Beta

Slashdot: News for Nerds

×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Stanford's Quantum Hologram Sets Storage Record

timothy posted more than 5 years ago | from the whiffs-of-ephemera dept.

Data Storage 210

eldavojohn writes "It's often assumed that representing data reaches a limit when you get to the point that an atom represents one bit in some form or fashion. But Stanford University researchers have used a quantum hologram model to store the characters 'S' and 'U' by encoding the data at a rate of 35 bits per electron."

cancel ×

210 comments

Wowie! (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26661641)

Another technology which won't be realizable until the year 2050! Just like my other fantasy Natalie Portman who has disappointingly small titties and abyssimal acting ability?

And fuck hot grits. They're not funny.

Re:Wowie! (4, Funny)

Selfbain (624722) | more than 5 years ago | (#26662389)

My god! You're so right! We should like totally stop doing research because it's so hard and takes effort.

versus USB (3, Funny)

KingAlanI (1270538) | more than 5 years ago | (#26661651)

And I thought my 8GB USB flash drive was high-density! (20mm x 54mm x 8mm)

Re:versus USB (4, Funny)

b4dc0d3r (1268512) | more than 5 years ago | (#26661679)

Wow, the only thing more dense is Stanford's quantum hologram. A close second, as usual, is the first post, followed by the secretary at work.

Dwell not (4, Funny)

dmomo (256005) | more than 5 years ago | (#26661701)

At least your device is also capable of holding the "B"

Re:versus USB (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26661711)

No one cares, Faggot (pronounced the French way - Fah-jo)

Re:versus USB (1)

Universal Indicator (626874) | more than 5 years ago | (#26661817)

My density has popped me to you!

Re:versus USB (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26662541)

You want to know what I saw once? I saw this fat creep in a wheelchair sneeze and then I saw a bunch of turds fly out of his shorts.

STFU... (5, Funny)

Narnie (1349029) | more than 5 years ago | (#26661669)

Sweet... now they're just a 'T' and 'F' away from writing something useful.

Re:STFU... (5, Funny)

pnevin (168332) | more than 5 years ago | (#26661815)

Sweet... now they're just a 'T' and 'F' away from writing something useful.

That's just cynical. Everyone knows that this is just a step towards the ultimate goal - an 16-atom-tall image of Princess Leia.

Re:STFU... (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26662199)

16-atom-tall anatomically correct image of princess Leia.

There's some joke here regarding size of certain parts of the average slashdotter's anatomy, statues, and certain breakfast cereals served hot swimming around here.

Re:STFU... (1)

weirdcrashingnoises (1151951) | more than 5 years ago | (#26662287)

i read the message before reading your title and thought "but there are two F's in "stuff" ....doh.

fp (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26661677)

i win

Re:fp (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26662067)

Yep heres your biggest douche award.

Re:fp (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26663033)

Sorry.... John Edwards already got that award.

Sub nano data recovery??? (4, Interesting)

schizz69 (1239560) | more than 5 years ago | (#26661681)

I bet recovering data off an atom could prove...... Difficult. :s

Re:Sub nano data recovery??? (1)

MichaelSmith (789609) | more than 5 years ago | (#26661731)

They should do it with positrons.

Re:Sub nano data recovery??? (4, Funny)

Fear the Clam (230933) | more than 5 years ago | (#26662471)

They should do it with positrons.

Are you sure?

Re:Sub nano data recovery??? (1)

DimmO (1179765) | more than 5 years ago | (#26662763)

Positronive

Re:Sub nano data recovery??? (1, Funny)

Nefarious Wheel (628136) | more than 5 years ago | (#26663283)

Willing to swap Melbourne weather for any weather from the USA or Siberia

I'll get the truck. *so* not used to 43c days.

Re:Sub nano data recovery??? (0, Offtopic)

MichaelSmith (789609) | more than 5 years ago | (#26663323)

Keeping fingers crossed for this fire [theage.com.au] in Churchill Park. I was in Tasmania last week and saw a big area south of Launceston where fire had taken out transmission lines. It looked like hot work putting new pylons up and stringing new cable. In this case I believe the conductivity of ionised gas below the transmission line can cause an apparent short to ground and take out the power supply.

Re:Sub nano data recovery??? (1)

jpate (1356395) | more than 5 years ago | (#26663405)

your MOM does it with positrons

Re:Sub nano data recovery??? (2)

fluch (126140) | more than 5 years ago | (#26661733)

Especially if the electron rolls away and hides under the rug...
I can imagine the outcry at the SU lab: "Where did this blody hide?!? Did anybody see my electron?"

Re:Sub nano data recovery??? (1)

aliquis (678370) | more than 5 years ago | (#26662179)

New relativistic bandwidth measurement?

Instead of a truck filled with HDDs/DVDs/whatever we can finally use something more easy to comprehend such as a 2 MW cable (or should one measure the amps instead?)

Re:Sub nano data recovery??? (5, Funny)

Clever7Devil (985356) | more than 5 years ago | (#26661745)

That's why you need redundancy. Do I hear 2 atoms?

Re:Sub nano data recovery??? (5, Funny)

CastrTroy (595695) | more than 5 years ago | (#26661801)

So, would that leave you with a Redundant Independant Array of Atoms (RIAA)? Perfect for storing my music.

Re:Sub nano data recovery??? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26662937)

The trailing 'A' in RIAA does not stand for atoms, though. Fill in by expletive of choice.

Re:Sub nano data recovery??? (4, Funny)

pushing-robot (1037830) | more than 5 years ago | (#26661851)

But that could get expensive fast. How much does each atom cost?

Re:Sub nano data recovery??? (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26662717)

$.99 per atom.
Molecules are $9.99

ipod nano compatible.

Re:Sub nano data recovery??? (2, Funny)

noidentity (188756) | more than 5 years ago | (#26663525)

So, would that leave you with a Redundant Independant Array of Atoms (RIAA)? Perfect for storing my music.

But that could get expensive fast. How much does each atom cost?

Similar to homeopathy, the RIAA's civil damages seem inversely proportional to the amount, so I'm not sure we can represent the cost of an atom.

Re:Sub nano data recovery??? (1)

jtgd (807477) | more than 5 years ago | (#26663081)

No, don't mirror, use RAID and store 4 electrons worth of data in 5 electrons.

Re:Sub nano data recovery??? (1)

joemck (809949) | more than 5 years ago | (#26662449)

Secure data destruction could also prove interesting, if you follow today's standard of destroying the medium it's on. Time to replace those hard disk shredders with atom smashers!

Re:Sub nano data recovery??? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26662655)

This stuff boggles my mind. I lose sleep at night.

You mean it's just a hoax? (2, Insightful)

iwein (561027) | more than 5 years ago | (#26663469)

If they can't recover the data, how did they prove it was ever there? I didn't read the article in good /. fashion, but if it avoids this question I'm sure it's not to be taken seriously.

That's great! (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26661685)

And by letting S=0 and U=1 we can now represent a bit using 70 bits! Oh wai-

Re:That's great! (0, Redundant)

cong06 (1000177) | more than 5 years ago | (#26661787)

lol

Re:That's great! (3, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26662515)

And by letting S=0 and U=1 we can now represent a bit using 70 bits! Oh wai-

You'll be hearing from Microsoft's patent lawyers.

Space versus time tradeoff (5, Interesting)

Carnildo (712617) | more than 5 years ago | (#26661687)

They're storing data in a small space, sure, but it's got the same problem that traditional holograms do: it takes a good deal of computation time to figure out how to encode the information you want in wave patterns.

Re:Space versus time tradeoff (2)

sremick (91371) | more than 5 years ago | (#26661737)

Agreed. The first thing that jumped to my mind after reading this article was that it would not scale well past a few characters.

Neat trick, though.

Re:Space versus time tradeoff (5, Interesting)

Solder Fumes (797270) | more than 5 years ago | (#26661933)

Maybe quantum computers will be really good at doing this.

Re:Space versus time tradeoff (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26662595)

quantum storage for quantum machines

wow my 150 000 000 fermi long dick is hard

Re:Space versus time tradeoff (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26662775)

quantum computers are a pipe dream, as they require exponential power in the number of qbits. It'll be decades before they figure out 32-qbit, and your great great grandchildren still won't have 64-qbit computers.

Re:Space versus time tradeoff (1)

KDR_11k (778916) | more than 5 years ago | (#26663533)

I suppose we can't put these 36 bit electrons into a superposition to get 36 qubits?

Faggot (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26662075)

Sucking on shit covered cocks is very gross. PLEASE STOP IT!

Re:Faggot (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26662137)

FISHY CUNTS FTW!

Neat (4, Insightful)

ShooterNeo (555040) | more than 5 years ago | (#26661751)

One thing most 'futurists' agree on is that the ultimate 'end game' of technology appears to be the conversion of all matter in the solar system into machine parts and computational elements. It's a logical end result of exponential growth. (and, actually, would be only the beginning : such a 'civilization' would eventually grow to convert the entire universe, but this would take much longer due to the snails pace of light)

It's neat to think that such a civilization could store even more information than an obvious cap of '1 bit per atom'.

Re:Neat (4, Funny)

nine-times (778537) | more than 5 years ago | (#26661867)

One thing most 'futurists' agree on is that the ultimate 'end game' of technology appears to be the conversion of all matter in the solar system into machine parts and computational elements. It's a logical end result of exponential growth. (and, actually, would be only the beginning : such a 'civilization' would eventually grow to convert the entire universe, but this would take much longer due to the snails pace of light)

What makes you think this hasn't already happened? Maybe we're part of a big computer thats trying to answer some kind of big question or something.

Actually, never mind. That seems infinitely improbable to me.

Re:Neat (2)

MichaelSmith (789609) | more than 5 years ago | (#26661927)

I was going to do that ;) now where did my mice get to?

Re:Neat (1)

mrsquid0 (1335303) | more than 5 years ago | (#26661987)

>What makes you think this hasn't already happened? Maybe we're
>part of a big computer thats trying to answer some kind of big
>question or something.

Maybe we are all part of a big computer running larn.

Re:Neat (4, Funny)

Jafafa Hots (580169) | more than 5 years ago | (#26662009)

Maybe we're just somebody's porn collection.

Re:Neat (3, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26662051)

Probably, it explains why i am permanently aroused by every single thing around me, even that comma.

Re:Neat (2, Funny)

kitsunewarlock (971818) | more than 5 years ago | (#26663215)

Well, the comma is un-questionably the sluttiest punctuation mark in the english language; personally I prefer the exoticism of the semi-colon, but people exclaim that I'm some kind of fetishist!

Re:Neat (1)

nextekcarl (1402899) | more than 5 years ago | (#26662059)

Oh, for want of mod points!

Re:Neat (5, Funny)

DigiShaman (671371) | more than 5 years ago | (#26662159)

Well that's good. At least we will be the last thing to be deleted on the vast cosmic hard drive.

Re:Neat (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26662669)

Can I buy some pot from you?

http://www.entertonement.com/clips/38424/Buy-some-pot

Re:Neat (0, Redundant)

jomegat (706411) | more than 5 years ago | (#26662443)

What makes you think this hasn't already happened? Maybe we're part of a big computer thats trying to answer some kind of big question or something.

42

Re:Neat (2, Interesting)

im_thatoneguy (819432) | more than 5 years ago | (#26662551)

To ruin a perfectly good Hitchhiker's guide:

Actually it's not infinitely improbable. It's actually extremely probable.

Now obviously there is life in our universe whatever it may be. (I think therefore I am. Etc...) If life is capable of evolving into sentient, intelligent, technological life then eventually it's almost guaranteed that they'll simulate another universe. As long as each universe simulates at least ONE other universe then the probability of being in a simulation is > 50%.

The chances that we are at the "Top Level" of the universe and that we aren't being simulated is exceedingly low. I imagine that a civilization capable of creating simulated life is capable of creating more than one simulation of simulated life and therefore had many many simulations.

Re:Neat (1)

SpaceLifeForm (228190) | more than 5 years ago | (#26662715)

Yes, most of them are buggy.

Re:Neat (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26663517)

(I think therefore I am. Etc...)

Sorry to burst your bubble: that statement has a false premise, and a circular argument.

It's most likely that you don't exist.

Re:Neat (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26662611)

Actually, the universe is more like a spreadsheet. It isn't trying to answer a question, it's simply a giant What-If? resolver.

Re:Neat (-1, Redundant)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26662679)

and the answer is 42

Re:Neat (1)

iNaya (1049686) | more than 5 years ago | (#26662125)

And if the entire universe was made into one giant computer, would that make any difference to what it actually is now?

Re:Neat (1)

neomunk (913773) | more than 5 years ago | (#26663087)

Well... If our simulation is being monitored (even by an autonomous script) whatever watchdog might take our recent (in terms of the simulation) attempts at quantum mechanical thought and experiments along those lines as 'hacking' the system. Maybe that's what we're SUPPOSED to end up doing, or maybe that's a termination condition (segmentation fault: core dumped)...

Not that I necessarily buy the notion we're living in a simulation (though I think the idea is interesting), I do think there would be real implications if it were so.

Re:Neat (1)

neomunk (913773) | more than 5 years ago | (#26663093)

Errr, sorry iNaya. The way this is threaded, I mistook your post as saying something different. My bad!

Simulation implies god (1)

TapeCutter (624760) | more than 5 years ago | (#26663479)

The Universe acts as a computer, even though I can't predict what will happen in the next ten seconds I believe my (zero dimentional?) "soul" is a particular instance of a calculation within the Universal calculator.

The word "simulation" implies the calculator and it's calculations have a "higher" purpose, ie: an external intelligence pre-programmed it and/or is still pushing the buttons. Note that by definition the Universe has no "outside".

We will never know if there is a button pushing God, there is simply no way for a temporary calculation to decide what is going on "outside" of the calculator.

Re:Neat (5, Interesting)

JWman (1289510) | more than 5 years ago | (#26662175)

It's a logical end result of exponential growth.

Actually, that logic is flawed. The assumption that we will continue to see exponential growth forever in anything is pretty flawed, simply because of different laws kicking in. Look at trends in computer ownership, or TVs or anything else that hits its prime and hits it big. For a good while these things do have an exponential growth curve, but obviously that growth cannot continue indefinitely, or people would have to start buying two or three TV sets at a time every couple of days, and then the next week buy 3 TV sets every day, and then every hour....

This is the fundamental problem with extrapolation taken too far. The truth of the matter is that you have no idea what the curve looks like, regardless of how much data you have. It could be exponential growth for thousands of years, and then suddenly take a nose dive and drop back down close to where it started, or perhaps grow faster. Extrapolating too far is foolishness that happens far too often.
I've heard the discussion of converting all matter into computational elements, but a FAR more likely growth curve for computing power is not exponential, but sigmoidal [wikipedia.org] .

Thus, I would argue that converting all matter into computational elements would be the asymptotic 'end game' of technology that we will never quite reach, but always be moving towards (though our progress will slow). Many growth patterns follow a sigmoidal curve.

Re:Neat (3, Interesting)

ShooterNeo (555040) | more than 5 years ago | (#26662707)

Ok, my logic isn't based on math, it's based on common sense.

Go look at a a modern factory using current robotics. Do you notice that the factory could make some of the parts used in the machines in that factory? And that the robots can do basically anything that a human hand can do, given a proper setup?

It's perfectly reasonable to extrapolate just a LITTLE bit and imagine a very large factory that can make every part used in the factory itself, from the ICs in the control circuitry to lubricants for the moving parts. Said factory already exists, it is just distributed across the world and currently depends on human labor for many things.

Now, what ultimate needs does this factory have, if you could replace the human intelligence of the workers with really smart software? Well, it needs various metals and carbon and silicon and all sorts of other stuff that happen to be found all over our solar system, not just on earth.

It also would need energy, which happens to be freely created and dumped into space by our star.

So common sense is that once such a factory exists and no longer is constrained by human labor for it to grow, it could exponentially grow to swallow up all the available matter in the solar system, almost.

Yes, the curve would be sigmoidal...somewhere around the point that it comes time to assimilate pluto or Kuiper belt objects, the rate of growth would level off. And we'd never convert EVERY last scrap of matter, it would be an asymptotic end game at that point, yes.

But what's the difference between converting 90% of everything within a a light day of the Sun and 100% from a practical perspective? Either way, it is going to be pretty darn impressive for those humans that live to see it. (if any do)

Re:Neat (1)

Nick Ives (317) | more than 5 years ago | (#26663135)

Don't speak so freely of the spiral nemesis lest we incur the wrath of the anti-spirals!

They did... how much?? (4, Informative)

w0mprat (1317953) | more than 5 years ago | (#26661811)

35 bits per electron?! This kind of resets a few common assumptions about how much data can be stored in matter. Feynman was right.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/There's_Plenty_of_Room_at_the_Bottom [wikipedia.org]

Re:They did... how much?? (1)

MrEkted (764569) | more than 5 years ago | (#26661955)

So, at 35 bits per electron, how many electrons did it take them to store these two letters?

Unicode is getting a little out of hand...

Re:They did... how much?? (5, Insightful)

Ungrounded Lightning (62228) | more than 5 years ago | (#26661957)

If I understand holography and what they're doing correctly (and I DID work as a tech in Emmett Leith's lab so I have some clue), they're transforming the information.

Yes, each electron has information from 35 bits. But more than one electron has that same information, encoded differently. How many storage electrons do they need to encode it in a way that is recoverable?

The information per electron is the total information encoded divided by the total number of electrons needed to encode it at a high enough resolution to be recovered.

Also: The illustration of the way they're encoding it looks like it's not just electrons that encode it, but also their absence. Add in HOLES to the count of "things encoding the bits".

I'll be surprised if the total comes out to more than one bit per electron site. (Note that they may get more than one such site per atom.)

Re:They did... how much?? (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26663285)

It sounds like cheating to me as well. They don't seem to be counting the MOLECULES necessary for creating the interference patterns. How many support atoms does it take to encode each bit of information? If it takes more than a couple for each bit, then how is this better than IBM's effort?

From the article:

On the two-dimensional surface of the copper, electrons zip around, behaving as both particles and waves, bouncing off the carbon monoxide molecules the way ripples in a shallow pond might interact with stones placed in the water. The ever-moving waves interact with the molecules and with each other to form standing "interference patterns" that vary with the placement of the molecules.

By altering the arrangement of the molecules, the researchers can create different waveforms, effectively encoding information for later retrieval. To encode and read out the data at unprecedented density, the scientists have devised a new technology, Electronic Quantum Holography.

Re:They did... how much?? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26662177)

The ultimate limit as to how many bits can be stored in matter is the number of bits that it would take to completely specify that matter's state. At that point simulations become indistinguishable from reality, because they are reality.

Carbon-13 storage (1)

ChengWah (955139) | more than 5 years ago | (#26661833)

Presumably, then an atom of Carbon-13 could encode the English alphabet, or some trans-uranium element could be used for eight-bit binary data. Radioactive storage anyone?

Re:Carbon-13 storage (5, Funny)

Yeti.SSM (869826) | more than 5 years ago | (#26662957)

Radioactive storage anyone?

Then all your pr0n collection would decay after some time. Not a viable solution.

And with new Stacker Quantum (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26661849)

They're able to squeeze up to 70 bits per electron*!

*Results may vary

High School Science? (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26662063)

It's obvious you can store more than one bit per electron, since electrons can have more than two energy levels.

An atom? (1, Insightful)

MisterMikeyG (1454529) | more than 5 years ago | (#26662119)

Why would an atom even naively be the conceptual finest representation of a bit? Does he mean an electron? An atom is quite a large and complex object compared to an electron...Measuring an electron's presence or absence yields a simple bit. There's nothing atomic ABOUT an atom... why would that ever represent a bit?

sounds fishy (1)

msu320 (1084789) | more than 5 years ago | (#26662155)

It sounds very suspect for someone to use 'interference' to store data safely. I'd rather trust my data with an identity thieve: if lost, I could find it on the internet!

Atoms (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26662209)

Don't be ridiculous. Everyone knows that an atom is 32 bits (but the first three are always zero.)

YUO FAIL IT! (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26662289)

Coomunity at of its core *BSD is dying Yet

Yes but... (1)

carterhawk001 (681941) | more than 5 years ago | (#26662339)

How many gigaquads does this translate to?

How much data? (2, Funny)

LingNoi (1066278) | more than 5 years ago | (#26662363)

The article didn't go into any detail about this.

Anyone know how many libraries of congress this is?

Re:How much data? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26662527)

Well, according to Wikipedia, the book-only [wikipedia.org] portion of the library has been estimated at 10 terabytes. Two letters in ASCII are 14 bits. Dividing the one into the other, Google assures us that the answer is 1.59161573 * 10^-13 [google.com] LoC.

Mind you, this doesn't include high-quality scans of non-text materials in the library, diagrams of the structure itself, etc.

Sadly, I can't find any information on the average molarity of cellulose, or I'd try to calculate the number of atoms in one Library of Congress as well.

Re:How much data? (3, Informative)

textstring (924171) | more than 5 years ago | (#26662531)

35 bits is about 4x10^-13 LoC's, taking 1 LoC = 10TB.
so, you could fit the entire library of congress in about 9x10^-12 grams of copper.

Re:How much data? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26662635)

LoC === line of code

nothing else

Call me when........ (1)

venuspcs (946177) | more than 5 years ago | (#26662493)

I can store an entire 4 hour porno in/on a single atom and have a few exabytes of data stored directly in my synaptic pathways.

Re:Call me when........ (1)

corychristison (951993) | more than 5 years ago | (#26663205)

I can store an entire 4 hour porno in/on a single atom

At what resolution and bitrate?

I could probably transcode a porno into a black-and-white 32x32 pixel video to create a very small file.

On the flipside I could upscale it to a full 1080p 120hz video to create a very large file.

Specifics, people! This /is/ Slashdot!

Shrink a STM to fit into a 2.5" or 3.5" HDD (1)

t35t0r (751958) | more than 5 years ago | (#26662497)

Now all we need to do is shrink a STM so that it fits into a SATA HDD 2.5 or 3.5" form factor :)

Imagine... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26662553)

Imagine a beowulf cluster of these!

Uses (1)

atomicthumbs (824207) | more than 5 years ago | (#26662817)

As soon as a version of this is released to the public, I'm going to download music. All of it.

Yeah but... (2, Funny)

geminidomino (614729) | more than 5 years ago | (#26662819)

Read the fine print

"35 bits per electron.*"

1 kilobit=1000 bits
1 bit=1000 bquarks

Goddamn marketers! It's 1024!

Screw bytes per dollar (5, Funny)

kkrajewski (1459331) | more than 5 years ago | (#26662831)

I want the most bytes per MOLE next time I shop for a hard disk!

Re:Screw bytes per dollar (2, Funny)

tool462 (677306) | more than 5 years ago | (#26663483)

6.02e23 ought to be enough for anybody.

35 bits per electron! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26662951)

That's gonna make transuran elements pretty valuable - a bit above 1 KB per Plutonium atom then. Also valuable because... it would decay after a while, which in theory could be ideal for top-secret .gov stuff or those "rented" DVDs that destroy themselves.

Though non-radiating atoms are preferable. Like lead - still makes for a nice ~256 byte thing with some ECC/CRC bits or so.

need more (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26663021)

I have not enough atoms to finish this senten

Ok for the login, but... (1)

ThePromenader (878501) | more than 5 years ago | (#26663109)

They're going to need a few more bits for the root password.

Encoded! (1)

Nefarious Wheel (628136) | more than 5 years ago | (#26663293)

With density like that we could encode ourselves, our philosophies and all else in our experience in a thimble or two.

Was it Greg Bear who explored this in "Blood Music"?

Oblig Bill Gates Remarks... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26663355)

So what they are really trying to say is "640 atoms should be enough for everybody"?

Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...