×

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!

The Sum Total of the World's Knowledge: 250 Exabytes

timothy posted more than 3 years ago | from the well-250-exabytes-and-this-article dept.

Data Storage 168

arkenian writes "The BBC reports on an article in Science about scientists who calculate that the sum of all the world's stored data is 250 exabytes. Perhaps more interestingly, the total amount of data broadcast is 2 zettabytes (1000 exabytes) annually. In theory this means that the sum of the world's knowledge is broadcast 8 times a year, but I bet mostly that's just a lot of American Idol reruns."

cancel ×
This is a preview of your comment

No Comment Title Entered

Anonymous Coward 1 minute ago

No Comment Entered

168 comments

And a lot of it is free (4, Informative)

commodore6502 (1981532) | more than 3 years ago | (#35188058)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free-to-air [wikipedia.org] - "Free-to-air (FTA) describes television (TV) and radio services broadcast in clear (unencrypted) form, allowing any person with the appropriate receiving equipment to receive the signal and view or listen to the content without requiring a subscription (or other ongoing cost)"

http://www.hulu.com/ [hulu.com] (free tv)
http://www.youtube.com/ [youtube.com] (free music vids and tv)
http://www.piratebay.org/ [piratebay.org]

Re:And a lot of it is free (3, Insightful)

berwiki (989827) | more than 3 years ago | (#35188278)

I love how the first thing you see, when you click the link, is that the article says 295 exabytes, not 250.

Re:And a lot of it is free (3, Funny)

Suki I (1546431) | more than 3 years ago | (#35188320)

How many Library of Congresses is that? I just have no perspective without it being expressed in LOC units.

Re:And a lot of it is free (4, Interesting)

arkenian (1560563) | more than 3 years ago | (#35189008)

I swear I read 250 the first time I read the article. I must be getting blind as well as old. My apologies. (Although I grant, one would have hoped the editors would take the trouble to read the article and catch it.)

Re:And a lot of it is free (1)

Phaedrus420 (860578) | more than 3 years ago | (#35189062)

This is the first time I have seen a submitter respond to any kind of complaint about a submission, here. I consider this a small miracle, and I thank you.
Now, seeing the editors editing on top of that would be a bit of a shock to the system, so let's don't get carried away.

Friends (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35188066)

The aliens will invade after they get sick of so many reruns of friends reaching them.

Re:Friends (1)

ExploHD (888637) | more than 3 years ago | (#35188516)

The aliens will invade after they get sick of so many reruns of friends reaching them.

Wrong, they'll invade earth to watch the end of Single Female Lawyer

Something I'd like to know is... (4, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35188070)

How much of that is pornographic "knowledge"?

Re:Something I'd like to know is... (1)

commodore6502 (1981532) | more than 3 years ago | (#35188244)

I remember when porn was hard to get. I'd download 4000-color nudie pics or SI Swimsuit scans to my 1985 Amiga, and treasure them like rare gold. (The floppies were hidden with creative names like "Image XXX part 1".)

But now twenty-five years later, there's so much porn I couldn't keep-up even with Viagra.

Re:Something I'd like to know is... (2)

commodore6502 (1981532) | more than 3 years ago | (#35188362)

Random thinking out loud : : 4000-color Amiga photos were 704x240x5bits per pixel == 845 kilobits. My ZMODEM protocol transferred 2 kbit/s or 7 minutes just to view one photo! I'd forgotten. No wonder I used to leave the computer downloading by itself.

Of course back then you could only fit 8 photos per floppy, so you had to pause the download every hour, change floppies, and then resume.

Good thing the Amiga multitasked (so you could view photos and download at the same time). All. Good times. Wasted youth. And all that rubbish. :-)

Re:Something I'd like to know is... (1)

93 Escort Wagon (326346) | more than 3 years ago | (#35188788)

Of course back then you could only fit 8 photos per floppy, so you had to pause the download every hour, change floppies, and then resume.

I suspect there were other reasons you needed to occasionally change floppies.

Re:Something I'd like to know is... (1)

mrops (927562) | more than 3 years ago | (#35188774)

well needless to say, that doesn't include porn. my collection alone is 500 esabytes

absolute value? (3, Insightful)

bth (635955) | more than 3 years ago | (#35188102)

Perhaps some of the knowledge broadcast has a negative value, so the absolute value of the knowledge broadcast is high, but the net information distributed is much smaller?

"Stored Data" does not equal "Knowledge" (4, Insightful)

sgage (109086) | more than 3 years ago | (#35188104)

Nice way to conflate terms for a sensational headline. What a bogus metric. A good chunk of that "stored data" is junk. Probably most of it. Not to mention duplication. (Duplication? I told you not to mention duplication :-)

Re:"Stored Data" does not equal "Knowledge" (3, Funny)

$RANDOMLUSER (804576) | more than 3 years ago | (#35188142)

How dare you suggest that every byte on /b/, or every "frist psot, I for one, in soviet russia, you insensitive clod" on slashdot isn't knowledge of the first order?

Re:"Stored Data" does not equal "Knowledge" (1)

Ambiguous Coward (205751) | more than 3 years ago | (#35188224)

Wanted to mod that '+1 Knowledge' but then I realized '++Knowledge' might be more accurate. Slashdot provides neither as an option. :(

Re:"Stored Data" does not equal "Knowledge" (4, Funny)

kangsterizer (1698322) | more than 3 years ago | (#35188214)

Nice way to conflate terms for a sensational headline. What a bogus metric. A good chunk of that "stored data" is junk. Probably most of it. Not to mention duplication. (Duplication? I told you not to mention duplication :-)

Sorry, i'm just increasing world's knowledge database at the moment.

Re:"Stored Data" does not equal "Knowledge" (1)

decoy256 (1335427) | more than 3 years ago | (#35188714)

Two comments for this one...

1) Heh heh... I'm not X, I'm increasing the world knowledge database. Where X = whatever annoying internet trope is being used against us at the moment.

2) And you thought there was no useful purpose for rickrolling.

Re:"Stored Data" does not equal "Knowledge" (1)

halcyon1234 (834388) | more than 3 years ago | (#35189012)

The world's knowledge is 250 exabytes.

(Checks my own comment)

Wait, now it'll be 250 exabytes + 61 bytes.

(checks again)

Wait, now it'll be 250 exabytes + 61 bytes + 48 bytes.

(checks again)

Wait...

Re:"Stored Data" does not equal "Knowledge" (0)

NJRoadfan (1254248) | more than 3 years ago | (#35188418)

They didn't even use a good system of measurement.... how many Library of Congress is that anyway?

a little more filtering needed (1)

petes_PoV (912422) | more than 3 years ago | (#35188660)

And of that "knowledge", how much of it is correct? And of the correct knowledge, how much is relevant. I'd say that 250 exabytes will shrink rapidly if usefulness was taken into account.

Re:a little more filtering needed (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35188710)

And of that "knowledge", how much of it is correct?

who cares? ;p

On two occasions I have been asked, 'Pray, Mr. Babbage, if you put into the machine wrong figures, will the right answers come out?' I am not able rightly to apprehend the kind of confusion of ideas that could provoke such a question.
Charles Babbage

Re:"Stored Data" does not equal "Knowledge" (1)

Surt (22457) | more than 3 years ago | (#35188678)

It's all knowledge, and virtually all of it is worthwhile to someone. The subjective value of any piece is just that, subjective. Calling it junk just reveals a bias.

Re:"Stored Data" does not equal "Knowledge" (1)

Paracelcus (151056) | more than 3 years ago | (#35188844)

I ran a little freeware product called "double killer on me Windows partition, there were thousands of individual "dupes" about 3Gigs total.

Re:"Stored Data" does not equal "Knowledge" (1)

Nikker (749551) | more than 3 years ago | (#35188874)

Also we have to keep in mind that each unit of storage does not equate to a unit of knowledge. A PDF of about 500KB does not have as much raw knowledge as a 500KB text file. Same as images, videos and compiled programs. I'm not sure if adding up the capacity of every hard drive sold for the past 10-15 years somehow equates to each one being filled with some sort of information or knowledge.

Re:"Stored Data" does not equal "Knowledge" (1)

epine (68316) | more than 3 years ago | (#35189150)

Well, if we're not deduplicating, I'm sure a billion teaspoons/day of baby batter creams the blogobytes.

So, then, get the backlog done. (4, Interesting)

G3ckoG33k (647276) | more than 3 years ago | (#35188106)

So, then, get the backlog done.

It is about time we have high definition copies of all old texts, like the all hieroglyphs ever documented, all Babylonian texts, all Sanskrit texts, the Dead Sea scrolls, all Medieval hand writings, etc.

I guess all these together could not muster 1% of all the crap that is out there today. I wouldn't be surprised if all the foolish blabber-blobber-blubber on Facebook a single day outcompete all pre-1700 texts combined.

So, back to work. Get the backlog done.

Re:So, then, get the backlog done. (2)

icebike (68054) | more than 3 years ago | (#35188454)

Much of what you ask for is already on line in one form or another. Often its in the form of on-line books, either from Google or other Libraries.
See this example for Hieroglyphs [archive.org].

The rest is there if you google hard enough, some times in image form, some times translated.

However, TFA is about All the data we have stored, not All the data we have.

The huge amount of bitching that flared up when Google wanted to scan all old books and make them available on line shows that there are deeply entrenched, and largely self appointed, guardians of historical knowledge that see large collections of historical photos, texts, and artifacts as their personal bailiwick, and something they have to guard from us peasants.

The huge amount of cost involved for spinning storage and web services, and web construction makes it impractical for many small museums to put images on line, let alone any documentation of them. There is very little money for any of this except for some of the larger institutions.

Yeah, there should be a http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/QR_Code [wikipedia.org]>QR code on every historical marker on earth linking to data about it that you can access with your phone. And every museum should have the entire collection on line, right down to the last fossilized lemur tooth. And every shred of parchment should be photographed and put on line and translated.

But who pays for this. Its far cheaper to cast a Commemorative plaque and be done with it.
Information wants to be free, but making it so costs a lot of money.

What exactly counts as "knowledge"? (1, Insightful)

rolfwind (528248) | more than 3 years ago | (#35188118)

E=mc^2 represents a lot more knowledge to me than the entire 3,000 episode run of "The View" or similiar programs -- even though it's a lot more concise.

I could take a yottapixel photo of dirt and it sure won't tell me a lot.

Re:What exactly counts as "knowledge"? (1)

monkyyy (1901940) | more than 3 years ago | (#35188174)

e=mc^2 tells me nothing, its a concept, but it means nothing w/o understanding how many people died from a few pounds of nuclear mineral

Re:What exactly counts as "knowledge"? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35188222)

You're an idiot. Please don't post when you're PMSing. Your mindless PC whining doesn't add anything to the conversation.

Re:What exactly counts as "knowledge"? (1)

Suki I (1546431) | more than 3 years ago | (#35188342)

e=mc^2 tells me nothing, its a concept, but it means nothing w/o understanding how many people died from a few pounds of nuclear mineral

A little radiation never hurt anybody.

Re:What exactly counts as "knowledge"? (1)

camperdave (969942) | more than 3 years ago | (#35188768)

A little radiation never hurt anybody.

True, but a lot of it will burn you to a crisp!

Re:What exactly counts as "knowledge"? (1)

Suki I (1546431) | more than 3 years ago | (#35188782)

A little radiation never hurt anybody.

True, but a lot of it will burn you to a crisp!

Moderation is the key to all fun, god and clean or bad and nasty.

Re:What exactly counts as "knowledge"? (1)

gapagos (1264716) | more than 3 years ago | (#35188182)

Yeah but if it were a yottapixel photo of Jessica Alba, I think it'd be a different story.

Re:What exactly counts as "knowledge"? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35188390)

Yeah, the knowledge that anorexia is bad.

.

Re:What exactly counts as "knowledge"? (0)

commodore6502 (1981532) | more than 3 years ago | (#35188410)

You've not seen Jessica Alba.
    She is NOT anorexic. In fact she's gained about 50 pounds since I first saw her on Flipper.

Re:What exactly counts as "knowledge"? (1)

Dunbal (464142) | more than 3 years ago | (#35188484)

In fact she's gained about 50 pounds since I first saw her on Flipper.

Damn, I never thought humans could get pregnant from dolph....

Re:What exactly counts as "knowledge"? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35188394)

I guess your question is "why measure knowledge in bytes and not in value?" Well because that would be a different question. Each unit has its strengths and weaknesses. For example the total sum in "value" wouldn't tell you how many disks you would need to store it, but this does.

Re:What exactly counts as "knowledge"? (2)

Surt (22457) | more than 3 years ago | (#35188690)

You're revealing a pretty heavy bias there. I'd guess a geologist would find the dirt photo much more valuable than either the view or the mc^2, and a bored housewife whose life has been closed down to the point where her only social outlet is tv would find the view more valuable than the other two.

Editors, please edit (5, Informative)

RockMFR (1022315) | more than 3 years ago | (#35188126)

The submitter messed up two of the basic details of this story - the number is actually 295, not 250, and this value is as of 2007, rather than the implied present day. (I know, I must be new here.)

Re:Editors, please edit (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35188276)

Maybe the submitter thought it would be helpful to convert the figure to exibytes and call it exabytes. 295 / 1.024^6 = 255.87... ~= 250.

Re:Editors, please edit (1)

tsa (15680) | more than 3 years ago | (#35188558)

What I found much more interesting in the article is that in 2002 we had for the first time more information stored digitally than in other formats, and in 2007, 94% of all information in the world was stored digitally.

Re:Editors, please edit (1)

Dcnjoe60 (682885) | more than 3 years ago | (#35188858)

The submitter messed up two of the basic details of this story - the number is actually 295, not 250, and this value is as of 2007, rather than the implied present day.

(I know, I must be new here.)

Maybe it was 250 and after all of the meaningless comments on slashdot about it, it actually increased to 295?

You have my permission to count this as one of the meaningless comments.

295 exabytes (3, Interesting)

slashchuck (617840) | more than 3 years ago | (#35188146)

The total according to this article [pcmag.com] is 295 exabytes.

Re:295 exabytes (1)

Ksevio (865461) | more than 3 years ago | (#35188810)

But who's really going to notice a difference of 45 exabytes?

Re:295 exabytes (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35188934)

I find the whole article suspect. I store a bit over 1 PB of semi-unique data. So if we believe the article, I maintain .003% of the planet's knowledge. ....really? Calling BS when I see it.

American Idol? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35188158)

I bet most of it is porn.

Well, its certainly a number. (3, Insightful)

RyanFenton (230700) | more than 3 years ago | (#35188230)

...not meaningful in terms of the headline. The number is just addressing storage capacity potential available, not as unique meaningful data. All its saying is that the average person has access to x terrabyes of digital storage. That number is just taking manufacturing numbers for electronic hardware, and dividing by number of people.

It's not addressing the actual complexity generated or used by people. It's not actually addressing any actual people or what they do.

There is, however an interesting deeper meaning behind a number like this - the more this number multiplies, the harder it is going to be to control information, as people have more and more diverse options for storing and transferring data.

This means that even as processing power multiplies - it becomes even more impossible to police all the data of the world for improper uses.

That's the more interesting aspect of this number.

Ryan Fenton

Zero-sum game (2, Funny)

gmuslera (3436) | more than 3 years ago | (#35188264)

Wrong math. At best what you there have 125 exabytes of knowledge and 125 exabytes of anti-knowledge. Ok, probably the knowledge weights more than the antiknowledge, so for each scientific paper could be a hundred pages on ovnis, a thousand lolcat videos, and. well, hundreds of spam pages, but somewhat we keep going forward.

Re:Zero-sum game (0)

Dunbal (464142) | more than 3 years ago | (#35188534)

Anti-knowledge. Lol, so that explains why I always fell asleep in history class. The anti-knowledge from humanities courses was colliding with the knowledge from science courses and shutting my synapses down. Or stimulating my GABAergic neurons. Or whatever....

Sheesh I wonder if we mix up enough of it if we could power a turbine, or better yet, blow up the universe.

Wrong! Its infinite! (2)

Kenja (541830) | more than 3 years ago | (#35188296)

The knowledge of the amount of storage needed to keep all the knowledge increases the amount of storage needed, the knowledge of which increases the amount of knowledge, ad infinitum.

Re:Wrong! Its infinite! (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35188758)

Hmm k + log(k + log(k + log(k + ... ))) doesn't tend to infinity. It converges to the solution of k = t - log(t) which is finite.

Re:Wrong! Its infinite! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35188986)

Which is why I can't store the size of my computer's harddrive on my computer's hard drive.
Oh wait... Did Achilles catch the tortoise?

Let me increase that (0)

antifoidulus (807088) | more than 3 years ago | (#35188344)

I just farted. There, let it be said that I have increased the amount of human knowledge on the internet!

1 zetabyte = 1024 exabytes (0)

Ensign Nemo (19284) | more than 3 years ago | (#35188372)

not 1000 exabytes

Re:1 zetabyte = 1024 exabytes (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35188446)

Only to people who don't understand SI units or the meaning of the word "approximation."

Re:1 zetabyte = 1024 exabytes (1)

0123456 (636235) | more than 3 years ago | (#35188556)

Only to people who don't understand SI units or the meaning of the word "approximation."

No, to anyone other than SI fanatics. Metric megabytes are hopelessly painful in the IT world where everything is measured in powers of two: saying my laptop has 6 binary gigabytes of RAM is far more useful than saying it has 6.442450944 metric gigabytes.

Re:1 zetabyte = 1024 exabytes (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35188878)

You can say that your laptop has 6 gibibytes of RAM, and try to convince SI fanatics that it is far more useful to measure RAM in gibibytes. What is incorrect is calling 6 gibibytes "6 gigabytes". That *is* misunderstanding the SI and no fanatism is involved.

Re:1 zetabyte = 1024 exabytes (1)

Bing Tsher E (943915) | more than 3 years ago | (#35188832)

When the SI system was established, back during the French Revolution, they also started the calendar over at year one again. And did further irrelevant things. You know, all the sorts of things you do when you've achieved total power and can be arbitrary.

Two words: Im possible (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35188422)

That is smaller than my porn collection.

Does this take into account... (1)

fritzw1957 (951036) | more than 3 years ago | (#35188438)

the fact that maybe some of us were NOT counted in what is obviously a flawed study? I don't recall at any time being polled about how much secondary storage I have on my MAIN computer system, roughly 5.5TB. Never mind the fact of what I have available to my MacBook for secondary storage too -- and that wasn't asked to me either. I think there's more than what's stated in the article. Pfffttt....!

Re:Does this take into account... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35188562)

Unless you forged those hard drives yourself, there are other (much easier) ways of getting at the fact that there are 5.5TB of capacity out there. An easy upper bound is to get an estimate on all digital storage media ever manufactured, which would include you despite the lack of personal contact.

Re:Does this take into account... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35188950)

After your first sentence, I rolled my eyes and said... the air of self importance... I bet he uses a Mac.

And then the second sentence rolled along and I LOLd.

Of course (1)

Dunbal (464142) | more than 3 years ago | (#35188460)

Again the rectal extrusion technique is used to add just a few more bytes to that fantastic number they obtained. I wonder how they classify the 3 dead hard drives sitting in my spares closet. Do they still store data even though I am unable to access it? How did they come up with the algorithm to determine which pieces of paper I left blank, which ones I wrote on both sides, and which ones were printed on one side only. Not to mention the ones I spill coffee on and never end up using. Ahh pseudo-science. It's great when you can just make stuff up. You could even call it a religious feeling.

What about brains? (3, Interesting)

thestudio_bob (894258) | more than 3 years ago | (#35188464)

It's my understanding that each human brain can store roughly 4-5 PentaBytes (entheogen.com [entheogen.com]). So if the human population* is about 6,775,235,741 (Google Public Data [google.com]) then I think this would blow the 250 exabytes estimate out of the water.

*Excluding Gwyneth Paltrow

Re:What about brains? (1)

Mikkeles (698461) | more than 3 years ago | (#35188528)

'It's my understanding that each human brain can store roughly 4-5 PentaBytes (entheogen.com).'

So, that's like five bytes per brain? Or does this have something to do with diesel engines?

Re:What about brains? (1)

Chardansearavitriol (1946886) | more than 3 years ago | (#35188800)

Weelll...thing is though, our brains dont work very much like computers. We obliterate from memory events that do not matter often. At the very best they are degraded into a very very weak signal. I have records of my computer of the first day it was turned on; i can even reset it to there. I remember almost nothing from when i was young. One was a spiral road leading out of my preschool, another is, annoyingly enough, getting a diaper changed. Another is of finding neato cardboard blocks (brick-like, for stacking for fun.) for christmas, and another is my little brother on the day after his birth. Note that I dont remember, at all, my mom being pregnant. At one point I hurt my eye. If I recall correctly, it was when I hooked up my NES to my commodore screen to play mario 3. As i started i got a screaming jabbing pain in my right eye. One of the weirder ones is I remember watching part of the movie "Jacob's Ladder." When I was 2-3. That did not help things, as I had a single scene (guy catatonic, nude on back, staring up in white room) that for TWO DECADES I couldnt identify. Fortunately I ememberd my brother was with me at the time, and by consulting with him we were able to work it out. That movie's horrific, by the way. My parents are insane. I also have all these children books/cartoons from when iwas young with single events all that remains. Heres a great example: I rememebrd acartoon on nickelodeon that had a scene...A farmer thought his cow was possessed cause its stomach talked. So he killed the cow and you saw in shilloute the guy tossing a stomach shaped object away. W..T...F. I have an EXTREMELY specific mental feeling associated with this scene and nothing else. I cant explain what it is, it is wholly alien except from that-one-scene. The more fairy tale oriented folks will of course, recognize this story as Tom Thumb. This also took me two decades to be able to remember. typing "cow stomach possed cut out and thrown away" or "Movie in white room man on conveyor belt 1908s" is an entirely unhelpful way. I wish my brain was like a computer. Id delete middle school and get a real third eye installed. No way in hell am i going to jam a trephine into my head again. I'd also get rid of that strange emotion connected to that scene.

_ correction (1)

ego centrik (1971902) | more than 3 years ago | (#35188524)

_ actually it is:

250 exabytes - "my HDD, gone for good, without a previous backup" = phuckedagainbywesterndigitaltechnology

... all of which information takes an area of ... (1)

garyebickford (222422) | more than 3 years ago | (#35188590)

I learned a while back that for reasons having to do with the event horizon of a black hole and the conservation of entropy/information, a bit does not have mass but it does have area. One bit requires an area of 2 Planck lengths [wikipedia.org] on a side, which is 4 * 16.163e36 m = 6.4652e35 m^2

So 'all the information in the world', multiplied by 1,000, would require an area about 2 femtometers on a side. :D

Re:... all of which information takes an area of . (1)

garyebickford (222422) | more than 3 years ago | (#35188620)

Replying to self - yes, I know I'm playing fast and loose with the terminology. IANA physicist. But the concept stands. See black hole entropy.

Re:... all of which information takes an area of . (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35188978)

I'm more concerned with your inability to keep the signs straight on your scientific notation and taking the multiplication the wrong direction on said scientific notation...

American Idol reruns is anti-knowledge (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35188616)

The anti-knowledge cancels of the knowledge to reduce Net Congestion.

That's a lot of Petafiles (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35188670)

at an average of 1.7 Mbytes per file. Sounds perverse!!

Gee, thanks Slashdot. (2)

Chardansearavitriol (1946886) | more than 3 years ago | (#35188734)

We were all set to record the 250 exabyte mark, and then you posted this story. No one cares about the 250.000000000001st exabyte. Way to spoil things for everyone.

Re:Gee, thanks Slashdot. (1)

93 Escort Wagon (326346) | more than 3 years ago | (#35188814)

You're giving Slashdot too much credit. Many submissions here are knowledge neutral - and a fair number appear to remove knowledge from the universe.

ORLY? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35188790)

"As of May 2009[update], the size of the world's total digital content has been roughly estimated to be 500 exabytes"
http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2009/may/18/digital-content-expansion
See also
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exabyte

wiki (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35188828)

That reminds me, I wonder how big wikipedia actually is these days.

But wait! (1)

Dcnjoe60 (682885) | more than 3 years ago | (#35188850)

But wait, now that we know this hasn't the sum of stored knowledge increased? And now that we know it has increased, doesn't that make it increase again? And wait, now that we know it increased again, doesn't that make it increase again? When will it ever end?

Knowledge ... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35189146)

250 Exabytes of knowledge. 0 Exabytes of wisdom to use it.

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>
Sign up for Slashdot Newsletters
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...