
Yet, there are a few datapoints out of the curve.
Too few if you ask me, but there you are.
( ,
Mon 9 Jun 2008, 22:59,
archived)
Too few if you ask me, but there you are.

...one child laptop, open phones, distro companies and the like.
Not with out issues and attempts to subvert, but there is some.
( ,
Mon 9 Jun 2008, 23:08,
archived)
Not with out issues and attempts to subvert, but there is some.

Terabyte thumbdrives.
It'll be costly, but no more than 125 8GB thumbdrives would cost you surely.
But it will be very slow methinks.
USB can't be that fast, can it now?
( ,
Mon 9 Jun 2008, 23:04,
archived)
It'll be costly, but no more than 125 8GB thumbdrives would cost you surely.
But it will be very slow methinks.
USB can't be that fast, can it now?

of all places, The Mail. Sounds exciting.
( ,
Mon 9 Jun 2008, 23:08,
archived)

There's no way a phone is going to be able to find files in a terrabyte of memory in under second.
If that's what processors do =/ *not that good with technical tech*
( ,
Mon 9 Jun 2008, 23:11,
archived)
If that's what processors do =/ *not that good with technical tech*

lots of pre-made indexes too. Not a problem.
( ,
Mon 9 Jun 2008, 23:13,
archived)

Well, I don't know what indexes are, but I get what you're saying.
( ,
Mon 9 Jun 2008, 23:14,
archived)

Speed of transfer was more important when they
consumed most of the processing. Not such a big
deal now. For bulk and back-up it should be fine.
( ,
Mon 9 Jun 2008, 23:12,
archived)
consumed most of the processing. Not such a big
deal now. For bulk and back-up it should be fine.

But see my comment above about them using it in phones.
( ,
Mon 9 Jun 2008, 23:13,
archived)

Meta indexing on mainbox while syncing etc.
Couple of other things to speed it up. You're not
wrong that it would be painful on the phone's cpu. [/;-D
( ,
Mon 9 Jun 2008, 23:15,
archived)
Couple of other things to speed it up. You're not
wrong that it would be painful on the phone's cpu. [/;-D

"Not wrong" :]
Now it seems we're at, or very near, the limit of data storage, not much smaller than atoms.
Well, we could store things as sequences of protons and neutrons, maybe. But that sounds quite difficult and sciencey.
A terabyte of memory in a thumbdrive sounds like enough anyways, I haven't even half filled the 160GB on my pc yet, I've had the thing long enough!
Oh well, I'm off now b3ta, tah-rah!
( ,
Mon 9 Jun 2008, 23:20,
archived)
Now it seems we're at, or very near, the limit of data storage, not much smaller than atoms.
Well, we could store things as sequences of protons and neutrons, maybe. But that sounds quite difficult and sciencey.
A terabyte of memory in a thumbdrive sounds like enough anyways, I haven't even half filled the 160GB on my pc yet, I've had the thing long enough!
Oh well, I'm off now b3ta, tah-rah!