Breathing new life into the old technology of "books".

[Skybuck Flying]

Hello,

If all information on todays computers would have to be printed it's safe to
say we would be short on earths full of trees ;)

However books might have one adventage: the information retention time is
probably much higher than our electronic systems of today.

So here is a crazy idea how to make books a little bit more relevant in
todays information age:

Instead of using big fat letters taking too much space, make the letters
much smaller, maybe even nano-meter small.

Then instead of trying to read it with your eyes... have a special reading
device, like a super magnifieing glass... so the information can still be
read :)

If this idea makes any sense, depends on the data retention time.

I'd feel more comfortable with a storage technology with a high data
retentation time.

I don't like books though, so this idea is not ment for me mostly, but for
books lovers.

Though perhaps it could even be interesting for me if printers could print
at such a nano scale.

Perhaps I could then print out some of my source codes, or other pieces of
information at the nano scale ;)

Bye,
Skybuck :)

[Robert Wessel]

On Wed, 5 Aug 2015 00:38:57 +0200, "Skybuck Flying"

Post by Skybuck Flying
Hello,
If all information on todays computers would have to be printed it's safe to
say we would be short on earths full of trees ;)
However books might have one adventage: the information retention time is
probably much higher than our electronic systems of today.
So here is a crazy idea how to make books a little bit more relevant in
Instead of using big fat letters taking too much space, make the letters
much smaller, maybe even nano-meter small.
Then instead of trying to read it with your eyes... have a special reading
device, like a super magnifieing glass... so the information can still be
read :)
If this idea makes any sense, depends on the data retention time.
I'd feel more comfortable with a storage technology with a high data
retentation time.
I don't like books though, so this idea is not ment for me mostly, but for
books lovers.
Though perhaps it could even be interesting for me if printers could print
at such a nano scale.
Perhaps I could then print out some of my source codes, or other pieces of
information at the nano scale ;)

Ever hear of microfilm, you blithering idiot?

[Skybuck Flying]

Wow are you suggesting we store worlds information on "micro film" a
substance so fragile that it takes only a sony walkman to break it and
fumble it up ?!

I am glad you not in charge of our information ! LOL.

I'd take book technology over micro-film any day of the week ! LOL.

Even if there is a burn/fire hazard ! ;)

Bye,
Skybuck.

P.S.: Please think and try gain to come up with a much more robust
technology that "micro flimsy film".

[karlos]

P.S.: Please think and try gain to come up with a much more robust technology
that "micro flimsy film".

Clay tablets, or even better flint stone, an invention of the great
Fred Flintstone.

[Robert Wessel]

On Wed, 5 Aug 2015 19:46:09 +0200, "Skybuck Flying"

Post by Skybuck Flying
Wow are you suggesting we store worlds information on "micro film" a
substance so fragile that it takes only a sony walkman to break it and
fumble it up ?!
I am glad you not in charge of our information ! LOL.
I'd take book technology over micro-film any day of the week ! LOL.
Even if there is a burn/fire hazard ! ;)
Bye,
Skybuck.
P.S.: Please think and try gain to come up with a much more robust
technology that "micro flimsy film".

What on earth do Sony Walkman players have to do with microfilm? I'm
sure if I put microfilm in my table saw or my washing machine, they
would break it and fumble it up too.

Or are you actually confusing microfilm with cassette tape?

[Skybuck Flying]

"Robert Wessel" wrote in message news:***@4ax.com...

On Wed, 5 Aug 2015 19:46:09 +0200, "Skybuck Flying"

Post by Skybuck Flying
Wow are you suggesting we store worlds information on "micro film" a
substance so fragile that it takes only a sony walkman to break it and
fumble it up ?!
I am glad you not in charge of our information ! LOL.
I'd take book technology over micro-film any day of the week ! LOL.
Even if there is a burn/fire hazard ! ;)
Bye,
Skybuck.
P.S.: Please think and try gain to come up with a much more robust
technology that "micro flimsy film".

"
What on earth do Sony Walkman players have to do with microfilm?
"

I assume micro film will tear and mess up as easy as sony walkman casettes
when the coils/rotors spin out of control ;)

Bye,
Skybuck =D

[Robert Wessel]

On Fri, 7 Aug 2015 02:03:19 +0200, "Skybuck Flying"

Post by Robert Wessel
On Wed, 5 Aug 2015 19:46:09 +0200, "Skybuck Flying"

Post by Skybuck Flying
Wow are you suggesting we store worlds information on "micro film" a
substance so fragile that it takes only a sony walkman to break it and
fumble it up ?!
I am glad you not in charge of our information ! LOL.
I'd take book technology over micro-film any day of the week ! LOL.
Even if there is a burn/fire hazard ! ;)
Bye,
Skybuck.
P.S.: Please think and try gain to come up with a much more robust
technology that "micro flimsy film".

"
What on earth do Sony Walkman players have to do with microfilm?
"
I assume micro film will tear and mess up as easy as sony walkman casettes
when the coils/rotors spin out of control ;)

Roll style microfilm is tougher than the magnetic tape in a cassette
(not to mention bigger), as it's basically photographic film, and much
thicker. If you don't like roll-style mechanisms, use fiche cards.
There used to be a paper based (as opposed to film) variant of fiche
cards as well ("microcards"), but that went away a long time ago.

I don't know the relative popularity of the roll and fiche formats,
although both were heavily used. In my experience, roll formats were
more popular for archives of things like newspapers, while fiche was
more common for documentation and direct machine output ("Computer
Output Microfilm", aka COM), although roll format COM did exist (blank
fiche stock for COM was roll based, but it would be cut into standard
sized cards after being "printed"). Fiche was in many ways easier to
handle, you could store many cards in a single box, and you didn't
have to wind through a roll looking for a particular page. The roll
probably made duplication easier.

An image of a typical fiche card (same size as an A6 sheet of paper
105x148mm):

Loading Image...

But any handling of any media, poses a danger to that media if things
go wrong. It's not hard to destroy an ordinary book either. And
certainly any media with microscopic detail, no matter how it's
constructed, will be vulnerable to scratches and other damage.

[George Neuner]

On Thu, 06 Aug 2015 23:32:36 -0500, Robert Wessel

Post by Robert Wessel
But any handling of any media, poses a danger to that media if things
go wrong. It's not hard to destroy an ordinary book either. And
certainly any media with microscopic detail, no matter how it's
constructed, will be vulnerable to scratches and other damage.

Laser etching on diamond is pretty durable. As you say, nothing (that
we know of) is invulnerable to damage.

George

[Robert Wessel]

On Fri, 07 Aug 2015 01:26:17 -0400, George Neuner

Post by George Neuner
On Thu, 06 Aug 2015 23:32:36 -0500, Robert Wessel

Post by Robert Wessel
But any handling of any media, poses a danger to that media if things
go wrong. It's not hard to destroy an ordinary book either. And
certainly any media with microscopic detail, no matter how it's
constructed, will be vulnerable to scratches and other damage.

Laser etching on diamond is pretty durable. As you say, nothing (that
we know of) is invulnerable to damage.

FSVO "durable". Diamonds are quite brittle.

[J. J. Lodder]

Post by Robert Wessel
On Fri, 07 Aug 2015 01:26:17 -0400, George Neuner

Post by George Neuner
On Thu, 06 Aug 2015 23:32:36 -0500, Robert Wessel

Post by Robert Wessel
But any handling of any media, poses a danger to that media if things
go wrong. It's not hard to destroy an ordinary book either. And
certainly any media with microscopic detail, no matter how it's
constructed, will be vulnerable to scratches and other damage.

Laser etching on diamond is pretty durable. As you say, nothing (that
we know of) is invulnerable to damage.

FSVO "durable". Diamonds are quite brittle.

And diamonds will burn.

Nothing like baked clay tablets,

Jan

[George Neuner]

Post by J. J. Lodder
Nothing like baked clay tablets,

Except maybe basalt. 8-)

[George Neuner]

On Fri, 07 Aug 2015 02:16:03 -0500, Robert Wessel

Post by Robert Wessel
On Fri, 07 Aug 2015 01:26:17 -0400, George Neuner

Post by George Neuner
Laser etching on diamond is pretty durable. As you say, nothing (that
we know of) is invulnerable to damage.

FSVO "durable". Diamonds are quite brittle.

That's true, but in thin film I think diamond is flexible enough.
However, then you'd need a suitable substrate as well.

[Skybuck Flying]

"George Neuner" wrote in message news:***@4ax.com...

On Thu, 06 Aug 2015 23:32:36 -0500, Robert Wessel

Post by Robert Wessel
But any handling of any media, poses a danger to that media if things
go wrong. It's not hard to destroy an ordinary book either. And
certainly any media with microscopic detail, no matter how it's
constructed, will be vulnerable to scratches and other damage.

"
Laser etching on diamond is pretty durable. As you say, nothing (that
we know of) is invulnerable to damage.
"

I always like diamands as I was a kid... the idea of trapping light inside a
diamond fascinated me.

There must be a reason for that fascination.

So far I have read of some scientists being able to trap light and/or
quantum particles inside diamonds...

So perhaps diamonds could be the storage medium of the future ! ;)

Maybe a book of diamands ? lol... a diamand book ;) :)

Neh... it will probably be a crystal like in the superman movie ! ;) was it
green ? yak... or perhaps it was nice white or transparent ;)

Whatever you come up with... make it beautifull ok ?! LOL.

Bye,
Skybuck.

[Skybuck Flying]

I think I just figured out (one of the) reasons for my fascination with
diamonds and trapping light in it...

Besides from all the nice colorfull sparkles and such... like the idea of
capturing photos/history in it and such... etc, etc, etc.

The reason could be:

Photons are incredibly small, light, untouchable almost... invisible, yet
contain information.

If information code be encoded onto a single photon, the perhaps the photon
would be a very good/dense storage medium.

I am not sure what currently the state of the art is at storing information
at the tiny scale.

But perhaps I am on to something...

Perhaps the photon is incredibly small compared to everything else.

I will have to look into this later sometime ;)

Another particle which comes to mind is: "the electron"... but as far as I
know... it needs something else to exist...

Perhaps not so with the photon ? Though in this case.. the something else
would be a diamond... but perhaps not a diamond per photon...

Perhaps all photons can be stored into a single diamond...

Failing that... perhaps the idea... of storing a single photon into a micro
or nano diamong might offer some hope of storing photons efficiently.

The photon would ofcourse have to reflect endlessly between micro/nano
mirrors.

Perhaps 1 atom special materials might have some great properties for mirror
effect/reflecting effects or perhaps not at all...

Perhaps it's very/surprisingly easy to reflect photons at the 1 atom scale
or something like that... or perhaps not easy at all...

More stuff for research I guess ! ;)

And ofcourse eventually the mirror would need to bent, open up or something
to let the photon in: write, and out: read.

Bye,
Skybuck.

[Skybuck Flying]

Windows Live Mail or Mail server is acting up weirdly lol... maybe has
something to do with other nuclear war posting lol... (wow really weird
software behaviour oh well)

But anyway... I'd like to share the following thought with you:

The data retention time of light seems to be great !

Our own universe proves it every day to astronomers !

They are staring at light of stars from billions of years ago !

So I'd say:

The data retention time of light/photons is: billions of years ! LOL...
please correct me if I am wrong ! ;) =D

So the funny thing is:

THE ULTIMATE SOLUTION to our data storage problem might have been staring us
in the face for all this time without us realizing it's full potential !
LOL.

Bye,
Skybuck =D

P.S.: I might further add to that: SHAME on Philips/Sony for implementing it
so badly with crappy compact disc technology... but they were close.... the
laser... it's getting in the ball park :)

[Skybuck Flying]

(Off topic:
Hmmm I think I may have discovered a problem with Windows Live Mail...

Perhaps Windows Live Mail will start to malfunction when the Windows System
is running out of memory... and starts swapping to page file...

Cause as soon as I closed some browsers windows live mail functioned
again... and was able to send some stuff...

Hmm interesting... Or perhaps it was running low on CPU.
)

I'll leave photon interesting text below ;) :)

Windows Live Mail or Mail server is acting up weirdly lol... maybe has
something to do with other nuclear war posting lol... (wow really weird
software behaviour oh well)

But anyway... I'd like to share the following thought with you:

The data retention time of light seems to be great !

Our own universe proves it every day to astronomers !

They are staring at light of stars from billions of years ago !

So I'd say:

The data retention time of light/photons is: billions of years ! LOL...
please correct me if I am wrong ! ;) =D

So the funny thing is:

THE ULTIMATE SOLUTION to our data storage problem might have been staring us
in the face for all this time without us realizing it's full potential !
LOL.

Bye,
Skybuck =D

P.S.: I might further add to that: SHAME on Philips/Sony for implementing it
so badly with crappy compact disc technology... but they were close.... the
laser... it's getting in the ball park :)

[Mike Stump]

Post by George Neuner
On Thu, 06 Aug 2015 23:32:36 -0500, Robert Wessel

Post by Robert Wessel
But any handling of any media, poses a danger to that media if things
go wrong. It's not hard to destroy an ordinary book either. And
certainly any media with microscopic detail, no matter how it's
constructed, will be vulnerable to scratches and other damage.

Laser etching on diamond is pretty durable.

No, it isn't. It is less durable than copper for street lights.

I'd try etched granite. There is lots around, people could steel it,
but they don't seem to often do that. Just don't have the pieces in
useful formats that could be recycled easily for building or kitchen
counter tops. :-)

[Izak van Langevelde]

Post by Skybuck Flying
If all information on todays computers would have to be printed it's
safe to say we would be short on earths full of trees

In de eerste plaats is er een verschil tussen informatie en gegevens,
waarbij er veel meer gegevens zijn dan informatie. In de twee plaats kun
je niet alle soorten gegevens af drukken. Zo veilig is je aanname niet...

[J. J. Lodder]

Post by Izak van Langevelde

Post by Skybuck Flying
If all information on todays computers would have to be printed it's
safe to say we would be short on earths full of trees

In de eerste plaats is er een verschil tussen informatie en gegevens,
waarbij er veel meer gegevens zijn dan informatie.

Nou ja, je gat er gezond verstand op los laten?

Post by Izak van Langevelde
In de twee plaats kun
je niet alle soorten gegevens af drukken. Zo veilig is je aanname niet...

Ik heb nog een core dump met line printer op chain feed papier liggen
die ik ooit eens cadeau gekregen heb.
Genoeg kladpapier voor tien verdere levens dus.

En dat was nog maar de core van een heel klein computertje,
naar hedendaagse maatstaven,

Jan

[Ifrit]

Post by Izak van Langevelde

Post by Skybuck Flying
If all information on todays computers would have to be printed it's
safe to say we would be short on earths full of trees

In de eerste plaats is er een verschil tussen informatie en gegevens,
waarbij er veel meer gegevens zijn dan informatie. In de twee plaats kun
je niet alle soorten gegevens af drukken. Zo veilig is je aanname niet...

Een zgn. hex dump kan altijd hoor.

[Izak van Langevelde]

Post by Ifrit

Post by Izak van Langevelde

Post by Skybuck Flying
If all information on todays computers would have to be printed it's
safe to say we would be short on earths full of trees

In de eerste plaats is er een verschil tussen informatie en gegevens,
waarbij er veel meer gegevens zijn dan informatie. In de twee plaats
kun je niet alle soorten gegevens af drukken. Zo veilig is je aanname
niet...

Een zgn. hex dump kan altijd hoor.

Geef dan 'ns even een hexdump van wat je ziet?

[BugHunter]

Post by Izak van Langevelde

Post by Ifrit

Post by Izak van Langevelde

Post by Skybuck Flying
If all information on todays computers would have to be printed it's
safe to say we would be short on earths full of trees

In de eerste plaats is er een verschil tussen informatie en gegevens,
waarbij er veel meer gegevens zijn dan informatie. In de twee plaats
kun je niet alle soorten gegevens af drukken. Zo veilig is je aanname
niet...

Een zgn. hex dump kan altijd hoor.

Geef dan 'ns even een hexdump van wat je ziet?

Printscreen -> JPG -> Hexdump.

[Ifrit]

Post by Izak van Langevelde

Post by Ifrit

Post by Izak van Langevelde

Post by Skybuck Flying
If all information on todays computers would have to be printed it's
safe to say we would be short on earths full of trees

In de eerste plaats is er een verschil tussen informatie en gegevens,
waarbij er veel meer gegevens zijn dan informatie. In de twee plaats
kun je niet alle soorten gegevens af drukken. Zo veilig is je aanname
niet...

Een zgn. hex dump kan altijd hoor.

Geef dan 'ns even een hexdump van wat je ziet?
-- Grinnikend door het leven...

0000000 6e4f 5320 7461 202c 3830 4120 6775 3220
0000010 3130 2035 3331 333a 3a34 3632 2b20 3230
0000020 3030 202c 6649 6972 2074 7277 746f 3a65
0000030 0a0a 203e 6e4f 3020 2f38 3530 322f 3130
0000040 2035 3131 303a 2035 4d41 202c 7a49 6b61
0000050 7620 6e61 4c20 6e61 6567 6576 646c 2065
0000060 7277 746f 3a65 3e0a 203e 6e4f 5720 6465
0000070 202c 3530 4120 6775 3220 3130 2035 3030
0000080 333a 3a38 3735 2b20 3230 3030 202c 6b53
0000090 6279 6375 206b 6c46 6979 676e 7720 6f72
00000a0 6574 0a3a 3e3e 3e0a 3e3e 4920 2066 6c61
00000b0 206c 6e69 6f66 6d72 7461 6f69 206e 6e6f
00000c0 7420 646f 7961 2073 6f63 706d 7475 7265
00000d0 2073 6f77 6c75 2064 6168 6576 7420 206f
00000e0 6562 7020 6972 746e 6465 6920 2774 0a73
00000f0 3e3e 203e 6173 6566 7420 206f 6173 2079
0000100 6577 7720 756f 646c 6220 2065 6873 726f
0000110 2074 6e6f 6520 7261 6874 2073 7566 6c6c
0000120 6f20 2066 7274 6565 0a73 3e3e 3e0a 203e
0000130 6e49 6420 2065 6565 7372 6574 7020 616c
0000140 7461 2073 7369 6520 2072 6565 206e 6576
0000150 7372 6863 6c69 7420 7375 6573 206e 6e69
0000160 6f66 6d72 7461 6569 6520 206e 6567 6567
0000170 6576 736e 0a2c 3e3e 7720 6161 6272 6a69
0000180 6520 2072 6576 6c65 6d20 6565 2072 6567
0000190 6567 6576 736e 7a20 6a69 206e 6164 206e
00001a0 6e69 6f66 6d72 7461 6569 202e 6e49 6420
00001b0 2065 7774 6565 7020 616c 7461 0a73 3e3e
00001c0 6b20 6e75 6a20 2065 696e 7465 6120 6c6c
00001d0 2065 6f73 726f 6574 206e 6567 6567 6576
00001e0 736e 6120 2066 7264 6b75 656b 2e6e 5a20
00001f0 206f 6576 6c69 6769 6920 2073 656a 6120
0000200 6e61 616e 656d 3e0a 203e 696e 7465 2e2e
0000210 0a2e 0a3e 203e 6545 206e 677a 2e6e 6820
0000220 7865 6420 6d75 2070 616b 206e 6c61 6974
0000230 646a 6820 6f6f 2e72 0a0a 6547 6665 6420
0000240 6e61 2720 736e 6520 6576 206e 6565 206e
0000250 6568 6478 6d75 2070 6176 206e 6177 2074
0000260 656a 7a20 6569 3f74 0a0a 0a0a 2d2d 4720
0000270 6972 6e6e 6b69 6e65 2064 6f64 726f 6820
0000280 7465 6c20 7665 6e65 2e2e 202e 000a
000028d

[Skybuck Flying]

Post by Skybuck Flying
If all information on todays computers would have to be printed it's
safe to say we would be short on earths full of trees

"In de eerste plaats is er een verschil tussen informatie en gegevens,
waarbij er veel meer gegevens zijn dan informatie. In de twee plaats kun
je niet alle soorten gegevens af drukken. Zo veilig is je aanname niet...
"

Wat is het verschil tussen gegevens en informatie dan ?

Ik heb het over de informatie op bijvoorbeeld alleen al mijn computer.

De nulletjes en eentjes op mijn 2x2 terabyte harddisks, dat is dus 32
terrabit... is al genoeg om een regenwoud uit te printen ofzo ;)

Ik ga er niet eens een berekening op loslaten hoeveel papier dat wel niet
zou kosten want ik vrees het ergste ! ;)

Doei,
Skybuck =D

[George Neuner]

On Sat, 8 Aug 2015 13:59:35 +0200, "Skybuck Flying"

Post by Skybuck Flying
Wat is het verschil tussen gegevens en informatie dan ?

Data is raw material from which information is extracted. You can
think of data as the pieces of the puzzle and information as the
completed picture.

Post by Skybuck Flying
Ik heb het over de informatie op bijvoorbeeld alleen al mijn computer.

The vast majority of what's on your (or anyone's) computer is _data_,
not information.

[DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno]

Post by George Neuner
On Sat, 8 Aug 2015 13:59:35 +0200, "Skybuck Flying"

Post by Skybuck Flying
Wat is het verschil tussen gegevens en informatie dan ?

Data is raw material from which information is extracted. You can
think of data as the pieces of the puzzle and information as the
completed picture.

Post by Skybuck Flying
Ik heb het over de informatie op bijvoorbeeld alleen al mijn computer.

The vast majority of what's on your (or anyone's) computer is _data_,
not information.

SkyTard is an abject idiot, not a human.