<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: What comes after the Terabyte?</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.chaaban.info/2006/11/02/what-comes-after-the-terabyte/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.chaaban.info/2006/11/02/what-comes-after-the-terabyte/</link>
	<description>Tarek Chaaban, M.Sc&#039;s official blog. It contains current web  project portfolio, posts regarding his Canadian army experience, news, sports articles, and web tutorials on programming and using social networking technologies.</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Fri, 25 Nov 2011 10:49:42 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: Simon J Stuart</title>
		<link>http://www.chaaban.info/2006/11/02/what-comes-after-the-terabyte/comment-page-4/#comment-10600</link>
		<dc:creator>Simon J Stuart</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 25 Nov 2011 10:49:42 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.chaaban.info/2006/11/02/what-comes-after-the-terabyte/#comment-10600</guid>
		<description>There is no practical reason to produce a Yottahert processor! The future isn&#039;t in raw performance from a single processor, it&#039;s from PARALELL processing!

The greater frequency you try to sap from a semiconductor, the more heat you produce in the process! This was realized long before the 3GHz barrier was reached for consumer microcomputers!

Instead, the trick is to cram more and more independant and interoperative cores on a single chip. There are already 12 and 24 core CPUs on the market (in the server market anyway), with 6 and 8 core CPUs growing in popularity amongst the more hardcore consumers (gamers, mostly).

As Kray once put it: &quot;What would you rather use to plough a field - 1 strong oxen or 1024 chickens?&quot;</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>There is no practical reason to produce a Yottahert processor! The future isn&#8217;t in raw performance from a single processor, it&#8217;s from PARALELL processing!</p>
<p>The greater frequency you try to sap from a semiconductor, the more heat you produce in the process! This was realized long before the 3GHz barrier was reached for consumer microcomputers!</p>
<p>Instead, the trick is to cram more and more independant and interoperative cores on a single chip. There are already 12 and 24 core CPUs on the market (in the server market anyway), with 6 and 8 core CPUs growing in popularity amongst the more hardcore consumers (gamers, mostly).</p>
<p>As Kray once put it: &#8220;What would you rather use to plough a field &#8211; 1 strong oxen or 1024 chickens?&#8221;</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: carpo</title>
		<link>http://www.chaaban.info/2006/11/02/what-comes-after-the-terabyte/comment-page-4/#comment-9846</link>
		<dc:creator>carpo</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 10 Oct 2011 21:11:53 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.chaaban.info/2006/11/02/what-comes-after-the-terabyte/#comment-9846</guid>
		<description>Well here we are, almost to 2012! I notice not many people have mentioned Moore&#039;s law, that computing speed will increase 100% with respect to materials every 18 months. It&#039;s funny; last night I was doing the math. If correct, that means by 2026 (15 years away) we will be dealing with a standard &quot;petabyte:&quot; hard drive. So it may be awhile before we, the consumers, have affordable yottabyte PC&#039;s! But hell, pc&#039;s get faster so we can condense better quality media as well. We have always downloaded MP3s, but only recently could you download your entire music catalog in FLAC without breaking the bank. Same with movies...but my question is this:
Does it get any better than FLAC? That&#039;s source quality, right?
So what about movies? When the picture has become as clear as human eyes can distinguish?

My question is, how much speed and storage will one person ever need? I think a petabyte is more than enough for one person to handle every media item you may incur in your lifetime!</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Well here we are, almost to 2012! I notice not many people have mentioned Moore&#8217;s law, that computing speed will increase 100% with respect to materials every 18 months. It&#8217;s funny; last night I was doing the math. If correct, that means by 2026 (15 years away) we will be dealing with a standard &#8220;petabyte:&#8221; hard drive. So it may be awhile before we, the consumers, have affordable yottabyte PC&#8217;s! But hell, pc&#8217;s get faster so we can condense better quality media as well. We have always downloaded MP3s, but only recently could you download your entire music catalog in FLAC without breaking the bank. Same with movies&#8230;but my question is this:<br />
Does it get any better than FLAC? That&#8217;s source quality, right?<br />
So what about movies? When the picture has become as clear as human eyes can distinguish?</p>
<p>My question is, how much speed and storage will one person ever need? I think a petabyte is more than enough for one person to handle every media item you may incur in your lifetime!</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Earl</title>
		<link>http://www.chaaban.info/2006/11/02/what-comes-after-the-terabyte/comment-page-3/#comment-9439</link>
		<dc:creator>Earl</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 10 Sep 2011 16:30:04 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.chaaban.info/2006/11/02/what-comes-after-the-terabyte/#comment-9439</guid>
		<description>I still hope for the Star Trek future when it comes to tech.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I still hope for the Star Trek future when it comes to tech.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Shon</title>
		<link>http://www.chaaban.info/2006/11/02/what-comes-after-the-terabyte/comment-page-3/#comment-8854</link>
		<dc:creator>Shon</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 26 Jul 2011 02:28:18 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.chaaban.info/2006/11/02/what-comes-after-the-terabyte/#comment-8854</guid>
		<description>2011 and i got 1 yottabyte!!</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>2011 and i got 1 yottabyte!!</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Mike</title>
		<link>http://www.chaaban.info/2006/11/02/what-comes-after-the-terabyte/comment-page-3/#comment-8786</link>
		<dc:creator>Mike</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 19 Jul 2011 15:35:44 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.chaaban.info/2006/11/02/what-comes-after-the-terabyte/#comment-8786</guid>
		<description>@Zorro

Yes, there are limits to how fast an item can move, how high em frequency can go, etc, but that does not automatically mean you can only go up to that level for computing. Three processors can work in tandem to exceed physical limitations in their total output. One processor routes the content and the other two process it, for example. Furthermore, you neglect the theoretical particles and waves that move faster than light, assuming they do exist and can be used. Also, you neglect fields; there is no speed of a field, magnetic, gravitational, or otherwise. The field either exists or does not. If we could learn to send data over a field instead of a wave then there is no physical limitation (and you would always have cell coverage ;-). The problem with this has always been making the connection from the field, which is not physical, thus, not having physical limits, to the object, which is physical, thus having physical limits.

This kind of talk always leads me to quote Nikola Tesla:

&quot;Ere many generations pass, our machinery will be driven by a power obtainable at any point of the universe.&quot;

We are nearing that generation where all machinery is powered by the atoms around them, communicate using the gravitational fields they are in, and store their data in super-subatomic lattice structures. Crazy conspiracy theorist stuff ahead: If only the government would stop interfering we might already be there, or at least much closer.

The point is, as a scientist you need to think out of the box, and be willing to challenge the facts of today to prove the facts of tomorrow.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>@Zorro</p>
<p>Yes, there are limits to how fast an item can move, how high em frequency can go, etc, but that does not automatically mean you can only go up to that level for computing. Three processors can work in tandem to exceed physical limitations in their total output. One processor routes the content and the other two process it, for example. Furthermore, you neglect the theoretical particles and waves that move faster than light, assuming they do exist and can be used. Also, you neglect fields; there is no speed of a field, magnetic, gravitational, or otherwise. The field either exists or does not. If we could learn to send data over a field instead of a wave then there is no physical limitation (and you would always have cell coverage <img src='http://www.chaaban.info/wp-includes/images/smilies/icon_wink.gif' alt=';-)' class='wp-smiley' /> . The problem with this has always been making the connection from the field, which is not physical, thus, not having physical limits, to the object, which is physical, thus having physical limits.</p>
<p>This kind of talk always leads me to quote Nikola Tesla:</p>
<p>&#8220;Ere many generations pass, our machinery will be driven by a power obtainable at any point of the universe.&#8221;</p>
<p>We are nearing that generation where all machinery is powered by the atoms around them, communicate using the gravitational fields they are in, and store their data in super-subatomic lattice structures. Crazy conspiracy theorist stuff ahead: If only the government would stop interfering we might already be there, or at least much closer.</p>
<p>The point is, as a scientist you need to think out of the box, and be willing to challenge the facts of today to prove the facts of tomorrow.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Andy Horlacher</title>
		<link>http://www.chaaban.info/2006/11/02/what-comes-after-the-terabyte/comment-page-3/#comment-7348</link>
		<dc:creator>Andy Horlacher</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 10 Mar 2011 20:19:43 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.chaaban.info/2006/11/02/what-comes-after-the-terabyte/#comment-7348</guid>
		<description>Since 1024 terabytes is a petabyte, can we assume that a system with 1024 tera-files is a &quot;peta-file&quot; system that the online predator police will have to keep watch for (pedophile)?



There are exactly 10 types of people in the world -- those who understand binary, and those who do not.



8 bits to a byte is arguable.  &quot;Byte&quot; is short for &quot;BinarY TErm&quot; and represents the number of bits worked with as a group.

In the old baudot communication standard (documented in an AT&amp;T journal dated September 1920), a byte was 5 bits.  But when you added the parity bit at one of the communication layers, it was 6 bits.  In yet another communication layer, a stop bit is added making a 7 bit byte.

ASCII is a 7 bit byte standard.

Old IBM computers and others developed back in that time used a standard 9 bit byte -- 8 data bits and a parity bit to check the reliability of the data and reduce errors.  All core memory and tape backups, etc. used a 9 bit byte.  This is why the old tape backup and data storage were called 9-track tapes.

As memory systems became more and more reliable, it has been decided that the parity bit was no longer needed, so the byte gradually dropped from 9-bit to 8-bit.

Today the Standard Byte is 8 bits, but if you are ever reading ancient documentation, don&#039;t assume that a byte is 8 bits.

Andy</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Since 1024 terabytes is a petabyte, can we assume that a system with 1024 tera-files is a &#8220;peta-file&#8221; system that the online predator police will have to keep watch for (pedophile)?</p>
<p>There are exactly 10 types of people in the world &#8212; those who understand binary, and those who do not.</p>
<p>8 bits to a byte is arguable.  &#8220;Byte&#8221; is short for &#8220;BinarY TErm&#8221; and represents the number of bits worked with as a group.</p>
<p>In the old baudot communication standard (documented in an AT&amp;T journal dated September 1920), a byte was 5 bits.  But when you added the parity bit at one of the communication layers, it was 6 bits.  In yet another communication layer, a stop bit is added making a 7 bit byte.</p>
<p>ASCII is a 7 bit byte standard.</p>
<p>Old IBM computers and others developed back in that time used a standard 9 bit byte &#8212; 8 data bits and a parity bit to check the reliability of the data and reduce errors.  All core memory and tape backups, etc. used a 9 bit byte.  This is why the old tape backup and data storage were called 9-track tapes.</p>
<p>As memory systems became more and more reliable, it has been decided that the parity bit was no longer needed, so the byte gradually dropped from 9-bit to 8-bit.</p>
<p>Today the Standard Byte is 8 bits, but if you are ever reading ancient documentation, don&#8217;t assume that a byte is 8 bits.</p>
<p>Andy</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: david</title>
		<link>http://www.chaaban.info/2006/11/02/what-comes-after-the-terabyte/comment-page-3/#comment-7301</link>
		<dc:creator>david</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 07 Mar 2011 21:49:23 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.chaaban.info/2006/11/02/what-comes-after-the-terabyte/#comment-7301</guid>
		<description>this is just to elaborate on what Gavin ended with. there is something being worked on called super conductivity that usually only happens in extreme cold and thats what our scientist are working toward. there are super conducting railroads in japan that&#039;s how they float the trains</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>this is just to elaborate on what Gavin ended with. there is something being worked on called super conductivity that usually only happens in extreme cold and thats what our scientist are working toward. there are super conducting railroads in japan that&#8217;s how they float the trains</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Gavin</title>
		<link>http://www.chaaban.info/2006/11/02/what-comes-after-the-terabyte/comment-page-3/#comment-6035</link>
		<dc:creator>Gavin</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 06 Dec 2010 20:37:49 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.chaaban.info/2006/11/02/what-comes-after-the-terabyte/#comment-6035</guid>
		<description>Speed increases as size decreases.  Smaller chips usually result in faster processor speeds because the data has less distance to travel, but smaller chips also result in greater heat generation, which needs to be managed. I think in order to get speeds of YHz we will need to find a way to reduce heat generation or a more efficient way of cooling.  It&#039;ll happen but most likely not for another 10-15 years.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Speed increases as size decreases.  Smaller chips usually result in faster processor speeds because the data has less distance to travel, but smaller chips also result in greater heat generation, which needs to be managed. I think in order to get speeds of YHz we will need to find a way to reduce heat generation or a more efficient way of cooling.  It&#8217;ll happen but most likely not for another 10-15 years.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: keka</title>
		<link>http://www.chaaban.info/2006/11/02/what-comes-after-the-terabyte/comment-page-3/#comment-6015</link>
		<dc:creator>keka</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 03 Dec 2010 08:48:50 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.chaaban.info/2006/11/02/what-comes-after-the-terabyte/#comment-6015</guid>
		<description>Yesterday I bought 1zetabyte, but i dont  think the performance is very good.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Yesterday I bought 1zetabyte, but i dont  think the performance is very good.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Logic</title>
		<link>http://www.chaaban.info/2006/11/02/what-comes-after-the-terabyte/comment-page-3/#comment-5718</link>
		<dc:creator>Logic</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 02 Nov 2010 09:59:26 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.chaaban.info/2006/11/02/what-comes-after-the-terabyte/#comment-5718</guid>
		<description>The reason computers work in binary code (0-1) is that it registers on and off signals off=0, on=1. This binary code is then converted to usable is then converted to numbers and language that us humans understands. Using “DNA” would mean that we will have to adapt the way we compute and use electricity completely. But I agree, the opportunities of using something else than a binary system would increase computer speeds and storage exponentially. Just imagine</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>The reason computers work in binary code (0-1) is that it registers on and off signals off=0, on=1. This binary code is then converted to usable is then converted to numbers and language that us humans understands. Using “DNA” would mean that we will have to adapt the way we compute and use electricity completely. But I agree, the opportunities of using something else than a binary system would increase computer speeds and storage exponentially. Just imagine</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

<!-- Dynamic Page Served (once) in 1.524 seconds -->

