<article>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#article09_07_08_2159259</id>
	<title>How Heavy Is a Petabyte?</title>
	<author>timothy</author>
	<datestamp>1247048460000</datestamp>
	<htmltext><a href="http://www.object-matrix.com/" rel="nofollow">Jon Morgan</a> writes <i>"Whilst heaving around numerous data storage systems to sell (they weigh A LOT!), we got to wondering: <a href="http://www.matrixstore.net/2009/07/08/how-heavy-is-a-petabyte/">How heavy is a Petabyte of data storage?</a> Our best guess is 365KG, which is <em>6 million times</em> lighter than in 1980! But is there a lighter way to store a Petabyte?"</i></htmltext>
<tokenext>Jon Morgan writes " Whilst heaving around numerous data storage systems to sell ( they weigh A LOT !
) , we got to wondering : How heavy is a Petabyte of data storage ?
Our best guess is 365KG , which is 6 million times lighter than in 1980 !
But is there a lighter way to store a Petabyte ?
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Jon Morgan writes "Whilst heaving around numerous data storage systems to sell (they weigh A LOT!
), we got to wondering: How heavy is a Petabyte of data storage?
Our best guess is 365KG, which is 6 million times lighter than in 1980!
But is there a lighter way to store a Petabyte?
"</sentencetext>
</article>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_2159259.28644357</id>
	<title>Re:A lot heavier than...</title>
	<author>thethibs</author>
	<datestamp>1247143440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Unfortunately, you run into the Planck limit (1.6 * 10^-35m) when you've hardly begun. The bar would need to be longer than the estimated diameter of the known universe. Isn't science fun?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Unfortunately , you run into the Planck limit ( 1.6 * 10 ^ -35m ) when you 've hardly begun .
The bar would need to be longer than the estimated diameter of the known universe .
Is n't science fun ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Unfortunately, you run into the Planck limit (1.6 * 10^-35m) when you've hardly begun.
The bar would need to be longer than the estimated diameter of the known universe.
Isn't science fun?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_2159259.28632185</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_2159259.28629617</id>
	<title>Mass!=Weight</title>
	<author>halprin</author>
	<datestamp>1247054280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Since when was a Kilogram a unit of weight?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Since when was a Kilogram a unit of weight ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Since when was a Kilogram a unit of weight?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_2159259.28630325</id>
	<title>Re:There is a way!</title>
	<author>thinkscout</author>
	<datestamp>1247058300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Your brain would gain weight if you learned all that! In order to encode all the information in synaptic interactions your neurons need more nutrients to handle the information processing (sic). Support cells called 'Glial cells' would grow to better provide for the needs of the busy neuron, and in some areas of the brain the neurons themselves would grow in size to make more connections with other neurons. Your brain would probably gain measurable weight....to a point.....</htmltext>
<tokenext>Your brain would gain weight if you learned all that !
In order to encode all the information in synaptic interactions your neurons need more nutrients to handle the information processing ( sic ) .
Support cells called 'Glial cells ' would grow to better provide for the needs of the busy neuron , and in some areas of the brain the neurons themselves would grow in size to make more connections with other neurons .
Your brain would probably gain measurable weight....to a point.... .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Your brain would gain weight if you learned all that!
In order to encode all the information in synaptic interactions your neurons need more nutrients to handle the information processing (sic).
Support cells called 'Glial cells' would grow to better provide for the needs of the busy neuron, and in some areas of the brain the neurons themselves would grow in size to make more connections with other neurons.
Your brain would probably gain measurable weight....to a point.....</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_2159259.28629319</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_2159259.28631435</id>
	<title>Re:There is a way!</title>
	<author>flappinbooger</author>
	<datestamp>1247066400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>I think there was a movie about this type of thing.... But I don't remember what it was called...

<br> <br>Johnny something-or-other....</htmltext>
<tokenext>I think there was a movie about this type of thing.... But I do n't remember what it was called.. . Johnny something-or-other... .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think there was a movie about this type of thing.... But I don't remember what it was called...

 Johnny something-or-other....</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_2159259.28629873</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_2159259.28632255</id>
	<title>What kind of memory? How about a PB of WOM?</title>
	<author>neurocutie</author>
	<datestamp>1247072760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>not much detail given as to what kind of memory (access abilities, etc) is specified...<br>1cc of brain probably has more than a PB of DNA and other memory...</p><p>how about a PB of WOM (write-only memory)... can make that *real* small and light...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>not much detail given as to what kind of memory ( access abilities , etc ) is specified...1cc of brain probably has more than a PB of DNA and other memory...how about a PB of WOM ( write-only memory ) ... can make that * real * small and light.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>not much detail given as to what kind of memory (access abilities, etc) is specified...1cc of brain probably has more than a PB of DNA and other memory...how about a PB of WOM (write-only memory)... can make that *real* small and light...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_2159259.28632903</id>
	<title>From thermodynamics</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247080620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Google calculator gives me 1petabyte in kilograms:</p><p>((1e15 * (Boltzmann constant * 293 K * ln(2))) / c) / c = 3.11986188 x 10-23 kilograms<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... not so much...<br>Maybe in the basement is is colder than 20C, then it would be even less<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:-)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Google calculator gives me 1petabyte in kilograms : ( ( 1e15 * ( Boltzmann constant * 293 K * ln ( 2 ) ) ) / c ) / c = 3.11986188 x 10-23 kilograms ... not so much...Maybe in the basement is is colder than 20C , then it would be even less : - )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Google calculator gives me 1petabyte in kilograms:((1e15 * (Boltzmann constant * 293 K * ln(2))) / c) / c = 3.11986188 x 10-23 kilograms ... not so much...Maybe in the basement is is colder than 20C, then it would be even less :-)</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_2159259.28631543</id>
	<title>so, how many oprah's</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247067240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>is a petabyte?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>is a petabyte ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>is a petabyte?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_2159259.28631431</id>
	<title>Re:There is a way!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247066340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If you have photographic memory, it goes a lot faster, with pretty good recall.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If you have photographic memory , it goes a lot faster , with pretty good recall .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If you have photographic memory, it goes a lot faster, with pretty good recall.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_2159259.28629873</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_2159259.28629379</id>
	<title>Re:MicroSD</title>
	<author>Shag</author>
	<datestamp>1247052840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Yeah, something solid-state, definitely.  I was thinking SDHC 32GB cards... but those work out to a little under 64g/TB, so microSD is a lot lighter.  You could even throw in one microSD-to-SD adapter and still be lighter.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>;)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Yeah , something solid-state , definitely .
I was thinking SDHC 32GB cards... but those work out to a little under 64g/TB , so microSD is a lot lighter .
You could even throw in one microSD-to-SD adapter and still be lighter .
; )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yeah, something solid-state, definitely.
I was thinking SDHC 32GB cards... but those work out to a little under 64g/TB, so microSD is a lot lighter.
You could even throw in one microSD-to-SD adapter and still be lighter.
;)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_2159259.28629255</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_2159259.28635349</id>
	<title>Bits don't have mass, they have area</title>
	<author>garyebickford</author>
	<datestamp>1247149260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I used to ask "what does a bit weigh" as a rhetorical question.  Two years ago, reading up on black holes I discovered that a bit does not have mass but it does have area.</p><p>This relates to the size of a black hole, conservation of entropy/information, and the surface area of the event horizon.  As it turns out, a bit requires one Planck area (see <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planck\_units" title="wikipedia.org">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planck\_units</a> [wikipedia.org]), or about (1.6E-35)^2 meters,.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I used to ask " what does a bit weigh " as a rhetorical question .
Two years ago , reading up on black holes I discovered that a bit does not have mass but it does have area.This relates to the size of a black hole , conservation of entropy/information , and the surface area of the event horizon .
As it turns out , a bit requires one Planck area ( see http : //en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planck \ _units [ wikipedia.org ] ) , or about ( 1.6E-35 ) ^ 2 meters, .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I used to ask "what does a bit weigh" as a rhetorical question.
Two years ago, reading up on black holes I discovered that a bit does not have mass but it does have area.This relates to the size of a black hole, conservation of entropy/information, and the surface area of the event horizon.
As it turns out, a bit requires one Planck area (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planck\_units [wikipedia.org]), or about (1.6E-35)^2 meters,.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_2159259.28629727</id>
	<title>Re:Minimum mass of a Petabyte</title>
	<author>almightyon11</author>
	<datestamp>1247054940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Oh thats an easy one... it's 0 - the mass of the least massive particle(s). The least energy is just as easy if you understand anything of quantum mechanics, not information theory: the least energy you can have a a quanta, so the least energy is Plank's Constant x 8 quadrillion (8 petabits), which is aproximately 8 eV s, which is somewhat a pretty number<nobr> <wbr></nobr>;).

However, another question arises: how do you store light? You sure need a medium for it to be usable, and the question is how much that medium weights...

Moreover, I don't even kow if we currently have technology for storing light. First thing comes to mind are 2 paralel mirrors perfectly aligned, but there is thermal loss and imperfections loss there.

Another crazy thing that comes to mind are black holes: then can trap light in 'orbit' around it... which is lossless - problem solved. Now I just need a black hole.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Oh thats an easy one... it 's 0 - the mass of the least massive particle ( s ) .
The least energy is just as easy if you understand anything of quantum mechanics , not information theory : the least energy you can have a a quanta , so the least energy is Plank 's Constant x 8 quadrillion ( 8 petabits ) , which is aproximately 8 eV s , which is somewhat a pretty number ; ) .
However , another question arises : how do you store light ?
You sure need a medium for it to be usable , and the question is how much that medium weights.. . Moreover , I do n't even kow if we currently have technology for storing light .
First thing comes to mind are 2 paralel mirrors perfectly aligned , but there is thermal loss and imperfections loss there .
Another crazy thing that comes to mind are black holes : then can trap light in 'orbit ' around it... which is lossless - problem solved .
Now I just need a black hole .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Oh thats an easy one... it's 0 - the mass of the least massive particle(s).
The least energy is just as easy if you understand anything of quantum mechanics, not information theory: the least energy you can have a a quanta, so the least energy is Plank's Constant x 8 quadrillion (8 petabits), which is aproximately 8 eV s, which is somewhat a pretty number ;).
However, another question arises: how do you store light?
You sure need a medium for it to be usable, and the question is how much that medium weights...

Moreover, I don't even kow if we currently have technology for storing light.
First thing comes to mind are 2 paralel mirrors perfectly aligned, but there is thermal loss and imperfections loss there.
Another crazy thing that comes to mind are black holes: then can trap light in 'orbit' around it... which is lossless - problem solved.
Now I just need a black hole.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_2159259.28629393</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_2159259.28632017</id>
	<title>Re:"But is there a lighter way to store a Petabyte</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247070660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Every computer I've ever seen has one actually. Most are made by the NuLLite company, so the *nix device is<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/dev/null. The interface is quite simple also. Redirect your data in to the device and it will be stored there forever.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Every computer I 've ever seen has one actually .
Most are made by the NuLLite company , so the * nix device is /dev/null .
The interface is quite simple also .
Redirect your data in to the device and it will be stored there forever .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Every computer I've ever seen has one actually.
Most are made by the NuLLite company, so the *nix device is /dev/null.
The interface is quite simple also.
Redirect your data in to the device and it will be stored there forever.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_2159259.28629385</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_2159259.28631287</id>
	<title>Re:Try using Micro SD cards instead</title>
	<author>bizziemommy</author>
	<datestamp>1247065200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>SSD (solid-state drive) is a data storage device. I think you should use it.

<a href="http://www.bizziemommy.com/" title="bizziemommy.com" rel="nofollow">Mom Blogs</a> [bizziemommy.com]</htmltext>
<tokenext>SSD ( solid-state drive ) is a data storage device .
I think you should use it .
Mom Blogs [ bizziemommy.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>SSD (solid-state drive) is a data storage device.
I think you should use it.
Mom Blogs [bizziemommy.com]</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_2159259.28629601</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_2159259.28629467</id>
	<title>Re:Work it out in your head</title>
	<author>just\_another\_sean</author>
	<datestamp>1247053380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If you get to the point where you achieve that level of efficiency in a storage product I will be sure to invest heavily in your company!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If you get to the point where you achieve that level of efficiency in a storage product I will be sure to invest heavily in your company !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If you get to the point where you achieve that level of efficiency in a storage product I will be sure to invest heavily in your company!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_2159259.28629259</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_2159259.28638401</id>
	<title>without the wrapping</title>
	<author>bugs2squash</author>
	<datestamp>1247161680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Then I suppose the weight of the data would depend on what is stored. If the info stored is regarded as <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Entropy\_in\_thermodynamics\_and\_information\_theory" title="wikipedia.org">Brillouin's negentropy</a> [wikipedia.org] with an entropy rate of 1.0 and Szilard is right, then presumably it could potentially be expanded into energy and that converted, courtesy of Einstein and the creator, into mass.</p><p>However, that calculation would have to be done by someone who knew what they were doing and had not simply pulled all of this out of his arse / Wikipedia like me<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Then I suppose the weight of the data would depend on what is stored .
If the info stored is regarded as Brillouin 's negentropy [ wikipedia.org ] with an entropy rate of 1.0 and Szilard is right , then presumably it could potentially be expanded into energy and that converted , courtesy of Einstein and the creator , into mass.However , that calculation would have to be done by someone who knew what they were doing and had not simply pulled all of this out of his arse / Wikipedia like me : )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Then I suppose the weight of the data would depend on what is stored.
If the info stored is regarded as Brillouin's negentropy [wikipedia.org] with an entropy rate of 1.0 and Szilard is right, then presumably it could potentially be expanded into energy and that converted, courtesy of Einstein and the creator, into mass.However, that calculation would have to be done by someone who knew what they were doing and had not simply pulled all of this out of his arse / Wikipedia like me :)</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_2159259.28630741</id>
	<title>Nobody</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247060940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I can see the future now:</p><p>"Nobody will ever need more than 640<b>kg</b> of RAM!"</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I can see the future now : " Nobody will ever need more than 640kg of RAM !
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I can see the future now:"Nobody will ever need more than 640kg of RAM!
"</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_2159259.28629895</id>
	<title>Re:MicroSD</title>
	<author>Burning1</author>
	<datestamp>1247056020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Technically, if you don't count the hardware to read the data, we could simply remove the hard disk platters from the drive. Since most of the drive's weight is made up of the casing and read electronics, it would probably swing the data/weight ratio back in the favor of hard disks.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Technically , if you do n't count the hardware to read the data , we could simply remove the hard disk platters from the drive .
Since most of the drive 's weight is made up of the casing and read electronics , it would probably swing the data/weight ratio back in the favor of hard disks .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Technically, if you don't count the hardware to read the data, we could simply remove the hard disk platters from the drive.
Since most of the drive's weight is made up of the casing and read electronics, it would probably swing the data/weight ratio back in the favor of hard disks.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_2159259.28629255</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_2159259.28629881</id>
	<title>Re:Minimum mass of a Petabyte</title>
	<author>monopole</author>
	<datestamp>1247055960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>That was my dissertation topic, conventional systems require ~kT per bit (k is the Boltzmann constant = 1.3806503 &#195;-- 10-23 m2 kg s-2 K-1 and T is the temperature of the gate in Kelvin) for each read. Quantum systems can access well below that by various trickery (single photon optical computers can reduce this by a thousandfold). In theory a individual photon can hold huge amounts of data in it's state vector before collapse. The trick is making a measurement on enough of these photons to extract the info you need while overcoming shot noise.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>That was my dissertation topic , conventional systems require ~ kT per bit ( k is the Boltzmann constant = 1.3806503   -- 10-23 m2 kg s-2 K-1 and T is the temperature of the gate in Kelvin ) for each read .
Quantum systems can access well below that by various trickery ( single photon optical computers can reduce this by a thousandfold ) .
In theory a individual photon can hold huge amounts of data in it 's state vector before collapse .
The trick is making a measurement on enough of these photons to extract the info you need while overcoming shot noise .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That was my dissertation topic, conventional systems require ~kT per bit (k is the Boltzmann constant = 1.3806503 Ã-- 10-23 m2 kg s-2 K-1 and T is the temperature of the gate in Kelvin) for each read.
Quantum systems can access well below that by various trickery (single photon optical computers can reduce this by a thousandfold).
In theory a individual photon can hold huge amounts of data in it's state vector before collapse.
The trick is making a measurement on enough of these photons to extract the info you need while overcoming shot noise.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_2159259.28629393</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_2159259.28632865</id>
	<title>Back in the 1940's</title>
	<author>marqs</author>
	<datestamp>1247080140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Back in the 1940's one petabyte would have weigh a whole lot more.
Those Delay line memories consisting of tubes filled with mercury seems a bit...bulky.

<br>
<a href="http://echochamber.me/viewtopic.php?f=36&amp;t=15611" title="echochamber.me" rel="nofollow">http://echochamber.me/viewtopic.php?f=36&amp;t=15611</a> [echochamber.me]
<br>
<a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kignGE77l\_I" title="youtube.com" rel="nofollow">http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kignGE77l\_I</a> [youtube.com]</htmltext>
<tokenext>Back in the 1940 's one petabyte would have weigh a whole lot more .
Those Delay line memories consisting of tubes filled with mercury seems a bit...bulky .
http : //echochamber.me/viewtopic.php ? f = 36&amp;t = 15611 [ echochamber.me ] http : //www.youtube.com/watch ? v = kignGE77l \ _I [ youtube.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Back in the 1940's one petabyte would have weigh a whole lot more.
Those Delay line memories consisting of tubes filled with mercury seems a bit...bulky.
http://echochamber.me/viewtopic.php?f=36&amp;t=15611 [echochamber.me]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kignGE77l\_I [youtube.com]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_2159259.28629971</id>
	<title>Measure of a Byte</title>
	<author>mauthbaux</author>
	<datestamp>1247056620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>So which Petabyte are we talking about? The functional petabyte (i.e. 1,125,899,906,842,624 bytes), or the hard drive manufacturer's version( i.e. 1,000,000,000,000,000 bytes)?<br> <br> Actually, a quick wikipedia search tells me that 10^15 is indeed the petabyte, while 1024^5 is the pebibyte. But according to Wikipedia I've been using the wrong terms  this whole time anyway. kibibytes, mebibytes, gibibytes, tebibytes. etc... Somehow it all feels wrong now, and I want to blame Western Digital, or maybe Maxtor.</htmltext>
<tokenext>So which Petabyte are we talking about ?
The functional petabyte ( i.e .
1,125,899,906,842,624 bytes ) , or the hard drive manufacturer 's version ( i.e .
1,000,000,000,000,000 bytes ) ?
Actually , a quick wikipedia search tells me that 10 ^ 15 is indeed the petabyte , while 1024 ^ 5 is the pebibyte .
But according to Wikipedia I 've been using the wrong terms this whole time anyway .
kibibytes , mebibytes , gibibytes , tebibytes .
etc... Somehow it all feels wrong now , and I want to blame Western Digital , or maybe Maxtor .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So which Petabyte are we talking about?
The functional petabyte (i.e.
1,125,899,906,842,624 bytes), or the hard drive manufacturer's version( i.e.
1,000,000,000,000,000 bytes)?
Actually, a quick wikipedia search tells me that 10^15 is indeed the petabyte, while 1024^5 is the pebibyte.
But according to Wikipedia I've been using the wrong terms  this whole time anyway.
kibibytes, mebibytes, gibibytes, tebibytes.
etc... Somehow it all feels wrong now, and I want to blame Western Digital, or maybe Maxtor.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_2159259.28641367</id>
	<title>Re:but-electrons-don't-weigh-anything</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247173140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Who uses electrons to transmit 6 petabytes, photons all the way man.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Who uses electrons to transmit 6 petabytes , photons all the way man .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Who uses electrons to transmit 6 petabytes, photons all the way man.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_2159259.28629357</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_2159259.28630181</id>
	<title>Using SD Cards</title>
	<author>ndunnuck</author>
	<datestamp>1247057700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Approximately 82 kg if you use 32GB SDHC cards, assuming 2.5g per card.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Approximately 82 kg if you use 32GB SDHC cards , assuming 2.5g per card .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Approximately 82 kg if you use 32GB SDHC cards, assuming 2.5g per card.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_2159259.28632999</id>
	<title>helium...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247082120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>helium...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>helium.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>helium...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_2159259.28630851</id>
	<title>Lite Light</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247061720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You can store a petabyte using no mass at all. Pulses of light would function as the bits. Of course, reading the data would be tricky, as it tends to move a great deal quicker than you do.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You can store a petabyte using no mass at all .
Pulses of light would function as the bits .
Of course , reading the data would be tricky , as it tends to move a great deal quicker than you do .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You can store a petabyte using no mass at all.
Pulses of light would function as the bits.
Of course, reading the data would be tricky, as it tends to move a great deal quicker than you do.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_2159259.28635665</id>
	<title>Re:There is a way!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247150700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Insightful? Assuming you can perfectly remember 1 byte per second, you'd be memorizing for over 100 million years. The human brain is great and all that, but no way are you going to store that much data while being able to reproduce it later.</p></div><p>I'm pretty sure he will never "reproduce" at all.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Insightful ?
Assuming you can perfectly remember 1 byte per second , you 'd be memorizing for over 100 million years .
The human brain is great and all that , but no way are you going to store that much data while being able to reproduce it later.I 'm pretty sure he will never " reproduce " at all .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Insightful?
Assuming you can perfectly remember 1 byte per second, you'd be memorizing for over 100 million years.
The human brain is great and all that, but no way are you going to store that much data while being able to reproduce it later.I'm pretty sure he will never "reproduce" at all.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_2159259.28629873</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_2159259.28630099</id>
	<title>Re:About 2 Kilos</title>
	<author>catmistake</author>
	<datestamp>1247057340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>This is why I think A.I. enthusiasts will ultimately fail.</p></div><p>You, and every philosopher of mind, including Dennett and Searle. Ok, maybe Churchland disagress, but she's another misguided  reductionist (LOL)... and I never really believe what women tell me anyway.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>This is why I think A.I .
enthusiasts will ultimately fail.You , and every philosopher of mind , including Dennett and Searle .
Ok , maybe Churchland disagress , but she 's another misguided reductionist ( LOL ) ... and I never really believe what women tell me anyway .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is why I think A.I.
enthusiasts will ultimately fail.You, and every philosopher of mind, including Dennett and Searle.
Ok, maybe Churchland disagress, but she's another misguided  reductionist (LOL)... and I never really believe what women tell me anyway.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_2159259.28629683</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_2159259.28640377</id>
	<title>Re:There is a way!</title>
	<author>jbarr</author>
	<datestamp>1247169300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>While you are most insightful, the parent stated, "perfectly remember 1 byte per second". Your model really only addresses the data gathering component, not the actual long-term storage and retrieval. Unfortunately, we can't perfectly remember every object within our field of vision.</p><p>And then there's that nasty "blind spot" thing....</p><p>But in all seriousness, your illustration is quite amazing! It's yet another example of just how sophisticated the Human body really is!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>While you are most insightful , the parent stated , " perfectly remember 1 byte per second " .
Your model really only addresses the data gathering component , not the actual long-term storage and retrieval .
Unfortunately , we ca n't perfectly remember every object within our field of vision.And then there 's that nasty " blind spot " thing....But in all seriousness , your illustration is quite amazing !
It 's yet another example of just how sophisticated the Human body really is !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>While you are most insightful, the parent stated, "perfectly remember 1 byte per second".
Your model really only addresses the data gathering component, not the actual long-term storage and retrieval.
Unfortunately, we can't perfectly remember every object within our field of vision.And then there's that nasty "blind spot" thing....But in all seriousness, your illustration is quite amazing!
It's yet another example of just how sophisticated the Human body really is!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_2159259.28630873</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_2159259.28629651</id>
	<title>Such questions...</title>
	<author>SebaSOFT</author>
	<datestamp>1247054460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Is there a better way to waste your time?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Is there a better way to waste your time ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Is there a better way to waste your time?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_2159259.28629609</id>
	<title>Re:library of congress</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247054220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>Asking a question like this is about as silly as asking how wide a year is. It's just not immediately obvious that this question makes no sense because it gets confused with the similar question 'what is the lightest device(s) capable of storing a petabyte of information.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Asking a question like this is about as silly as asking how wide a year is .
It 's just not immediately obvious that this question makes no sense because it gets confused with the similar question 'what is the lightest device ( s ) capable of storing a petabyte of information .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Asking a question like this is about as silly as asking how wide a year is.
It's just not immediately obvious that this question makes no sense because it gets confused with the similar question 'what is the lightest device(s) capable of storing a petabyte of information.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_2159259.28629249</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_2159259.28629393</id>
	<title>Minimum mass of a Petabyte</title>
	<author>Chris Burke</author>
	<datestamp>1247052960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Thinking about the decrease in mass of a petabyte got me thinking about Information Theory and the minimum energy required to store a bit.  Or rather, to irreversibly manipulate one bit of information, which I think describes the act of writing to any kind of RAM (disk or otherwise).  If I extrapolate that to also mean a mass whose rest energy is sufficient to manipulate a bit, that could give the theoretical minimum mass for a bit of storage.  I don't actually know enough information theory to know that value, or even if the comparison from energy of information manipulation to mass of storage is valid, but it struck me as interesting and maybe somebody knows?  What's the minimum mass of a petabyte?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Thinking about the decrease in mass of a petabyte got me thinking about Information Theory and the minimum energy required to store a bit .
Or rather , to irreversibly manipulate one bit of information , which I think describes the act of writing to any kind of RAM ( disk or otherwise ) .
If I extrapolate that to also mean a mass whose rest energy is sufficient to manipulate a bit , that could give the theoretical minimum mass for a bit of storage .
I do n't actually know enough information theory to know that value , or even if the comparison from energy of information manipulation to mass of storage is valid , but it struck me as interesting and maybe somebody knows ?
What 's the minimum mass of a petabyte ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Thinking about the decrease in mass of a petabyte got me thinking about Information Theory and the minimum energy required to store a bit.
Or rather, to irreversibly manipulate one bit of information, which I think describes the act of writing to any kind of RAM (disk or otherwise).
If I extrapolate that to also mean a mass whose rest energy is sufficient to manipulate a bit, that could give the theoretical minimum mass for a bit of storage.
I don't actually know enough information theory to know that value, or even if the comparison from energy of information manipulation to mass of storage is valid, but it struck me as interesting and maybe somebody knows?
What's the minimum mass of a petabyte?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_2159259.28645589</id>
	<title>Double-take on that title</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247153880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I must be depraved. The first thing I thought of was "Heavy Petting" bytes.</p><p>Wot a sad life I lead.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I must be depraved .
The first thing I thought of was " Heavy Petting " bytes.Wot a sad life I lead .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I must be depraved.
The first thing I thought of was "Heavy Petting" bytes.Wot a sad life I lead.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_2159259.28632419</id>
	<title>Weighs next to nothing</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247074860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Easiest way to solve.  Make a compression scheme designed specifically for the petabyte of data.  Store "1" on something that weights practically nothing.  I'm not going to talk about the weight of the compression scheme<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Easiest way to solve .
Make a compression scheme designed specifically for the petabyte of data .
Store " 1 " on something that weights practically nothing .
I 'm not going to talk about the weight of the compression scheme : )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Easiest way to solve.
Make a compression scheme designed specifically for the petabyte of data.
Store "1" on something that weights practically nothing.
I'm not going to talk about the weight of the compression scheme :)</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_2159259.28633163</id>
	<title>Re:Minimum mass of a Petabyte</title>
	<author>CopaceticOpus</author>
	<datestamp>1247171280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If data is being stored on photons, then wouldn't the mass of a petabyte be zero?</p><p>The equipment to read that data would have mass, of course.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If data is being stored on photons , then would n't the mass of a petabyte be zero ? The equipment to read that data would have mass , of course .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If data is being stored on photons, then wouldn't the mass of a petabyte be zero?The equipment to read that data would have mass, of course.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_2159259.28629881</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_2159259.28631511</id>
	<title>Re:</title>
	<author>clint999</author>
	<datestamp>1247067000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>51.2 LoC'sAssuming LoC is still = 20TB</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>51.2 LoC'sAssuming LoC is still = 20TB</tokentext>
<sentencetext>51.2 LoC'sAssuming LoC is still = 20TB</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_2159259.28629833</id>
	<title>Re:How much does a "full" HDD weigh vs. an empty H</title>
	<author>NoobixCube</author>
	<datestamp>1247055660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>That's probably something to do with the relaxation of certain muscles.  I plan on wearing adult-size pullups if I anticipate my imminent death.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>That 's probably something to do with the relaxation of certain muscles .
I plan on wearing adult-size pullups if I anticipate my imminent death .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That's probably something to do with the relaxation of certain muscles.
I plan on wearing adult-size pullups if I anticipate my imminent death.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_2159259.28629635</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_2159259.28636881</id>
	<title>Re:but-electrons-don't-weigh-anything</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247155200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>Electrons weigh about 9.10938215(45)x10^-31kg.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Electrons weigh about 9.10938215 ( 45 ) x10 ^ -31kg .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Electrons weigh about 9.10938215(45)x10^-31kg.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_2159259.28629357</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_2159259.28633459</id>
	<title>Re:About 2 Kilos</title>
	<author>thbb</author>
	<datestamp>1247131800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Well, 20 years ago, in my neural networks class, we were estimating the total memory capacity of a brain at 12GB. This was based on computing the memory capacity of a functioning 100B neurons simulated neural network designed after the best understanding we had at the time on how our brain works.</p><p>I trust my university professor more than a geocities page.</p><p>Mind you, with a reasonable compression scheme, I doubt there's much more that needs to be known and remembered.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Well , 20 years ago , in my neural networks class , we were estimating the total memory capacity of a brain at 12GB .
This was based on computing the memory capacity of a functioning 100B neurons simulated neural network designed after the best understanding we had at the time on how our brain works.I trust my university professor more than a geocities page.Mind you , with a reasonable compression scheme , I doubt there 's much more that needs to be known and remembered .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Well, 20 years ago, in my neural networks class, we were estimating the total memory capacity of a brain at 12GB.
This was based on computing the memory capacity of a functioning 100B neurons simulated neural network designed after the best understanding we had at the time on how our brain works.I trust my university professor more than a geocities page.Mind you, with a reasonable compression scheme, I doubt there's much more that needs to be known and remembered.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_2159259.28629359</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_2159259.28643641</id>
	<title>Re:There is a way!</title>
	<author>WizADSL</author>
	<datestamp>1247139660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Unfortunately the brain's data compression is lossy to say the least.  Just watch any crime show witness interview...</htmltext>
<tokenext>Unfortunately the brain 's data compression is lossy to say the least .
Just watch any crime show witness interview.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Unfortunately the brain's data compression is lossy to say the least.
Just watch any crime show witness interview...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_2159259.28630873</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_2159259.28636389</id>
	<title>Someone should let this guy know</title>
	<author>no.good.at.coding</author>
	<datestamp>1247153580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Someone should let <a href="http://social.answers.microsoft.com/Forums/en-US/vistahardware/thread/720108ee-0a9c-4090-b62d-bbd5cb1a7605" title="microsoft.com" rel="nofollow">this guy</a> [microsoft.com] know!</htmltext>
<tokenext>Someone should let this guy [ microsoft.com ] know !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Someone should let this guy [microsoft.com] know!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_2159259.28630417</id>
	<title>Encode it into DNA</title>
	<author>Werkhaus</author>
	<datestamp>1247058900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>One AT/TA pair for 0, CG/GC for 1.<br>Chop into suitably sized chains with primers indicating directory structure.</p><p>Advantages - Can be easily read and replicated and stored either in vitro (cryo) on in vivo via inserts.<br>Disadvantages - Time consuming to run searches, writing new data involves multiple single-point mutations.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>One AT/TA pair for 0 , CG/GC for 1.Chop into suitably sized chains with primers indicating directory structure.Advantages - Can be easily read and replicated and stored either in vitro ( cryo ) on in vivo via inserts.Disadvantages - Time consuming to run searches , writing new data involves multiple single-point mutations .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>One AT/TA pair for 0, CG/GC for 1.Chop into suitably sized chains with primers indicating directory structure.Advantages - Can be easily read and replicated and stored either in vitro (cryo) on in vivo via inserts.Disadvantages - Time consuming to run searches, writing new data involves multiple single-point mutations.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_2159259.28636611</id>
	<title>Re:There is a way!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247154240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>&gt; The human brain is great and all that, but no way are you going to store that much data while being able to reproduce later.</p><p>Fixed that for you.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>&gt; The human brain is great and all that , but no way are you going to store that much data while being able to reproduce later.Fixed that for you .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>&gt; The human brain is great and all that, but no way are you going to store that much data while being able to reproduce later.Fixed that for you.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_2159259.28629873</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_2159259.28632041</id>
	<title>Re:library of congress</title>
	<author>PitaBred</author>
	<datestamp>1247070780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Sure, if you want to be pedantic. But the implied question is exactly what you asked, it's simply stated in a more interesting manner that causes the respondent to spend a modicum of time thinking about the question, rather than simply responding.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Sure , if you want to be pedantic .
But the implied question is exactly what you asked , it 's simply stated in a more interesting manner that causes the respondent to spend a modicum of time thinking about the question , rather than simply responding .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Sure, if you want to be pedantic.
But the implied question is exactly what you asked, it's simply stated in a more interesting manner that causes the respondent to spend a modicum of time thinking about the question, rather than simply responding.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_2159259.28629609</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_2159259.28629761</id>
	<title>Re:How much does a "full" HDD weigh vs. an empty H</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247055240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>What's funny is, back in "the day" people would do experiments like this. I don't recall any about souls, specifically, but according to a Nova episode I just watched, heat used to be considered a substance that flowed into and out of objects; in attempting to discover the weight of heat, they found out that it wasn't material at all, but rather motion. Seems obvious now, but someone had to figure it out at some point.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>What 's funny is , back in " the day " people would do experiments like this .
I do n't recall any about souls , specifically , but according to a Nova episode I just watched , heat used to be considered a substance that flowed into and out of objects ; in attempting to discover the weight of heat , they found out that it was n't material at all , but rather motion .
Seems obvious now , but someone had to figure it out at some point .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What's funny is, back in "the day" people would do experiments like this.
I don't recall any about souls, specifically, but according to a Nova episode I just watched, heat used to be considered a substance that flowed into and out of objects; in attempting to discover the weight of heat, they found out that it wasn't material at all, but rather motion.
Seems obvious now, but someone had to figure it out at some point.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_2159259.28629453</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_2159259.28629255</id>
	<title>MicroSD</title>
	<author>jeffb (2.718)</author>
	<datestamp>1247052180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>...weighs something like 300mg/card.  That's 48GB/gram, or a bit over 20g/TB, or 20Kg/PB.</htmltext>
<tokenext>...weighs something like 300mg/card .
That 's 48GB/gram , or a bit over 20g/TB , or 20Kg/PB .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>...weighs something like 300mg/card.
That's 48GB/gram, or a bit over 20g/TB, or 20Kg/PB.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_2159259.28629449</id>
	<title>But...</title>
	<author>pdragon04</author>
	<datestamp>1247053320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Offtopic</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext>... will it blend?</htmltext>
<tokenext>... will it blend ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>... will it blend?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_2159259.28631797</id>
	<title>Re:There is a way!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247068800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Pointless. You could put 1 billion people on a scale and have them all memorize data as fast as they could and the weight won't change (correcting for evaporation, etc.).</p><p>-b</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Pointless .
You could put 1 billion people on a scale and have them all memorize data as fast as they could and the weight wo n't change ( correcting for evaporation , etc .
) .-b</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Pointless.
You could put 1 billion people on a scale and have them all memorize data as fast as they could and the weight won't change (correcting for evaporation, etc.
).-b</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_2159259.28629873</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_2159259.28646155</id>
	<title>Flash drives/SSDs.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247163120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>With approx. 8250 128GB flash drives, you would have 1PB storage, and it would only weigh 160KG.<br>See <a href="http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16820220406" title="newegg.com" rel="nofollow"> here</a> [newegg.com].</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>With approx .
8250 128GB flash drives , you would have 1PB storage , and it would only weigh 160KG.See here [ newegg.com ] .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>With approx.
8250 128GB flash drives, you would have 1PB storage, and it would only weigh 160KG.See  here [newegg.com].</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_2159259.28629785</id>
	<title>What kind of shop do you work for ...</title>
	<author>winomonkey</author>
	<datestamp>1247055420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>where you sit around dealing with heavy petting all day?  And don't you just think that a lighter version of it would just be annoying?  Maybe even leading to the infamous BBOD?

Or maybe I am just reading this wrong<nobr> <wbr></nobr>...</htmltext>
<tokenext>where you sit around dealing with heavy petting all day ?
And do n't you just think that a lighter version of it would just be annoying ?
Maybe even leading to the infamous BBOD ?
Or maybe I am just reading this wrong .. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>where you sit around dealing with heavy petting all day?
And don't you just think that a lighter version of it would just be annoying?
Maybe even leading to the infamous BBOD?
Or maybe I am just reading this wrong ...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_2159259.28644903</id>
	<title>Re:library of congress</title>
	<author>bobvious</author>
	<datestamp>1247147820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>A year is seven days wide (according to my calendar).</htmltext>
<tokenext>A year is seven days wide ( according to my calendar ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>A year is seven days wide (according to my calendar).</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_2159259.28629609</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_2159259.28629771</id>
	<title>Re:It depends..</title>
	<author>almightyon11</author>
	<datestamp>1247055300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>DOH everyone knows they don't wait the same, but you are forgetting about the magnetic effect. 1's are magnets pointed up and 0 pointed down. Thus 0s actually weight more because of earth's magnetic field. Aha.</htmltext>
<tokenext>DOH everyone knows they do n't wait the same , but you are forgetting about the magnetic effect .
1 's are magnets pointed up and 0 pointed down .
Thus 0s actually weight more because of earth 's magnetic field .
Aha .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>DOH everyone knows they don't wait the same, but you are forgetting about the magnetic effect.
1's are magnets pointed up and 0 pointed down.
Thus 0s actually weight more because of earth's magnetic field.
Aha.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_2159259.28629469</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_2159259.28630033</id>
	<title>This is ignorant</title>
	<author>nurb432</author>
	<datestamp>1247057040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You can store data on a rock, or on a optic crystal.  Trying to 'weigh' it is just stupid, as its all about context.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You can store data on a rock , or on a optic crystal .
Trying to 'weigh ' it is just stupid , as its all about context .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You can store data on a rock, or on a optic crystal.
Trying to 'weigh' it is just stupid, as its all about context.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_2159259.28629613</id>
	<title>A bit lighter I would think</title>
	<author>laing</author>
	<datestamp>1247054280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>You can buy a 16GB microSDHC which weighs 0.05oz (1.4g).  You would need 62,500 of them to make a petabyte.  That comes to a total of just 87.5kg.  Of course this does not include the interface needed to access them.</htmltext>
<tokenext>You can buy a 16GB microSDHC which weighs 0.05oz ( 1.4g ) .
You would need 62,500 of them to make a petabyte .
That comes to a total of just 87.5kg .
Of course this does not include the interface needed to access them .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You can buy a 16GB microSDHC which weighs 0.05oz (1.4g).
You would need 62,500 of them to make a petabyte.
That comes to a total of just 87.5kg.
Of course this does not include the interface needed to access them.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_2159259.28632189</id>
	<title>Re:A lot heavier than...</title>
	<author>Artraze</author>
	<datestamp>1247072160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Well, a rough check shows that each base pair (and backbone) weighs about 614amu, which gives a weight of 10^-21 grams for 2 bits.  So, pure DNA weighs about a 4ug per petabyte, supposing my calculations are correct.</p><p>However, that's hardly fair.  The density of bits is \_far\_ from the density of the actual storage.  After all, a hard disk uses only extremely small regions (probably only a few million amu) on the surface of a disk.  However, the motors, the case, and even the disk (substrate) itself are orders of magnitude heavier than the bits themselves.  I'd be rather surprised if the actual storage was much more than a couple grams.</p><p>The point is, of course, that there are all kinds of ways to store data, but when it comes down to weight, the control mechanisms are what matters.  For this reason it's extremely unlikely that DNA will \_ever\_ be used as storage, except if we start making bio-computers.</p><p>Also, for what it's worth, the human genome only stores about 770MB, only a bit more than a CD.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Well , a rough check shows that each base pair ( and backbone ) weighs about 614amu , which gives a weight of 10 ^ -21 grams for 2 bits .
So , pure DNA weighs about a 4ug per petabyte , supposing my calculations are correct.However , that 's hardly fair .
The density of bits is \ _far \ _ from the density of the actual storage .
After all , a hard disk uses only extremely small regions ( probably only a few million amu ) on the surface of a disk .
However , the motors , the case , and even the disk ( substrate ) itself are orders of magnitude heavier than the bits themselves .
I 'd be rather surprised if the actual storage was much more than a couple grams.The point is , of course , that there are all kinds of ways to store data , but when it comes down to weight , the control mechanisms are what matters .
For this reason it 's extremely unlikely that DNA will \ _ever \ _ be used as storage , except if we start making bio-computers.Also , for what it 's worth , the human genome only stores about 770MB , only a bit more than a CD .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Well, a rough check shows that each base pair (and backbone) weighs about 614amu, which gives a weight of 10^-21 grams for 2 bits.
So, pure DNA weighs about a 4ug per petabyte, supposing my calculations are correct.However, that's hardly fair.
The density of bits is \_far\_ from the density of the actual storage.
After all, a hard disk uses only extremely small regions (probably only a few million amu) on the surface of a disk.
However, the motors, the case, and even the disk (substrate) itself are orders of magnitude heavier than the bits themselves.
I'd be rather surprised if the actual storage was much more than a couple grams.The point is, of course, that there are all kinds of ways to store data, but when it comes down to weight, the control mechanisms are what matters.
For this reason it's extremely unlikely that DNA will \_ever\_ be used as storage, except if we start making bio-computers.Also, for what it's worth, the human genome only stores about 770MB, only a bit more than a CD.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_2159259.28629495</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_2159259.28632175</id>
	<title>1 petabyte stored on 3.5" floppy disks</title>
	<author>rdhatch</author>
	<datestamp>1247072040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>1 3.5" floppy = 30 gram<br>
1 floppy = 1.44 MB<br>
1 petabyte = 1,073,741,824 MB<br>
1 petabyte (stored in floppy format) weighs: 745,654,044.44 grams (<strong>745.65404444 metric tons</strong>)</htmltext>
<tokenext>1 3.5 " floppy = 30 gram 1 floppy = 1.44 MB 1 petabyte = 1,073,741,824 MB 1 petabyte ( stored in floppy format ) weighs : 745,654,044.44 grams ( 745.65404444 metric tons )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>1 3.5" floppy = 30 gram
1 floppy = 1.44 MB
1 petabyte = 1,073,741,824 MB
1 petabyte (stored in floppy format) weighs: 745,654,044.44 grams (745.65404444 metric tons)</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_2159259.28632833</id>
	<title>Re:There is a way!</title>
	<author>marqs</author>
	<datestamp>1247079660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>You apparently missed the movie Johnny Mnemonic <a href="http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0113481/" title="imdb.com" rel="nofollow">http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0113481/</a> [imdb.com]</htmltext>
<tokenext>You apparently missed the movie Johnny Mnemonic http : //www.imdb.com/title/tt0113481/ [ imdb.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You apparently missed the movie Johnny Mnemonic http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0113481/ [imdb.com]</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_2159259.28629319</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_2159259.28629637</id>
	<title>Re:Theoretically quite close to zero ...</title>
	<author>Sponge Bath</author>
	<datestamp>1247054400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Or you could tie the hard drives to a blimp. The mass is still there, but the weight is zero.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Or you could tie the hard drives to a blimp .
The mass is still there , but the weight is zero .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Or you could tie the hard drives to a blimp.
The mass is still there, but the weight is zero.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_2159259.28629367</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_2159259.28629567</id>
	<title>the 'king' is dead/a fink/what is a fair days pay?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247054040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>that may be so, but you wouldn't be able to glean anything from this buyassed article written buy one of the 'new' wave of vapourious talknicians. phewww.</p><p>fuddles may not be the 'king' of anything any longer, butt he still exhibits those gangster 'qualities' that made him the envy of souless greedmongers everywhere.</p><p>http://tech.yahoo.com/news/ap/20090708/ap\_on\_hi\_te/us\_tec\_google\_operating\_system</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>that may be so , but you would n't be able to glean anything from this buyassed article written buy one of the 'new ' wave of vapourious talknicians .
phewww.fuddles may not be the 'king ' of anything any longer , butt he still exhibits those gangster 'qualities ' that made him the envy of souless greedmongers everywhere.http : //tech.yahoo.com/news/ap/20090708/ap \ _on \ _hi \ _te/us \ _tec \ _google \ _operating \ _system</tokentext>
<sentencetext>that may be so, but you wouldn't be able to glean anything from this buyassed article written buy one of the 'new' wave of vapourious talknicians.
phewww.fuddles may not be the 'king' of anything any longer, butt he still exhibits those gangster 'qualities' that made him the envy of souless greedmongers everywhere.http://tech.yahoo.com/news/ap/20090708/ap\_on\_hi\_te/us\_tec\_google\_operating\_system</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_2159259.28632469</id>
	<title>Re:About 2 Kilos</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247075580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>... using <em>very lossy</em> compression.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>... using very lossy compression .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>... using very lossy compression.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_2159259.28629359</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_2159259.28631465</id>
	<title>The answer is zero.</title>
	<author>sleeplesseye</author>
	<datestamp>1247066700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Take your raid arrays and storage racks and blast them into space. Problem solved.

(Good for overheating issues, too!)</htmltext>
<tokenext>Take your raid arrays and storage racks and blast them into space .
Problem solved .
( Good for overheating issues , too !
)</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Take your raid arrays and storage racks and blast them into space.
Problem solved.
(Good for overheating issues, too!
)</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_2159259.28629453</id>
	<title>How much does a "full" HDD weigh vs. an empty HDD?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247053320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Seriously, before I get flamed for this, think of it: how many inner-scohol kids would fall for this on an IQ-ish test? Oh, and BTW, when a person dies does the body weigh a tiny amount less after the sole leaves?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Seriously , before I get flamed for this , think of it : how many inner-scohol kids would fall for this on an IQ-ish test ?
Oh , and BTW , when a person dies does the body weigh a tiny amount less after the sole leaves ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Seriously, before I get flamed for this, think of it: how many inner-scohol kids would fall for this on an IQ-ish test?
Oh, and BTW, when a person dies does the body weigh a tiny amount less after the sole leaves?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_2159259.28629319</id>
	<title>There is a way!</title>
	<author>b4upoo</author>
	<datestamp>1247052600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>      It will take me a while but committing all that data to my memory won't add any measurable weight to me at all.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It will take me a while but committing all that data to my memory wo n't add any measurable weight to me at all .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>      It will take me a while but committing all that data to my memory won't add any measurable weight to me at all.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_2159259.28631283</id>
	<title>Re:There is a way!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247065200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Binary is optimized for computers, not humans. Why would you take the time to memorize long strings of 0's and 1's? We already have a novel form for storing human-accessible information. It's called the English language (or German language, or Dutch, or Swahili, whatever).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Binary is optimized for computers , not humans .
Why would you take the time to memorize long strings of 0 's and 1 's ?
We already have a novel form for storing human-accessible information .
It 's called the English language ( or German language , or Dutch , or Swahili , whatever ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Binary is optimized for computers, not humans.
Why would you take the time to memorize long strings of 0's and 1's?
We already have a novel form for storing human-accessible information.
It's called the English language (or German language, or Dutch, or Swahili, whatever).</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_2159259.28629873</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_2159259.28632627</id>
	<title>But is there a lighter way to store a petabyte?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247077320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>But is there a lighter way to store a petabyte?</p></div><p>Use the surface of a black hole as a hologram by encoding your information on there ( best one can do according to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holographic\_principle )...<br>\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_</p><p>[begin tangent to actually calculate the bounds on black hole information storage...]</p><p>Entropy of black hole:<br>[E:black hole entropy (bits)] = [black hole surface area]/4 * constant(k*)<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; * = [Boltzmann's constant] / [Planck length^2</p><p>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black\_hole\_thermodynamics )</p><p>Surface area of sphere:<br>[surface area] = 4 * pi * [radius]^2</p><p>Schwarzchild radius:<br>[radius] = 2 * [G:grav. constant] * [m:mass] / [c:speed of light]^2</p><p>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; ( I think r (in radially-symmetric general relativity settings) is defined such that the sphere-radius thing works )<br>\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_</p><p>Solve system of equations. The result is:<br>E = 4 pi (G / c^2)^2 * k * m^2<br>[mass  required] = sqrt([desired bits] * [conversion factor: thermo  info] * 2.7mil joules/degree)</p><p>[ Google: 4 pi ((gravitational constant) / (speed of light)^2)^2 * (boltzmann's constant)/(hbar * (gravitational constant) / (speed of light)^3) ]</p><p>Some things are probably very wrong here; if a modern physics professional would like to step in please do so. The units work out... but the result is really weird: If one desires to write X bits of info, one only needs mass proportional to sqrt(X)?! Something seems fishy.</p><p>[end tangent]</p><p>I once saw an article on theoretical limits of computation discussing black holes, which I could not dig up.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>But is there a lighter way to store a petabyte ? Use the surface of a black hole as a hologram by encoding your information on there ( best one can do according to http : //en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holographic \ _principle ) ... \ _ \ _ \ _ \ _ \ _ \ _ \ _ \ _ \ _ \ _ \ _ \ _ \ _ [ begin tangent to actually calculate the bounds on black hole information storage... ] Entropy of black hole : [ E : black hole entropy ( bits ) ] = [ black hole surface area ] /4 * constant ( k * )                 * = [ Boltzmann 's constant ] / [ Planck length ^ 2                 ( http : //en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black \ _hole \ _thermodynamics ) Surface area of sphere : [ surface area ] = 4 * pi * [ radius ] ^ 2Schwarzchild radius : [ radius ] = 2 * [ G : grav .
constant ] * [ m : mass ] / [ c : speed of light ] ^ 2                 ( I think r ( in radially-symmetric general relativity settings ) is defined such that the sphere-radius thing works ) \ _ \ _ \ _ \ _ \ _ \ _ \ _ \ _ \ _ \ _ \ _ \ _ \ _ \ _ \ _ \ _Solve system of equations .
The result is : E = 4 pi ( G / c ^ 2 ) ^ 2 * k * m ^ 2 [ mass required ] = sqrt ( [ desired bits ] * [ conversion factor : thermo info ] * 2.7mil joules/degree ) [ Google : 4 pi ( ( gravitational constant ) / ( speed of light ) ^ 2 ) ^ 2 * ( boltzmann 's constant ) / ( hbar * ( gravitational constant ) / ( speed of light ) ^ 3 ) ] Some things are probably very wrong here ; if a modern physics professional would like to step in please do so .
The units work out... but the result is really weird : If one desires to write X bits of info , one only needs mass proportional to sqrt ( X ) ? !
Something seems fishy .
[ end tangent ] I once saw an article on theoretical limits of computation discussing black holes , which I could not dig up .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>But is there a lighter way to store a petabyte?Use the surface of a black hole as a hologram by encoding your information on there ( best one can do according to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holographic\_principle )...\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_[begin tangent to actually calculate the bounds on black hole information storage...]Entropy of black hole:[E:black hole entropy (bits)] = [black hole surface area]/4 * constant(k*)
                * = [Boltzmann's constant] / [Planck length^2
                ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black\_hole\_thermodynamics )Surface area of sphere:[surface area] = 4 * pi * [radius]^2Schwarzchild radius:[radius] = 2 * [G:grav.
constant] * [m:mass] / [c:speed of light]^2
                ( I think r (in radially-symmetric general relativity settings) is defined such that the sphere-radius thing works )\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_Solve system of equations.
The result is:E = 4 pi (G / c^2)^2 * k * m^2[mass  required] = sqrt([desired bits] * [conversion factor: thermo  info] * 2.7mil joules/degree)[ Google: 4 pi ((gravitational constant) / (speed of light)^2)^2 * (boltzmann's constant)/(hbar * (gravitational constant) / (speed of light)^3) ]Some things are probably very wrong here; if a modern physics professional would like to step in please do so.
The units work out... but the result is really weird: If one desires to write X bits of info, one only needs mass proportional to sqrt(X)?!
Something seems fishy.
[end tangent]I once saw an article on theoretical limits of computation discussing black holes, which I could not dig up.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_2159259.28641699</id>
	<title>Re:Mass!=Weight</title>
	<author>DamnStupidElf</author>
	<datestamp>1247131440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Since all the humans in a non-negligible constant acceleration field measured it to be close to g.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Since all the humans in a non-negligible constant acceleration field measured it to be close to g .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Since all the humans in a non-negligible constant acceleration field measured it to be close to g.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_2159259.28629617</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_2159259.28631687</id>
	<title>Re:About the weight of a floppy</title>
	<author>CarpetShark</author>
	<datestamp>1247068080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>LINE 10 PRINT "byte"</p><p>LINE 20 goto 10 REPEAT 8.881784197E-16</p><p>Then you wait for long time.....</p></div></blockquote><p>LINE 10 PRINT "byte"<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; ^ Overflow Error at "10".  Please use smaller numbers.</p><p>Microsoft Basic Ready &gt;</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>LINE 10 PRINT " byte " LINE 20 goto 10 REPEAT 8.881784197E-16Then you wait for long time.....LINE 10 PRINT " byte "           ^ Overflow Error at " 10 " .
Please use smaller numbers.Microsoft Basic Ready &gt;</tokentext>
<sentencetext>LINE 10 PRINT "byte"LINE 20 goto 10 REPEAT 8.881784197E-16Then you wait for long time.....LINE 10 PRINT "byte"
          ^ Overflow Error at "10".
Please use smaller numbers.Microsoft Basic Ready &gt;
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_2159259.28629301</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_2159259.28631131</id>
	<title>Desktop drives, ya that will work well</title>
	<author>bilbus</author>
	<datestamp>1247063880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Perhaps if you don't care about your data. Who would use 2TB desktop class drives to store 1PB? Biggest drives you could use would be 1TB SATA or 600GB SAS.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Perhaps if you do n't care about your data .
Who would use 2TB desktop class drives to store 1PB ?
Biggest drives you could use would be 1TB SATA or 600GB SAS .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Perhaps if you don't care about your data.
Who would use 2TB desktop class drives to store 1PB?
Biggest drives you could use would be 1TB SATA or 600GB SAS.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_2159259.28629247</id>
	<title>Frist psot?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247052180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Offtopic</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext>How about the heaviest? Sum the weights of all HDDs plugged into Folding@Home.</htmltext>
<tokenext>How about the heaviest ?
Sum the weights of all HDDs plugged into Folding @ Home .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>How about the heaviest?
Sum the weights of all HDDs plugged into Folding@Home.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_2159259.28630805</id>
	<title>Re:There is a way!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247061480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Why not?  A previous poster already mentioned DNA!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Why not ?
A previous poster already mentioned DNA !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Why not?
A previous poster already mentioned DNA!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_2159259.28629873</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_2159259.28631761</id>
	<title>Check out DataDirect Networks S2A</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247068620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The S2A 9900, 1200 1TB drives in two racks.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The S2A 9900 , 1200 1TB drives in two racks .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The S2A 9900, 1200 1TB drives in two racks.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_2159259.28630383</id>
	<title>LTO-4</title>
	<author>fishbowl</author>
	<datestamp>1247058600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>LTO-4 tape cartridges are about half a gram of mass per gigabyte uncompressed, including the shell, so on the order of 250kg for a petabyte, but if you didn't have to store the cartridge shell it could be much less.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>LTO-4 tape cartridges are about half a gram of mass per gigabyte uncompressed , including the shell , so on the order of 250kg for a petabyte , but if you did n't have to store the cartridge shell it could be much less .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>LTO-4 tape cartridges are about half a gram of mass per gigabyte uncompressed, including the shell, so on the order of 250kg for a petabyte, but if you didn't have to store the cartridge shell it could be much less.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_2159259.28629539</id>
	<title>Compression</title>
	<author>alvinrod</author>
	<datestamp>1247053860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Assuming you're not already compressing your data, this would be a good method to make it "lighter." A quick Google search has a test which shows gzip compressing things down to between 25\% to 40\% of their original size. This pretty much makes the data useless for mining or quick lookups, but it would drop the weight of storage media required, regardless of what you're using to store it. If it's just data that needs to be stored as a backup then it shouldn't be too much of a problem.
<br> <br>
Some other poster did it in 20Kg using MicroSD cards. Use the cards and compression and you've maybe dropped it down to 5Kg with an excellent compression ratio.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Assuming you 're not already compressing your data , this would be a good method to make it " lighter .
" A quick Google search has a test which shows gzip compressing things down to between 25 \ % to 40 \ % of their original size .
This pretty much makes the data useless for mining or quick lookups , but it would drop the weight of storage media required , regardless of what you 're using to store it .
If it 's just data that needs to be stored as a backup then it should n't be too much of a problem .
Some other poster did it in 20Kg using MicroSD cards .
Use the cards and compression and you 've maybe dropped it down to 5Kg with an excellent compression ratio .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Assuming you're not already compressing your data, this would be a good method to make it "lighter.
" A quick Google search has a test which shows gzip compressing things down to between 25\% to 40\% of their original size.
This pretty much makes the data useless for mining or quick lookups, but it would drop the weight of storage media required, regardless of what you're using to store it.
If it's just data that needs to be stored as a backup then it shouldn't be too much of a problem.
Some other poster did it in 20Kg using MicroSD cards.
Use the cards and compression and you've maybe dropped it down to 5Kg with an excellent compression ratio.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_2159259.28629495</id>
	<title>A lot heavier than...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247053620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>and a lot bulkier than...</p><p>a few strands of DNA.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>and a lot bulkier than...a few strands of DNA .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>and a lot bulkier than...a few strands of DNA.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_2159259.28629249</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_2159259.28632497</id>
	<title>Re:There is a way!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247076000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Scientists aren't even close to unlocking the full potential of the human brain.  Look at people like Kim Peak and other famous autistic folks and the amazing ability they have to absorb and recall information.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Scientists are n't even close to unlocking the full potential of the human brain .
Look at people like Kim Peak and other famous autistic folks and the amazing ability they have to absorb and recall information .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Scientists aren't even close to unlocking the full potential of the human brain.
Look at people like Kim Peak and other famous autistic folks and the amazing ability they have to absorb and recall information.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_2159259.28629873</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_2159259.28630081</id>
	<title>40 KG</title>
	<author>DynaSoar</author>
	<datestamp>1247057280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>GE holographic storage disks are the size and weight of a DVD and hold 500 GB. A stack of 50 DVDs weighs about 1 KG (a bit less without the spindle and cover, but let's go with it). A stack of 50 holographic disks would hold 25 TB. 40 stacks of 50 would hold 1 PB and weigh 40 KG. Not in production, but in working prototype.</p><p>Vapor/patentware but interesting: <a href="http://colossalstorage.net/3d\_holo.htm" title="colossalstorage.net">http://colossalstorage.net/3d\_holo.htm</a> [colossalstorage.net]<br>40,000 terabits (5 petabytes) per cubic centimeter of a ferroelectric optical perovskite, specific gravity 4 give or take a fraction. 1 PB would be around a gram.<br>
&nbsp;</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>GE holographic storage disks are the size and weight of a DVD and hold 500 GB .
A stack of 50 DVDs weighs about 1 KG ( a bit less without the spindle and cover , but let 's go with it ) .
A stack of 50 holographic disks would hold 25 TB .
40 stacks of 50 would hold 1 PB and weigh 40 KG .
Not in production , but in working prototype.Vapor/patentware but interesting : http : //colossalstorage.net/3d \ _holo.htm [ colossalstorage.net ] 40,000 terabits ( 5 petabytes ) per cubic centimeter of a ferroelectric optical perovskite , specific gravity 4 give or take a fraction .
1 PB would be around a gram .
 </tokentext>
<sentencetext>GE holographic storage disks are the size and weight of a DVD and hold 500 GB.
A stack of 50 DVDs weighs about 1 KG (a bit less without the spindle and cover, but let's go with it).
A stack of 50 holographic disks would hold 25 TB.
40 stacks of 50 would hold 1 PB and weigh 40 KG.
Not in production, but in working prototype.Vapor/patentware but interesting: http://colossalstorage.net/3d\_holo.htm [colossalstorage.net]40,000 terabits (5 petabytes) per cubic centimeter of a ferroelectric optical perovskite, specific gravity 4 give or take a fraction.
1 PB would be around a gram.
 </sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_2159259.28629357</id>
	<title>but-electrons-don't-weigh-anything</title>
	<author>John Hasler</author>
	<datestamp>1247052780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Whatever gave you that idea?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Whatever gave you that idea ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Whatever gave you that idea?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_2159259.28629683</id>
	<title>Re:About 2 Kilos</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247054760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I'm no expert in this field but I think the link that you provided had underestimated the human brain by  many orders of magnitude. The human brain is not a hard drive. I don't think there is even any counterpart to it in current computer technology (maybe quantum computing?), whatever that is, so the comparison is meaningless. The brain doesn't just "store" information like a hard drive. It analyses, modifies, categorises, correlates, extrapolates, fills in missing blanks, filters and blanks out others and many other things that we are just beginning to discover. For example, a human child will quickly grasp the concept of doors and doorknobs, without any "programming" (I've had toddlers so believe me on this). This is why I think A.I. enthusiasts will ultimately fail.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm no expert in this field but I think the link that you provided had underestimated the human brain by many orders of magnitude .
The human brain is not a hard drive .
I do n't think there is even any counterpart to it in current computer technology ( maybe quantum computing ?
) , whatever that is , so the comparison is meaningless .
The brain does n't just " store " information like a hard drive .
It analyses , modifies , categorises , correlates , extrapolates , fills in missing blanks , filters and blanks out others and many other things that we are just beginning to discover .
For example , a human child will quickly grasp the concept of doors and doorknobs , without any " programming " ( I 've had toddlers so believe me on this ) .
This is why I think A.I .
enthusiasts will ultimately fail .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm no expert in this field but I think the link that you provided had underestimated the human brain by  many orders of magnitude.
The human brain is not a hard drive.
I don't think there is even any counterpart to it in current computer technology (maybe quantum computing?
), whatever that is, so the comparison is meaningless.
The brain doesn't just "store" information like a hard drive.
It analyses, modifies, categorises, correlates, extrapolates, fills in missing blanks, filters and blanks out others and many other things that we are just beginning to discover.
For example, a human child will quickly grasp the concept of doors and doorknobs, without any "programming" (I've had toddlers so believe me on this).
This is why I think A.I.
enthusiasts will ultimately fail.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_2159259.28629359</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_2159259.28632551</id>
	<title>Lighter version of the petabyte</title>
	<author>Ex-MislTech</author>
	<datestamp>1247076480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Well if you use these very light discs that will eventually be able to hole 6 Tera each,<br>then a petabyte may weigh a lot less.</p><p><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holographic\_Versatile\_Disc" title="wikipedia.org">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holographic\_Versatile\_Disc</a> [wikipedia.org]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Well if you use these very light discs that will eventually be able to hole 6 Tera each,then a petabyte may weigh a lot less.http : //en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holographic \ _Versatile \ _Disc [ wikipedia.org ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Well if you use these very light discs that will eventually be able to hole 6 Tera each,then a petabyte may weigh a lot less.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holographic\_Versatile\_Disc [wikipedia.org]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_2159259.28629435</id>
	<title>Re:Work it out in your head</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247053260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Good luck with that one. The estimates have been from megabytes to yottobytes.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Good luck with that one .
The estimates have been from megabytes to yottobytes .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Good luck with that one.
The estimates have been from megabytes to yottobytes.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_2159259.28629259</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_2159259.28629343</id>
	<title>Hell - terabytes were huge just 10 years ago</title>
	<author>Ralph Spoilsport</author>
	<datestamp>1247052720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I remember going to NAB in 1997 and some company had a terabyte system the size of a double door <a href="http://condodomain.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2007/04/sub-zero-fridge.jpg" title="condodomain.com">SubZero Fridge.</a> [condodomain.com] I thought a terabyte would be an unimaginable amount of space, then. Now I have 1.8TB of drives on my desk, and 4 TB at my office...
<p>
RS</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I remember going to NAB in 1997 and some company had a terabyte system the size of a double door SubZero Fridge .
[ condodomain.com ] I thought a terabyte would be an unimaginable amount of space , then .
Now I have 1.8TB of drives on my desk , and 4 TB at my office.. . RS</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I remember going to NAB in 1997 and some company had a terabyte system the size of a double door SubZero Fridge.
[condodomain.com] I thought a terabyte would be an unimaginable amount of space, then.
Now I have 1.8TB of drives on my desk, and 4 TB at my office...

RS</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_2159259.28632655</id>
	<title>Re:There is a way!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247077680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I think I've had nightmares where I'm attempting to do exactly that.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I think I 've had nightmares where I 'm attempting to do exactly that .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think I've had nightmares where I'm attempting to do exactly that.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_2159259.28629873</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_2159259.28633139</id>
	<title>Re:Tapes?</title>
	<author>afidel</author>
	<datestamp>1247170920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Two LTO4 tapes (1.6TB raw, 2.4TB with average compression) weigh 440 grams combined, or about half of a SATA drive. So yep, tape is about twice as dense as HDD's by weight.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Two LTO4 tapes ( 1.6TB raw , 2.4TB with average compression ) weigh 440 grams combined , or about half of a SATA drive .
So yep , tape is about twice as dense as HDD 's by weight .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Two LTO4 tapes (1.6TB raw, 2.4TB with average compression) weigh 440 grams combined, or about half of a SATA drive.
So yep, tape is about twice as dense as HDD's by weight.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_2159259.28629535</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_2159259.28630413</id>
	<title>Easy answer</title>
	<author>SIR\_Taco</author>
	<datestamp>1247058840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Redundant</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Store it in the cloud.... clouds are light, fluffy and they float, right?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Store it in the cloud.... clouds are light , fluffy and they float , right ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Store it in the cloud.... clouds are light, fluffy and they float, right?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_2159259.28632005</id>
	<title>About 0.8 micrograms</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247070540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Assuming you represent 1s and 0s as the presence/absence of an atom of aluminum on a sheet one atom thick, then it weighs (at the most, if you store all 1s) about 0.807 micrograms. This all fits onto a sheet of aluminum 1 atom (250 picometers) thick and about 3.35 by 1.67 centimeters in size. Though that would be some impressive hardware that could manipulate that.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Assuming you represent 1s and 0s as the presence/absence of an atom of aluminum on a sheet one atom thick , then it weighs ( at the most , if you store all 1s ) about 0.807 micrograms .
This all fits onto a sheet of aluminum 1 atom ( 250 picometers ) thick and about 3.35 by 1.67 centimeters in size .
Though that would be some impressive hardware that could manipulate that .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Assuming you represent 1s and 0s as the presence/absence of an atom of aluminum on a sheet one atom thick, then it weighs (at the most, if you store all 1s) about 0.807 micrograms.
This all fits onto a sheet of aluminum 1 atom (250 picometers) thick and about 3.35 by 1.67 centimeters in size.
Though that would be some impressive hardware that could manipulate that.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_2159259.28631895</id>
	<title>Re:It depends..</title>
	<author>shadowblaster</author>
	<datestamp>1247069580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I can think of one media where this actually matters: Punch cards.

The more holes there are, the lighter the media will be.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I can think of one media where this actually matters : Punch cards .
The more holes there are , the lighter the media will be .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I can think of one media where this actually matters: Punch cards.
The more holes there are, the lighter the media will be.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_2159259.28629469</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_2159259.28630503</id>
	<title>Re:Work it out in your head</title>
	<author>SoVeryTired</author>
	<datestamp>1247059500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>&lt;cute readhead kid&gt;<br>"The human head weighs eight pounds"<br>&lt;/cute readhead kid&gt;</htmltext>
<tokenext>" The human head weighs eight pounds "</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"The human head weighs eight pounds"</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_2159259.28629259</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_2159259.28629469</id>
	<title>It depends..</title>
	<author>Qwell</author>
	<datestamp>1247053380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>Are you storing mostly 1s or mostly 0s?  Everybody knows they don't weigh the same.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Are you storing mostly 1s or mostly 0s ?
Everybody knows they do n't weigh the same .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Are you storing mostly 1s or mostly 0s?
Everybody knows they don't weigh the same.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_2159259.28629873</id>
	<title>Re:There is a way!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247055900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Insightful? Assuming you can perfectly remember 1 byte per second, you'd be memorizing for over 100 million years. The human brain is great and all that, but no way are you going to store that much data while being able to reproduce it later.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Insightful ?
Assuming you can perfectly remember 1 byte per second , you 'd be memorizing for over 100 million years .
The human brain is great and all that , but no way are you going to store that much data while being able to reproduce it later .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Insightful?
Assuming you can perfectly remember 1 byte per second, you'd be memorizing for over 100 million years.
The human brain is great and all that, but no way are you going to store that much data while being able to reproduce it later.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_2159259.28629319</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_2159259.28629739</id>
	<title>Re:Mass!=Weight</title>
	<author>Your.Master</author>
	<datestamp>1247055060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Fine, it's 365 KG times the gravitational acceleration where it is present.  Around 3600 Newtons.  Happy?<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Fine , it 's 365 KG times the gravitational acceleration where it is present .
Around 3600 Newtons .
Happy ? : )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Fine, it's 365 KG times the gravitational acceleration where it is present.
Around 3600 Newtons.
Happy? :)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_2159259.28629617</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_2159259.28629261</id>
	<title>All in one rack</title>
	<author>symbolset</author>
	<datestamp>1247052240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>A PB now fits in one rack also.</htmltext>
<tokenext>A PB now fits in one rack also .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>A PB now fits in one rack also.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_2159259.28632081</id>
	<title>Re:library of congress</title>
	<author>mysidia</author>
	<datestamp>1247071140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>
We know how <b>wide</b> a year is; 1 year is the duration it takes earth to make a complete orbit about the sun.  The orbital speed of Earth is approximately 30 km/s, so the approximate length of the orbit is 950 gigameters.
</p><p>
Earth's orbital width from the sun averages 150 million kilometers.
</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>We know how wide a year is ; 1 year is the duration it takes earth to make a complete orbit about the sun .
The orbital speed of Earth is approximately 30 km/s , so the approximate length of the orbit is 950 gigameters .
Earth 's orbital width from the sun averages 150 million kilometers .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>
We know how wide a year is; 1 year is the duration it takes earth to make a complete orbit about the sun.
The orbital speed of Earth is approximately 30 km/s, so the approximate length of the orbit is 950 gigameters.
Earth's orbital width from the sun averages 150 million kilometers.
</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_2159259.28629609</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_2159259.28629887</id>
	<title>Infinite free data-storage for everyone!</title>
	<author>rawler</author>
	<datestamp>1247056020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>My<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/dev/null is light and very fast to write to. Just remember though, when you want to find that data, you'll find it have magically been moved to<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/dev/urandom. Be wary though, since<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/dev/urandom actually encrypts the data for you, it is just THAT cool! To decrypt, it's really simple, you just read a chunk X from<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/dev/urandom, and the same chunk Y from the original data, and do X XOR X XOR Y, and wee, you've just stored infinite amounts of data in under one gram!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>My /dev/null is light and very fast to write to .
Just remember though , when you want to find that data , you 'll find it have magically been moved to /dev/urandom .
Be wary though , since /dev/urandom actually encrypts the data for you , it is just THAT cool !
To decrypt , it 's really simple , you just read a chunk X from /dev/urandom , and the same chunk Y from the original data , and do X XOR X XOR Y , and wee , you 've just stored infinite amounts of data in under one gram !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>My /dev/null is light and very fast to write to.
Just remember though, when you want to find that data, you'll find it have magically been moved to /dev/urandom.
Be wary though, since /dev/urandom actually encrypts the data for you, it is just THAT cool!
To decrypt, it's really simple, you just read a chunk X from /dev/urandom, and the same chunk Y from the original data, and do X XOR X XOR Y, and wee, you've just stored infinite amounts of data in under one gram!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_2159259.28630663</id>
	<title>like the body or the subject!)</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247060460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>According to this website<br>http://www.consumer.philips.com/consumer/en/ph/consumer/cc/\_productid\_FM32FD05B\_97\_PH\_CONSUMER/USB-Flash-Drive+FM32FD05B-97<br>1PB = 822.8 kg<br>or this site<br>http://www.compusa.com/applications/SearchTools/item-details.asp?EdpNo=4484940&amp;CatId=2413<br>1 PB = 81.92 kg</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>According to this websitehttp : //www.consumer.philips.com/consumer/en/ph/consumer/cc/ \ _productid \ _FM32FD05B \ _97 \ _PH \ _CONSUMER/USB-Flash-Drive + FM32FD05B-971PB = 822.8 kgor this sitehttp : //www.compusa.com/applications/SearchTools/item-details.asp ? EdpNo = 4484940&amp;CatId = 24131 PB = 81.92 kg</tokentext>
<sentencetext>According to this websitehttp://www.consumer.philips.com/consumer/en/ph/consumer/cc/\_productid\_FM32FD05B\_97\_PH\_CONSUMER/USB-Flash-Drive+FM32FD05B-971PB = 822.8 kgor this sitehttp://www.compusa.com/applications/SearchTools/item-details.asp?EdpNo=4484940&amp;CatId=24131 PB = 81.92 kg</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_2159259.28630341</id>
	<title>Re:Tapes?</title>
	<author>cruff</author>
	<datestamp>1247058300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This is right.  1,000 one TB tape cartridges does not too much.  Until you need the robotic tape library in which to store it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This is right .
1,000 one TB tape cartridges does not too much .
Until you need the robotic tape library in which to store it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is right.
1,000 one TB tape cartridges does not too much.
Until you need the robotic tape library in which to store it.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_2159259.28629535</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_2159259.28632185</id>
	<title>Re:A lot heavier than...</title>
	<author>GigsVT</author>
	<datestamp>1247072100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>See, all you have to do is get a steel bar and cut it to the precise length, to the 1,000,000,000,000,000th place.  There you go, 1PB worth of data in a small space.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>See , all you have to do is get a steel bar and cut it to the precise length , to the 1,000,000,000,000,000th place .
There you go , 1PB worth of data in a small space .
: )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>See, all you have to do is get a steel bar and cut it to the precise length, to the 1,000,000,000,000,000th place.
There you go, 1PB worth of data in a small space.
:)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_2159259.28629495</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_2159259.28629659</id>
	<title>Re:About 2 Kilos</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247054520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Thanks a lot.  My brain used to hold 500 to 1000TB, but clicking through to Geocities filled it with uselessness.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Thanks a lot .
My brain used to hold 500 to 1000TB , but clicking through to Geocities filled it with uselessness .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Thanks a lot.
My brain used to hold 500 to 1000TB, but clicking through to Geocities filled it with uselessness.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_2159259.28629359</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_2159259.28638017</id>
	<title>how much does a petabyte weigh?</title>
	<author>Matz0r</author>
	<datestamp>1247160180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If you subtract the storage medium?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If you subtract the storage medium ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If you subtract the storage medium?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_2159259.28631123</id>
	<title>Re:library of congress</title>
	<author>sillybilly</author>
	<datestamp>1247063820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>They are asking about the current state of technology - what is the lightest current practical means for us to store 1 petabyte of information. Theoretical, unpractical or ultra extremely costly does not count - it has to be something readily doable with current technology. For instance there is a world record of smallest engravings at the atomic scale, or even smaller, (standing waves in the electron cloud); writing a petabyte like that is not practical, or off the chart as far as expense goes. They are interested in things like dvd disk pile vs. lightest pocket harddrive pile vs. something esoteric such as 3d optical type storage in the form of holograms. All of these methods would be very expensive when ultralight weight is sought, but at least they would not be off the chart, when compared to the cheapest means of storing 1 petabyte, where weight is not an issue. This is a very meaningful question to ask in 2009, then again in 2019, etc.</htmltext>
<tokenext>They are asking about the current state of technology - what is the lightest current practical means for us to store 1 petabyte of information .
Theoretical , unpractical or ultra extremely costly does not count - it has to be something readily doable with current technology .
For instance there is a world record of smallest engravings at the atomic scale , or even smaller , ( standing waves in the electron cloud ) ; writing a petabyte like that is not practical , or off the chart as far as expense goes .
They are interested in things like dvd disk pile vs. lightest pocket harddrive pile vs. something esoteric such as 3d optical type storage in the form of holograms .
All of these methods would be very expensive when ultralight weight is sought , but at least they would not be off the chart , when compared to the cheapest means of storing 1 petabyte , where weight is not an issue .
This is a very meaningful question to ask in 2009 , then again in 2019 , etc .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>They are asking about the current state of technology - what is the lightest current practical means for us to store 1 petabyte of information.
Theoretical, unpractical or ultra extremely costly does not count - it has to be something readily doable with current technology.
For instance there is a world record of smallest engravings at the atomic scale, or even smaller, (standing waves in the electron cloud); writing a petabyte like that is not practical, or off the chart as far as expense goes.
They are interested in things like dvd disk pile vs. lightest pocket harddrive pile vs. something esoteric such as 3d optical type storage in the form of holograms.
All of these methods would be very expensive when ultralight weight is sought, but at least they would not be off the chart, when compared to the cheapest means of storing 1 petabyte, where weight is not an issue.
This is a very meaningful question to ask in 2009, then again in 2019, etc.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_2159259.28629609</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_2159259.28634055</id>
	<title>Theoretical and hyptothetical</title>
	<author>pengipengi</author>
	<datestamp>1247137800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I would say approximatly 15ng (nanogram). If you store each bit in a seperate hydrogen atom in some magic way.</p><p>If you instead use carbon atoms, and each bit has one other atom as a link to some magic intrastructure, the weight will be 360ng.</p><p>And for silicon, two atoms per bit: 840ng</p><p>Lets say a storage device of 100g is acceptable, then it can contain an 113ZiB of above silicon storage (ZiB = zettabyte with base 1024... called zibibyte?)</p><p>Note: this is just hypothetical...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I would say approximatly 15ng ( nanogram ) .
If you store each bit in a seperate hydrogen atom in some magic way.If you instead use carbon atoms , and each bit has one other atom as a link to some magic intrastructure , the weight will be 360ng.And for silicon , two atoms per bit : 840ngLets say a storage device of 100g is acceptable , then it can contain an 113ZiB of above silicon storage ( ZiB = zettabyte with base 1024... called zibibyte ?
) Note : this is just hypothetical.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I would say approximatly 15ng (nanogram).
If you store each bit in a seperate hydrogen atom in some magic way.If you instead use carbon atoms, and each bit has one other atom as a link to some magic intrastructure, the weight will be 360ng.And for silicon, two atoms per bit: 840ngLets say a storage device of 100g is acceptable, then it can contain an 113ZiB of above silicon storage (ZiB = zettabyte with base 1024... called zibibyte?
)Note: this is just hypothetical...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_2159259.28633983</id>
	<title>Citation needed....</title>
	<author>rizole</author>
	<datestamp>1247137140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><a href="http://uncyclopedia.wikia.com/wiki/Kilobyte" title="wikia.com" rel="nofollow">http://uncyclopedia.wikia.com/wiki/Kilobyte</a> [wikia.com]</htmltext>
<tokenext>http : //uncyclopedia.wikia.com/wiki/Kilobyte [ wikia.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>http://uncyclopedia.wikia.com/wiki/Kilobyte [wikia.com]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_2159259.28629385</id>
	<title>"But is there a lighter way to store a Petabyte?"</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247052900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Sure.  Store it in a WOM chip.  They only weigh a few grams, hold literally unlimited data, and are really fast.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Sure .
Store it in a WOM chip .
They only weigh a few grams , hold literally unlimited data , and are really fast .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Sure.
Store it in a WOM chip.
They only weigh a few grams, hold literally unlimited data, and are really fast.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_2159259.28629301</id>
	<title>About the weight of a floppy</title>
	<author>Itninja</author>
	<datestamp>1247052540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>LINE 10 PRINT "byte"<br> <br>
LINE 20 goto 10 REPEAT 8.881784197E-16
<br> <br>
Then you wait for long time.....</htmltext>
<tokenext>LINE 10 PRINT " byte " LINE 20 goto 10 REPEAT 8.881784197E-16 Then you wait for long time.... .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>LINE 10 PRINT "byte" 
LINE 20 goto 10 REPEAT 8.881784197E-16
 
Then you wait for long time.....</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_2159259.28631007</id>
	<title>I only need 1 more piece of information:</title>
	<author>olsmeister</author>
	<datestamp>1247062800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>How fast are we moving?</htmltext>
<tokenext>How fast are we moving ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>How fast are we moving?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_2159259.28629927</id>
	<title>Forget the LOC unit</title>
	<author>Yvan256</author>
	<datestamp>1247056260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It seems the new unit is the 1980's, judging from the few last posts.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It seems the new unit is the 1980 's , judging from the few last posts .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It seems the new unit is the 1980's, judging from the few last posts.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_2159259.28629311</id>
	<title>Over 9000</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247052540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Honestly, it is.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Honestly , it is .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Honestly, it is.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_2159259.28635919</id>
	<title>O kgs if it is light</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247151900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I put all my data on to an ecrypted laser beam and launch it into space.<br>If I ever want it again I just have to get into my FTL spaceship and get in front of the data.<br>But then none of my data is really heavy.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I put all my data on to an ecrypted laser beam and launch it into space.If I ever want it again I just have to get into my FTL spaceship and get in front of the data.But then none of my data is really heavy .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I put all my data on to an ecrypted laser beam and launch it into space.If I ever want it again I just have to get into my FTL spaceship and get in front of the data.But then none of my data is really heavy.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_2159259.28646445</id>
	<title>What is the largest file ever created?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247167440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I am wondering if you need to register with the state for having a file with one petabyte of data.</p><p>After all it would be considered a petafile, correct?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I am wondering if you need to register with the state for having a file with one petabyte of data.After all it would be considered a petafile , correct ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I am wondering if you need to register with the state for having a file with one petabyte of data.After all it would be considered a petafile, correct?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_2159259.28630489</id>
	<title>Re:About 2 Kilos</title>
	<author>EventHorizon\_pc</author>
	<datestamp>1247059440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If you just think of the bits stored in the brain, perhaps you'd overestimate the pure storage of it due to the brains automatic decompression (by the methods listed in parent post) of the data.  The link to geocities seems like it may overestimate due to the assumption that all synapse junctions represent 8 bits (256 levels) of *recoverable* data (though they give the possibility of storage at the molecular level).  It also does not distinguish parts of the brain that can possibly store data with parts that have more a computational purpose.</p><p>Perhaps we should use an estimate by studying how much data with extremely low entropy/redundancy someone can memorize.  83,431 digits of pi were recited by Akira Haraguchi.  Each digit is worth essentially 3.3 bits, so that makes it around 275000 bits.  Of course, he knows a lot more than just the digits of pi, but that's how much "brain space" he was able to "allocate" to memorizing pi.</p><p>Perhaps if we could determine the average number of memories a person can remember and the average bits to store the average memory (compressed, of course), then we could come up with another estimate.  Though this would ignore any type of specialized memory.</p><p>But really, I have no idea.  Of course, if you don't care about recovering data with any type of speed then you could store everything as just an array of atoms or subatomic particles.</p><p>As for the doors and doorknobs example, are you sure the toddler never watched you use a door before they got to try it?  Learning by imitation (which seems innate) is a powerful thing.  I think AI research will keep bootstrapping along, but the development of true AI does seem like a rather impossible goal.  How would you program consciousness anyway?  Could it ever truly be conscious/sentient?  Then again... are we just complex computers?  What is our subconscious doing?  Perhaps it is more like a machine interpreting code than we think.  And perhaps *SEGMENTATION FAULT*</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If you just think of the bits stored in the brain , perhaps you 'd overestimate the pure storage of it due to the brains automatic decompression ( by the methods listed in parent post ) of the data .
The link to geocities seems like it may overestimate due to the assumption that all synapse junctions represent 8 bits ( 256 levels ) of * recoverable * data ( though they give the possibility of storage at the molecular level ) .
It also does not distinguish parts of the brain that can possibly store data with parts that have more a computational purpose.Perhaps we should use an estimate by studying how much data with extremely low entropy/redundancy someone can memorize .
83,431 digits of pi were recited by Akira Haraguchi .
Each digit is worth essentially 3.3 bits , so that makes it around 275000 bits .
Of course , he knows a lot more than just the digits of pi , but that 's how much " brain space " he was able to " allocate " to memorizing pi.Perhaps if we could determine the average number of memories a person can remember and the average bits to store the average memory ( compressed , of course ) , then we could come up with another estimate .
Though this would ignore any type of specialized memory.But really , I have no idea .
Of course , if you do n't care about recovering data with any type of speed then you could store everything as just an array of atoms or subatomic particles.As for the doors and doorknobs example , are you sure the toddler never watched you use a door before they got to try it ?
Learning by imitation ( which seems innate ) is a powerful thing .
I think AI research will keep bootstrapping along , but the development of true AI does seem like a rather impossible goal .
How would you program consciousness anyway ?
Could it ever truly be conscious/sentient ?
Then again... are we just complex computers ?
What is our subconscious doing ?
Perhaps it is more like a machine interpreting code than we think .
And perhaps * SEGMENTATION FAULT *</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If you just think of the bits stored in the brain, perhaps you'd overestimate the pure storage of it due to the brains automatic decompression (by the methods listed in parent post) of the data.
The link to geocities seems like it may overestimate due to the assumption that all synapse junctions represent 8 bits (256 levels) of *recoverable* data (though they give the possibility of storage at the molecular level).
It also does not distinguish parts of the brain that can possibly store data with parts that have more a computational purpose.Perhaps we should use an estimate by studying how much data with extremely low entropy/redundancy someone can memorize.
83,431 digits of pi were recited by Akira Haraguchi.
Each digit is worth essentially 3.3 bits, so that makes it around 275000 bits.
Of course, he knows a lot more than just the digits of pi, but that's how much "brain space" he was able to "allocate" to memorizing pi.Perhaps if we could determine the average number of memories a person can remember and the average bits to store the average memory (compressed, of course), then we could come up with another estimate.
Though this would ignore any type of specialized memory.But really, I have no idea.
Of course, if you don't care about recovering data with any type of speed then you could store everything as just an array of atoms or subatomic particles.As for the doors and doorknobs example, are you sure the toddler never watched you use a door before they got to try it?
Learning by imitation (which seems innate) is a powerful thing.
I think AI research will keep bootstrapping along, but the development of true AI does seem like a rather impossible goal.
How would you program consciousness anyway?
Could it ever truly be conscious/sentient?
Then again... are we just complex computers?
What is our subconscious doing?
Perhaps it is more like a machine interpreting code than we think.
And perhaps *SEGMENTATION FAULT*</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_2159259.28629683</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_2159259.28641637</id>
	<title>Re:How much does a "full" HDD weigh vs. an empty H</title>
	<author>DamnStupidElf</author>
	<datestamp>1247131200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>A full drive is going to weigh a bit more from all the dust that gets sucked in while filling it up.  A running drive in a perfect clean room would weigh a little bit less because the air inside would warm up and have a lower density.  The frame dragging effect of the rotating disk platters might affect the apparent weight a bit, too.</htmltext>
<tokenext>A full drive is going to weigh a bit more from all the dust that gets sucked in while filling it up .
A running drive in a perfect clean room would weigh a little bit less because the air inside would warm up and have a lower density .
The frame dragging effect of the rotating disk platters might affect the apparent weight a bit , too .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>A full drive is going to weigh a bit more from all the dust that gets sucked in while filling it up.
A running drive in a perfect clean room would weigh a little bit less because the air inside would warm up and have a lower density.
The frame dragging effect of the rotating disk platters might affect the apparent weight a bit, too.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_2159259.28629453</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_2159259.28650765</id>
	<title>Re:Minimum mass of a Petabyte</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247244480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The answer is "infinitely close to zero".</p><p>Here's how: you get a laser, and transmit information via that to another galaxy (figure out some gravitational thingie that would loop the laser back to you).</p><p>Millions of light years later, you would've "stored" a huge amount of information in that laser beam (that is still traveling!).</p><p>Those photons don't have measurable mass (in order to read info, you'd have to destroy the laser beam).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The answer is " infinitely close to zero " .Here 's how : you get a laser , and transmit information via that to another galaxy ( figure out some gravitational thingie that would loop the laser back to you ) .Millions of light years later , you would 've " stored " a huge amount of information in that laser beam ( that is still traveling !
) .Those photons do n't have measurable mass ( in order to read info , you 'd have to destroy the laser beam ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The answer is "infinitely close to zero".Here's how: you get a laser, and transmit information via that to another galaxy (figure out some gravitational thingie that would loop the laser back to you).Millions of light years later, you would've "stored" a huge amount of information in that laser beam (that is still traveling!
).Those photons don't have measurable mass (in order to read info, you'd have to destroy the laser beam).</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_2159259.28629393</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_2159259.28630559</id>
	<title>How about 2000 pounds? 20 4U storage. For $173K</title>
	<author>MrRayliu</author>
	<datestamp>1247059860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Offtopic</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Yes, you can get 1 Petabyte server with only 20 storage servers now. These are available now.</p><p>Here is the spec. You would need only 20 units for 1 Petabyte.  Thanks for reading!</p><p>Qty    Description<br>1    KING STAR 4U SYSTEM SERVON XS413<br>1    MB SM XEON X7DBE Motherboard<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; Integrated ESB2 6-port SATAII Controller, RAID 0, 1, 5, 10 support<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; Integrated Intel 82563EB Dual-Port Gigabit Ethernet Controller<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; Integrated ATI ES1000 16MB Graphics"<br>2    CPU XEON QUAD CORE 2.66 12M 1333 E5430<br>2    FAN SM 2U XEON SNK-P0018..DEMPSEY LGA771 PASSIVE<br>2    MEM DDRII 667 4GB FB-DIMM<br>1    CO SM AOC-SIMLP-B+<br>1    LSI Logic MegaRAID SAS 84016E 16-port 3Gb/s PCI-Express SAS/SATA RAID Adapter<br>24    HD SATAII 2TB WD  WD20EADS<br>2    HD SATAII 2TB WD  WD20EADS<br>1    CASE SUPERMICRO SC846E1-R900B</p><p>Ray Liu<br>King Star Computer<br>1259 Reamwood Ave<br>Sunnyvale, CA 94089<br>Tel: 408-736-8590 x108<br>Fax: 408-736-4151<br>www.kingstarusa.com<br>ray at kingstarusa.com</p><p>Rackmount Server Specialist</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Yes , you can get 1 Petabyte server with only 20 storage servers now .
These are available now.Here is the spec .
You would need only 20 units for 1 Petabyte .
Thanks for reading ! Qty Description1 KING STAR 4U SYSTEM SERVON XS4131 MB SM XEON X7DBE Motherboard                 Integrated ESB2 6-port SATAII Controller , RAID 0 , 1 , 5 , 10 support                 Integrated Intel 82563EB Dual-Port Gigabit Ethernet Controller                 Integrated ATI ES1000 16MB Graphics " 2 CPU XEON QUAD CORE 2.66 12M 1333 E54302 FAN SM 2U XEON SNK-P0018..DEMPSEY LGA771 PASSIVE2 MEM DDRII 667 4GB FB-DIMM1 CO SM AOC-SIMLP-B + 1 LSI Logic MegaRAID SAS 84016E 16-port 3Gb/s PCI-Express SAS/SATA RAID Adapter24 HD SATAII 2TB WD WD20EADS2 HD SATAII 2TB WD WD20EADS1 CASE SUPERMICRO SC846E1-R900BRay LiuKing Star Computer1259 Reamwood AveSunnyvale , CA 94089Tel : 408-736-8590 x108Fax : 408-736-4151www.kingstarusa.comray at kingstarusa.comRackmount Server Specialist</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yes, you can get 1 Petabyte server with only 20 storage servers now.
These are available now.Here is the spec.
You would need only 20 units for 1 Petabyte.
Thanks for reading!Qty    Description1    KING STAR 4U SYSTEM SERVON XS4131    MB SM XEON X7DBE Motherboard
                Integrated ESB2 6-port SATAII Controller, RAID 0, 1, 5, 10 support
                Integrated Intel 82563EB Dual-Port Gigabit Ethernet Controller
                Integrated ATI ES1000 16MB Graphics"2    CPU XEON QUAD CORE 2.66 12M 1333 E54302    FAN SM 2U XEON SNK-P0018..DEMPSEY LGA771 PASSIVE2    MEM DDRII 667 4GB FB-DIMM1    CO SM AOC-SIMLP-B+1    LSI Logic MegaRAID SAS 84016E 16-port 3Gb/s PCI-Express SAS/SATA RAID Adapter24    HD SATAII 2TB WD  WD20EADS2    HD SATAII 2TB WD  WD20EADS1    CASE SUPERMICRO SC846E1-R900BRay LiuKing Star Computer1259 Reamwood AveSunnyvale, CA 94089Tel: 408-736-8590 x108Fax: 408-736-4151www.kingstarusa.comray at kingstarusa.comRackmount Server Specialist</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_2159259.28632993</id>
	<title>I know</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247082060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I found a lighter storage method. My shift + del keys together have a mass of 10 grams.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I found a lighter storage method .
My shift + del keys together have a mass of 10 grams .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I found a lighter storage method.
My shift + del keys together have a mass of 10 grams.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_2159259.28630145</id>
	<title>Re:Work it out in your head</title>
	<author>mevets</author>
	<datestamp>1247057520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I think the skull can hold about 2 litres, depending what you put in it, you might be able to soak up a good bit of that with the spongy stuff. Why?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I think the skull can hold about 2 litres , depending what you put in it , you might be able to soak up a good bit of that with the spongy stuff .
Why ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think the skull can hold about 2 litres, depending what you put in it, you might be able to soak up a good bit of that with the spongy stuff.
Why?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_2159259.28629259</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_2159259.28630701</id>
	<title>And what about backups?</title>
	<author>peterwayner</author>
	<datestamp>1247060640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It's one thing to take your chances and ignore failures when you're storing a gig or two. But once you've got 1024 or 512 disk drives spinning away, one of them is going to fail and you don't know which one it will be.</p><p>So maybe to store a petabyte, you've really got to store two copies of a petabyte. That doubles the weight.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's one thing to take your chances and ignore failures when you 're storing a gig or two .
But once you 've got 1024 or 512 disk drives spinning away , one of them is going to fail and you do n't know which one it will be.So maybe to store a petabyte , you 've really got to store two copies of a petabyte .
That doubles the weight .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's one thing to take your chances and ignore failures when you're storing a gig or two.
But once you've got 1024 or 512 disk drives spinning away, one of them is going to fail and you don't know which one it will be.So maybe to store a petabyte, you've really got to store two copies of a petabyte.
That doubles the weight.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_2159259.28630783</id>
	<title>An old and proven storage technology</title>
	<author>mbunch</author>
	<datestamp>1247061240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>A single particle of Autographa californica nuclear polyhedrosis virus has a mass of about <a href="http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2004/11/041108023349.htm" title="sciencedaily.com" rel="nofollow">1.5 femtograms</a> [sciencedaily.com], and its genome is <a href="http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/257/5075/1382" title="sciencemag.org" rel="nofollow">128 kilobases</a> [sciencemag.org].  If my calucaltions are right, you could store 1PB in 100 milligrams of virus particles. This was the only virus I've managed to find both figures for, so this result can probably be improved. For what I know, viruses can survive pretty harsh conditions, and this is a DNA virus, and DNA has two strands, so you're basically getting a RAID1. And it's the most popular data storage format on this planet.</htmltext>
<tokenext>A single particle of Autographa californica nuclear polyhedrosis virus has a mass of about 1.5 femtograms [ sciencedaily.com ] , and its genome is 128 kilobases [ sciencemag.org ] .
If my calucaltions are right , you could store 1PB in 100 milligrams of virus particles .
This was the only virus I 've managed to find both figures for , so this result can probably be improved .
For what I know , viruses can survive pretty harsh conditions , and this is a DNA virus , and DNA has two strands , so you 're basically getting a RAID1 .
And it 's the most popular data storage format on this planet .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>A single particle of Autographa californica nuclear polyhedrosis virus has a mass of about 1.5 femtograms [sciencedaily.com], and its genome is 128 kilobases [sciencemag.org].
If my calucaltions are right, you could store 1PB in 100 milligrams of virus particles.
This was the only virus I've managed to find both figures for, so this result can probably be improved.
For what I know, viruses can survive pretty harsh conditions, and this is a DNA virus, and DNA has two strands, so you're basically getting a RAID1.
And it's the most popular data storage format on this planet.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_2159259.28631807</id>
	<title>Re:There is a way!</title>
	<author>HeadlessNotAHorseman</author>
	<datestamp>1247068860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>&gt;&gt;Insightful? Assuming you can perfectly remember 1 byte per second, you'd be memorizing for over 100 million years.<br>&gt;&gt;The human brain is great and all that, but no way are you going to store that much data while being able to reproduce it later.</p><p>Actually, it would not be quite that difficult if the data consisted of pictures. If we take the IA-60 <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Word\_(computing)" title="wikipedia.org" rel="nofollow">definition of Word</a> [wikipedia.org] as 8 bytes. And <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A\_picture\_is\_worth\_a\_thousand\_words" title="wikipedia.org" rel="nofollow"> a picture is worth 1000 words</a> [wikipedia.org]. So that's a total of about 137,438,954 images to memorise, which at a rate of 1 per second would take <a href="http://www.google.com.au/search?hl=en&amp;client=firefox-a&amp;rls=org.mozilla\%3Aen-GB\%3Aofficial&amp;hs=fEk&amp;q=137438953.472+seconds+in+years&amp;btnG=Search&amp;meta=" title="google.com.au" rel="nofollow">4.4 years</a> [google.com.au].</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>&gt; &gt; Insightful ?
Assuming you can perfectly remember 1 byte per second , you 'd be memorizing for over 100 million years. &gt; &gt; The human brain is great and all that , but no way are you going to store that much data while being able to reproduce it later.Actually , it would not be quite that difficult if the data consisted of pictures .
If we take the IA-60 definition of Word [ wikipedia.org ] as 8 bytes .
And a picture is worth 1000 words [ wikipedia.org ] .
So that 's a total of about 137,438,954 images to memorise , which at a rate of 1 per second would take 4.4 years [ google.com.au ] .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>&gt;&gt;Insightful?
Assuming you can perfectly remember 1 byte per second, you'd be memorizing for over 100 million years.&gt;&gt;The human brain is great and all that, but no way are you going to store that much data while being able to reproduce it later.Actually, it would not be quite that difficult if the data consisted of pictures.
If we take the IA-60 definition of Word [wikipedia.org] as 8 bytes.
And  a picture is worth 1000 words [wikipedia.org].
So that's a total of about 137,438,954 images to memorise, which at a rate of 1 per second would take 4.4 years [google.com.au].</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_2159259.28629873</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_2159259.28630659</id>
	<title>Re:It depends..</title>
	<author>Z00L00K</author>
	<datestamp>1247060400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Explain the Cobol thing!</p><p>Not that I like it either, but it's sure going to be funny for others to read, or maybe it's worth a post at <a href="http://thedailywtf.com/" title="thedailywtf.com">The Daily WTF</a> [thedailywtf.com].</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Explain the Cobol thing ! Not that I like it either , but it 's sure going to be funny for others to read , or maybe it 's worth a post at The Daily WTF [ thedailywtf.com ] .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Explain the Cobol thing!Not that I like it either, but it's sure going to be funny for others to read, or maybe it's worth a post at The Daily WTF [thedailywtf.com].</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_2159259.28629469</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_2159259.28631333</id>
	<title>Re:Minimum mass of a Petabyte</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247065560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Seth Lloyd explores the physical limits based on quantum mechanical and thermodynamic laws.  He concludes that the the ultimate laptop constrained to 1 kg in 1 liter would<br>perform 5.4258 210^50 logicall operations per second on ~10^31 bits.  If one uses 10^31 bits / kg, then it would the minimum mass required to store 10 petabyte (10^15 bytes) would be   10^-16 kg.</p><p>Seth's article is here: http://puhep1.princeton.edu/~mcdonald/examples/QM/lloyd\_nature\_406\_1047\_00.pdf</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Seth Lloyd explores the physical limits based on quantum mechanical and thermodynamic laws .
He concludes that the the ultimate laptop constrained to 1 kg in 1 liter wouldperform 5.4258 210 ^ 50 logicall operations per second on ~ 10 ^ 31 bits .
If one uses 10 ^ 31 bits / kg , then it would the minimum mass required to store 10 petabyte ( 10 ^ 15 bytes ) would be 10 ^ -16 kg.Seth 's article is here : http : //puhep1.princeton.edu/ ~ mcdonald/examples/QM/lloyd \ _nature \ _406 \ _1047 \ _00.pdf</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Seth Lloyd explores the physical limits based on quantum mechanical and thermodynamic laws.
He concludes that the the ultimate laptop constrained to 1 kg in 1 liter wouldperform 5.4258 210^50 logicall operations per second on ~10^31 bits.
If one uses 10^31 bits / kg, then it would the minimum mass required to store 10 petabyte (10^15 bytes) would be   10^-16 kg.Seth's article is here: http://puhep1.princeton.edu/~mcdonald/examples/QM/lloyd\_nature\_406\_1047\_00.pdf</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_2159259.28629393</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_2159259.28629615</id>
	<title>Re:Work it out in your head</title>
	<author>clarkkent09</author>
	<datestamp>1247054280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Well according to this about 500-1000 terabytes: <a href="http://www.geocities.com/rnseitz/The\_Great\_Gray\_Ravelled\_Knot.htm" title="geocities.com">http://www.geocities.com/rnseitz/The\_Great\_Gray\_Ravelled\_Knot.htm</a> [geocities.com] <br> <br>So, with the average weight of 3 pounds, you can store 1 petabyte in 3-6 pounds of brain (1.3kg to 2.6kg).</htmltext>
<tokenext>Well according to this about 500-1000 terabytes : http : //www.geocities.com/rnseitz/The \ _Great \ _Gray \ _Ravelled \ _Knot.htm [ geocities.com ] So , with the average weight of 3 pounds , you can store 1 petabyte in 3-6 pounds of brain ( 1.3kg to 2.6kg ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Well according to this about 500-1000 terabytes: http://www.geocities.com/rnseitz/The\_Great\_Gray\_Ravelled\_Knot.htm [geocities.com]  So, with the average weight of 3 pounds, you can store 1 petabyte in 3-6 pounds of brain (1.3kg to 2.6kg).</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_2159259.28629259</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_2159259.28633021</id>
	<title>Anyone remember paper storage?</title>
	<author>wagnerrp</author>
	<datestamp>1247082480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>There was an article a couple years back where some Indian engineering student claimed some 2.7GB/in^2, or 4.1TB/m^2, in some 'rainbow format'.  With standard office paper at 80g/m^2, that puts a petabyte at 250 sheets and 20kg.</htmltext>
<tokenext>There was an article a couple years back where some Indian engineering student claimed some 2.7GB/in ^ 2 , or 4.1TB/m ^ 2 , in some 'rainbow format' .
With standard office paper at 80g/m ^ 2 , that puts a petabyte at 250 sheets and 20kg .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There was an article a couple years back where some Indian engineering student claimed some 2.7GB/in^2, or 4.1TB/m^2, in some 'rainbow format'.
With standard office paper at 80g/m^2, that puts a petabyte at 250 sheets and 20kg.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_2159259.28629535</id>
	<title>Tapes?</title>
	<author>ObsessiveMathsFreak</author>
	<datestamp>1247053860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>What about TB tapes? I assume those would still weigh less than their Hard drive equivalents. For that matter, what about high density optical media? Does a 2TB Hard drive still weigh less than 40 Blu-Rays? I have no idea, but I'm guessing tap at least might still weigh less.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>What about TB tapes ?
I assume those would still weigh less than their Hard drive equivalents .
For that matter , what about high density optical media ?
Does a 2TB Hard drive still weigh less than 40 Blu-Rays ?
I have no idea , but I 'm guessing tap at least might still weigh less .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What about TB tapes?
I assume those would still weigh less than their Hard drive equivalents.
For that matter, what about high density optical media?
Does a 2TB Hard drive still weigh less than 40 Blu-Rays?
I have no idea, but I'm guessing tap at least might still weigh less.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_2159259.28629545</id>
	<title>Re:Theoretically quite close to zero ...</title>
	<author>jd</author>
	<datestamp>1247053920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>There was a way discussed on Slashdot a while back on how to slow light to around 30 miles per hour.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>There was a way discussed on Slashdot a while back on how to slow light to around 30 miles per hour .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There was a way discussed on Slashdot a while back on how to slow light to around 30 miles per hour.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_2159259.28629367</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_2159259.28629601</id>
	<title>Try using Micro SD cards instead</title>
	<author>kroyd</author>
	<datestamp>1247054220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>With 32gb cards weighting 0.5 grams one terabyte should require 32 cards, or 16 grams. 1024 terabytes should then weight 16384 grams, or a bit more than 16kg.
<p>
I don't think there is a storage media with higher density available commercially right now - and probably not until the 64GB microsd cards becomes available.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>With 32gb cards weighting 0.5 grams one terabyte should require 32 cards , or 16 grams .
1024 terabytes should then weight 16384 grams , or a bit more than 16kg .
I do n't think there is a storage media with higher density available commercially right now - and probably not until the 64GB microsd cards becomes available .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>With 32gb cards weighting 0.5 grams one terabyte should require 32 cards, or 16 grams.
1024 terabytes should then weight 16384 grams, or a bit more than 16kg.
I don't think there is a storage media with higher density available commercially right now - and probably not until the 64GB microsd cards becomes available.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_2159259.28629367</id>
	<title>Theoretically quite close to zero ...</title>
	<author>debrain</author>
	<datestamp>1247052780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>... if you transmit it into space encoded in waves of light. Of course, you have to travel faster than light to get ahead of the signal and read it again<nobr> <wbr></nobr>...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>... if you transmit it into space encoded in waves of light .
Of course , you have to travel faster than light to get ahead of the signal and read it again .. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>... if you transmit it into space encoded in waves of light.
Of course, you have to travel faster than light to get ahead of the signal and read it again ...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_2159259.28630165</id>
	<title>Re:Minimum mass of a Petabyte</title>
	<author>c0nman</author>
	<datestamp>1247057640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Here is a light hearted blog that may be of interest to you, from a coworker in my previous life:<br>
<br>
<a href="http://blog.theplanet.com/2007/05/24/the-data-center-alive-and-well/" title="theplanet.com" rel="nofollow">http://blog.theplanet.com/2007/05/24/the-data-center-alive-and-well/</a> [theplanet.com] <p><div class="quote"><p>...<br>
<br>
The article covered some math that had been performed to determine the true, actual weight of the data that makes up the Internet. Starting with the weight of a single electron (2 x 10^-30 pound), the author broke down the number of electrons required to charge a single capacitor (the charge equaling a &#226;oe1&#226; in binary) in a computer&#226;(TM)s memory (40,000), assuming a roughly 50 &#226;" 50 split on 1&#226;(TM)s and 0&#226;(TM)s in a typical 50 kilobyte e-mail. The resulting sum can then be used to determine an electron count per message (8 billion), landing us at a weight for a single e-mail of two ten-thousandths of a quadrillionth of an ounce. Now extrapolate that math across the whole of all Internet traffic; all the e-mail, Web pages, music, videos, instant messages and everything else we all contribute to the Internet. Data-wise you arrive at a mind-blowing 40 Petabyte number. However, that 40 Petabytes only equates to a weight of 1.3 x 10^-8 pound. That&#226;(TM)s right &#226;&#166; in real-world terms, all that data equals the weight of the smallest possible grain of sand, one measuring only two-thousandths of an inch across.</p></div></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Here is a light hearted blog that may be of interest to you , from a coworker in my previous life : http : //blog.theplanet.com/2007/05/24/the-data-center-alive-and-well/ [ theplanet.com ] .. . The article covered some math that had been performed to determine the true , actual weight of the data that makes up the Internet .
Starting with the weight of a single electron ( 2 x 10 ^ -30 pound ) , the author broke down the number of electrons required to charge a single capacitor ( the charge equaling a   oe1   in binary ) in a computer   ( TM ) s memory ( 40,000 ) , assuming a roughly 50   " 50 split on 1   ( TM ) s and 0   ( TM ) s in a typical 50 kilobyte e-mail .
The resulting sum can then be used to determine an electron count per message ( 8 billion ) , landing us at a weight for a single e-mail of two ten-thousandths of a quadrillionth of an ounce .
Now extrapolate that math across the whole of all Internet traffic ; all the e-mail , Web pages , music , videos , instant messages and everything else we all contribute to the Internet .
Data-wise you arrive at a mind-blowing 40 Petabyte number .
However , that 40 Petabytes only equates to a weight of 1.3 x 10 ^ -8 pound .
That   ( TM ) s right     in real-world terms , all that data equals the weight of the smallest possible grain of sand , one measuring only two-thousandths of an inch across .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Here is a light hearted blog that may be of interest to you, from a coworker in my previous life:

http://blog.theplanet.com/2007/05/24/the-data-center-alive-and-well/ [theplanet.com] ...

The article covered some math that had been performed to determine the true, actual weight of the data that makes up the Internet.
Starting with the weight of a single electron (2 x 10^-30 pound), the author broke down the number of electrons required to charge a single capacitor (the charge equaling a âoe1â in binary) in a computerâ(TM)s memory (40,000), assuming a roughly 50 â" 50 split on 1â(TM)s and 0â(TM)s in a typical 50 kilobyte e-mail.
The resulting sum can then be used to determine an electron count per message (8 billion), landing us at a weight for a single e-mail of two ten-thousandths of a quadrillionth of an ounce.
Now extrapolate that math across the whole of all Internet traffic; all the e-mail, Web pages, music, videos, instant messages and everything else we all contribute to the Internet.
Data-wise you arrive at a mind-blowing 40 Petabyte number.
However, that 40 Petabytes only equates to a weight of 1.3 x 10^-8 pound.
Thatâ(TM)s right â¦ in real-world terms, all that data equals the weight of the smallest possible grain of sand, one measuring only two-thousandths of an inch across.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_2159259.28629393</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_2159259.28632945</id>
	<title>Gravity reduction is the key.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247081160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>Clever boffins are beavering away at understanding the interlinks between super-conductors and gravity. When they finally work it out, look for a data storage system that can store data at the atomic level by reducing gravity on selected atoms.

Sheets of atoms don't weigh much - even less when approximately half of them are gravity reduced.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Clever boffins are beavering away at understanding the interlinks between super-conductors and gravity .
When they finally work it out , look for a data storage system that can store data at the atomic level by reducing gravity on selected atoms .
Sheets of atoms do n't weigh much - even less when approximately half of them are gravity reduced .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Clever boffins are beavering away at understanding the interlinks between super-conductors and gravity.
When they finally work it out, look for a data storage system that can store data at the atomic level by reducing gravity on selected atoms.
Sheets of atoms don't weigh much - even less when approximately half of them are gravity reduced.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_2159259.28629569</id>
	<title>Already answered</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247054040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>This subject has already been <a href="http://social.answers.microsoft.com/Forums/en-US/vistahardware/thread/720108ee-0a9c-4090-b62d-bbd5cb1a7605" title="microsoft.com">discussed</a> [microsoft.com].</htmltext>
<tokenext>This subject has already been discussed [ microsoft.com ] .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This subject has already been discussed [microsoft.com].</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_2159259.28633409</id>
	<title>Re:A lot heavier than...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247131320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>You say only, but that is still 770MB in <i>every cell</i>, which is around 2.5TB/g.</htmltext>
<tokenext>You say only , but that is still 770MB in every cell , which is around 2.5TB/g .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You say only, but that is still 770MB in every cell, which is around 2.5TB/g.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_2159259.28632189</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_2159259.28631261</id>
	<title>The end of data</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247064960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I've been considering the problem of data storage increase, and I've come to some conclusions.<br>1. We are on a collision course with limited  resources in data-as-matter representation.<br>2. There are several solutions but they are:<br>a. Computationally intensive, and np complete (or very likely np complete)<br>b. Impossible due to entropy (the universe only flows in one direction)</p><p>Quite frankly, I think we are hitting the bounds of continuous time. We need to hand round the cake, and cut it after.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 've been considering the problem of data storage increase , and I 've come to some conclusions.1 .
We are on a collision course with limited resources in data-as-matter representation.2 .
There are several solutions but they are : a. Computationally intensive , and np complete ( or very likely np complete ) b. Impossible due to entropy ( the universe only flows in one direction ) Quite frankly , I think we are hitting the bounds of continuous time .
We need to hand round the cake , and cut it after .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I've been considering the problem of data storage increase, and I've come to some conclusions.1.
We are on a collision course with limited  resources in data-as-matter representation.2.
There are several solutions but they are:a. Computationally intensive, and np complete (or very likely np complete)b. Impossible due to entropy (the universe only flows in one direction)Quite frankly, I think we are hitting the bounds of continuous time.
We need to hand round the cake, and cut it after.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_2159259.28633069</id>
	<title>Re:Try using Micro SD cards instead</title>
	<author>julesh</author>
	<datestamp>1247169900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>1024 terabytes should then weight 16384 grams, or a bit more than 16kg. </i></p><p>Or exactly 16Kig.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>1024 terabytes should then weight 16384 grams , or a bit more than 16kg .
Or exactly 16Kig .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>1024 terabytes should then weight 16384 grams, or a bit more than 16kg.
Or exactly 16Kig.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_2159259.28629601</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_2159259.28630175</id>
	<title>Re:library of congress</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247057640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>Speak for yourself, back in the day I swear to god, a floppy disk weighed a lot more when it was packed full of data. Haven't observed this with any new media, but it was kind of a cool trick.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Speak for yourself , back in the day I swear to god , a floppy disk weighed a lot more when it was packed full of data .
Have n't observed this with any new media , but it was kind of a cool trick .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Speak for yourself, back in the day I swear to god, a floppy disk weighed a lot more when it was packed full of data.
Haven't observed this with any new media, but it was kind of a cool trick.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_2159259.28629609</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_2159259.28635659</id>
	<title>Re:A lot heavier than...</title>
	<author>danbert8</author>
	<datestamp>1247150700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Umm the only problem with that scheme is that you'd better hope that the temperature and gravitational constant don't change before you go to retrieve that data.  Any change in temperature or stress (even due to self weight) will change the length of that steel bar.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Umm the only problem with that scheme is that you 'd better hope that the temperature and gravitational constant do n't change before you go to retrieve that data .
Any change in temperature or stress ( even due to self weight ) will change the length of that steel bar .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Umm the only problem with that scheme is that you'd better hope that the temperature and gravitational constant don't change before you go to retrieve that data.
Any change in temperature or stress (even due to self weight) will change the length of that steel bar.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_2159259.28632185</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_2159259.28630949</id>
	<title>Re:It depends..</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247062440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I just store the 1s using a smaller font so they weigh less.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I just store the 1s using a smaller font so they weigh less .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I just store the 1s using a smaller font so they weigh less.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_2159259.28629469</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_2159259.28632365</id>
	<title>Memory slows machine down</title>
	<author>The MESMERIC</author>
	<datestamp>1247073960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I have a Windows XP machine. And I've learnt this. The more I install, the slower it becomes. How else could you explain this phonemenom ?</p><p>So don't tell me that memory has no weight, cos it does !!!</p><p>Machines gets heavy yeah? Them fat disks spinnin ever more sloow.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I have a Windows XP machine .
And I 've learnt this .
The more I install , the slower it becomes .
How else could you explain this phonemenom ? So do n't tell me that memory has no weight , cos it does ! !
! Machines gets heavy yeah ?
Them fat disks spinnin ever more sloow .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I have a Windows XP machine.
And I've learnt this.
The more I install, the slower it becomes.
How else could you explain this phonemenom ?So don't tell me that memory has no weight, cos it does !!
!Machines gets heavy yeah?
Them fat disks spinnin ever more sloow.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_2159259.28630457</id>
	<title>Re:About 2 Kilos</title>
	<author>zunger</author>
	<datestamp>1247059200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Not only that, but in case of zombie attack, they make a tasty (and healthful!) snack.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Not only that , but in case of zombie attack , they make a tasty ( and healthful !
) snack .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Not only that, but in case of zombie attack, they make a tasty (and healthful!
) snack.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_2159259.28629359</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_2159259.28630697</id>
	<title>about</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247060640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>3 parsecs</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>3 parsecs</tokentext>
<sentencetext>3 parsecs</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_2159259.28637967</id>
	<title>So, you get a whole mess of BD-Rs...</title>
	<author>hazydave</author>
	<datestamp>1247159880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>That's about 16gm per disc, 50GB each, so you need 20,000 discs... but they total weight is only 320KG, beating the HDDs on weight if not necessarily volume. That's gonna run around $270,000, based on the best "cakebox" price I could quickly find online...goes to $380,000 if you need REs... the HDDs still win here. Going to BD-R 20s, you're going to about double the weight to 640KG with the 40,000 discs needed, but the price would drop to $112,000, also based on per unit prices of today's 50-disc cakeboxes at an online retailer. Obviously, you could get a better deal in this volume... but same goes for the WD drives.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>That 's about 16gm per disc , 50GB each , so you need 20,000 discs... but they total weight is only 320KG , beating the HDDs on weight if not necessarily volume .
That 's gon na run around $ 270,000 , based on the best " cakebox " price I could quickly find online...goes to $ 380,000 if you need REs... the HDDs still win here .
Going to BD-R 20s , you 're going to about double the weight to 640KG with the 40,000 discs needed , but the price would drop to $ 112,000 , also based on per unit prices of today 's 50-disc cakeboxes at an online retailer .
Obviously , you could get a better deal in this volume... but same goes for the WD drives .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That's about 16gm per disc, 50GB each, so you need 20,000 discs... but they total weight is only 320KG, beating the HDDs on weight if not necessarily volume.
That's gonna run around $270,000, based on the best "cakebox" price I could quickly find online...goes to $380,000 if you need REs... the HDDs still win here.
Going to BD-R 20s, you're going to about double the weight to 640KG with the 40,000 discs needed, but the price would drop to $112,000, also based on per unit prices of today's 50-disc cakeboxes at an online retailer.
Obviously, you could get a better deal in this volume... but same goes for the WD drives.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_2159259.28632451</id>
	<title>Slashdot - fountain of knowledge</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247075460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I thought about asking the question - "What is the total weight of all womens boobs in the world?", but then I realised I was on slashdot. Not something many people would know anything about here.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I thought about asking the question - " What is the total weight of all womens boobs in the world ?
" , but then I realised I was on slashdot .
Not something many people would know anything about here .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I thought about asking the question - "What is the total weight of all womens boobs in the world?
", but then I realised I was on slashdot.
Not something many people would know anything about here.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_2159259.28629249</id>
	<title>library of congress</title>
	<author>SoupGuru</author>
	<datestamp>1247052180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>How heavy is a Library of Congress?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>How heavy is a Library of Congress ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>How heavy is a Library of Congress?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_2159259.28633843</id>
	<title>Re:About 2 Kilos</title>
	<author>SharpFang</author>
	<datestamp>1247135880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I think that's an overestimate by far.</p><p>Human brain has some awesome lossy compression mechanisms though. Visual images get vectorized with weight assigned to various features. Audio undergoes a split into tracks and then wavelengths and sequencing are recorded. Textual gets mnemonic tokens (words), token linking (common phrases), linking heuristics (grammar), and visual mnemonic hinting. Many others are hashes that can only be compared against - try to recall taste of strawberries now - not quite possible, you can describe features of the taste but you can't recall the taste - but once you taste something strawberry-flavored you recognize the taste immediately. Also, most of the data gets recorded in analog format, which is more or less lossy for given data type (non-precise images, size/distance estimates etc) which additionally degrades over time<br>Sure stored "uncompressed" like bitmaps, waveforms, ascii text, the data could amount to many gigabytes or more, but in fact you may get only several megabytes of actual memory storage.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I think that 's an overestimate by far.Human brain has some awesome lossy compression mechanisms though .
Visual images get vectorized with weight assigned to various features .
Audio undergoes a split into tracks and then wavelengths and sequencing are recorded .
Textual gets mnemonic tokens ( words ) , token linking ( common phrases ) , linking heuristics ( grammar ) , and visual mnemonic hinting .
Many others are hashes that can only be compared against - try to recall taste of strawberries now - not quite possible , you can describe features of the taste but you ca n't recall the taste - but once you taste something strawberry-flavored you recognize the taste immediately .
Also , most of the data gets recorded in analog format , which is more or less lossy for given data type ( non-precise images , size/distance estimates etc ) which additionally degrades over timeSure stored " uncompressed " like bitmaps , waveforms , ascii text , the data could amount to many gigabytes or more , but in fact you may get only several megabytes of actual memory storage .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think that's an overestimate by far.Human brain has some awesome lossy compression mechanisms though.
Visual images get vectorized with weight assigned to various features.
Audio undergoes a split into tracks and then wavelengths and sequencing are recorded.
Textual gets mnemonic tokens (words), token linking (common phrases), linking heuristics (grammar), and visual mnemonic hinting.
Many others are hashes that can only be compared against - try to recall taste of strawberries now - not quite possible, you can describe features of the taste but you can't recall the taste - but once you taste something strawberry-flavored you recognize the taste immediately.
Also, most of the data gets recorded in analog format, which is more or less lossy for given data type (non-precise images, size/distance estimates etc) which additionally degrades over timeSure stored "uncompressed" like bitmaps, waveforms, ascii text, the data could amount to many gigabytes or more, but in fact you may get only several megabytes of actual memory storage.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_2159259.28629359</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_2159259.28646219</id>
	<title>Data has no mass.</title>
	<author>sitarlo</author>
	<datestamp>1247164140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>
Double Helix DNA, which is really tiny and only a fraction of a single cell, stores 0.35 gb of data.  Weight is in the medium and not the data itself.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Double Helix DNA , which is really tiny and only a fraction of a single cell , stores 0.35 gb of data .
Weight is in the medium and not the data itself .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>
Double Helix DNA, which is really tiny and only a fraction of a single cell, stores 0.35 gb of data.
Weight is in the medium and not the data itself.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_2159259.28630361</id>
	<title>Trick question</title>
	<author>Orion Blastar</author>
	<datestamp>1247058480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>a Petabyte of data is not a material thing, the object that contains the data is what weighs in as far as heavy goes.</p><p>A Petabyte of data has no weight, it is a pattern of electrons etc stored on a device, the electrons and device are not part of the data but contain the data.</p><p>One day we assume there will be a Petabyte storage device, until then we will keep stacking up storage devices and weighing them until they add up to a Petabyte.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>a Petabyte of data is not a material thing , the object that contains the data is what weighs in as far as heavy goes.A Petabyte of data has no weight , it is a pattern of electrons etc stored on a device , the electrons and device are not part of the data but contain the data.One day we assume there will be a Petabyte storage device , until then we will keep stacking up storage devices and weighing them until they add up to a Petabyte .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>a Petabyte of data is not a material thing, the object that contains the data is what weighs in as far as heavy goes.A Petabyte of data has no weight, it is a pattern of electrons etc stored on a device, the electrons and device are not part of the data but contain the data.One day we assume there will be a Petabyte storage device, until then we will keep stacking up storage devices and weighing them until they add up to a Petabyte.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_2159259.28642667</id>
	<title>Re:All in one rack</title>
	<author>good soldier svejk</author>
	<datestamp>1247135580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I can put over 28PB in <a href="http://www.datadomain.com/pdf/DataDomain-DDXArraySeries-Datasheet.pdf" title="datadomain.com">one of my racks.</a> [datadomain.com]</htmltext>
<tokenext>I can put over 28PB in one of my racks .
[ datadomain.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I can put over 28PB in one of my racks.
[datadomain.com]</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_2159259.28629261</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_2159259.28631777</id>
	<title>Re:There is a way!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247068680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Wouldn't that depend on how random the data was? To remember completely random values in a set would be harder, but that's often not the case.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Would n't that depend on how random the data was ?
To remember completely random values in a set would be harder , but that 's often not the case .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Wouldn't that depend on how random the data was?
To remember completely random values in a set would be harder, but that's often not the case.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_2159259.28629873</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_2159259.28630799</id>
	<title>Ever heard of tape?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247061420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If streaming access is okay, then tape is king.  Cheaper than spinning rust or solid state, much lighter than HDDs.  An HP LTO 4 Ultrium cartridge holds 1.6TB and weighs a few ounces.  At say 6 ounces per tape, a PB clocks in at around 100KG.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If streaming access is okay , then tape is king .
Cheaper than spinning rust or solid state , much lighter than HDDs .
An HP LTO 4 Ultrium cartridge holds 1.6TB and weighs a few ounces .
At say 6 ounces per tape , a PB clocks in at around 100KG .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If streaming access is okay, then tape is king.
Cheaper than spinning rust or solid state, much lighter than HDDs.
An HP LTO 4 Ultrium cartridge holds 1.6TB and weighs a few ounces.
At say 6 ounces per tape, a PB clocks in at around 100KG.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_2159259.28630097</id>
	<title>Your data can be weightless!</title>
	<author>Noren</author>
	<datestamp>1247057340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Just store it in orbit, and regardless of the media it'll be weightless!</htmltext>
<tokenext>Just store it in orbit , and regardless of the media it 'll be weightless !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Just store it in orbit, and regardless of the media it'll be weightless!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_2159259.28633013</id>
	<title>Re:There is a way!</title>
	<author>CAIMLAS</author>
	<datestamp>1247082300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Who said anything about reproduction or recall? We're talking about retention, here. The human brain supposedly retains pretty much everything ever added to it. It's our recall methods/ability which is lacking.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Who said anything about reproduction or recall ?
We 're talking about retention , here .
The human brain supposedly retains pretty much everything ever added to it .
It 's our recall methods/ability which is lacking .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Who said anything about reproduction or recall?
We're talking about retention, here.
The human brain supposedly retains pretty much everything ever added to it.
It's our recall methods/ability which is lacking.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_2159259.28629873</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_2159259.28629391</id>
	<title>Nothing</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247052960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>We use a modulated light beam that travels to a geo sync satellite and back.  The data has darn little mass, or weight.  Now the sat, (which amplifies and redrives the signal to the ground station), and the ground stations weighs a bit, but the data weighs nothing.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>We use a modulated light beam that travels to a geo sync satellite and back .
The data has darn little mass , or weight .
Now the sat , ( which amplifies and redrives the signal to the ground station ) , and the ground stations weighs a bit , but the data weighs nothing .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>We use a modulated light beam that travels to a geo sync satellite and back.
The data has darn little mass, or weight.
Now the sat, (which amplifies and redrives the signal to the ground station), and the ground stations weighs a bit, but the data weighs nothing.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_2159259.28631167</id>
	<title>Re:isolinear optical chips</title>
	<author>scheme</author>
	<datestamp>1247064120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>The memory capacity of an isolinear optical chip is 2.15 kiloquads, which is about <a href="http://www.economicexpert.com/a/Kiloquad.html" title="economicexpert.com">2.15 exabytes</a> [economicexpert.com]. I don't know how much they weigh, but they're about the size of a stick of gum... I'd guess they weigh about the same... say... 20g... so that'd be about<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.002g/petabyte.</p></div><p>Who really cares about a fictional piece of technology with made up capacity and weight?  It's much more interesting and relevant to discuss the capacity and weight of the books in the library of congress or microsd cards.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The memory capacity of an isolinear optical chip is 2.15 kiloquads , which is about 2.15 exabytes [ economicexpert.com ] .
I do n't know how much they weigh , but they 're about the size of a stick of gum... I 'd guess they weigh about the same... say... 20g... so that 'd be about .002g/petabyte.Who really cares about a fictional piece of technology with made up capacity and weight ?
It 's much more interesting and relevant to discuss the capacity and weight of the books in the library of congress or microsd cards .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The memory capacity of an isolinear optical chip is 2.15 kiloquads, which is about 2.15 exabytes [economicexpert.com].
I don't know how much they weigh, but they're about the size of a stick of gum... I'd guess they weigh about the same... say... 20g... so that'd be about .002g/petabyte.Who really cares about a fictional piece of technology with made up capacity and weight?
It's much more interesting and relevant to discuss the capacity and weight of the books in the library of congress or microsd cards.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_2159259.28630425</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_2159259.28629359</id>
	<title>About 2 Kilos</title>
	<author>BBCWatcher</author>
	<datestamp>1247052780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>Nobody knows exactly how much data the average human brain can hold, but <a href="http://www.geocities.com/rnseitz/The\_Great\_Gray\_Ravelled\_Knot.htm" title="geocities.com">one estimate</a> [geocities.com] is 500 to 1000 TB. If the average adult human brain <a href="http://faculty.washington.edu/chudler/facts.html" title="washington.edu">weighs about 1.3 or 1.4 Kilos</a> [washington.edu], then "about 2 Kilos" would hold 1 Petabyte.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Nobody knows exactly how much data the average human brain can hold , but one estimate [ geocities.com ] is 500 to 1000 TB .
If the average adult human brain weighs about 1.3 or 1.4 Kilos [ washington.edu ] , then " about 2 Kilos " would hold 1 Petabyte .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Nobody knows exactly how much data the average human brain can hold, but one estimate [geocities.com] is 500 to 1000 TB.
If the average adult human brain weighs about 1.3 or 1.4 Kilos [washington.edu], then "about 2 Kilos" would hold 1 Petabyte.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_2159259.28631481</id>
	<title>Re:About 2 Kilos</title>
	<author>flappinbooger</author>
	<datestamp>1247066820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>That's quite a fascinating topic, hopefully we can eventually learn more about how the brain works. <br> <br>You'd have to figure out a digital equivalent to all of the information stored from all 5 senses - how much data would it take to accurately store exactly what grandma's pumpkin pie smelled like as it baked in the oven when you were 5 years old?  What about storing muscle memory and memories of how something made you feel?  <br> <br>Convert all those qualitative and quantitative ideas into something digital, multiply it times a lifetime.... <br> <br>Then think about comparing that for someone who had a mundane life to someone who had a crazy active and over-the-top exciting life - Is a petabyte too small for what the human brain is capable of?</htmltext>
<tokenext>That 's quite a fascinating topic , hopefully we can eventually learn more about how the brain works .
You 'd have to figure out a digital equivalent to all of the information stored from all 5 senses - how much data would it take to accurately store exactly what grandma 's pumpkin pie smelled like as it baked in the oven when you were 5 years old ?
What about storing muscle memory and memories of how something made you feel ?
Convert all those qualitative and quantitative ideas into something digital , multiply it times a lifetime.... Then think about comparing that for someone who had a mundane life to someone who had a crazy active and over-the-top exciting life - Is a petabyte too small for what the human brain is capable of ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That's quite a fascinating topic, hopefully we can eventually learn more about how the brain works.
You'd have to figure out a digital equivalent to all of the information stored from all 5 senses - how much data would it take to accurately store exactly what grandma's pumpkin pie smelled like as it baked in the oven when you were 5 years old?
What about storing muscle memory and memories of how something made you feel?
Convert all those qualitative and quantitative ideas into something digital, multiply it times a lifetime....  Then think about comparing that for someone who had a mundane life to someone who had a crazy active and over-the-top exciting life - Is a petabyte too small for what the human brain is capable of?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_2159259.28629359</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_2159259.28630873</id>
	<title>Re:There is a way!</title>
	<author>CorporateSuit</author>
	<datestamp>1247061900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Insightful? Assuming you can perfectly remember 1 byte per second, you'd be memorizing for over 100 million years. The human brain is great and all that, but no way are you going to store that much data while being able to reproduce it later.</p></div><p>Considering a single "frame" of vision for a pair of human eyes is estimated at 576 megapixels (truncating at peripheral vision).  We'll imagine that each pixel is assigned a 16-bit hexadecimal value.  That means, each time you glance at something, each frame would be calculated at a little more than 1/1000th of a terabyte.  The lowball framerate for the human eye is about 18 frames/second (things look fluid).  That means that every 50 seconds, your eye is downloading a terabyte of information.  He'll absorb it in less than a day through eyesight alone.  That doesn't include audio, olfactory, touch, or taste.  His brain's data compression will downsize a lot of that information, so it will take him more than a day, but for your i/o ports, taking in a petabyte of information is a daily task.<br> <br>
You'd be hard-pressed to find a living organism that downloads information at 1B/sec</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Insightful ?
Assuming you can perfectly remember 1 byte per second , you 'd be memorizing for over 100 million years .
The human brain is great and all that , but no way are you going to store that much data while being able to reproduce it later.Considering a single " frame " of vision for a pair of human eyes is estimated at 576 megapixels ( truncating at peripheral vision ) .
We 'll imagine that each pixel is assigned a 16-bit hexadecimal value .
That means , each time you glance at something , each frame would be calculated at a little more than 1/1000th of a terabyte .
The lowball framerate for the human eye is about 18 frames/second ( things look fluid ) .
That means that every 50 seconds , your eye is downloading a terabyte of information .
He 'll absorb it in less than a day through eyesight alone .
That does n't include audio , olfactory , touch , or taste .
His brain 's data compression will downsize a lot of that information , so it will take him more than a day , but for your i/o ports , taking in a petabyte of information is a daily task .
You 'd be hard-pressed to find a living organism that downloads information at 1B/sec</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Insightful?
Assuming you can perfectly remember 1 byte per second, you'd be memorizing for over 100 million years.
The human brain is great and all that, but no way are you going to store that much data while being able to reproduce it later.Considering a single "frame" of vision for a pair of human eyes is estimated at 576 megapixels (truncating at peripheral vision).
We'll imagine that each pixel is assigned a 16-bit hexadecimal value.
That means, each time you glance at something, each frame would be calculated at a little more than 1/1000th of a terabyte.
The lowball framerate for the human eye is about 18 frames/second (things look fluid).
That means that every 50 seconds, your eye is downloading a terabyte of information.
He'll absorb it in less than a day through eyesight alone.
That doesn't include audio, olfactory, touch, or taste.
His brain's data compression will downsize a lot of that information, so it will take him more than a day, but for your i/o ports, taking in a petabyte of information is a daily task.
You'd be hard-pressed to find a living organism that downloads information at 1B/sec
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_2159259.28629873</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_2159259.28633199</id>
	<title>Re:A lot heavier than...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247171520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Also, for what it's worth, the human genome only stores about 770MB, only a bit more than a CD.</p></div><p>That's more like seventy <i>million</i> bits more that a CD!</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Also , for what it 's worth , the human genome only stores about 770MB , only a bit more than a CD.That 's more like seventy million bits more that a CD !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Also, for what it's worth, the human genome only stores about 770MB, only a bit more than a CD.That's more like seventy million bits more that a CD!
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_2159259.28632189</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_2159259.28629345</id>
	<title>Re:MicroSD</title>
	<author>Animaether</author>
	<datestamp>1247052720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>But the smaller the chipsets, the larger - relatively - the packaging becomes.  You can't just keep shrinking down the packaging, after all.. it would get far too flimsy.<br>So what you'd really need to weigh is the actual PCB with components, but sans all but a sliver of the bit that is the connector (the copper strips etched into the PCB to function as such).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>But the smaller the chipsets , the larger - relatively - the packaging becomes .
You ca n't just keep shrinking down the packaging , after all.. it would get far too flimsy.So what you 'd really need to weigh is the actual PCB with components , but sans all but a sliver of the bit that is the connector ( the copper strips etched into the PCB to function as such ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>But the smaller the chipsets, the larger - relatively - the packaging becomes.
You can't just keep shrinking down the packaging, after all.. it would get far too flimsy.So what you'd really need to weigh is the actual PCB with components, but sans all but a sliver of the bit that is the connector (the copper strips etched into the PCB to function as such).</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_2159259.28629255</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_2159259.28629789</id>
	<title>temperature</title>
	<author>sugarmotor</author>
	<datestamp>1247055420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Doesn't that depend on the temparature?</p><p>Stephan</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Does n't that depend on the temparature ? Stephan</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Doesn't that depend on the temparature?Stephan</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_2159259.28632053</id>
	<title>Re:library of congress</title>
	<author>The\_mad\_linguist</author>
	<datestamp>1247070900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Well, we can convert distances into time intervals via relativity...</p><p>To nobody's surprise, the conversion factor is a well known physics constant.  c.</p><p>So a year is exactly one light-year wide.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Well , we can convert distances into time intervals via relativity...To nobody 's surprise , the conversion factor is a well known physics constant .
c.So a year is exactly one light-year wide .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Well, we can convert distances into time intervals via relativity...To nobody's surprise, the conversion factor is a well known physics constant.
c.So a year is exactly one light-year wide.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_2159259.28629609</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_2159259.28631953</id>
	<title>Math it is your friend...</title>
	<author>psychicsword</author>
	<datestamp>1247070180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>According to the math on <a href="http://qdb.us/262095?\%2F" title="qdb.us"> this QDB</a> [qdb.us], the average ejaculation is 7.49400542 petabytes. So I would say less than an ounce.</htmltext>
<tokenext>According to the math on this QDB [ qdb.us ] , the average ejaculation is 7.49400542 petabytes .
So I would say less than an ounce .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>According to the math on  this QDB [qdb.us], the average ejaculation is 7.49400542 petabytes.
So I would say less than an ounce.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_2159259.28632269</id>
	<title>Re:MicroSD</title>
	<author>complete loony</author>
	<datestamp>1247073000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>You'd also need at least a few readers and a tape library style robotic storage / retrieval system which would add to the weight considerably. But if you didn't mind the huge random access latency, you might be able to build something fairly light.</htmltext>
<tokenext>You 'd also need at least a few readers and a tape library style robotic storage / retrieval system which would add to the weight considerably .
But if you did n't mind the huge random access latency , you might be able to build something fairly light .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You'd also need at least a few readers and a tape library style robotic storage / retrieval system which would add to the weight considerably.
But if you didn't mind the huge random access latency, you might be able to build something fairly light.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_2159259.28629255</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_2159259.28630021</id>
	<title>Re:MicroSD</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247056980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I will just take 5 grams of the good stuff.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I will just take 5 grams of the good stuff .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I will just take 5 grams of the good stuff.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_2159259.28629255</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_2159259.28633203</id>
	<title>Err... my penis?</title>
	<author>Optimus6128</author>
	<datestamp>1247171580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><a href="http://forgetomori.com/2008/science/enlarge-your-penis-data-bandwidth/" title="forgetomori.com" rel="nofollow">http://forgetomori.com/2008/science/enlarge-your-penis-data-bandwidth/</a> [forgetomori.com]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>http : //forgetomori.com/2008/science/enlarge-your-penis-data-bandwidth/ [ forgetomori.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>http://forgetomori.com/2008/science/enlarge-your-penis-data-bandwidth/ [forgetomori.com]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_2159259.28640321</id>
	<title>The size of petabyte depends on the storage</title>
	<author>binaryartist</author>
	<datestamp>1247169060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>If you use me and a torch as the storage the size of the petabyte could be my weight + weight of the torch(155 pounds).

For every set bit, I would point the light towards a particular direction and for every bit that was not set, I would point the light towards a different direction.

Of course if you decide to use me as the storage, read and write operations would be very slow, well I guess that is something we are not interested in! I am also guessing we are not interested in the amount of power consumed to perform the operation( in my case, the number of batteries necessary for the torch and the amount of food you would have to feed me to read/write data)!</htmltext>
<tokenext>If you use me and a torch as the storage the size of the petabyte could be my weight + weight of the torch ( 155 pounds ) .
For every set bit , I would point the light towards a particular direction and for every bit that was not set , I would point the light towards a different direction .
Of course if you decide to use me as the storage , read and write operations would be very slow , well I guess that is something we are not interested in !
I am also guessing we are not interested in the amount of power consumed to perform the operation ( in my case , the number of batteries necessary for the torch and the amount of food you would have to feed me to read/write data ) !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If you use me and a torch as the storage the size of the petabyte could be my weight + weight of the torch(155 pounds).
For every set bit, I would point the light towards a particular direction and for every bit that was not set, I would point the light towards a different direction.
Of course if you decide to use me as the storage, read and write operations would be very slow, well I guess that is something we are not interested in!
I am also guessing we are not interested in the amount of power consumed to perform the operation( in my case, the number of batteries necessary for the torch and the amount of food you would have to feed me to read/write data)!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_2159259.28630425</id>
	<title>isolinear optical chips</title>
	<author>catmistake</author>
	<datestamp>1247058960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>The memory capacity of an isolinear optical chip is 2.15 kiloquads, which is about <a href="http://www.economicexpert.com/a/Kiloquad.html" title="economicexpert.com">2.15 exabytes</a> [economicexpert.com]. I don't know how much they weigh, but they're about the size of a stick of gum... I'd guess they weigh about the same... say... 20g... so that'd be about<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.002g/petabyte.</htmltext>
<tokenext>The memory capacity of an isolinear optical chip is 2.15 kiloquads , which is about 2.15 exabytes [ economicexpert.com ] .
I do n't know how much they weigh , but they 're about the size of a stick of gum... I 'd guess they weigh about the same... say... 20g... so that 'd be about .002g/petabyte .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The memory capacity of an isolinear optical chip is 2.15 kiloquads, which is about 2.15 exabytes [economicexpert.com].
I don't know how much they weigh, but they're about the size of a stick of gum... I'd guess they weigh about the same... say... 20g... so that'd be about .002g/petabyte.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_2159259.28629255</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_2159259.28633801</id>
	<title>Re:A lot heavier than...</title>
	<author>Phat\_Tony</author>
	<datestamp>1247135520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Exactly what I was thinking.<br> <br>

DNA weighs an average of about 660 daltons per base pair.<br> <br>

Each base can be AGT or C, so that's 2 bits worth of data per base pair.<br> <br>

A terabyte = 1.1259E+15 bits, so a terabyte of DNA is 5.6295E+14 base pairs.<br> <br>

so [5.6295E+14 base pairs] x [660 daltons per base pair] = [3.71547E+17 daltons] = 6.169686786411827E-7 grams =<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.62 micrograms per terabyte.<br> <br>



 Plus, the weight of DNA/RNA per byte hasn't changed at all since the dawn of life on earth, much less 1980.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Exactly what I was thinking .
DNA weighs an average of about 660 daltons per base pair .
Each base can be AGT or C , so that 's 2 bits worth of data per base pair .
A terabyte = 1.1259E + 15 bits , so a terabyte of DNA is 5.6295E + 14 base pairs .
so [ 5.6295E + 14 base pairs ] x [ 660 daltons per base pair ] = [ 3.71547E + 17 daltons ] = 6.169686786411827E-7 grams = .62 micrograms per terabyte .
Plus , the weight of DNA/RNA per byte has n't changed at all since the dawn of life on earth , much less 1980 .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Exactly what I was thinking.
DNA weighs an average of about 660 daltons per base pair.
Each base can be AGT or C, so that's 2 bits worth of data per base pair.
A terabyte = 1.1259E+15 bits, so a terabyte of DNA is 5.6295E+14 base pairs.
so [5.6295E+14 base pairs] x [660 daltons per base pair] = [3.71547E+17 daltons] = 6.169686786411827E-7 grams = .62 micrograms per terabyte.
Plus, the weight of DNA/RNA per byte hasn't changed at all since the dawn of life on earth, much less 1980.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_2159259.28629495</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_2159259.28630347</id>
	<title>Re:Theoretically quite close to zero ...</title>
	<author>maxume</author>
	<datestamp>1247058360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The trick then becomes making your medium long enough that you can fit all of the information into it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The trick then becomes making your medium long enough that you can fit all of the information into it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The trick then becomes making your medium long enough that you can fit all of the information into it.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_2159259.28629545</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_2159259.28639013</id>
	<title>PETA Bite</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247164140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Technically if a PETA idiot bite another, the only mass will be the saliva that they left behind...<br>Or it may of infinite mass due to amount of drool produced...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Technically if a PETA idiot bite another , the only mass will be the saliva that they left behind...Or it may of infinite mass due to amount of drool produced.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Technically if a PETA idiot bite another, the only mass will be the saliva that they left behind...Or it may of infinite mass due to amount of drool produced...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_2159259.28629287</id>
	<title>speichergurke</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247052420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>A lighter way? Of course <a href="http://capped.tv/unknown-wwwspeichergurkede" title="capped.tv" rel="nofollow">there is</a> [capped.tv]!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>A lighter way ?
Of course there is [ capped.tv ] !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>A lighter way?
Of course there is [capped.tv]!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_2159259.28629635</id>
	<title>Re:How much does a "full" HDD weigh vs. an empty H</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247054340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>the spelling is SOUL, and yes, a dead body does loose a small amount of mass immediately after death</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>the spelling is SOUL , and yes , a dead body does loose a small amount of mass immediately after death</tokentext>
<sentencetext>the spelling is SOUL, and yes, a dead body does loose a small amount of mass immediately after death</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_2159259.28629453</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_2159259.28631653</id>
	<title>What to call it ;)</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247067900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Since it's nomen. will be Pb why not shorten the term to a Lead.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>;)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Since it 's nomen .
will be Pb why not shorten the term to a Lead .
; )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Since it's nomen.
will be Pb why not shorten the term to a Lead.
;)</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_2159259.28641753</id>
	<title>You left out an important specification</title>
	<author>DamnStupidElf</author>
	<datestamp>1247131740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>How much does all that weigh?</htmltext>
<tokenext>How much does all that weigh ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>How much does all that weigh?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_2159259.28630559</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_2159259.28635001</id>
	<title>Re:Already answered</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247147340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>At first I couldn't beleive those Microsoft idiots missed the most obvious optimizations but then I realized that they were in cahoots with the hard-drive manufacturers who just wanted to sell more product.</p><p>This is clearly the right time to announce my amazing new product which delivers on the promises others only make.</p><p>My proprietary HD-OPT algorithm uses a two-pass approach:</p><p>
&nbsp; LCASE-On-Write(LOW) layer: this proprietary technology by itself can reclaim nearly 20-60\% of normal capitalization weight (depending on Caps Lock usage). This algorithm can be lossy with mixed case data, but the UCASE-On-Read (UOR) layer rewards consistent Caps Lock use  with nearly 100\% reconstitution.</p><p>Font Translation Layer: This proprietary technology is the real compelling story behind my product. By on-the-fly conversion of data to a patented 5-point font, you can achieve another 10-90\% weight reduction IN ADDITION to the savings provided by the LOW/UOR layer!</p><p>I have found that for standard all caps, 48 point data, (such as MPOG forum posts)  my product can deliver a whopping 99 44/100\% weight reduction! With my product, data becomes so light that IT FLOATS!</p><p>Buy it now! (Wait, why isn't my link working?)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>At first I could n't beleive those Microsoft idiots missed the most obvious optimizations but then I realized that they were in cahoots with the hard-drive manufacturers who just wanted to sell more product.This is clearly the right time to announce my amazing new product which delivers on the promises others only make.My proprietary HD-OPT algorithm uses a two-pass approach :   LCASE-On-Write ( LOW ) layer : this proprietary technology by itself can reclaim nearly 20-60 \ % of normal capitalization weight ( depending on Caps Lock usage ) .
This algorithm can be lossy with mixed case data , but the UCASE-On-Read ( UOR ) layer rewards consistent Caps Lock use with nearly 100 \ % reconstitution.Font Translation Layer : This proprietary technology is the real compelling story behind my product .
By on-the-fly conversion of data to a patented 5-point font , you can achieve another 10-90 \ % weight reduction IN ADDITION to the savings provided by the LOW/UOR layer ! I have found that for standard all caps , 48 point data , ( such as MPOG forum posts ) my product can deliver a whopping 99 44/100 \ % weight reduction !
With my product , data becomes so light that IT FLOATS ! Buy it now !
( Wait , why is n't my link working ?
)</tokentext>
<sentencetext>At first I couldn't beleive those Microsoft idiots missed the most obvious optimizations but then I realized that they were in cahoots with the hard-drive manufacturers who just wanted to sell more product.This is clearly the right time to announce my amazing new product which delivers on the promises others only make.My proprietary HD-OPT algorithm uses a two-pass approach:
  LCASE-On-Write(LOW) layer: this proprietary technology by itself can reclaim nearly 20-60\% of normal capitalization weight (depending on Caps Lock usage).
This algorithm can be lossy with mixed case data, but the UCASE-On-Read (UOR) layer rewards consistent Caps Lock use  with nearly 100\% reconstitution.Font Translation Layer: This proprietary technology is the real compelling story behind my product.
By on-the-fly conversion of data to a patented 5-point font, you can achieve another 10-90\% weight reduction IN ADDITION to the savings provided by the LOW/UOR layer!I have found that for standard all caps, 48 point data, (such as MPOG forum posts)  my product can deliver a whopping 99 44/100\% weight reduction!
With my product, data becomes so light that IT FLOATS!Buy it now!
(Wait, why isn't my link working?
)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_2159259.28629569</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_2159259.28629307</id>
	<title>If it doesn't have to be in a single rack</title>
	<author>S7urm</author>
	<datestamp>1247052540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Then you could always farm out a petabyte into multiple units that would add up to it and then weight wouldn't be an issue (though dealing with multiple units would be)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Then you could always farm out a petabyte into multiple units that would add up to it and then weight would n't be an issue ( though dealing with multiple units would be )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Then you could always farm out a petabyte into multiple units that would add up to it and then weight wouldn't be an issue (though dealing with multiple units would be)</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_2159259.28638001</id>
	<title>Not heavy at all</title>
	<author>ThatGuyPat</author>
	<datestamp>1247160120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Just store it in "the cloud..."</htmltext>
<tokenext>Just store it in " the cloud... "</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Just store it in "the cloud..."</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_2159259.28638163</id>
	<title>Store it with zero weight (non-zero wait)</title>
	<author>jeffliott</author>
	<datestamp>1247160840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Send the data stream in a low-attenuation beam to reflect around a black hole. Then in 10000 years pick it up.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Send the data stream in a low-attenuation beam to reflect around a black hole .
Then in 10000 years pick it up .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Send the data stream in a low-attenuation beam to reflect around a black hole.
Then in 10000 years pick it up.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_2159259.28634121</id>
	<title>Re:There is a way!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247138400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Ah well, just use compression. A human can memorize several letters a second -&gt; several bytes. That should shave of some years.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Ah well , just use compression .
A human can memorize several letters a second - &gt; several bytes .
That should shave of some years .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Ah well, just use compression.
A human can memorize several letters a second -&gt; several bytes.
That should shave of some years.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_2159259.28629873</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_2159259.28654433</id>
	<title>Re:There is a way!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247217420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The only reason that your brain can handle all that information is because it starts throwing away large parts of it almost immediately.  Everything in the world looks good because your brain is really good at keeping the important bits.  In fact in many cases, it <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Filling-in" title="wikipedia.org" rel="nofollow">fills in</a> [wikipedia.org] the information which it previously discarded which is the cause of a number of visual illusions.  The further you go in the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Visual\_pathway" title="wikipedia.org" rel="nofollow">visual system</a> [wikipedia.org], the less of the original stimulus remains.  Sure, the brain may process petabytes of information, but the shelf life of that data is very short.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The only reason that your brain can handle all that information is because it starts throwing away large parts of it almost immediately .
Everything in the world looks good because your brain is really good at keeping the important bits .
In fact in many cases , it fills in [ wikipedia.org ] the information which it previously discarded which is the cause of a number of visual illusions .
The further you go in the visual system [ wikipedia.org ] , the less of the original stimulus remains .
Sure , the brain may process petabytes of information , but the shelf life of that data is very short .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The only reason that your brain can handle all that information is because it starts throwing away large parts of it almost immediately.
Everything in the world looks good because your brain is really good at keeping the important bits.
In fact in many cases, it fills in [wikipedia.org] the information which it previously discarded which is the cause of a number of visual illusions.
The further you go in the visual system [wikipedia.org], the less of the original stimulus remains.
Sure, the brain may process petabytes of information, but the shelf life of that data is very short.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_2159259.28630873</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_2159259.28629641</id>
	<title>Earth or Alien</title>
	<author>Parrot Mac</author>
	<datestamp>1247054400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I'm guessing that we are measuring this earth standard units because we could just store it in space.  Or just put it underwater...</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm guessing that we are measuring this earth standard units because we could just store it in space .
Or just put it underwater.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm guessing that we are measuring this earth standard units because we could just store it in space.
Or just put it underwater...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_2159259.28631935</id>
	<title>Re:There is a way!</title>
	<author>Dirtside</author>
	<datestamp>1247070060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Pfft, I can easily remember of a petabyte of data, as long as they're all ones or zeroes.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Pfft , I can easily remember of a petabyte of data , as long as they 're all ones or zeroes .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Pfft, I can easily remember of a petabyte of data, as long as they're all ones or zeroes.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_2159259.28629873</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_2159259.28629745</id>
	<title>Re:Mass!=Weight</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247055180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Since they started making scales calibrated in kg instead of Newtons.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Since they started making scales calibrated in kg instead of Newtons .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Since they started making scales calibrated in kg instead of Newtons.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_2159259.28629617</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_2159259.28629769</id>
	<title>And her I thought a petabyte was...</title>
	<author>3seas</author>
	<datestamp>1247055300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>what you call it when you pet your pet and they byte you.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>what you call it when you pet your pet and they byte you .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>what you call it when you pet your pet and they byte you.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_2159259.28632121</id>
	<title>Blue Ray is the weigh, or way</title>
	<author>hejish</author>
	<datestamp>1247071440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>A DVD weight is normally 0.034 lbs and a blue ray disc can hold 50GB.  1 petabyte = 1,048,576 GB / 50GB = 20,972 blue ray discs, which weighs approximately 713 lbs.  Its not at all unwieldy, really!</htmltext>
<tokenext>A DVD weight is normally 0.034 lbs and a blue ray disc can hold 50GB .
1 petabyte = 1,048,576 GB / 50GB = 20,972 blue ray discs , which weighs approximately 713 lbs .
Its not at all unwieldy , really !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>A DVD weight is normally 0.034 lbs and a blue ray disc can hold 50GB.
1 petabyte = 1,048,576 GB / 50GB = 20,972 blue ray discs, which weighs approximately 713 lbs.
Its not at all unwieldy, really!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_2159259.28630407</id>
	<title>Online or Offline storage?</title>
	<author>billstewart</author>
	<datestamp>1247058840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>For offline storage, that's pretty lightweight.  But if you need online storage, you need to put the MicroSD flakes into readers that weigh more than the  storage does, and string a bunch of those things together, which probably requires active computers with lots of ports on them.  Still not that heavy, but it's a lot bigger than just a bunch of flakes with sequence numbers written on them in Sharpie pen or punched into Columns 73-80...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>For offline storage , that 's pretty lightweight .
But if you need online storage , you need to put the MicroSD flakes into readers that weigh more than the storage does , and string a bunch of those things together , which probably requires active computers with lots of ports on them .
Still not that heavy , but it 's a lot bigger than just a bunch of flakes with sequence numbers written on them in Sharpie pen or punched into Columns 73-80.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>For offline storage, that's pretty lightweight.
But if you need online storage, you need to put the MicroSD flakes into readers that weigh more than the  storage does, and string a bunch of those things together, which probably requires active computers with lots of ports on them.
Still not that heavy, but it's a lot bigger than just a bunch of flakes with sequence numbers written on them in Sharpie pen or punched into Columns 73-80...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_2159259.28629255</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_2159259.28629259</id>
	<title>Work it out in your head</title>
	<author>Verteiron</author>
	<datestamp>1247052240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>What's the storage capacity of a human brain? We know how much THAT weighs, on average.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>What 's the storage capacity of a human brain ?
We know how much THAT weighs , on average .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What's the storage capacity of a human brain?
We know how much THAT weighs, on average.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_2159259.28633265</id>
	<title>Anonymous Coward</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247172360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Resonant anisotropic venal beams can store 1 Petabyte in 2mg - but the magnetic containment field has a volume of just over  6 parsecs. This is not a problem in deep space, but bandwidth overlapping can cause problems inside star systems containing magnetic stars.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Resonant anisotropic venal beams can store 1 Petabyte in 2mg - but the magnetic containment field has a volume of just over 6 parsecs .
This is not a problem in deep space , but bandwidth overlapping can cause problems inside star systems containing magnetic stars .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Resonant anisotropic venal beams can store 1 Petabyte in 2mg - but the magnetic containment field has a volume of just over  6 parsecs.
This is not a problem in deep space, but bandwidth overlapping can cause problems inside star systems containing magnetic stars.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_2159259.28632069</id>
	<title>Re:but-electrons-don't-weigh-anything</title>
	<author>shermo</author>
	<datestamp>1247071020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Maybe editor confused size with mass? Electrons have mass, they don't have any classically defined size.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Maybe editor confused size with mass ?
Electrons have mass , they do n't have any classically defined size .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Maybe editor confused size with mass?
Electrons have mass, they don't have any classically defined size.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_2159259.28629357</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_2159259.28632131</id>
	<title>Re:Minimum mass of a Petabyte</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247071560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Link to your dissertation please!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Link to your dissertation please !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Link to your dissertation please!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_2159259.28629881</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_2159259.28636787</id>
	<title>1 Petabyte =</title>
	<author>Bysshe</author>
	<datestamp>1247154900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Roughly 12 parsecs.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Roughly 12 parsecs .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Roughly 12 parsecs.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_08_2159259_39</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_2159259.28629249
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_2159259.28629495
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_2159259.28632189
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_2159259.28633409
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_08_2159259_21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_2159259.28629319
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_2159259.28629873
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_2159259.28636611
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_08_2159259_11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_2159259.28629319
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_2159259.28629873
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_2159259.28635665
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_08_2159259_69</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_2159259.28629249
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_2159259.28629495
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_2159259.28632185
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_2159259.28644357
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_08_2159259_74</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_2159259.28629359
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_2159259.28632469
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_08_2159259_45</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_2159259.28629249
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_2159259.28629609
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_2159259.28644903
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_08_2159259_59</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_2159259.28629535
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_2159259.28633139
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_08_2159259_64</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_2159259.28629617
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_2159259.28629745
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_08_2159259_5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_2159259.28629319
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_2159259.28629873
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_2159259.28630805
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_08_2159259_38</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_2159259.28629319
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_2159259.28629873
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_2159259.28630873
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_2159259.28643641
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_08_2159259_28</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_2159259.28629357
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_2159259.28641367
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_08_2159259_10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_2159259.28629249
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_2159259.28629609
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_2159259.28632053
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_08_2159259_0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_2159259.28629249
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_2159259.28629609
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_2159259.28632081
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_08_2159259_33</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_2159259.28629255
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_2159259.28629895
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_08_2159259_67</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_2159259.28629453
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_2159259.28641637
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_08_2159259_58</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_2159259.28629249
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_2159259.28629495
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_2159259.28632185
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_2159259.28635659
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_08_2159259_61</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_2159259.28629249
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_2159259.28629609
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_2159259.28631123
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_08_2159259_57</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_2159259.28629601
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_2159259.28631287
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_08_2159259_48</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_2159259.28629469
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_2159259.28629771
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_08_2159259_51</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_2159259.28629453
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_2159259.28629761
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_08_2159259_25</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_2159259.28629367
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_2159259.28629545
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_2159259.28630347
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_08_2159259_30</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_2159259.28629319
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_2159259.28629873
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_2159259.28631283
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_08_2159259_32</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_2159259.28629301
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_2159259.28631687
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_08_2159259_15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_2159259.28629319
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_2159259.28630325
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_08_2159259_78</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_2159259.28629385
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_2159259.28632017
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_08_2159259_31</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_2159259.28629249
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_2159259.28629495
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_2159259.28633801
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_08_2159259_49</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_2159259.28629359
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_2159259.28629683
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_2159259.28630489
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_08_2159259_22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_2159259.28629255
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_2159259.28629345
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_08_2159259_56</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_2159259.28629393
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_2159259.28630165
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_08_2159259_79</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_2159259.28629255
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_2159259.28632269
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_08_2159259_9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_2159259.28629255
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_2159259.28630425
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_2159259.28631167
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_08_2159259_50</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_2159259.28629249
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_2159259.28629609
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_2159259.28630175
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_08_2159259_73</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_2159259.28629261
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_2159259.28642667
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_08_2159259_46</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_2159259.28629319
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_2159259.28629873
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_2159259.28630873
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_2159259.28640377
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_08_2159259_40</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_2159259.28629367
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_2159259.28629637
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_08_2159259_23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_2159259.28629569
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_2159259.28635001
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_08_2159259_14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_2159259.28629319
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_2159259.28629873
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_2159259.28631807
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_08_2159259_4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_2159259.28629319
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_2159259.28629873
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_2159259.28631777
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_08_2159259_37</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_2159259.28629453
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_2159259.28629635
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_2159259.28629833
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_08_2159259_13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_2159259.28629259
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_2159259.28630503
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_08_2159259_65</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_2159259.28629359
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_2159259.28633459
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_08_2159259_20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_2159259.28629255
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_2159259.28629379
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_08_2159259_41</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_2159259.28629255
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_2159259.28630407
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_08_2159259_72</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_2159259.28629319
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_2159259.28629873
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_2159259.28631935
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_08_2159259_43</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_2159259.28629359
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_2159259.28630457
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_08_2159259_68</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_2159259.28629357
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_2159259.28636881
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_08_2159259_29</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_2159259.28629259
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_2159259.28630145
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_08_2159259_71</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_2159259.28629249
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_2159259.28629609
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_2159259.28632041
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_08_2159259_62</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_2159259.28629393
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_2159259.28631333
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_08_2159259_3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_2159259.28629393
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_2159259.28650765
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_08_2159259_36</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_2159259.28629357
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_2159259.28632069
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_08_2159259_19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_2159259.28629393
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_2159259.28629881
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_2159259.28633163
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_08_2159259_12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_2159259.28629469
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_2159259.28631895
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_08_2159259_2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_2159259.28629249
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_2159259.28629495
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_2159259.28632189
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_2159259.28633199
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_08_2159259_35</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_2159259.28630559
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_2159259.28641753
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_08_2159259_26</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_2159259.28629393
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_2159259.28629727
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_08_2159259_63</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_2159259.28629319
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_2159259.28629873
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_2159259.28631431
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_08_2159259_54</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_2159259.28629259
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_2159259.28629435
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_08_2159259_77</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_2159259.28629319
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_2159259.28629873
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_2159259.28631435
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_08_2159259_70</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_2159259.28629319
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_2159259.28629873
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_2159259.28634121
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_08_2159259_53</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_2159259.28629319
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_2159259.28632833
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_08_2159259_27</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_2159259.28629535
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_2159259.28630341
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_08_2159259_55</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_2159259.28629319
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_2159259.28629873
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_2159259.28633013
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_08_2159259_18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_2159259.28629617
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_2159259.28641699
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_08_2159259_8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_2159259.28629319
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_2159259.28629873
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_2159259.28631797
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_08_2159259_60</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_2159259.28629259
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_2159259.28629467
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_08_2159259_1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_2159259.28629359
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_2159259.28629683
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_2159259.28630099
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_08_2159259_34</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_2159259.28629255
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_2159259.28630021
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_08_2159259_17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_2159259.28629359
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_2159259.28631481
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_08_2159259_24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_2159259.28629259
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_2159259.28629615
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_08_2159259_76</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_2159259.28629469
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_2159259.28630659
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_08_2159259_47</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_2159259.28629319
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_2159259.28629873
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_2159259.28630873
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_2159259.28654433
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_08_2159259_52</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_2159259.28629469
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_2159259.28630949
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_08_2159259_75</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_2159259.28629601
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_2159259.28633069
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_08_2159259_66</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_2159259.28629319
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_2159259.28629873
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_2159259.28632655
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_08_2159259_7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_2159259.28629617
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_2159259.28629739
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_08_2159259_42</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_2159259.28629319
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_2159259.28629873
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_2159259.28632497
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_08_2159259_16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_2159259.28629393
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_2159259.28629881
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_2159259.28632131
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_08_2159259_44</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_2159259.28629359
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_2159259.28633843
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_08_2159259_6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_2159259.28629359
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_2159259.28629659
</commentlist>
</thread>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_08_2159259.20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_2159259.28629971
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_08_2159259.18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_2159259.28629249
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_2159259.28629609
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_2159259.28644903
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_2159259.28632041
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_2159259.28632053
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_2159259.28630175
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_2159259.28631123
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_2159259.28632081
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_2159259.28629495
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_2159259.28632185
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_2159259.28635659
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_2159259.28644357
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_2159259.28633801
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_2159259.28632189
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_2159259.28633409
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_2159259.28633199
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_08_2159259.12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_2159259.28629301
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_2159259.28631687
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_08_2159259.9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_2159259.28630181
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_08_2159259.10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_2159259.28629343
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_08_2159259.19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_2159259.28629393
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_2159259.28629727
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_2159259.28629881
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_2159259.28632131
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_2159259.28633163
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_2159259.28650765
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_2159259.28630165
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_2159259.28631333
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_08_2159259.16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_2159259.28629453
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_2159259.28629635
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_2159259.28629833
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_2159259.28629761
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_2159259.28641637
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_08_2159259.17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_2159259.28632121
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_08_2159259.3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_2159259.28629357
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_2159259.28641367
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_2159259.28632069
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_2159259.28636881
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_08_2159259.14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_2159259.28629311
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_08_2159259.1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_2159259.28629287
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_08_2159259.4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_2159259.28629367
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_2159259.28629545
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_2159259.28630347
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_2159259.28629637
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_08_2159259.23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_2159259.28629359
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_2159259.28629659
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_2159259.28633843
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_2159259.28633459
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_2159259.28632469
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_2159259.28631481
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_2159259.28629683
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_2159259.28630489
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_2159259.28630099
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_2159259.28630457
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_08_2159259.11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_2159259.28630559
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_2159259.28641753
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_08_2159259.7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_2159259.28629385
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_2159259.28632017
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_08_2159259.21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_2159259.28629261
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_2159259.28642667
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_08_2159259.2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_2159259.28630701
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_08_2159259.5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_2159259.28629255
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_2159259.28630425
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_2159259.28631167
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_2159259.28629895
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_2159259.28629379
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_2159259.28632269
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_2159259.28630021
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_2159259.28629345
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_2159259.28630407
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_08_2159259.8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_2159259.28630741
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_08_2159259.24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_2159259.28629569
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_2159259.28635001
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_08_2159259.27</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_2159259.28629247
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_08_2159259.15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_2159259.28629319
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_2159259.28632833
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_2159259.28629873
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_2159259.28630805
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_2159259.28630873
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_2159259.28654433
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_2159259.28643641
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_2159259.28640377
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_2159259.28636611
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_2159259.28632655
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_2159259.28631777
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_2159259.28631797
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_2159259.28633013
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_2159259.28631431
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_2159259.28632497
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_2159259.28631283
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_2159259.28631935
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_2159259.28634121
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_2159259.28635665
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_2159259.28631435
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_2159259.28631807
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_2159259.28630325
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_08_2159259.6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_2159259.28629601
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_2159259.28633069
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_2159259.28631287
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_08_2159259.22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_2159259.28629469
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_2159259.28630949
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_2159259.28631895
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_2159259.28630659
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_2159259.28629771
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_08_2159259.25</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_2159259.28629259
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_2159259.28629615
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_2159259.28629435
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_2159259.28629467
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_2159259.28630145
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_2159259.28630503
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_08_2159259.13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_2159259.28629617
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_2159259.28629739
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_2159259.28641699
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_2159259.28629745
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_08_2159259.28</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_2159259.28629535
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_2159259.28630341
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_2159259.28633139
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_08_2159259.26</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_2159259.28633021
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_08_2159259.0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_2159259.28630097
</commentlist>
</conversation>
