Looking forward to carrying the library of congress, netflix's entire catalog, and all of openstreetmap on my phone in the next 5 years.
When combined with ubiquitous 4G coverage, all they'll ever need to stream are the limitless persistent auth tokens, as locking and unlocking assets as frequently as bandwidth will allow, while remaining profitable.
I bet some of the greediest and most tyrranical IP controllers will have 1:1 authentication ratios, with each and every text character, audio sample and pixel per video frame, such that they'll never reduce bandwidth, and even create backlogs of access history, for billing purposes, when network connectivity returns.
Yes, because you accessed five seconds of full motion video, and witnessed content in which Lady Gaga's eyes moved five pixels to the left, while she pronounced a fricative syllable in the third verse of her top 40 hit single, you now owe Viacom 1/20th of one cent. NOTE: Costs do not include third-party fees covering closed-captioning for the hearing impared.
When I saw that the film Defiance was based on a interesting-sounding real set of events, I looked at them on Wikipedia. The history and talk pages had an ongoing edit war with a sizable number of commentators who appeared to feel that the Bielskis should be treated as criminals and murderers rather than fêted as heroes, due to their killing of local Nazi sympathisers.
If you just stuck to the hashed-out Wikipedia page that was current, you'd be completely oblivious to the whole controversy.
That service is just grafted on there, it's not a necessity.
It's the google way of doing things.
There are other navigation apps that do store offline maps; the reason they're not popular outside of outdoor enthusiasts is that they take up a huge amount of space. It seems like a reasonable trade-off to me.
Cell phones could easily provide navigation capabilities for at least the country of origin of the buyer and several around it if the creators decided this was a desirable thing.
All of the US is 1GB. See here: (dutch):
http://www.laptopshop.nl/vragen/29528/115735/tomtom-navigato...
Flash runs a few $ / G. Of course your phone manufacturer will screw you completely on the memory when you buy it (the price difference between a 16G and a 32G phone is ridiculous, but I guess I can't fault them as long as people fall for tricks like that).
Yeah but it won't also have several GB of games, audio, apps and photos on it as well. People would cry bloody murder if they found out google was using 7 GB of space to cache the world map by default.
If you are a person who needs a world map at their fingertips there are apps for that but the average person just needs google maps to figure out what turn the should take occasionally.
I've been holding out from the smartphone revolution for quite a while now, but a phone that would do off-line navigation would be a good thing because that means one less thing to carry along.
I don't like having services forced upon me when a single download would suffice.
Haven't looked at the pro pricing or feature list, just having maps that my off-network, GPS equipped old brick can use near home is sweet enough.
If you use Android, check out OsmAnd. It uses the same OSM maps, has navigation (with voice pack too) and it's free for up to 8 countries IIRC. I have been using it for about three months and it works pretty good.
The only problem I found is that city names for some countries are in local language, so if you go to Greece for example, you would have to type in the names in Greek letters. It they fixed this, it would be perfect.
Also, the free version allows for 10 downloads, where updating a previously downloaded map (which might only be a region of a country) counts as one of them. But the paid version is only $8.
Search for your area. Pull up info sheet for it. Click "Save map to use offline". (Although I've got no idea if it checks for changes)
Reduced the utility considerably imho.
Both Navigon and Co-Pilot (on Android) can store the entire U.S. in about 1.5 GB.
Zim reader was the best I could do, and still is the best at the moment. But I would be totally fine with dedicating a few terabytes to keeping much more complete local archives on my file-server if the update process was reasonably automatic (something like bittorrent would be great).
Zim is a desktop wiki app.
Some things won't grow, to be sure. Anything text-based, for example. But movies, music, pictures... would probably all explode in fidelity and thus size.
Movies can practically scale up to retina-equivalent on wall-size equivalent only. Even then not many people will want TVs bigger than they can look at without moving their eyes...
Pictures could still grow, especially the internal raw representation taken from the light capturing element, but that's likely to be down-scaled when saving to kill noise.
What else is there that really takes space? (that is not limited by the effective resolution of human senses)
Spatial audio that supports dynamically computed surround sound for arbitrarily many speakers and headphones.
> Movies can practically scale up to retina-equivalent on wall-size equivalent only. Even then not many people will want TVs bigger than they can look at without moving their eyes...
> Pictures could still grow, especially the internal raw representation taken from the light capturing element, but that's likely to be down-scaled when saving to kill noise.
1) High color depth, allowing bright and dim objects to coexist in the same picture without loss of fidelity, and allowing dynamic lighting.
2) Complete depth data, allowing dynamic depth of field changes.
3) Complete geometry and scene-graph data, allowing you to change the camera and perspective.
Still covers only a small arbitrary constant factor of data that is already very small by modern standards.
Note that surround sound data is, IIRC, already not "twice" the size of stereo.
And your video points 1 and 2 are also still at most only small constant factors of increase over what we already have, with 3 potentially being a compression technique.
Video is nearing its apex; sound is pretty much already there.
There's actually a maximum rate at which our senses can convey information to our brains; any use of data beyond that rate is literally impossible and anything carried beyond that is wasted. Even a full sensorium just isn't that much larger than what we already have. We are, after all, talking about technologies that are in the same ballpark as the maximum theoretical data density that human brains can have, and in practice the memristor storage is going to be much higher. It should not be surprising that it's very difficult to truly "use" all that storage.
Even stereo is also not twice the size of mono. (using joint-stereo encoding)
Agree with all the other points too.
> 2) Complete depth data, allowing dynamic depth of field changes.
This does extend the natural sense range, but is also already possible/done.
> 3) Complete geometry and scene-graph data, allowing you to change the camera and perspective.
That should actually take less space than the final scene in many cases...
I guess you are talking about the utility of media at higher and higher fidelity and I am just snagging on how you have phrased it.
Edit: I'd imagine this is due both to a limited amount of storage, a limited number of writes to current sold-state mediums, and energy usage, all of which this technology appears to solve.
1GB/s of streaming data is 10,737,418 channels of 100 point per second 64bit floats.
I guess it is hard to imagine, but let's dream a bit...one ridiculous possibility that I've thought about is consider something like google glass. Imagine recording every moment of your day from your smart phone, and not just when you wake up. Why would you do this? Well, may be there for little things like having a meeting with someone and you want to remember details without writing it down. Why take the time to record it manually when you have the ability to do it in HD, for cheap?
Again, this is hard to imagine wanting to do especially for privacy reasons, but were things like facebook and twitter easy to imagine in the 80s? As things things have changed, so have social norms...I'm not saying this is a good or bad thing, I'm just stating an observation.
So, I happen to not have any HD vids on my laptop at the moment, but I have a normal video on my laptop that is 10 minutes long that is 70 MB. For something like recording video for 10 hours say, that's 6 * 70 * 10~4GB. So, yeah that's about 250 days (little less than a year) on your smart phone at 1 TB ignoring all other things (full seasons of vids of shows, as another commenter mentioned, stuff like raw gps data that could be added to the video, other things), so may be it isn't quite reaching the limit but it's a good example for how as we have more space for stuff, it is possible to imagine finding more things to fill your smartphone's new TB of storage with.
Much easier than the example you give, yes. Considering things like Xanadu were already theorized in the '60s, Facebook and Twitter wouldn't be that huge of a stretch. What's more, Usenet and BBSes already existed in the '80s, so there was a text-based glimpse of the future in some way.
Of course, imagining the scale, deep technical details and the heavy use of graphics back then was likely difficult. But the general concept? Hardly. Especially not something as simplistic as Twitter, the idea of it was most certainly not alien back then.
Current holographic displays require a movie-source for every few-point. And to make it convincing for a small POV (e.g. 19" 4:3 holographic monitor) you need at least 8 few-points, for a 360° next-gen holographic display you would many terrabytes of data for one movie (and a high bandwidth to stream the data to the display). Depending on the holographic technology you need additonally a very high resolution in contrast to the visual output. If you use a common HD resolution the current visible pixel range is about 640x480 - at least some expensive research displays I used in 2011.
You mean XML for instance?
"If GML was an infant, SGML is the bright youngster who far
exceeds expectations and made its parents too proud, but
XML is the drug-addicted gang member who had committed his
first murder before he had sex, which was rape." -- Erik Naggum
<anthology>
<poem>
<title>The SICK ROSE
<stanza>
<line>O Rose thou art sick.
<line>The invisible worm,
<line>That flies in the night
<line>In the howling storm:
<stanza>
<line>Has found out thy bed
<line>Of crimson joy:
<line>And his dark secret love
<line>Does thy life destroy.
<poem>
<!-- more poems go here -->
</anthology>
<a>b</>
"A":"B"
Maybe we should allow net neutrality to fall, increase socialization as a result :-) lol.
:.:.:
Also no, sneaker net means a network transported by feet not wires. But I do like the joke, or I pray its a joke not a prophesy.
So it'll take 1x10^4 times as long to copy the capacity.
This explains it well: http://rescomp.stanford.edu/~cheshire/rants/Latency.html?HN_...
Several new non-volatile memory technologies have achieved latency down to 100 picoseconds. This is an order of magnitude faster than the L1 cache on a CPU (SRAM).
CPU power will again becomes the bottleneck, instead of storage. We will have to build completely new CPU architectures to make us of this though.
Those features that are the only things saving modern processors from spending nearly all of their time doing nothing useful while they're waiting for data to be retrieved from main memory.
Look at a Core i7 CPU die, with the L1/L2/L3 cache circled. Understand that many of the remaining transistors are doing things like branch prediction, managing cache coherency, and prefetch and so forth.
http://i.stack.imgur.com/4Z1nU.png
That would be awesome.
Even if all storage uses the same underlying persistence technology, access times will still depend on the distance between the data and the logic. If there are ALUs intertwingled with the storage, access times will still depend on how close the various pieces of data being worked on together are.
Parallel algorithms tend to lose performance as they get chattier and as node speed is lost to increase node count.
Storage living next to logic is effectively a miniaturized version of the "datacenter as a computer" or "warehouse-scale computer" setup that some places are using already. I seem to recall seeing whole books written on the additional complexities of writing software to take advantage of such an environment.
There will never be "only one pool of data". At a minimum, there will be "data in the physical thing that stays on the desk", "data in the physical thing that goes in my pocket", "data on such-and-such private network", and "data available over the Internet".
The important part of memristors is that they can be arranged to form a crossbar latch, which acts like a transistor.
This crossbar latches are very very small, and very low power. HP plans on achieving data density of 100GB/cm^2 [1] with read write speeds approximately 100x faster then flash memory while using 1% of the energy. Also with lower energy costs, expected data density is 1 Petabyte per cm^3 (due to 3D stacked circuitry)
Basically when this technology comes of age we'll see smart phones reach the order of terabytes of storage.
[1] http://www.eetimes.com/document.asp?doc_id=1168454