DailyDirt: Keeping Information For A Really, Really, Really Long Time

from the urls-we-dig-up dept

The problem of storing digital data usually involves transferring data from an older format to a newer one -- with the hopes that the newer one won't be replaced as quickly as the older format it just replaced. Maybe some archivists out there like to go through this periodic technology shift and verify that the data we've stored is still readable, but wouldn't it be nice if there was a "store it and forget it" format? If you'd like to read more awesome and interesting stuff, check out this unrelated (but not entirely random!) Techdirt post via StumbleUpon.
Hide this

Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.

Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.

While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.

–The Techdirt Team

Filed Under: archive, backup, data, dna, nanotechnology, self-assembly, storage


Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread


  1. identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 27 Feb 2015 @ 10:48am

    "I think you're confusing "the manufacturers" with "experts". "

    The "so-called experts" would be the tag-team combination of the manufacturers and the lapdog mainstream media (who generally don't want to upset their advertisers). I got into a lot of arguments with people about these kind of claims back in the day, insisting that any claimed shelf life on a new product was theoretical at best, and that there was simply no way to predict how long something would actually last until proven in real-world conditions, and that anyway, most products based on new technologies often have a much shorter life than the manufacturers' predictions.

    I was making these arguments at the time there was a huge billion dollar class action settlement for homeowners who had installed polybutylene plastic pipe, which turned out to have a much shorter lifespan than people were led to believe. So I was always a bit leery of the claimed 100+ year lifespan for this other new technology, CD-Rs.

    But what did I know when 'everyone' from CNN to the NY Times was drinking the Kool Aid!


    "Also, in terms of longevity, there's a real difference between cheap CD-Rs that you can get for $15 per 100 and high quality CD-Rs."

    I somewhat expected that, but oddly enough I had more trouble with the "name brand" CDs than the (easily scratched) cheap generic silver ones, all of which held up quite well. Anyway, using an ATIP reader showed that many of them were the exact same Ritek brand CDs sold under various different labels.

Add Your Comment

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here



Subscribe to the Techdirt Daily newsletter




Comment Options:

  • Use markdown. Use plain text.
  • Make this the First Word or Last Word. No thanks. (get credits or sign in to see balance)    
  • Remember name/email/url (set a cookie)

Follow Techdirt
Essential Reading
Techdirt Deals
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Techdirt Insider Chat
Recent Stories

This site, like most other sites on the web, uses cookies. For more information, see our privacy policy. Got it
Close

Email This

This feature is only available to registered users. Register or sign in to use it.