Talk:Petabyte

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Discussion about centralization took place at Talk:Binary prefix.

Stored here temporarily:

As of March 2001, The Internet Archive [1] had snapshots of the entire World Wide Web from 1996-1991, totalling a tenth of a petabyte.

I was thinking the "1991" cited here was probably a typo of "2001," so I went to look it up on the IA website linked, and found nothing; nothing shows up on Google either. I don't doubt the accuracy, but maybe it would be possible even to get a more up-to-date figure somewhere? - Hephaestos 00:01 Apr 25, 2003 (UTC)

Contents 1 penta --> pente ? 2 Human vision note 3 Question 4 I'd like to call attention to Reference #2

[edit] penta --> pente ?

I'm Greek living in Athens, never heard of the word 'penta'. Perhaps pente?

Yes, although what was really meant was the (ancient) Greek prefix penta-, rather than the word pente. --Zundark 12:03, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Human vision note

Interestingly enough, in order to accurately remember the visual experiences alone of an approximately 40 year old human in UHDV, one would require 2.5 exabytes, far greater than the 88.8 petabyte storage cited.

I call shenanigans on this one. First of all, no source. Second of all it's a gross misestimation of how the brain stores visual memory. Your brain is not a freaking HDTV recorder. It remembers symbols and letters and objects, not pixels. Think about it, if you read a book you remember the plot of it, not the shape and positioning of all the letters on every individual page. Whatever extremely-high resolution your eyes have, it's only stored for a few seconds in sensory memory while your brain is interpreting it. --158.130.13.4 19:25, 22 May 2006 (UTC) I agree, however Data being an android would have to store every tiny discrepency, I also think that it would be dumb to use UHDV anyway as it takes up far too much space, also his memory would probably compress that memory until he axcessed anyway. Also keep in mind this isnt a human brain we are talking about it is a highly sophisticated computer. --68.113.214.242 21:41, 25 June 2006 (UTC) Maybe Datas ceator implemented a better video codec than MPEG-4 or only new data is stored. Or maybe the StarTrek producers randomly picked a quite lage data amount that sounded cool, who cares, i think this statement should be deleted, does not improve the article. And it is definitely not "Petabytes in use" as data does not really exist it is rather "Petabytes in fiction".--172.206.79.43 13:03, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree with the above comments, this makes the article sound decidedly unscientific. This sounds a lot like a common misconception regarding a) the current state of memory research (i.e. not nearly far enough along as to make accurate judgments regarding storage capacity) and b) the increasingly common notion that memories might be "downloaded." I'm not saying that it's what is intentionally being conveyed by the passage, but it perpetuates that unfortunate myth. By the way, only small portions of the retinal projection into the brain actually end up being stored for more than a second (e.g. the common 4+-1 standard for working memory). If you are not attending to an object or region, most reasonable estimates hold the "storage time" of the rest of the visual representation (via iconic memory; Sperling, 1960) at around 80-200ms.

Also, there's no specific reason to believe that Data's memories are veridically encoded, right? I mean, couldn't he just have some superadvanced way of storing complex sequences of events, a la MIDI files? 74.136.218.213 02:42, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

An android with DivX-compressed visual memory? Did I mention I have 5.1 surround microphones in both of my ears? -- Zelaron 00:27, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Question

What is this supposed to be,

RapidShare in 2006 had 1,08 Petabyte of hard-disk storage.

is it supposed to be 1,008 , 108 , 1.08 , or what? please clarify. -- Griggs08 07:48, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

1,08 is just a common way of writing 1.08 - see Decimal comma for further information :) Kumiankka 19:29, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] I'd like to call attention to Reference #2

It doesn't link to anywhere where the reference may be verified. 202.128.56.110 22:03, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

We don't require web links to all sources, as in particular that would preclude the use of most books as sources. Of course, we encourage providing a link when possible, but it isn't necessary. --Sopoforic 23:23, 14 March 2007 (UTC)