I'm willing to make allowances for the author as his typing indicates he was half asleep (long day in the data centre perhaps). The following should be noted about he article though: The Google paper only used data from drives that had been burnt in, an action presumably designed to remove morbid infants, and still found a slight infant mortality effect. Yet the article claimed Google found no infant mortality effect.
You're assuming that the imprint will be obvious, but 100,000,000 years is a long time. 10,000,000,000 years (as specified by the GP) is even longer. Is our archaeology that good?
Slashdot Mirror
I'm willing to make allowances for the author as his typing indicates he was half asleep (long day in the data centre perhaps). The following should be noted about he article though: The Google paper only used data from drives that had been burnt in, an action presumably designed to remove morbid infants, and still found a slight infant mortality effect. Yet the article claimed Google found no infant mortality effect.
You're assuming that the imprint will be obvious, but 100,000,000 years is a long time. 10,000,000,000 years (as specified by the GP) is even longer. Is our archaeology that good?