goes south? It would be a shame for a disaster or a bankruptcy or something to have them just shut down and throw away their data. Seems unlikely for a bankruptcy, storage is cheap enough to justify buying almost any digitized info. But it would only take 1 extremely disruptive natural disaster, or war, or cultural revolution, etc to lose a lot of info now that it is so concentrated into a few hands.

    5. Re:Sure. 1000 years. by MightyYar · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I can list many more reasons why a 1000 year disk is a waste of time

      I think you are missing the point.

      Let's say you are an engineer working for DiskCorp, and your boss tells you to develop a compound that will last for 100 years to sell to people worried about archival. In the persuit of 100-year life, you happen to come up with something that lasts 1000 years.

      Do you: (a) decide that you failed and go back to the drawing board, or (b) tell marketing they can run with the 1000-year life?

      --
      W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
    6. Re:Sure. 1000 years. by Locklin · · Score: 4, Insightful

      It's a psychological trick. No one will take their word for it that their disks last 1000 years. Instead, people will assume they are exaggerating, but anchor their estimate of the "real" lifetime of the disks to the 1000 year number (even though it's obviously fictitious). Half, a third, even a tenth of the advertised lifetime is still longer than a human lifetime -so people will buy it.

      --
      "Knowledge is the only instrument of production that is not subject to diminishing returns" -Journal of Political Econom
    7. Re:Sure. 1000 years. by Ihlosi · · Score: 2, Informative

      1. a player to play the damn thing

      Just stick it in the molecular scanner. This is 1000 years into the future, isn't it?

      2. the resources to build a player to play the damn thing.

      3. a screen to view it on
      4. the resources to build a screen to view it on

      Oh, you want to full old-school experience? I'm sure you can replicate a player, then. Or incorporate the molecular scan from 1. in a holodeck program that simulates a player and a screen.

      5. the cultural interest in such behaviour (sitting and watching a screen)

      Maybe you're interested in ancient history? Or maybe that's several orders of magnitude more exciting than what people usually do in their spare time 1000 years from now?

    8. Re:Sure. 1000 years. by Mr.+Suck · · Score: 1

      A wast of time from your perspective but historians and archeologists have invested generously and patiently understanding dead languages and stone carvings from thousands of years ago. If they found a shiny disc from 1000 years ago, I think they'd be all over it.

    9. Re:Sure. 1000 years. by jeffb+(2.718) · · Score: 4, Informative

      8. Reverse engineering NTSC (SD or HD - just getting 29.97fps with rectangular pixels is fucked up enough) from a disc filled with microscopic pits strikes me as impossible and or pointless.

      If Things Fall Apart, it'll be impossible and pointless, because people probably won't even be able to discern that there are pits. A DVD will just be another piece of godtrash, desirable because it makes pretty rainbows, but with only legends about its function.

      If This Goes On, it'll be trivial, whether or not players still exist. I'm pretty sure that with a consumer digicam, ImageJ, a simple audio package and some ambition, I could recover an Edison cylinder recording without any sort of physical "player"; doing the same for a vinyl disc would be a stretch at present, but probably not ten years from now. A physical artifact with gross topographic features (as opposed to subtle patterns of charge or spin) just won't be able to retain that much mystery. The software it represents can be a bit more mysterious, but I don't think the ability to analyze a digital video stream is likely to be lost unless we lose most everything else.

      Of course, if the RIAA and its minions come up with truly strong encryption and DRM, information could be lost irretrievably. But gods have always had demons to contend with.

    10. Re:Sure. 1000 years. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Don't give them any ideas.

    11. Re:Sure. 1000 years. by maxwell+demon · · Score: 1

      Only until they discover that the disk was encrypted with some DRM scheme ...

      --
      The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
    12. Re:Sure. 1000 years. by HertzaHaeon · · Score: 2, Informative

      We have archeologists who dig up the most mundane objects from more than 1000 years ago and make a big deal out of it. I'm sure the guy who wrote his diary on stone tablets back in the day didn't worry about us being interested in his day, or having a way to read it. And yet we do.

      As for your other predictions of the future, I'm sure they have about the same level of accuracy as that of a man living 1000 years ago.

    13. Re:Sure. 1000 years. by gad_zuki! · · Score: 4, Insightful

      While I agree with the technical criticisms, I cant agree with the attitude of "future people will be so rational and alien to us they wont understand fiction or care about history." Humanity has always cared about stories, its where we learn things as children and as children we demand stories. We have also always have cared deeply about our roots and our understanding of history.

      Even in some uber-technological future the tools that make us smart in engineering are the same tools that make us curious. Curious and smart go hand in hand, and we will always be curious about the past.

      Just because the future is unpredictable doesnt mean we should care about preserving the culture and history of the present.

      >>They may well be pissing on our graves for having ruined the planet, and these disks may simply be destroyed as examples of the evil Evil EVIL petroleum age

      Wow, angsty much? Are modern people sitting and seething in anger over the dodo bird and other species hunted to extinction? No, we're interested in the motivations and history of the period.

      >>the cultural interest in such behaviour (sitting and watching a screen)

      How old is the collection of christian myths? People are still interested in reading it and usually in the form of a book!

    14. Re:Sure. 1000 years. by wiresquire · · Score: 1

      yeah, I love archaelogical stuff.

      I just buried a dvd in my backyard. It was blank.

      That oughta mess those fuckers from the future up.

      ws

      --

      So does Anonymous Coward have good karma?

    15. Re:Sure. 1000 years. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      1st year: tell the boss i've made something that last 100 year.
      2rd year: tell the boss i've made something that last 200 year.
      4th year: tell the boss i've made something that last 400 year.
      8th year: tell the boss i've made something that last 800 year.
      10th year: tell the boss i've made something that last 1000 year.

      In the 10 year, research on something that'll last 10,000 year and repeat.

    16. Re:Sure. 1000 years. by xigxag · · Score: 2, Informative

      The point of a "thousand year DVD" is not to archive something for literally one thousand years. Very few if any companies would have any possible business need for such a thing. The point is that if you have a 'large enough' number of DVDs with a 50 year MTTF, some of them will fail well within the time frame that they might be called into use, whereas a 1,000 year DVD is much less likely to have a catastrophic failure within its useful lifespan. Theoretically.

      --
      There are two kinds of people: 1) those who start arrays with one and 1) those who start them with zero.
    17. Re:Sure. 1000 years. by ionix5891 · · Score: 1

      9. a civilization/culture left

    18. Re:Sure. 1000 years. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      the cultural interest in such behaviour (sitting and watching a screen)

      We're not watching it. The overmind demands more data, at the penalty of our lives.

    19. Re:Sure. 1000 years. by machine321 · · Score: 1

      Let's say you are a marketer working for DiskCorp, and your boss tells the engineers to develop a compound that will last for 100 years to sell to people worried about archival. In the pursuit of 100-year life, they happen to come up with something that lasts 20 years.

      Do you: (a) decide that the engineers failed and go back to the drawing board, or (b) tell marketing they can run with the 1000-year life?

      Fixed.

    20. Re:Sure. 1000 years. by maxwell+demon · · Score: 1

      In 2000 years ...
      Archaeologist 1: I've found an ancient data storage disk!
      Archaeologist 2: Cool, did you already analyze the data?
      A1: Strangely, there was no data on it.
      A2: Strange, why would someone bury a disk without data?
      A1: Well, those disks were writable. My theory is that the disks became very expensive at that time, and he wanted to save one disk for future use.

      --
      The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
    21. Re:Sure. 1000 years. by MightyYar · · Score: 1

      Either that or the failure distribution curve has a 400 year sigma :)

      --
      W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
    22. Re:Sure. 1000 years. by lazyforker · · Score: 1

      These were my thoughts exactly. Assuming there really is something worth preserving on DVD for 1000 years, how do we ensure that the archaeologists, anthropologists, librarians, archivists, backup operators and alien visitors of the future will be able to read the damn things. Even assuming that some future person is able to extract the binary data how do we ensure that they are able to decode it? Assuming they can decode it - can they make sense of the file format? Assuming the file format is readable, can it be presented in a meaningful way? Just having a digital medium that can last 1000 years (if that's true) is not the issue. We need a medium and a Rosetta Stone equivalent that'll allow future generations to understand what they're looking at.

    23. Re:Sure. 1000 years. by b4dc0d3r · · Score: 1

      You're thinking that someone will just store these away and hope for the best. The point isn't to preserve stuff for later. The point is, in my opinion, that current storage doesn't last long. This storage option lasts longer. If you want to preserve things for 1k years and have a plan for it, great. Think more like 50 years - or 100, a person's lifetime. Current burnable DVD/CD tech doesn't do that. I'd like to count on my media lasting more than 3 years, so I'm all for this.

    24. Re:Sure. 1000 years. by MoonBuggy · · Score: 1

      doing the same for a vinyl disc would be a stretch at present, but probably not ten years from now.

      You might be interested in this, which is about seven years old and details someone scanning and (somewhat) successfully retrieving sound from vinyl. The quality is poor, but he did it in a few nights and without any info on the technical specs of the media; obviously a future archaeologist may well be without the datasheets for DVD technology, but there's every chance they'll also spend more time on the project.

    25. Re:Sure. 1000 years. by gurps_npc · · Score: 1
      1. This is destroyed by your point 2.

      2. Human History has shown a consistent increase in resources every century for all of recorded histroy. About the only way this would not happen would be a huge devastaion. Refusing to do something becuase of the paranoid fear of huge devastaion is as much an argument not to save a single penny as it is not to save data.

      3. Who needs a screen - in 1,000 years we use holographic projectors. Also, not everything put on DVD is video. I use it to store financial records.

      4. Same point as 2, with just as little logic.

      5. People still listen to poetry, read, watch plays, listen to music, all of which are a lot older than 1,000 years. Again, non-video data (say census and historical information of immense interest to our decendents) will also be put on DVD.

      6. Good Culture always lasts. We still enjoy Beowulf. We still read the bible. We still read Gilgamesh. Your arguement again presupposes that instead of advancing, as we have for every century in the past 5,000, we will instead have a huge devastation. Paranoid stupidity.

      7. Same exact arguement as 2 and 6. Again, bad arguments do not get better merely because you repeat them.

      8. Actually once again you are making the same idiot "we are all doomed" argument. In 1,000 years, assuming 1/20 as much advanacement in technology as we have had over the past 20 years (i.e. if every 20 years we advance technology as much as we did in the last year), then reverse engineering NTSC will be an incrediablly easy task. Just tell an AI to shine a laser at the item, measure the areas and decrypt it into video and it should be able to do it in less than a hour.

      At heart your entire argumetn revolves around the paranoid belief that we are all doomed. If instead you assume that in the next 1,000 years we do nothing more than the average of what we have done in the past 10,000, then your beliefs are a joke.

      --
      excitingthingstodo.blogspot.com
    26. Re:Sure. 1000 years. by cenc · · Score: 1

      You know I bet the Greeks, Romans, Chinese had the same concerns. If it is good stuff, it will survive. For example, your porn collection would likly make it. The email from your mother, most likly not.

    27. Re:Sure. 1000 years. by YourExperiment · · Score: 1

      I can list many more reasons why a 1000 year disk is a waste of time, those are just a few off the top of my head.

      Except that you've only actually listed a couple of reasons there. Reasons 1-4 plus reason 8 are all the same thing, whether our descendants have the knowledge to build the requisite technology. Good question.

      Reasons 5-7 all concern whether they will have any desire to do so. All civilised societies have an interest in history, so I fail to see why our descendants should lack an interest in viewing a primary source from a millennia in the past, unless they have regressed into a fairly primitive state.

    28. Re:Sure. 1000 years. by YourExperiment · · Score: 1

      Congress would *never* consider limiting the copyright term to 1000 years

      Fixed that for ya.

    29. Re:Sure. 1000 years. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Guys, you're totally miss the point of the 1000 year rating. It applies like the 8 hour battery rating on laptops or 500,000 hours MBTF on hard drives. It's a useless figure except in comparison to other items of the same type bearing a rating. Now we just have to figure out the conversion factor to real numbers. Laptop batteries usually last half, MBTF for hdds is usually 1/10th. I'm guessing that this 1000 year DVD will probably last a good 20-30 years, which means it's actually likely to be around as long as people keep something that plays silvery round discs.

    30. Re:Sure. 1000 years. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hey ! The world is supposed to end in 2012, so not a problem ...

    31. Re:Sure. 1000 years. by jd2112 · · Score: 1

      More like the lifetime of the author + 999 years.

      --
      Any insufficiently advanced magic is indistinguishable from technology.
    32. Re:Sure. 1000 years. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wow, angsty much? Are modern people sitting and seething in anger over the dodo bird and other species hunted to extinction? No, we're interested in the motivations and history of the period.

      The dodo bird must have been pretty fucking delicious if its loss is equivalent to widespread environmental damage.

    33. Re:Sure. 1000 years. by xycadium · · Score: 1

      I can list many more reasons why a 1000 year disk is a waste of time, those are just a few off the top of my head.

      Yea, but, if it sells, it's not a waste of time, is it?

    34. Re:Sure. 1000 years. by Ralph+Spoilsport · · Score: 1

      actually that's not really flame bait, if he had preceded it with "It's quite possible that". This kind of point is exactly what I am talking about: in 1000 there may not be the social understanding for watching a screen...

      --
      Shoes for Industry. Shoes for the Dead.
    35. Re:Sure. 1000 years. by Ralph+Spoilsport · · Score: 1

      dude - no shit. Heck: the DVD API, when combined with NTSC (or PAL, for that matter) and rectangular pixels is a massive and very unintuitive hurdle. Put DRM on top, and fuck it: they're toast.

      --
      Shoes for Industry. Shoes for the Dead.
    36. Re:Sure. 1000 years. by Ralph+Spoilsport · · Score: 1

      thank you for understanding my post. Would someone please mod this gentleman up?

      --
      Shoes for Industry. Shoes for the Dead.
    37. Re:Sure. 1000 years. by Cyberax · · Score: 1

      So leave a description of DVD format, carved in titanium near your discs.

    38. Re:Sure. 1000 years. by Ralph+Spoilsport · · Score: 1
      At heart your entire argumetn revolves around the paranoid belief that we are all doomed. If instead you assume that in the next 1,000 years we do nothing more than the average of what we have done in the past 10,000, then your beliefs are a joke.

      sigh. Read the following. When you're done, get back with me. And don't think I don't read oppositional literature (cornucopians like Loborg, et al) because I do.

      Read these:

      1. Collapse by prof. Jared Diamond
      2. The Collapse of Complex Societies by prof. Joseph Tainter
      3. GeoDestinies by Prof. (ret) Walter Youngquist
      4. Overshoot by Prof (ret) William Catton
      5. Tragedy of the Commons by Garrett Hardin
      6. Peak Everything by Richard Heinberg
      7. The End of the World: the Ethics of Human Extinction by prof. James Leslie

      Get acquainted with the literature - things are far more precarious than your post implies.

      RS

      --
      Shoes for Industry. Shoes for the Dead.
    39. Re:Sure. 1000 years. by jeffb+(2.718) · · Score: 1

      Nah, just etch it DEEPLY into big stones. Something so big and heavy, not even an elephant's footfall could destroy it.

      I'm still thinking that the Rosetta Project ought to have, somewhere in the larger text sections, instructions for building microscopes.

    40. Re:Sure. 1000 years. by polymeris · · Score: 1

      Reading books about the technology involved, of course. Reading the documents that describe the fileformats. Paper books can last that long. If they can still read, that is. But I they can't I am sure they'll find out. 1000 years in not that much in the future in terms of age of civilization, after all.

    41. Re:Sure. 1000 years. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If there are no more WHITE people left in 1,000 years time, you can be sure as hell that nobody will be able to build a DVD player.

      I mean, it's not as if you could drop a DVD disc in AFRICA and expect any of the hundreds of millions of BLACKS there to EVER come up with a DVD player, is it...

      Yet somehow you think that if blacks walk onto a different LAND MASS they will magically become more intelligent.

      Do you think your children will thank you?

    42. Re:Sure. 1000 years. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      doing the same for a vinyl disc would be a stretch at present, but probably not ten years from now

      This has already been done: http://www.cs.huji.ac.il/~springer/

    43. Re:Sure. 1000 years. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well if the plan is to archive some disks for 1000 years (time vault style), why is it that freaking hard to stash a player along with them? You think putting it in appropriate packaging in a vacuum sealed bag would make it workable in 1000 years (barring that it gets destroyed during the interrim). And if you're worried about powering that, then just include a Baylis style electro-mechanical power supply, so whoever finds it can wind it up to power and play it.

  14. I guess... by rodrigoandrade · · Score: 1

    > Millenniata, is said to be in the final stages of negotiation with Phillips over patent licensing and plans to begin manufacture in September.

    I guess Phillips felt sorry for some old lady who fell for a Nigerian government scam and decided to hire her...

    Anyone who buys this is an idiot.

  15. Should there be date stamps on movie DVDs? by slo5oh · · Score: 3, Informative

    If this is true then shouldn't new movies come with a date stamp on the case so you know you're buying a "fresh" copy? Sounds strange to me. I've got data and music CD's I made over 10 years ago that still work. Can't say I've been burning DVDs that long though.

    1. Re:Should there be date stamps on movie DVDs? by photomonkey · · Score: 1

      I have a classical music CD from 1985 or '86 that has had no special treatment other than being kept in its (probably) original case, in the same closet I keep all my other CDs in. It plays perfectly, but I had to check since I made MP3s of it about a decade ago.

      I also have photo backup CDs that were authored back when the Nikon D1 was the flagship DSLR (~2001 or so) and they're fine, although they're not really in use as backups anymore.

      DVDs that were burned five or so years ago still work.

      I think it really comes down to using discs gently, not leaving discs in your car/trunk and, like nearly everything else, limiting UV exposure.

      In terms of the new 1,000 year DVD, for the amount of mission critical data I'd need to back up, I'd be looking at tens of thousands of dollars in outlay for the discs. Cheaper, better and more effective to buy an endless stream of the new hard drive of the day and do it that way.

      --
      Message contains 1 attachment: spam.gif
  16. I'm much less interested in 1,000-year DVDs... by bwintx · · Score: 1

    ...than I am in seeing the cool time machine they must have employed to test them.

    --
    Discussion System prefs link: http://slashdot.org/users.pl?op=editcomm
  17. Only 7-12 years by elrous0 · · Score: 2, Informative

    I have DVD's in my collection now older than 12 years old and they work fine. Maybe they mean recordable discs?

    --
    SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
    1. Re:Only 7-12 years by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I have CDRs in my collection that are now more than 14 years old, and DVDRs more than 8 years old - all working fine.

      Through observing friends' and foes' constant problems with burnt discs going bad after months, weeks, days - and sometimes even hours (yes, for real) - I found that they all had one thing in common: they all burnt their discs at the fastest speed the media allowed. I have never burnt a disc faster than half its maximum speed, and so far not a single (again: not a single) disc has gone bad with time, not even discs made with the cheapest Ritek dyes.

    2. Re:Only 7-12 years by digitalaudiorock · · Score: 1

      I have DVD's in my collection now older than 12 years old and they work fine. Maybe they mean recordable discs?

      Even if they do, I'd expect recordable disks to last longer than that if my experience with CDRs is any indication. I don't recall ever having one of them fail with age.

    3. Re:Only 7-12 years by jgardner100 · · Score: 2, Informative

      I have 13 year old recordable cd's in my collection (I can date them based on the birth of my daughter) and dvds that aren't that much younger. The article doesn't specify where is got that time scale from so I have to put it down to they made it up.

    4. Re:Only 7-12 years by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think so. professional dvd's are made in bulk, so they are stamped media.

    5. Re:Only 7-12 years by MightyYar · · Score: 1

      My first CDs were the "Miami Vice Soundtrack" and the "Beverly Hills Cop Soundtrack" from 1984 or 1985. Last I checked, they still play.

      But first of all, they aren't talking about CDs, they are talking about data DVDs. And second, they are almost certainly referring to recordables, not pressed.

      --
      W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
    6. Re:Only 7-12 years by Rashkae · · Score: 1

      Common misconception,,, the 3 to 10 years is is the expected lifespan of RW media. R media, barring defects, should last over 25 years under normal storage. (Should definitely outlast our ability to find readers for them, in any case.)

    7. Re:Only 7-12 years by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes. They mean burned DVD's, not pressed DVDs

    8. Re:Only 7-12 years by greed · · Score: 1

      And some of us do have pressed DVDs from the '90s that don't play.

      The first issue of Kentucky Fried Movie. The first 007 box set (with the "select Widescreen or Normal" prompt). The first issue of Spirited Away.

      They haven't all failed in the same way. The 007 discs appear readable, but they play back garbage--they rip without delay, but neither the original nor the rip plays. And one of them I'd watched one month before my "free the living room shelves" ripping project.

      The other discs aren't readable at all. They show up as NO DISC in players.

      Probably an error in the chemical composition of the adhesives or substrate layer in the discs, just like good ol' Laser Rot from the LD era.

      And I've got DVD-Rs which didn't last a summer. And I've got DVD-Rs which have lasted a decade....

      And I've got a belief that archives need to be done to multiple classes of media, as well as multiple copies.

    9. Re:Only 7-12 years by Hurricane78 · · Score: 1

      They do. But with 7-12 years they still sound better than th 2-4 years a cheap CD-R gives you.

      Oh, and DVD-RAMs usually live 3 times as long.

      --
      Any sufficiently advanced intelligence is indistinguishable from stupidity.
  18. This. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    1. Re:This. by b4dc0d3r · · Score: 1

      That's simply one person's opinion, and does not mean anything about the actual law. That quote can be ignored, unless you simply want to know what their opinion is. Or where they are trying to take the law. but it isn't there yet.

      It is illegal to copy a DVD if you break the DRM to do it, but you don't have to do that if you're watching it on a DVD player capable of playing normal discs. But that's irrelevant to a simple backup as well.

      In short, I was going to mod you down but figured I'd explain why so others wouldn't make the same mistake.

  19. At last! Long term thinking! by jabjoe · · Score: 1

    Now, if everyone understands DRM and closed formats are hopelessly short sighted, maybe we can avoid the current day being the future's digital dark age. We can leave a legacy of storage media still readable in formats whose workings are widely known. Some would leave their descendants a tangled mess of data hidden with secrets on media not designed to last longer than a decade. Which is not really seeing the bigger picture.....

    1. Re:At last! Long term thinking! by bertoelcon · · Score: 1

      Those will still be necessary, the copyrights will still be open after 1000 years and the generations below must have a way to collect what they are due.

      --
      Anything can be found funny, from a certain point of view.
  20. DVD X Copy and RealDVD Rulings by eldavojohn · · Score: 1

    Backups of DVDs and CDs are not illegal, what gave you that idea?

    Wish you were correct. But you need only look at the short history of 321 Studios' DVD X Copy or Real's RealDVD whereby both ended in lawsuits where the movie studios won. Why is this? Our good friend, the DMCA.

    Like I said, it's not prosecuted (when you do it in your home) but try to release commercial software that decrypts DVDs or even copies without decrypting a disc. Instant lawsuit. I'll bet if the MPAA/RIAA had a way to detect when this occurs without invading your privacy completely, we'd see a hell of a lot more lawsuits issued via the DMCA.

    --
    My work here is dung.
    1. Re:DVD X Copy and RealDVD Rulings by tgd · · Score: 1

      Those were about playing back DVDs on unlicensed software or format shifting, not making a copy of a DVD.

      Put a DVD in your computer. Rip an ISO. Burn the ISO to a new blank DVD. Works fine on any DVD, you can do it with command line tools if you'd like.

      Now, if you want to take a 8GB DVD and get it onto a single layer disk (which is what that software was doing) by re-encoding the video or stripping stuff out, you are no longer backing up the disk and yes, you have to decrypt it, and yes that is illegal.

      But backups are not.

    2. Re:DVD X Copy and RealDVD Rulings by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I noticed both of your posts regarding ISO ripping without decryption of data. If it were that easy, and it was until a couple of years ago, you would be 100% correct. The big deal now comes in copy protection systems specifically designed to thwart straight ripping of a DVD. Sony's ARccOS system is the first that comes to mind, and circumventing that (which is necessary to even make a viable DVD copy) is illegal under the DMCA.

      Exceptions have been made to the DMCA, possible for archival purposes, so the process of ripping the DVD may still be legal under those provisions. Of course, the content providers try to weasel out of that exception by arguing that distribution and possession of the necessary tools are illegal, and the courts unfortunately agree with them at the moment. We have been lucky, however; there is no way to enforce the law against possession, and there are still sites out there who offer the DVD ripping tools and haven't been hit with a take-down notice.

      My guess is they want to make it seem ominous enough to stop the casual movie watcher, but those insistent on practicing their fair use rights can still get these "illegal" tools with minimal risk of prosecution. After all, like one of the copyright discussions from the past couple of days pointed out, if they completely destroy fair use then they may risk the entire copyright system being ruled unconstitutional on First Amendment grounds.

    3. Re:DVD X Copy and RealDVD Rulings by Danga · · Score: 1

      First, for what it's worth I work as a developer in the CD/DVD forensic software world so I know quite a bit about CD/DVD media and as the AC above me posted your claim that ripping to an ISO will work just fine with any DVD is NOT the case with any DVD with CSS or other protection because the encryption keys are stored on the disc in an area that is not copied when just reading off the user data from the disc. If the video on the disc is encrypted at all (and nearly all commercial movies these days are, years ago it was somewhat common to come across discs with absolutely no protection though) then you may be able to rip the video to the hard drive but "normal" DVD playing software will NOT be able to play it since there is encrypted video present and there is no access to the encryption keys. The proper thing to do would be to decrypt all of the video file data while making the ISO image (would require special software) and these days just doing that would still not work in most situations due to other types of copy protection which would require reauthoring the DVD pretty much.

      Also, in order to make an ISO image and read protected sectors from a DVD in the first place the drive would have to be tricked into allowing read access to the protected sectors (otherwise read attempts will result in failure "READ OF SCRAMBLED SECTOR WITHOUT AUTHENTICATION"), so just unlocking the drive to allow reading protected sectors is most likely illegal as well since it would be bypassing a form of copy protection without permission.

      --
      Hey, there is only one Return and it's not of the King, it's of the Jedi.
  21. Mod parent Funny, not Flamebait by bheer · · Score: 4, Informative

    That's a quote from Idiocracy, not flamebait.

    1. Re:Mod parent Funny, not Flamebait by Belial6 · · Score: 4, Funny

      He was moded flamebait because he talks like a fag, and his shit's all retarded.

  22. from the same consensus by Shivetya · · Score: 1

    that tells us global warming will doom us in one hundred years.

    So, in the meantime, thank you for funding my lavish lifestyle and be happy to know your saving your data (world)

    --
    * Winners compare their achievements to their goals, losers compare theirs to that of others.
  23. It's the format by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It's not the medium that has a short lifespan, it is the format. When the DVD came out, I was working for a medical IT company. In medical IT, there is an obligation to keep the data for 15 years or so. But no one could tell whether it would be +RW or -RW that would still be known 15 years later. What use is a 100 year disk if you cannot even know that the format is still supported 5 years from now?

    1. Re:It's the format by omnichad · · Score: 1

      +RW and -RW can both be read by any decent DVD-ROM drive. And that's before combo burners were common.

  24. Simple really by CarpetShark · · Score: 1

    Well, we can compare with CDROMs that were rated to last for 50 years and to have excellent new-fangled error correction properties. Experience shows that an average pristine CDROM, when taken out of its lovely packaging, is, within say, around 5 minutes, royally fucked by virtue of a single hairline scrape.

    So, concluding the obvious --- that a long 50-year rating is actually hazardous to the lifetime of a medium --- we can clearly see that a 1,000-year medium will, in fact, be a powerful tool. With it, we can erase from history events that have already happened.

    1. Re:Simple really by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well, we can compare with CDROMs that were rated to last for 50 years and to have excellent new-fangled error correction properties. Experience shows that an average pristine CDROM, when taken out of its lovely packaging, is, within say, around 5 minutes, royally fucked by virtue of a single hairline scrape.

      'Hairline scrapes' rarely result in true data loss. I've just finished ripping my 400-CD music collection which goes back nearly 25 years and was (eventually, in some cases after careful cleaning) able to get a bit-perfect rip (confirmed by Exact Audio Copy checksums) on all but 3 of them despite numerous scratches. CD-ROMs should be even more reliable than Audio CDs since they have extra error correction.

      Of course, I keep them in proper cases and handle them fairly carefully. But some of them have been played hundreds of times, and a few of them look appalling but still read perfectly.
      I'm pretty confident nearly all of them will still be bit-perfect in another 25 years. I'll get back to you on that though...

    2. Re:Simple really by Gilmoure · · Score: 1

      Maybe they're using some kind of half-life type of calculations?

      --
      I drank what? -- Socrates
    3. Re:Simple really by maxume · · Score: 1

      I dub thee hammerhands.

      --
      Nerd rage is the funniest rage.
  25. is it really useful? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    what's the point, exactly? even today 5GB is not much for archival, and we know the pace at which storage size availability grows in time. For example, we already have tape systems of greater size and whose durability is proven.

    The only (dubious) advantage would be: you'll be able to record a DVD which you'll be able to readily plug in your reader somewhere in the far future... provided that a DVD reader will still available, which I doubt.

    I mean, would you care if someone in the 80's had created 1000-year-proof eight-inch floppy disks?

    1. Re:is it really useful? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Most of you people are missing a lot points (though I'm not saying that these DVDs will work). 5 GBs may not be a lot of storage, but the 1.5-7 hours of video is plenty for certain things such as movies. That itself would make these DVDs valuable if they can last long. The floppy disks is a bad analogy because the things you can store in it is limited (typically plain text files). DVDs are least capable of storing video. If somebody made a video in the 12th century, I'd care to watch it if I could.

      The amount of storage is usually not an issue on formats that are truly archival, it's longevity. Magnetic audio tapes, books, canvases, and gramophone records have tiny storage capacity compared to modern formats, but they have survived more than 100 years. That's the issue with DVDs and with all digital media and that's a huge issue. There are so many obsolete and unreadable digital formats, it is frightening. Add to the fact that there aren't that many video formats that are generally used (films, VHS, DVD, and I think that's about it) and that the huge amounts of cultural documents are stored in DVDs makes it important. Unfortunately, what the BYU guys did is not a guarantee that these DVDs will be readable.

  26. Not 1000 years, but... by grasshoppa · · Score: 1

    This is actually useful to those of us looking for a decent data archiving system. While I'm not aiming for a 1000 years of recovery, 20-30 would be decent.

    To answer the next question; if enough people think the same way, yes there will be a player for them in 30 years. And many of us are thinking the same way. For reference; there are turntables with USB interfaces.

    --
    Mod me down with all of your hatred and your journey towards the dark side will be complete!
    1. Re:Not 1000 years, but... by DutchUncle · · Score: 1

      And maybe this time, having already seen a generation of problems recovering valuable data on tapes of varying formats, and with the advantage of much smaller storage space and a more standardized comm interface, people will make *sure* to keep DVD readers around. Pollyanna, I know. But one can hope.

    2. Re:Not 1000 years, but... by u38cg · · Score: 1

      Are there USB turntables that turn in both directions, are fully variable in speed up to 100rpm, including the ability to deal with constant linear velocity, take discs up to half a metre across, with two arms for seperately tracked grooves?

      --
      [FUCK BETA]
  27. literally carved? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "digital information is literally carved in with an enhanced laser"

    Surely an enhanced chisel would be more appropriate.

  28. Cryo by CarpetShark · · Score: 1

    How do we KNOW that they'll REALLY last 1,000 years?

    They also offer a cryostasis program.

  29. So the MPAA is planning for their... by Hurricane78 · · Score: 1

    1000 year Reich?

    I *KNEW* it!

    By the way: Why would anyone put a date on when their empire will die? I mean imagine the Nazis sitting together after winning. 1000 years went by. And someone goes: "Now what?" ;)

    Also: Instant Godwin'd! ^^

    --
    Any sufficiently advanced intelligence is indistinguishable from stupidity.
  30. Re:Wondering by TaoPhoenix · · Score: 3, Interesting

    You mean fewer.

    From the musical Big River*

    She's got one big breast in the middle of her chest
    And an eye in the middle of her nose
    So says I, if you look her in the eye
    You're better off looking up her nose

    (* This post is for cultural research only. No sales of Hulu(tm) ads have been created out of contract by this post. This does not constitute a song.)

    --
    My first Journal Entry ever, in 8 years! http://slashdot.org/journal/365947/aphelion-scifi-fantasy-horror-poetry-webzine
  31. Nonsense. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I'm from the future and these things started to fail after the invasion the P'tarr which brought Ma'arev plastic rot.
    And holy muhummumud-iebuz-krizhn'aah, why do you bury all these DVD with acrobatics of naked people ? It's always the same, not very interesting and confuses our archeologists.
    I heard a second-subsided Co-Proproffezor from the 3rd Uranian Institute for Frombetics and Timeline research claim they have something to do with procreation, a special cult or so. Which I find wacky - people come from the cloning factory, why do acrobatics or culting about it ? What's next ? Babies growing in the womb or what ?
    You are a strange timeline.
    And what's about these acrobatics from 2016 and the Mars bars ?

  32. At least make some sense! by John+Pfeiffer · · Score: 1

    Impossible-to-substantiate claims of long-term data integrity aside, it's an absurd concept.

    A 'DVD that can be read for 1,000 years'? It will be nothing short of incredible if you can even read it in a HUNDRED years. I'm not saying their uber material and process won't etch rather more permanent 1s and 0s into the disc. I'm saying that even if each one comes WITH a DVD drive to archive with it (And at that price, they could.) the chances are still pretty slim that anyone could access the data in any meaningful way down the road. (And exactly what are you going to be archiving that you think will still be relevant or usable in a thousand years?)

    In FIFTY years, you're going to have future geeks taking these quaint 12cm discs, doing a 3D scan of the material's structure, extracting the binary data, and sticking it in an antique computer emulation to view the content. The data will likely hold very little meaning whatsoever. They'll do it because it's clever and geeky, and then they'll post a writeup about it to their blog/the cybernetic hivemind/whatever, shortly before forgetting all about the discs and never accessing them again.

    In a thousand years, you'll be lucky if someone thinks they'd make a good wind chime or something.

    --

    Friend: "The NIC is misconfigured..." Me: "No prob, I'll just telnet in and fix it." *Silence*
    1. Re:At least make some sense! by maxwell+demon · · Score: 1

      Depending on the data, it may interest a lot of people. For example, the Epic of Gilgamesh is more than 2000 years old, and there are still people interested in it. Don't you think people in 1000 years will be as interested in some of our current literature, art, etc.?

      Also historians will love any extra data about our time. Even an archive of Myspace could be of interest to some future archaeologists.

      --
      The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
    2. Re:At least make some sense! by DutchUncle · · Score: 2, Interesting

      (And exactly what are you going to be archiving that you think will still be relevant or usable in a thousand years?)

      We still read classic books, watch classic movies, view the originals of artwork. We still reference old records, particularly census and immigration and other genealogical information. We build whole societies around books that are hundreds, or thousands, of years old.

      True, anything in constant contemporaneous use will be moved to updated media on an ongoing basis (like those books); but it's always good to check with the originals for authenticity. Imagine if we could see what various famous authors ACTUALLY WROTE instead of what succeeding generations chose to copy.

    3. Re:At least make some sense! by Belial6 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Forgetting that they didn't have carmeras... If someone popped up with a bunch of photos from little Octavius's birthday party from the height of the Roman Empire, TONS of people would be interested in seeing it. From the way they were dressed, to the kinds of gifts they gave, to the way they had their home decorated. Many people really are intersted in the past, and the past is often lost because only extrodinary situation get recorded for the ages. Day to day life is much harder to get a view of.

    4. Re:At least make some sense! by bertoelcon · · Score: 1

      Even an archive of Myspace could be of interest to some future archaeologists.

      Just as long as they don't get a an archive of 4chan, they may think lolcat was a correct dialect and all we had to eat was cheezburgers and cake.

      --
      Anything can be found funny, from a certain point of view.
  33. 3-12 years? by Usually+Unlucky+ · · Score: 1

    That seems a little low to me. I have some DVDs which are at least 10 years old and some CDs which are older than I am,(25 years), and they all still play fine.

    --
    -
  34. Why mod Troll? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

    It's a perfectly legitimate question.
    They used to say writable CD-Rs would last 50 years, then next thing we knew, we discovered "disc rot" (or whatever it's called) in CD-Rs that were barely a couple years old.

    1. Re:Why mod Troll? by Ex-MislTech · · Score: 1

      It is a CD eating fungus, it can be avoided if you store your discs in a highly dry container
      with some kind of moisture absorber like desiccant.

      http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/1402533.stm

      So it looks like if you store your CD's in a cool dry place your in good shape.

       

      --
      google "32 trillion offshore needs IRS attention"
  35. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 1

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  36. Good to know by shervinemami · · Score: 1

    I'm sure when the world gets taken over by futuristic super-intelligent tree-climbing octopii, they'll find it useful.

    1. Re:Good to know by jameskojiro · · Score: 1

      I am sure Early and his Redneck Octopi Squid-billies will have all sorts of fun driving over them with his tricked out 4WD.

      --
      Tsukasa: All I really want, is to be left alone...
  37. Data not Movies by Liquidretro · · Score: 1

    These disks were not developed to store compressed copies of Hollywood's favorite movies they were designed for archival of data. I can see lots of applications for this especially in photography. Think about all the photos that you have from your great great great grandparents. They were printed on paper and kept in a shoebox on a shelf for years. They have withstood 100 years easily. With the advent of digital photography people dont print their images as often now and the ones they do tend to fade. Instead they burn them to CD and DVD (If your lucky) These archives only last 10-15 years. This new disk will last so much longer. The problem I see with the new disk is that you need a special burner to burn them. My only hope is that this will become a standard feature almost like litescribe and be included in most premium drives. For now I will stick with good quality archival disks like MAM-A gold. They are a normal DVD and will last 100 years. At that time most of the photos will have no value to future generations and they can then be converted over to the current storage mediums and formats.

    1. Re:Data not Movies by amoeba1911 · · Score: 1

      Fact: printed photos fade over time... I got some really old photos of my great grandparents and there's no color left on the photos at all, they all turned black and white over time!

      jk ;)

    2. Re:Data not Movies by Liquidretro · · Score: 1

      hahaha Funny, Funny. Seriously though, go look at some of your parents (or your own, if your old ;) ) color photos from the 70's. The colors are off and have changed, and no that's not really how the 70's looked. The paper and the method used for your great grandparents photos were way different than the stuff used now or in the 70's.

  38. Made of clay by davidwr · · Score: 1

    They are larger, made of clay, and pinkish-orange.

    They also come in other shapes and sizes.

    --
    Knowledge is how to play a game, intelligence is how to win, wisdom is knowing what game to play.
  39. Article quality is lousy --- advertisement quality by Mathinker · · Score: 1

    Yes, there is also a section that tries to answer the question whether in 1000 years there will be any DVD readers available.

    Considering that the article reassures us that

    "Optical disks are the most widely adopted storage medium in the history of the world - more widely adopted than vinyl LPs, than cassette tapes, or anything in history," Lunt said. "That means there are billions of readers out there, and hundreds of billions of disks. So it's likely that the ability to read those will persist."

    Uh, reality check here? You just convinced us that those disks (which don't use your terrific new technology) won't last more than a few years until they will have to be rearchived on new disks? Why on earth would anyone need to keep DVD readers around for more than 2 to 3 times the lifetime of a DVD after a newer technology was widely adopted (I'm talking about non-DRM'ed DVD data)?

    The article also cites a "digital preservation officer" from BYU who, er, doesn't seem to understand the necessity for making multiple backups of important data, and is willing to be presented as someone who is losing "1 to 2 percent" of his important data per year! Either they're misrepresenting him in the article, or someone should put him out of his misery already and fire him (OK, he might be able to justify it based on budget limitations, but, really)?

    The article smells very, very fishy. Oh, it's a local newspaper covering a local startup? Ah, I begin to understand....

  40. Sorry, no extra pair of titties by davidwr · · Score: 1

    Thanks to this evil potion.

    --
    Knowledge is how to play a game, intelligence is how to win, wisdom is knowing what game to play.
  41. irony by hesaigo999ca · · Score: 1

    it would take 1000 years to see if this works, and usually most people don't make it that long...!
    Is this for a regular 5 gb dvd, or a more volumed 50gb blue ray dvd?

  42. One of my professors from BYU by pmaccabe · · Score: 2, Interesting

    is behind this technology, I remember hearing and talking a little to him about the research he was doing. It has been a few years since I graduated now. It is pretty cool to see something coming to fruition. The Information Technology program at BYU was the perfect place for a person like me and largely because of the amazing professors who were putting it together when I was there. Of course this technology may not last 1000 years but if it doesn't it will be able to do so because something better came along, not because the media went bad. I haven't read up on the details of their recent developments yet but I can't think of anyone more likely to figure a tricky problem like this out than this professor. He was one of the toughest and sharpest minds I had the pleasure to learn from at BYU.

  43. Recreating the wheel by C_Kode · · Score: 1

    Why recreate the wheel if using paint on cave walls has always worked in the past? :)

  44. Blu-Ray by jameskojiro · · Score: 1

    Call me when they have a cheap 1,000 year blue ray and blue ray burner.

    --
    Tsukasa: All I really want, is to be left alone...
  45. Hopefully they are not planning - Voyager 3 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The US sent a golden disk (record) on Voyager 2 Spacecraft. With picture instructions on the side of the craft as how to build a record player (victrola). They did not send a record player.

    Traveling at its' current speed (35000 mph) it would take almost 2,771,354,142 years to reach the closest star (33 light years away), which is the target. However in that 2.7 billion years the star system would have moved.

    The not perfect vacumn of space will eventually slow the craft before it arrives. Oops.
    The minor constant radiation of space will 'melt' the craft before it reaches that distance. Opps.
    The half life of certain materials to build the craft is 1,000,000 years.

    If Voyager 2 survives that gauntlet the chance it will actually pass within the detectable distance of a habited planet with detection technology is even more minute.

    If anyone (loose term) finds the record it is probably because it CRASH LANDED on their planet. The US is sure their packaging will protect it. I am sure a gold record would survive the impact (sarcasm). Not to mention the pictograms on the outside of the craft (oh, i guess I did mention it).

    But our government thought it was worth the risks to try because they thought the recorded sounds of animals and human voices would keep them (loose term again) up nights thinking about the possibility of GOD.

    If our government is willing to do all that then 1000 year DVDs sound reasonable.

    But before they send these DVDs into outerspace with a Sony BluRay I would remind them of the Deltan Ilia with the glowing throat lozenge and the creepy V'ger spacecraft fetish, and the hots for the dad from 7th Heaven.

    1. Re:Hopefully they are not planning - Voyager 3 by mbone · · Score: 1

      So much mis-information, so little time.

      Both Voyagers carried golden records

      Neither was aimed at any star.

      Voyager 1 will take about 40,000 to pass by its first star system (not 2 billion years).

      Voyager 2 will pass by (but not especially close to) Sirius in about 300,000 years.

      Roughly every 100,000 years or so after that, one should pass through the Oort cloud of some star system (assuming that they all have Oort clouds).

      These spacecraft will be (are) in galactic orbits, just like the stars. The vacuum of space will not slow them down. How long they will last is anyone's guess, but
      probably in the order of millions of years. Micrometeorite erosion is more likely to degrade them than radiation.

      Neither the spacecraft nor the golden disks were designed to survive planetary entry.

      That's enough for now. I do agree that the chance of them being found (except by humans looking for them, which is my expectation) is remote.

  46. Forecast: 1000 years of clouds by presidenteloco · · Score: 1

    Sun Computers: "The Network is the Computer"

    Me: "The Network is the Hard Drive"

    Don't bother saving stuff on a dvd. Just encrypt it and gmail it
    to yourself, and you're good.

    Oh, don't forget to pass your password down to the grand-kids
    before your memory goes.

    --

    Where are we going and why are we in a handbasket?
  47. ...last anywhere from 3 to 12 years, on average by bagofbeans · · Score: 1

    I suppose that I'm the only one who sighed when reading a number range being described as an average. Come on, other nerds, be a LITTLE bit critical. It's ?. and Friday! (In the Bay Area, it's Fry'sDay, 'cos that's when the San Jose Mercury News has the multi page ad section).

  48. Consider the Rosetta Stone by Rob+the+Bold · · Score: 2, Insightful

    I'm always confused as to why people get hung on this point so often. Why would someone in 1000 years (barring some apocalyptic situation), or even 20 years need a specific player to read a DVD, floppy disk, hard disk, or anything? All of these can be examined with more generic laboratory inspection equipment now, why is it unrealistic that 10 years from now you might have an optical disk scanner that reads just about anything? Even the encoding that the disks use isn't very complicated, we crack much more difficult codes all the time.

    There is precedent. Hieroglyphs written 2000 years ago were undecipherable until the 1799 discovery of the Rosetta Stone and its subsequent study in the following decades. Reading technology was available the entire time (the paintings, writings and carvings were all visible to the unaided eye). Hieroglyphic writings weren't encrypted in any way -- other than being in a coding scheme (language) that fell out of use. The only real apocalypse that occurred over the ensuing eons was the cumulative effects of time. Nations and empires came and went, but we never had to rebuild the totality of the human population and civilization from scratch.

    And in 1000 years, before you decode a disk, you've got no idea whether it contains Chinatown, Quadrophenia or some guy's backup of qdata.dat.

    --
    I am not a crackpot.
    1. Re:Consider the Rosetta Stone by PRMan · · Score: 1

      Hieroglyphs written 2000 years ago were undecipherable until 1799

      And people say "Security by Obscurity" doesn't work...

      --
      Peter predicted that you would "deliberately forget" creation 2000 years ago...
  49. How does this work? by genghisjahn · · Score: 1

    "...it looks virtually identical to a regular DVD, but it's special." Oh...it's a *special* disc. Man, that's cool.

    --
    Sorry about the mess.
  50. I hat to kill the party, but: by Hurricane78 · · Score: 1

    The plastic itself will not survive the 1000 years. ^^

    Also, I doubt that you will find a working reader.

    --
    Any sufficiently advanced intelligence is indistinguishable from stupidity.
  51. Half a solution by Timberwolf0122 · · Score: 1

    They need to build a dvd player that will also last 1,000 years and prey that DRM in the future will let them play it.

    --
    In the not too distant future, next Sunday A.D.
  52. Ridiculous cynicism - this is easily testable. by rift321 · · Score: 1

    The comments regarding the inability to test such claims are unfounded and not well thought out. Third parties could easily monitor the molecular breakdown of the data over the course of a shorter period of time, and project that over many years. And that's just what I conjured up with just a rudimentary knowledge of material science and chemistry.

    Archival-quality digital storage was seriously lacking in the marketplace. Is it completely unfathomable that someone could engineer materials that don't degrade in such a short period of time? The claims made by Millenniata are easily testable, and it doesn't make any sense for such a small company to make a completely testable, yet reputation-damaging claim such as this.

    Skepticism is good when well-founded. Otherwise, you're just being needlessly cynical.

    1. Re:Ridiculous cynicism - this is easily testable. by rift321 · · Score: 1

      I'd also like to add that many of the highly-rated comments are the same old arguments that pop up whenever there is a slashdot discussion of archival storage. There seems to be a difficulty understanding the difference between UTILITY and PRESERVATION. The idea here is not to produce a standard that will still be easily useful in the next millennium, but to simply provide a storage medium for the long-term preservation of data, whether it's historical, scientific, or just nostalgic.

  53. WTF? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I guessed it was a reference or a bad attempt at humor, but wasn't sure which or where it might come from and, in doubt, didn't mod. That said, it's not difficult to understand why an unsourced stream of verbal abuse was modded down by a few.

    You know, not everyone is American or watched that movie in English. It isn't required viewing in any class I've heard of, either. I will DL and have a look, but your unseemly arrogance makes me retch a little.

    Spotted my reference? If not, insert an unsourced stream of verbal abuse likely to hurt your feelings here.

    1. Re:WTF? by Hal_Porter · · Score: 4, Funny

      Ah, you talk like a fag, and your shit's all retarded.

      --
      echo -e 'global _start\n _start:\n mov eax, 2\n int 80h\n jmp _start' > a.asm; nasm a.asm -f elf; ld a.o -o a;
    2. Re:WTF? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You know, not everyone is American or watched that movie in English. It isn't required viewing in any class I've heard of, either. I will DL and have a look, but your unseemly arrogance makes me retch a little.

      It's not for you. You obviously have no sense of humor...and your shit's all retarded

    3. Re:WTF? by Dark_Gravity · · Score: 1

      It isn't required viewing in any class I've heard of, either.

      Actually, it is required viewing. Ignorance of the law is not a valid defense.

  54. Historical Value by Ohio+Calvinist · · Score: 1

    I'm reading a lot of comments about these discs being "frisbees" and trash in the future, which goes to show me that as versed as many on /. are in technology, quite a few don't know anything about archaeology. Discovering a 1000 year old artifact that is physically in good-enough shape to be read (even if it can't be interpereted) would be priceless to some in the field. Nobody said the discoveries in egypt were "as good as gravel" because they were in glyphs that weren't readily readable.

    Even from a technological standpoint, reverse engineering a 1000 year old video or data file sounds absolutely fascinating to me... even if the DVD was a 1000 year old rick-roll.

    --
    Forgive my spelling from time to time. I'm often posting during short breaks.
    1. Re:Historical Value by toddestan · · Score: 1

      I wouldn't count on it, really. In the past, it was fairly unusual to write something down - you didn't have a cheap medium to do it on, and most people were illiterate anyway. So what remains of what little was recorded is valuable today, because it is rare. More common objects aren't nearly as valuable - you might be surprised at just how cheap you can buy ancient Roman coins for - they may be thousands of years old but they were made by the millions and plenty of examples survive. I see things like CDs and DVDs to be similar - even if only a very small fraction of a percentage survive, the fact there are literally billions of them around today means that in a 1000 years they aren't going to be uncommon. Furthermore, if they have computers that are direct descendants of the ones we're using now, they'll probably already have perfect digital copies of anything mass-produced, so they'll have little interest in trying to read the majority of them.

  55. My DVDs are going to break? by Jump+into+the+Void · · Score: 1

    All my DVD from 1997 are going to break on me now?

  56. how do they test this? by vandit2k6 · · Score: 1

    I can't help but wonder if this company can prove that really the data will be available after 1,000. How is this test being performed? Also will there be DVD readers a 1,000 years from now?

    --
    Its nice to be important but its more important to be nice
  57. Sexual liberation not ahead by Estragib · · Score: 1

    As society is headed more and more towards prudery again, it's likely that naked titties will be all that's needed to make you come in your pants in about a hundred years' time.

    Remember, or look it up, sexual repression lies in the interests of an authoritarian state. And following current trends, there'll be plenty of those in a couple of decades.

    1. Re:Sexual liberation not ahead by A.+B3ttik · · Score: 1

      As society is headed more and more towards prudery again, it's likely that naked titties will be all that's needed to make you come in your pants in about a hundred years' time.

      Have you actually been on the internet prior to this post?

    2. Re:Sexual liberation not ahead by Estragib · · Score: 1

      You just wait those hundred years, you'll see!

    3. Re:Sexual liberation not ahead by maxume · · Score: 1

      I suggest using 3 or 5 hundred years when extrapolating, not 15.

      There were less laws 500 years ago, but the typical person certainly wasn't more free.

      --
      Nerd rage is the funniest rage.
  58. Wait a minute.... by fataugie · · Score: 1

    There was a story a few months ago that said they could get data to last a BILLION years.

    I scoff at your weak, lame figure of 1000 years.

    --

    WTF? Over?

  59. yeah because we already know... by JustNiz · · Score: 0, Redundant

    in 1000 years DVD format will still be used and drives will still be available. NOT.

  60. Re:Wondering by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    My god, someone on /. knows that show?

    mind blown

  61. Agreed by Estragib · · Score: 1

    My projection about titties might be way off. I'm not very good with them. Also, for me, it was more a way to sneak in that I'm worried about the current advances in authoritarianism than establishing my prophetic nature with regards to fetish porn.

    While I may be too pessimistic and choose my data a little biasedly, I prefer to err on freedom's side.

    1. Re:Agreed by maxume · · Score: 1

      I don't know, when I look at reality TV today, it doesn't seem to have any less skin the television in the past, and that seems like a fair way to measure cultural attitudes.

      Janet Jackson's super nipple is a bit of a counterpoint, but the group of people who thought it was funny was probably bigger than the group of people who thought there should be an end to television, and I think the group of people who didn't care was at least of comparable size to the group that thought it was very inappropriate for 'family' television.

      --
      Nerd rage is the funniest rage.
  62. my wife was tarded. she's a pilot now. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Hard to take those kind of rants seriously from an AC.

    It wasn't a very good movie, but it is very quotable. And anything that is "required viewing" in a class is suspect and likely of little real cultural significance.

    1. Re:my wife was tarded. she's a pilot now. by notseamus · · Score: 1

      Yeah, I'd recommend it as a tasty bit of hangover viewing.

      --
      I dreamed of Freud: What does this mean?
  63. My p0rn collection ... by PPH · · Score: 1

    ... in 1000 years?

    I'm not sure it will be of any value. I mean, look at what the "ideal" female form looked like only a few hundred years ago. I can just see a man of the future saying, "Asian chicks? Big tits? And only two? These guys must have been real sickos."

    --
    Have gnu, will travel.
  64. A new Definition for a Boring Job by Marcos+Eliziario · · Score: 1

    Doing QA with this thing is going to require a lot of patience of the testers.

    --
    Your ad could be here!
  65. 3 AM by AP31R0N · · Score: 1

    Got to teach and everything you learn
    will point to the fact that porn is eternal /obscure?

    --
    Utilizing the synergization of benchmark e-solutions to pre-workaround action items!
  66. Fad of the month club. by ArundelCastle · · Score: 1

    digital information is literally carved in...
    Once cut, the disk can be read by an ordinary DVD reader on your computer

    Sounds like pressing-on-demand.. with lasers. Even pressed discs can rot.

    (Ordinary DVDs last anywhere from 3 to 12 years, on average.)

    This made me LOL. There's not a single disc manufacturer that claims less than 30 years, and they used to just round up to 75 or 100. "We use BLUE dye!" Those aging chambers literally speed up time, y'know.

    Even more lolworthy is that Ask /. commenters felt the same way just 4 short years ago. Optical media from 2005 will outlast microfiche, eh? Then I guess this Millenniata company is blowing smoke.

    New != Best. A difficult sell on a tech site. Data migration will always be necessary. Always. Which hardware manufacturer will commit to making drives compatible with DVD+R for the next thousand years? Until the next crowd of /. commenters call the format antiquated, and are willing to pay $25-$30 for the next shiny thing.

  67. direct ascii encoding suggested by peter303 · · Score: 1

    All those complicated binary formats could forgotten by year 3000, if not 2025. A cryptographer in the future working with a microscope could fairly easy work out the pattern of DVD pits signified English letters and words. Egyptian heiroglyphics- forgotten for 1500 years- would have been harder to decipher.
    Should our electronic culture NOT be disrupted in the next thousand years, FORTRAN and JPEG will probably still be used in year 3000.

  68. 1x burners? by tepples · · Score: 1

    I have never burnt a disc faster than half its maximum speed

    Then I take it you didn't use CD-R or DVD-R or DVD+R at all until 2x recorders came out.

  69. Guarantee? by kuei12 · · Score: 1

    If my dvd only lasts 950 years will I get my money back? With interest?

  70. Who would read it after 100 years? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Who cares reading the DVD after 100 years, let alone 1000 years? If history is any indication, the content of the DVD would be copied into some other media yet to be invented, which probably will have 1000x capacity. If it's not copied, nobody would know how to read it anyway, and most likely it would be ending up in a dumping site. So making a DVD that last 1000 years is pointless, buying it is a waste of money, and using it hoping somebody would read it after 1000 years is just naive.

    1. Re:Who would read it after 100 years? by dave87656 · · Score: 1

      I've got my pictures and videos which I would like to be able to still view in my retirement and perhaps my grandkids will want to view them as well.

  71. You won't fool ME again by Hillgiant · · Score: 1

    Is it 1000 years? or 1024?

    --
    -
  72. Every ten years... by v(*_*)vvvv · · Score: 1

    From CDs to DVDs to HDDVDs to Blu-Rays to Pink Discs to ADDs to Blu-Balls, no one needs a 1000 year DVD. I say in 20 years we'd be storing a million DVDs on a RW key-chain that lasts forever.

    The great thing about data is you can copy it.

  73. Port All Data to Stone by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Unless we port all of our data to stone, it will not survive 1000 years.

  74. Why? It'll be stored on flash memory! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Isn't flash memory supposed to replace removable media by then?

  75. Is this production DVDs or R/RW?... by scld · · Score: 1

    Does that 3-12 years comment mean DVDs or DVD-Rs? I have yet to have a DVD become 'unreadable', so that 3 year mark seems a bit low. . . . DVD-Rs on the otherhand. . . .

    --
    'Those are my principles. If you don't like them, well. . .I have others.'

    twitter.com/scld

  76. Archive quality media by Nonillion · · Score: 1

    I have been waiting for something like this for storing family photos, slides, 8 and 16mm family films. If I remember correctly, Kodak sells 300+ year CDR/RW and DVDR/RW media. This would be suitable media for me. However, 1000 year media? I don't even know if our family line let alone the human race will still be around in 1000 years. But, it would still be cool to have the option..

    --
    "I bow to no man" - Riddick
  77. Consider the source by Whuffo · · Score: 1

    This is coming out of Utah, the fraud capital of the country. Could they have something worthwhile? Yes, but don't believe it until you have proof. Oh, that proof will take 1,000 years? That's no proof at all. You might want to check to make sure you still have your wallet.

  78. grab a chance at eternity by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    why not get one of these disks, fill it full of your personal details, photos, family history etc, then place it in a steel case along with some hair and nail clippings with the legend "please regenerate me in ad3000" engraved on the lid, then fund a trust fund that pays your family and descendants to preserve it as a family heirloom and pay for the regeneration, that way you have a chance at seeing the universe first hand as an immortal human.

    (based on the theory that the tech of 3000AD could regenerate your memories and yourself from the data/dna provided, and they would be interested in meeting a primitive human from 2009AD)

    1. Re:grab a chance at eternity by twosat · · Score: 1

      I once read of where someone did something similar, only it was done for his future reincarnation.

  79. A 10,000 year mechanical binary clock by twosat · · Score: 1

    A 1,000 year DVD? Some people are working on a 10,000 year clock, "The Clock of the Long Now"