digg

Join DiggAbout
See the original image at neatorama.com

What Do 12 Terabytes-Worth of Data Look Like?

neatorama.com — In the ongoing $1 billion legal lawsuit between YouTube and Viacom, a federal judge has recently ordered the Google to turn over records of all users and videos ever viewed on YouTube. Privacy concern aside, that ’s 12 terabytes of information. Well, it sounds enormous … but what exactly do 12 terabytes-worth of information look like?

Bury
show profanity settings
expand all
  • bixby1, on 07/08/2008, -7/+120I've just been given perspective on how impossible it would be for anybody go sift through 12 terabytes of information... sifting not possible in this lifetime.
    • bosssmiley, on 07/08/2008, -1/+95They'll just use Google search on it to find the information they need. ;-)
      • Spudster, on 07/09/2008, -0/+5I think you should be ending that with a :( in this case.
    • merlin5, on 07/08/2008, -6/+22I work with that much data all the time. Given the current power of computers and the fact that Moores law is still working. Mining this much data is no problem at all. In the industry we are starting to plan for the management of Petabytes (1000 Terabytes) of data. 6 years ago no one ever heard of a Petabyte.
      • NathanielJ, on 07/08/2008, -17/+9Moore's Law hasn't been working for the last 6 years, and if you honestly think that computers nowadays are 16 times as powerful as they were 6 years ago, you need to think back a bit harder.
      • Dauntless1, on 07/08/2008, -4/+2Moore's law is back in swing with the development of the mem-ristor.
      • merlin5, on 07/08/2008, -8/+15Moores law over 6 years = 32 times faster. I work in the industry. I think real hard all the time for a living. And the servers I am buying today are magnitudes faster than the ones I was buying 6 years ago. Point being that finding stuff within 12 Terabytes is not a problem. Sheesh.
      • erictheninja, on 07/08/2008, -1/+12@merlin5

        You're right that there's already plans for data management of PBs of data. We can't adequately mine PBs though because we're still learning to manage it.

        Moore's Law has nothing to do with faster. Moore's Law states that the number of transistors on an IC will double exponentially every 2 years. 18 months is often misquoted. See ftp://download.intel.com/museum/Moores_Law/Video-Transcripts/Excepts_A_Conversation_with_Gordon_Moore.pdf

        Over 6 years, transistor density should go up by a factor of 8 (2^(6 years / 2)). If you assume 18 months, then NathanielJ's right with 16 times (2^(72mon/18mon)).
      • peevegrider, on 07/08/2008, -1/+6Yeah but in high IO processing servers the bottleneck isn't the processors, it's the hard drives. With solid state drives, we are seeing a decrease in that bottleneck, i.e. more data can be processed faster from a random access perspective. If you look at companies that have to process large amounts of tape, you can process 1,000s of 400GB tapes in one years time...what's 61 200 GB hard drives?? Just mine it the same way seismic data gets mined.

        You can transfer 20TBs in a weekend over a SAN, why not just transfer it to SSDs. If it's that important to em, they could do it easily. Here's 2TB of SSD capacity....

        http://www.superssd.com/products/ramsan-500/
      • shakin, on 07/09/2008, -2/+3@merlin5: Moore's law deals with transistors, not speed.
      • Gizza, on 07/09/2008, -0/+3Moore's Law states that the number of transistors on a chip with double every 18months. It doesn't say anything about that resulting in a faster chip.
      • dhughes, on 07/09/2008, -0/+2 You must work in the GIS industry merlin5, it's a fascinating field, some people I've talked to (Alberta oil sands area) about the LHC have said that the amount of data they handle is commonplace for people in the GIS industry. Commonplace meaning gigabytes of data per minute, every minute of the day, seven days a week, 365 days a year and massive clusters running Linux to handle the data.
    • FutureGuy, on 07/08/2008, -9/+3Buried as inaccurate, my brain doesn't have the capacity to remember over 0.5 billion single typed pages.
      • NathanielJ, on 07/08/2008, -0/+11What about 500 million?
      • drunkmonkey01, on 07/08/2008, -0/+1maybe it does if it forgot everything else
      • Loxias, on 07/09/2008, -0/+10Maybe you could if you installed a different OS
    • Rotzooi, on 07/08/2008, -7/+2Depends on the type of information.
      I don't consider myself a power user of storage systems, but my regular pc has 4 TB of harddrives in it, of which 3.5TB is in use. It's perfectly manageable because hardly any file is under 1GB.
      • cheeze_ballz, on 07/08/2008, -0/+19that's alot of porn!
      • peevegrider, on 07/08/2008, -1/+2It's manageable because you set it up so you know where everything is stored. For 12TB of ***** videos, profiles, user info, etc. it's a lot harder to find stuff. It's definitely doable in a couple weeks time, but an algorithm will be necessary to extract certain pieces of data and catalog the blocks at which it's stored.
      • shakin, on 07/09/2008, -0/+2@peevegrider:

        For 12 TB of logs they would dump it into a database and run queries to find the information they want. If they want to know who viewed x video between date y and date z they run the query and get back a few thousand rows of the data they want.

    • zydeco, on 07/08/2008, -0/+20Everytime you search YouTube, aren't you sifting through that much information? It's all in the indexing....
      • Origin415, on 07/09/2008, -0/+1No, you aren't searching through YouTube's logs, you are searching an index of videos.

        The data in question contains information about every single time a video has ever been watched.
    • Sihing, on 07/08/2008, -1/+4It's accurate and plausible to sift through that much data sadly. I really don't like this whole Viacom business handing over IP's... the internet is a frontier that is supposed to be free and without crap like this. Okay so I'm not so detailed by saying crap, but I think everyone agrees this is bull****.

      So, 12 TB is actually manageable though. I'm working on a performance tool that deals with TB's of performance related data for the system i for IBM. Can't really say much else about it because it's IBM confidential, but it's EASILY possible to sift that much data. Scary right?
      • merlin5, on 07/08/2008, -1/+3Thanks Sihing, I was getting flamed for saying so.
      • erictheninja, on 07/08/2008, -0/+5You were getting flamed by NathanielJ for your inaccurate use of Moore's law. It had nothing to do w/sifting data.
      • peevegrider, on 07/08/2008, -0/+2I agree, seismic data companies do it daily.
    • emehrkay, on 07/09/2008, -0/+3I could watch 2600 movies though. one a day for 9 years
    • KlassyGuy, on 07/09/2008, -1/+2What if google encrypted the data on hard disks and handed it over. They "technically" did give the information, it's just really really hard to get.
    • Naryuu, on 07/09/2008, -0/+2just be looking out for viacoms hundreds of new job openings :D
    • bakatrinh, on 07/09/2008, -0/+1This pretty much means whoever's job it is to analyze and sort these information is guaranteed job security for the rest of his life.
    • Fordi, on 07/09/2008, -0/+1For the paper, given standard 20lb sheets, that's 53,000 cubic yards of paper, shipped in a box around 37.5 yards to a side.
    • venicerocco, on 07/09/2008, -0/+2I've been organizing over 15TB of data over the last few days. Easy when it's three documentary's worth of HD video.
  • gnarlee, on 07/08/2008, -15/+652I say Google should give Viacom 5,280,000,000 single-spaced typewritten pages of data.
    • rebotfc, on 07/08/2008, -0/+94In Brush Script MT font.
      • BoonTobias, on 07/08/2008, -1/+45caps
      • seabass10, on 07/08/2008, -5/+12!!!!1!
      • kingfoot, on 07/08/2008, -0/+154in wingdings is my vote.
      • transfuse, on 07/08/2008, -2/+25And make sure it's a locked PDF.
      • itsthebrod, on 07/09/2008, -2/+10Comic Sans would probably suffice in making them suicidal, after all, every time I see a website using it I get the urge to sit in a running car parked in a garage.
      • utnow, on 07/09/2008, -0/+16How about they use a captcha font to slow down the machine readability. ;) Only the characters with cats are valid... the rest have bunnies. :)
      • jenel, on 07/09/2008, -2/+2That would be "catpcha", then.
    • engarak, on 07/08/2008, -0/+69Do we even have enough trees available?
      • kingfoot, on 07/08/2008, -4/+13yes.
      • B3N3, on 07/08/2008, -0/+50If not, they can just keep reprinting them all on the same page.
      • hartley, on 07/08/2008, -0/+41According to Mead, a 4x4x8 core of wood can produce around 90,000 sheets of paper.
        That equals out to over 55.5k trees.
      • itsthebrod, on 07/09/2008, -2/+3Definitely not! Trees are not a renewable resource... It's not like they grow on trees or anything.
    • billbugger, on 07/08/2008, -0/+108and scrambled, like they dropped it in the hallway or something.
      • Wigglemaster, on 07/08/2008, -0/+13But don't forget to number them.
    • t0x2c, on 07/08/2008, -2/+34Did they say the data had to be unencrypted, or in that matter, accessible?
    • feliks2, on 07/08/2008, -5/+36No, your not saying that, the article is saying that.
    • newwildlife, on 07/08/2008, -4/+25plagurism from the end of the article! *rolls eyes*
    • biznatch11, on 07/08/2008, -0/+17And make the margins 1.1 inches instead of 1. That always gets me to the page counts I need for assignments...I'm guessing it'll really add up over 5 billion pages.
      • AlienMushroom, on 07/09/2008, -0/+4But don't essays usually come in double space?
    • ElbertF, on 07/08/2008, -0/+90I say they should give 'm 9.6 human brains.
      • Firehed, on 07/08/2008, -0/+39Preferably from the Viacom execs.

        'course, they would probably need about 25 to match the intended capacity.
      • homescrubb, on 07/09/2008, -4/+1not looking for diggs here... but firehed, i got a real good laugh...
      • alecsputnik, on 07/09/2008, -1/+2mmmm.... brains....
    • gbarger, on 07/08/2008, -1/+22Why single spaced, be nice and give them double spaced so they have room for notes. :-)
    • xkhaozx, on 07/08/2008, -0/+13heh.. unfortunately, the judge actually ruled that they have to "turn over the logs on a set of four terabyte hard drives"

      http://blog.wired.com/27bstroke6/files/viacom_yout ...
      • Xsecrets, on 07/08/2008, -11/+1curious how do you put 12 terabytes of data on 4 1 terabyte drives?
        I'm guessing the 12 terabytes is uncompressed?
      • avihappy, on 07/08/2008, -1/+10He meant three 4-terabyte hard drives.
      • MuskokasFinest, on 07/09/2008, -0/+4The Judge actually just says that they COULD turn over the data on 3 4-terabyte drives. He doesn't say they have to, he's just using it as an example to show that presenting the "large" amount of data isn't difficult (at least when it comes to storing it).
      • bassman12593, on 07/09/2008, -0/+11) I definitely could put those drives to better use than google or viacom is using them for (Bittorent server in molassia FTW!!)
        2) can it still be encrypted?
      • SpeedSteamBoat, on 07/09/2008, -0/+7Where do you buy 4-terabyte HDDs?
    • D4rkDrago0n, on 07/08/2008, -2/+6I say they should hand it over in windings
    • hotpuck6, on 07/08/2008, -0/+52***** it,
      you guys are being way too practical.
      12 terabytes of info, loaded onto 8,333,333,334 3.5" floppies.
      Have fun with that one Viacom.
      • hotpuck6, on 07/08/2008, -0/+13i added a decimal in the wrong spot,
        it should be 8,333,334 floppies.
      • joebaloney, on 07/09/2008, -1/+44Too late, I already tagged you as being offensive.
      • scy1192, on 07/09/2008, -0/+33INSERT DISK 1 / 7,284,003,221
        READING DISK
        CANNOT READ DISK
        ABORT,RETRY,FAIL?
      • KMartSheriff, on 07/09/2008, -1/+3I have to admit, I didn't see joebaloney's sarcasm a first. Dugg.
    • Wigglemaster, on 07/08/2008, -0/+16I just got it.. Fax it over
    • paradexes, on 07/09/2008, -7/+1Or as the court order requests....4GB Drives. That is still a crap load they have to sort through.
    • felipe41194, on 07/09/2008, -0/+8the tree hugging hippie in me says no

      the anti-viacom badass in me says ill help print out the pages
    • JoeMcMonagle, on 07/09/2008, -1/+2This was mentioned on TWiT, Leo said something like that's paying for a lawsuit in 1 dollar bills or something. I don't know I was half asleep while listening to it. Either way they should totally go for it.
  • nmnnotmyname, on 07/08/2008, -3/+67Viacom is too ***** greedy. Once a video with an excess of copyrighted content gets too popular, it gets thrown away anyways. How much money is this losing them that they have to be such asses about it?
    • Archer007, on 07/08/2008, -1/+5They are not worried about profit loss now, they're worried about precedent and future profit loss.
    • paradexes, on 07/09/2008, -3/+1And getting youtube source code.
      • garnetrook, on 07/09/2008, -0/+2I'm sure the masses will have no problem accepting Viatube into their hearts.
    • iFrikkenR, on 07/09/2008, -0/+5No, see what they're really doing is obtaining info and whats hot or not. This is research plain and simple. They're being handed all that data containing who watches what, when, what they link to. Demographic info etc.

      They've hit the ***** jackpot with this lot
      • nmnnotmyname, on 07/09/2008, -0/+1Clever one... This is could be a lot more complex than i thought after all.
  • upick, on 07/08/2008, -29/+10This is cool... I didn't know that Microsoft had a telescope... anyways the facts are pretty cool too

    9.6 Human Brains = 12 TB ??? Serious?? That's like 18 movies only... that can fit in my brain

    Is that for real?
    • Thoric, on 07/08/2008, -2/+56If your movies are over 600 Gigabytes, yes.
      • blanketfury, on 07/08/2008, -0/+8That's one hell of a porn collection.

        I'm comin over.
    • xirtap, on 07/08/2008, -2/+17Well to be fair 1 movie could be 12TB big or it could only be a few megabytes big.

      Oh and for the whole 9.6 human brains = 12TB. HAHAHHA!
      To quote the article:
      "the capacity of a human being’s functional memory is estimated to be 1.25 terabytes by futurist Raymond Kurzweil in The Singularity Is Near".
      Estimated by a futurist? Bwahahahahahaha!
    • Tochi, on 07/08/2008, -1/+4Human brains don't need compression.
    • Suricou, on 07/08/2008, -1/+9Only if you wish to store them as a bitstream. I'm fairy sure your brain cannot tell me the color of a pixel if I give you coordinates and a frame number. The reason you can fit so much is that your brain discards almost every piece of information that comes in, and just keeps the important data.
      • caseycoold, on 07/09/2008, -0/+1"The reason you can fit so much..."
        People have been trying to solve the mysteries of the brain for a long time. You crack me up being so sure of yourself.
        And since no one has ever reached a limit, including those few (there are 3 in America right now) with photographic memory, I think it's a total BS number. Read up a little on how humans learn, and how confounded people are with have fast babies learn (it defies everything we know).
        The rest is cool, though.
        I think Google should think seriously about how they deliver the information. They were saying it would be too much work, until the judge pointed out that a few hard drives would be enough. Well, if they burned it to a disk, and used some shiny new copyright protection, I think the world would be a little more just.
    • wanzedk, on 07/08/2008, -1/+5Well, good luck memorizing just one movie. Go easy on yourself, just start memorizing it in a resolution of 400x300. You only have to remember the 120000 pixels, their location and color for every frame. At 30 frames per second, that's 19,440,000,000 colors, their location and frame for a 90 minutes movie. Oh, unless your brain knows of compression.
      • Verdanic, on 07/09/2008, -0/+5Well, in all fairness, technically it does? Think about it, images from memory in your brain are really only a sketch of events - the colors and forms are, to an extent, assumed (grass is green, your couch is brown and across from the television), and elements aside from the focus of the memory are drawn more from imagination than memory when you get into details. Fascinating really, I think.
  • Renster84, on 07/08/2008, -23/+5Do people realise that if google take the paper route then we might as well say goodbye to the Amazon rain forest.
    • btschul, on 07/08/2008, -0/+16I think that was sort of a joke.
    • Yookji, on 07/08/2008, -2/+15Paper grows on trees. Paper companies grow tree farms because that is tremendously more efficient than using virgin forests.
    • kingfoot, on 07/08/2008, -0/+9woooosh...
  • bharless3329, on 07/08/2008, -7/+148So, 9.6 human brains could memorize 5.28 billion typewritten pages of information? Did I understand the chart? I don't think I could memorize 500.
    • RATM4EVER, on 07/08/2008, -4/+278Seems possible. Imagine how many .bmp's your brain is storing and has stored over the years. All the low quality .jpg's that represent your unfamiliar relatives...all the .gif's that you keep in your "spank bank" etc...

      I'd imagine if you were to remove all those, you'd fit all those .doc's
      • crashaskins, on 07/08/2008, -3/+25very well worded.
      • jspegele, on 07/08/2008, -2/+69my brain does not recognize the bmp format
      • megamod, on 07/08/2008, -1/+102i keep most of my images in .png...it's lossless
      • n4tune8, on 07/08/2008, -1/+33Imagine all those songs you can hum, some of which you actually know the lyrics to. From childhood to present, that's a lot of MP3's!!!
      • Scrappy1850, on 07/08/2008, -0/+26those sound like midi files
      • ph3rny, on 07/08/2008, -0/+68I recently had to wipe my mind of all media and audio for fear of copyright infringement.
      • Yeknom, on 07/09/2008, -2/+18Reincarnation = Reformat?
      • chrgrose, on 07/09/2008, -6/+3this is crap. My brain doesn't store images in a format where the parts are divisible into pixels. The parts of images are divisible into far more abstract shapes and colors and symbols
      • itsthebrod, on 07/09/2008, -1/+20I agree with the brain being powerful. Mine has the best anti-aliasing engine I've ever seen.
      • skizzy, on 07/09/2008, -2/+2Error Program Wife Not Installed.
    • NASTYnateFROMoz, on 07/08/2008, -17/+2i can because i have 9.6 brains worth of brains ;)
      • LucerinRed, on 07/08/2008, -0/+8Some would think that you should be able to use some of it for grammar.
      • DforSpiD, on 07/09/2008, -0/+5He has evolved beyond the need for grammar!
    • Daniel591992, on 07/08/2008, -1/+7Well, if you were willing to forget everything you currently know, then yes.
    • LimeParrot, on 07/08/2008, -0/+15"...the capacity of a human being’s functional memory is estimated to be 1.25 terabytes by futurist Raymond Kurzweil in The Singularity Is Near..."
      So this is pretty much a guesstimate. The brain is a lot more complex than computers and I doubt you can just put on a number on its memory. We just don't know enough about it... maybe that's why you have to be a futurist to know it's 1.25TB.
      • NanoStuff, on 07/09/2008, -1/+2"The brain is a lot more complex than computers"

        The complexity of a system is highly irrelevant to judging it's information content. I'll link to a post I made on reddit rather than repeat myself.

        http://www.reddit.com/info/6qg2r/comments/c04lrwn
      • ozydingo, on 07/09/2008, -0/+3One question I have on that post, regarding dendritic connections being represented by a single bit. If a dendritic connection is captured by a single bit, then the dynamics of the dendrite itself propagating the signal to the cell body, interacting nonlinearly with other synaptic activity, must be more than one additional bit--at least for some neural connections. There are neurons with complex enough interactions between their multiple incoming synapses that you cannot simplify the neuron to simply be a logic gate to binary input signals from other neurons. An example that comes to mind would be inhibitory & excitatory connections at neurons in the auditory pathway where the precise interaction of inhib. and excit. may produce a slight time shift in the temporal response which is important for timing comparisons between the the left and right ear.
      • Metasquares, on 07/09/2008, -0/+3No, you have to be a futurist to get people to believe you when you say stuff like that.

        If you really want to know that, you should consult a neuroscientist rather than a futurist.
      • thankyousir, on 07/09/2008, -0/+1futurism scares me sometimes. Transhumanism could get messy.
      • NoDisk, on 07/09/2008, -0/+21.25 terabytes?

        I have at least twice that much porn in my brain.

        Seriously, though, this figure is absurd. Are we talking bits and bytes here? How much binary would it take to store the sight, sound, smell, touch and taste of ANY experience -- along with the thoughts and associations of that moment? Even if we lose 90% of that data to shoddy memory, it's still more information than you could store in a space that small.
    • wilsondus, on 07/08/2008, -0/+13Actually, I know someone who has the entire Old Testament of the Bible memorized, so I'm sure you could handle 500 especially (unlike this guy) if that's the only info recorded in your brain. I'm positive that if you write everything you know on paper... from childhood memories, your education, your entire life... it would amount to much more than 500 pages.
      • Issius, on 07/09/2008, -2/+2He memorized a lot of stories...go for him.
      • yertthedigger, on 07/09/2008, -1/+2Although I for one am not for the 1.25 crap estimate, you have to remember that people remember books by words not by letters; somewhat like a compression system, so you'd have to compress that Bible first to get a better guess with that.
      • ozydingo, on 07/12/2008, -0/+1I'd argue it's even more "compressed" that words, people remember ideas and themes, and sometimes a little information about the specific words (not necessarily, but sometimes, the words themselves) so that they can reconstruct the passages more or less verbatim.
    • neferiousrich, on 07/08/2008, -0/+6i dont think i could memorize 2
    • AlienMushroom, on 07/09/2008, -10/+1I store them in AVI.
      It's said that even the smartest human would only utilize 10% of his brain.
      We are wasting at least 10.8 TB of space.
      • Chalks777, on 07/09/2008, -1/+4It's also said that 87% of all statistics are made up.
      • bentrinh, on 07/09/2008, -0/+7Uh, no.
        http://www.snopes.com/science/stats/10percent.asp
      • ozydingo, on 07/12/2008, -0/+1One believed origin of that myth, which unless I missed it (which is very possible in my current state) was not mentioned in the Scopes article comes from early neurobiology experiments. I cannot recall the name of the researchers, but they stimulated various parts of the brain of an awake human subject, and approximately 10% of the areas stimulated elicited an observable or behavioral response. This of course by no means that we use only 10% of our brains, only that the researchers could only directly cause a response from electrical stimulation of this area. Other areas are already known to have very important functions for perception, sensory feedback and input, and probably planning&cognition.
    • Aliendude, on 07/09/2008, -0/+1There are people who can remember every day of their lives better than I can remember this morning. While it may not equal a terabyte, it shows there is a lot of potential us peons aren't wired to use.

      It's called hyperthemesia, and I apologize for being a psychology nerd.
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hyperthymestic_syndro ...
      http://www.cnn.com/2008/HEALTH/conditions/05/07/mi ...
    • Sucka27, on 07/09/2008, -0/+3I believe most brain specialists say you cannot put a number on the capacity for brain memory, it is limitless. I'd like to know how Kurzweil came up with this figure. He is brilliant although possibly dramatically far-fetched and I think he may have simply come up with the number for said dramatic effect in The Singularity.
      • asteron, on 07/09/2008, -0/+4It's obviously not limitless. There are after all a finite amount of quantum states an 3lb chunk of matter can exist in at room temperature.

        If there was no limit we wouldn't need to have such large brains.
      • ozydingo, on 07/12/2008, -0/+2And certainly not every one of those possible quantum states is a discriminable state usable by the brain, so the amount of information able to be stored is in fact less than this physical limit. How the brain encodes millions of multi-modal stimuli in such a robust manner is a matter of true amazement, and an inspiration for systems- and neuromorphic- engineers.
    • godofpumpkins, on 07/09/2008, -0/+0you'd think that instead of just writing "this axis is not to scale, okay" (which means the only thing the graph is showing is that a < b < c < d, and the relative sizes mean nothing) they could've just used a logarithmic scale...
    • johnstar, on 07/09/2008, -0/+1The human brain is not like a hard drive but a data processing center constant visual, auditory, nerve impulses being thrown out, constantly compressed evaluated for relevance. The brain Is more like a processor and the memory like the l1 and l2 cache. (short and long term memory) Hard drive is the wrong part entirely!
      • ozydingo, on 07/12/2008, -0/+1The brain isn't even really like a processor, which steps through clocked commands via an addressable memory program counter. As far as I know there is no evidence for such a structured central processing unit, and no evidence for a hardware/software distinction in the animal brain.
    • DrZocktahedron, on 07/09/2008, -0/+1Well actually 10% of the brain is used for memory. The rest is for other important functions. So if the whole brain was used to memorize those documents, you technically couldnt at the same time, having to forget every word you know to make room for all those documents.
  • wiirdo, on 07/08/2008, -2/+139Microsoft + Telescope = Microscope? Oh wait, they can't trademark that.
    • ApokalypseNow, on 07/08/2008, -0/+35Telesoft is taken, too.
    • Hodor, on 07/08/2008, -3/+10what about microtel?

      or softscope?
      • gurudrew, on 07/08/2008, -0/+30Both taken. A motel chain and a medical supply company
    • fogdart, on 07/09/2008, -4/+1telemo

      mitelsoft

      you can see how far away from vista i want to be with one!
    • Ubertastic, on 07/09/2008, -1/+4I dunno, Adobe seems to have a rather easy time trademarking common words.
  • dsmx, on 07/08/2008, -3/+7Just adds to my argument that viacom are going to get nothing out of the data they secured. Organising and sorting that data will take years by which time it will be out of date and useless.
  • chewbacca77, on 07/08/2008, -9/+223"the capacity of a human being’s functional memory is estimated to be 1.25 terabytes..." That's ridiculous. Trying to translate from a human's memory to bits is absurd. That's like saying 5 apples = 4.3 oranges.
    • drunkenoaf, on 07/08/2008, -2/+47Thank you. You must be the only person in the tech section of Digg today that actually uses the critical thinking part of their brain when they see "scientific" data.
    • glenSM, on 07/08/2008, -0/+11Yes i was wondering about the brain, it was suggested by some futurist with a tinfoil hat.
    • biznatch11, on 07/08/2008, -2/+114Actually, 5 apples = 4.7 oranges. Your calculator has to be to "FC" (Fruit Conversion) mode to calculate this properly.
      • TheCoreh, on 07/09/2008, -0/+7I think he considered Nautical Oranges. 5 Apples = 4.3 Nautical Oranges
      • CAisBacK, on 07/09/2008, -1/+0My calculator says 5 apples= 3.5 oranges Does that mean that my calculator likes oranges the most?
      • hexobolic, on 07/09/2008, -0/+3Does Fruit Conversion work on people too? How many Elton Johns does it take to equal a Liberace?
      • CAisBacK, on 07/09/2008, -0/+0No, For that you need a TI Calculator with the TCF Talent Conversion Function.....
        1 Eminem = 20 Lil Waynes....
    • Logicexe, on 07/08/2008, -1/+8Well it is possible to approximate these things. I mean, if you can memorize a string of text that would take 50kb worth of storage on a hard drive than you could say you've memorized 50kb of data. Of course it's probably over simplifying things to the point of being misleading

      I agree that it sort of is like comparing apples to oranges, but I guess it's ok if it's only used to illustrate the vast amounts of data they're working with.
      • Gizza, on 07/09/2008, -0/+3In the same way that you can estimate that 5 apples = 4.3 oranges in terms of vitamin C content, or volume, or weight or something like that. Still seems like he pulled that value out of this arse though.
      • Logicexe, on 07/09/2008, -0/+1Yes I guess that's what I was trying to say.
    • killtrocity, on 07/08/2008, -1/+18What these so called scientists don't realize is that your brain is subconsciously storing tons of other data that isn't apparent from the surface. Say you are memorizing lines of text. What you don't realize is that your brain also remembers where you were when you were reading the text, whether it was light or dark in that particular location, if there were any strange smells, the quality of the paper, the time of day, etc. These are all things our brain stores and remembers that we often take for granted.
      • MonkCanatella, on 07/09/2008, -0/+13You're right, scientists would never think of something that even the average digger thought of.
      • TheCoreh, on 07/09/2008, -1/+5Metadata.
    • Ortheos, on 07/09/2008, -1/+1Well we know the average number of neurons and synaptic connections in the average human brain. I'm no neurologist but I'm sure they have a few theoretical formulas for this kind of think as pertaining to memory storage and recall.
    • NanoStuff, on 07/09/2008, -2/+1"Trying to translate from a human's memory to bits is absurd."

      On the contrary, trying to assure us that the brain's information content cannot be represented in bits is absurd. The approach to this if very systematic, not vague.

      http://www.reddit.com/info/6qg2r/comments/c04lrwn

      • VacantThoughts, on 07/09/2008, -2/+1Copy/Paste, use it. (disregard the fact you used it for that link)
      • NanoStuff, on 07/09/2008, -1/+1Why waste bits, there are only so many to go around.
    • Verdanic, on 07/09/2008, -2/+1Agreed. It's impossible to measure it because so much of what you can conjure up from memory is actually based on what you know (or think you know) about the world, rather than what you actually witnessed/experienced at whatever point.
      • CAisBacK, on 07/09/2008, -0/+0So, if you think of something, come up with an idea it is still considered data. It can be the blueprints of a design, the steps of a process etc.
      • Verdanic, on 07/09/2008, -0/+1True, but if you're thinking of the brain as a hard drive, visual 'files' are a whole lot heavier than complex concepts, which I'll relate to Office documents and alike. Usually, it's those memories you can play back in your mind that are considered the bulk of your stored information - I think so, anyways.
    • Issius, on 07/09/2008, -1/+1Everyone knows 5 apples = 12 oranges. But only the green apples.
    • Animelee, on 07/09/2008, -1/+1How do you memory to bits?
  • darkane, on 07/08/2008, -18/+45Buried for 'do' instead of 'does'.
    • neatorama, on 07/08/2008, -4/+26data = plural. datum = singular.
      • darkane, on 07/08/2008, -1/+27The usage of 'do' for the line with 'data' in it is debatable. However, the image says "What do 12 terabytes-worth of information look like?" You're not asking what terabytes look like, you're asking what a specific volume of information looks like.
      • iharbinger, on 07/08/2008, -12/+1wat
      • specialK16, on 07/08/2008, -17/+4@iharbinger:


        ----------------------------
        - =======> -
        - 4chan -
        ----------------------------
        | |
        | |
        | |
        | |
        | |
        | |
        | |
      • Jam20621, on 07/09/2008, -2/+2Darkane's right, the subject is the '12 Terabytes' (plural), not 'data.' Should be 'does'

        Still dugg though
      • Syzothermy, on 07/09/2008, -1/+4@specialK

        wat
      • Jorry7, on 07/09/2008, -1/+1pwnage?
    • stevenbrown, on 07/08/2008, -14/+5Your a fun sucker, you bury an article because you don't like the grammar in the title? Your a Nazi
      • lijamez, on 07/08/2008, -1/+18You're.
      • nbulp, on 07/08/2008, -0/+7I agree with you. But the ironing is delicious. :)
      • gurudrew, on 07/08/2008, -0/+8@nbulp
        Careful you don't burn your tongue.
      • HueytheFreeman, on 07/08/2008, -0/+5I read that as sun ***** and I was far more amused until I realized what had really been written.
    • nbulp, on 07/08/2008, -9/+4Buried for THAT?

      That's really mature.
    • arduenn, on 07/08/2008, -6/+1"What does [...] data look like" is just plain wrong, darkane.
    • TechyLah, on 07/08/2008, -8/+5Hey, Darkane, YOU ARE THE WRONG ONE.

      In English "do" is the plural form, as in "They DO it right"
      "does" is the singular form, as in "He DOES it right"

      12 Terabytes is PLURAL. The terabytes DO look like that.
      (A single terabyte DOES look like this).

      Got it straight?
      Now lighten up!
      • nyx210, on 07/08/2008, -0/+5*ahem* They do it correctly.
      • altosaxon, on 07/08/2008, -0/+2apparently not...
      • byrdgang, on 07/09/2008, -0/+4@TechyLah, I thought the same thing, but notice "worth" at the end. That ("worth") makes it those 12 terabytes collectively, all together in one piece. That means its a collective noun, and therefore, the singular would be used (just as you would say "Google [collective noun] does" instead of "Google do" in American English).

        Either way, it's really not that big of a deal.
      • rabidg00se, on 07/09/2008, -0/+1The terabytes don't do *****, you clod. The 12 terabytes worth of data DOES things.

        Goddamn, learn to read.
      • rolawson, on 07/09/2008, -0/+3Subject = "terabytes-worth" = singular ∴ "does"

        Data = object ∴ irrelevant

        So, for example, 12 terabytes-worth DOES look like a ***** of phonebooks.
  • THES0URCE, on 07/08/2008, -1/+17512TB is equivalent to

    2,457,600 average 192 kpbs mp3's, or
    3,510,857 Pictures from an 8 megapixel camera, or
    17,554 700mb avi movies.

    Just to put it into perspective
    • ousthouse, on 07/08/2008, -0/+81that was more insightful than the chart
    • jaredcat, on 07/08/2008, -1/+107I don't understand these units. How many Libraries of Congress per Volkswagen Beetle is that?
      • Tanouki, on 07/08/2008, -0/+33about 1.21 jigawatts per 88 mph for the Beetle Deluxe
      • WELLDOITLIVE, on 07/08/2008, -0/+40Depends on the strength of the Yen and the phase of the moon.
      • AdmiralAcbar, on 07/08/2008, -2/+4About 3 Coulombs per 100Watt M/s
      • GMofOLC, on 07/09/2008, -1/+11The same as the ratio of unicorns to leprechauns.
      • TheConman, on 07/09/2008, -0/+2You all fail. Everyone who took basic science knows its all Gnomes.
      • CAisBacK, on 07/09/2008, -1/+1Wrong.... 1 Google = googol MTV/BET videos.......
    • kingfoot, on 07/08/2008, -10/+2no ipod will ever hold that many mp3s. :(
      • captainaviator, on 07/08/2008, -0/+18say that 10 years from now
      • n4tune8, on 07/08/2008, -0/+11Never say never! (actually, you didn't say "never"...) Did you ever think we could have 4 Gb USB keys back in 1992?
      • kingfoot, on 07/08/2008, -5/+2well ill say no to that question because i didnt have any memorable sentient thoughts (as i was nearing my second birthday in 1992)

        but really, i only said that so it happens sooner. everyone knows that when someone says it isnt possible, then people push until it happens. i tried reverse psychology! yay! doesnt look like it worked though.
      • British0zzy, on 07/09/2008, -0/+1I have an 8GB USB key!!!
    • Firehed, on 07/08/2008, -0/+37or one really, really good porno.
    • tgunner, on 07/08/2008, -1/+4My new NAS box is 2tb RAID 5. 409,600 songs, here I come!
    • BoogieManOh, on 07/09/2008, -7/+1192 kbps sucks
      • chrgrose, on 07/09/2008, -0/+9your mom sucks.
      • drouk1556, on 07/09/2008, -0/+3Low-level artifacts usually appear in the -120 dB range, which is pretty near inaudible. It would take scrutiny to tell the difference between 192 kbps and a slightly higher bitrate.
    • boshuda, on 07/09/2008, -5/+4Um didn't the graphic put it in to perspective for us?
      Isn't that the whole point of this?
    • blitzcraig7, on 07/09/2008, -1/+10Or, put another way, 12TB is equivalent to 1 installation of Adobe Reader 9. Ha!
    • yellowfish04, on 07/09/2008, -0/+1I believe the whole point of the article/picture is to put 12tb into perspective. But thanks!
    • bexamous, on 07/09/2008, -0/+1Or about 266 HD movies... watch two movies a day after work... you could go through that in half a year easy.... the average american watches 170 minutes of tv/movies a day... if they watched blurays instead it would take them 187 days and not even have to be trying.
      • bexamous, on 07/09/2008, -0/+1LOL actually... 12TB is almost EXACTLY one day of uncompressed 1080i video. You could watch 12TB of 'standard' uncompressed hdtv video in a day.

        You can turn data into something big or something small. Google has what, 800,000+ hard drives? 12TB could fit on 12 hard drives. Not sure they're really even comparable in amount of data. You can make many odd ball comparisons.
    • DrummerAndrew, on 07/09/2008, -0/+1It's just one YouTube Unit. A ytu.
  • gskill, on 07/08/2008, -8/+1That's pretty crazy. So much data.
  • 111anaconda, on 07/08/2008, -1/+6Wow, I agree that they should give it to them in double spaced paper just to make them sift through that much more crap. Dugg article, Bury Viacom
  • NikoK, on 07/08/2008, -10/+2Does?
  • beware001, on 07/08/2008, -15/+4GRAMMAR POLICE
    'does', not 'do'.
  • ShempRider, on 07/08/2008, -3/+176The average Digger's porn collection would also be a good metric.
    • NASTYnateFROMoz, on 07/08/2008, -6/+1*drum roll
    • Suricou, on 07/08/2008, -15/+66.15GB.
      All image files, no video. Those are seperate.
      Thats 6.15 gigabyte of furry artwork. 52,726 files.
      • Asrrin29, on 07/08/2008, -1/+13yiff in hell furfag.
      • Graedius, on 07/09/2008, -0/+0Hahah! Funny, mine's very close -- 6.7 GB including no videos or massive torrents of furry smut l3
    • jnadke, on 07/09/2008, -1/+3I don't think the IEEE double precision format can represent a fraction that small....
    • qbthemc, on 07/09/2008, -1/+2What is this thing you call porn?
  • Renian, on 07/08/2008, -2/+87But how much porn is it?
    • billbugger, on 07/08/2008, -1/+471/10000000000000000000000000000000000 available online.
    • t0x2c, on 07/08/2008, -1/+21HQ or Loli Thumbnails?
    • po43292, on 07/09/2008, -7/+8It's at least OVER 9000!
      • sparrowkc, on 07/09/2008, -5/+1It is never, ever really funny when you go looking for an opportunity to insert a specific joke. gb24ch.
      • TheConman, on 07/09/2008, -3/+2hahahahah i'd say 1.21 gigawatts, but over 9000 is another good estimation
      • Tanhauser08, on 07/09/2008, -1/+0Porn is measured in watts now?
    • rabidg00se, on 07/09/2008, -0/+3412 terabytes
    • CAisBacK, on 07/09/2008, -1/+0Or one scene with Beyonce and Jessica Alba involved ... that should be enough to cover 12 terabytes....
    • yertthedigger, on 07/09/2008, -1/+217.8 Libraries of Congress.
  • RedneckRandy, on 07/08/2008, -18/+2It also equals 1 million floppy disks
  • DeadFox1, on 07/08/2008, -0/+38They should really try to true-scale the y-axis for a better idea of the difference.
    • gadgetlust, on 07/08/2008, -0/+12Hermes: As this shocking graph indicates, our water consumption has tripled in the last month.

      /couldn't find a picture.
    • TacticalPenguin, on 07/09/2008, -0/+4they would HAVE to do it exponentially
    • bbart3d, on 07/09/2008, -0/+3Interesting data, chartjunk.

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chartjunk
    • stillboy, on 07/09/2008, -1/+1it still would not really say anything, they are all pretty arbitrary metrics with no relation to one another
  • johnomaz, on 07/08/2008, -2/+11FTA "I don’t know the details of the legal order, but it seems that if information is information, then Google should just hand over the data in 5 billion sheets of single-spaced typewritten page. Comic sans font. IN CAPS!!1!"

    BWAHHAHAH
  • drunkenoaf, on 07/08/2008, -2/+115Why does 9.6 brains look like 4 brains?
    • Jwoey, on 07/08/2008, -0/+42same reason 2615 looks like 5 i guess.
    • langdonalger, on 07/08/2008, -1/+43there are other brains behind those.
  • BonersMilloy, on 07/08/2008, -8/+1How many motivational posters is it...
  • greeniemeani, on 07/08/2008, -3/+105All the frontpage submissions MrBabyMan has made.
    • Cloud7654, on 07/09/2008, -0/+1Leads me to wonder, how much content, in terms of size, has made it to the front page of Digg. Or just submitted for that matter.
  • steveiskfc, on 07/08/2008, -5/+6I hate greedy corporations.
  • keithpetey, on 07/08/2008, -10/+9dugg down for inaccurate. the human brain can only hold 80 gigabytes worth of data or 160 gigabytes if you use a doubler.
    • D4rkDrago0n, on 07/08/2008, -0/+12Where can I buy one of these doublers?
    • hshepherd, on 07/08/2008, -0/+1best reference to a film ever
    • dhughes, on 07/09/2008, -0/+1 And, apparently, all able to be stored on a Sony mini-disc.
    • nmcphee, on 07/09/2008, -1/+1I thought you were just trying to be funny by seeming ignorant, but a reply tells me you're referencing a film. Now I feel ignorant, and now I digg you up.
      • keithpetey, on 07/09/2008, -0/+1i think the five of us are the only ones that have seen the film.
    • Rainmaker90, on 07/09/2008, -0/+0Dugg for Johnny Mnemonic

      Keanu Reeves at his best
      • Tanhauser08, on 07/09/2008, -0/+0Which is exactly as good as 1/17 of an Edward Norton.
  • PolishLogic, on 07/08/2008, -2/+25I imagine it would be quite a bitch if your 12tb drive crashed.
    • SkippyDoorknob, on 07/08/2008, -0/+15No problem, everything's backed up on punch cards
    • maehem, on 07/09/2008, -0/+1I had this happen recently. Luckily I was using ZFS, so I just swapped the one bad drive out (out of 12) and all was good.
  • tkcom, on 07/08/2008, -1/+589.6 brains can only feed a zombie for a day.
    • forevernomad, on 07/08/2008, -0/+32but teach him how to breed and he can feed himself for a lifetime.
      • unconfirmed, on 07/09/2008, -2/+10Your £2 will help give him the tools he needs to work himself out of, um, zombie poverty.
      • MeatPlow, on 07/09/2008, -0/+6Build a man a fire and he's warm for a day. Light a man on fire and he's warm for the rest of his life.
    • keyboardduder, on 07/09/2008, -0/+1so its a universe a day? tengen toppa gurren lagann?
  • bleh19799791, on 07/08/2008, -11/+1Yes, but how many episodes of Family Guy in HD is that?
  • derrikirred, on 07/08/2008, -9/+2"THE GOOGLE"!
  • haentz, on 07/08/2008, -3/+15How much is it in hours of porn?
    • TheInimitable, on 07/09/2008, -0/+3This question is worth the time to calculate an answer... My calculations say a bit over 17,000 hours.
      Or: 2 years, 6 weeks were you to never sleep.
      Or: Were you to sleep a comfortable 8 hours a night, that's 1 year, 10 months, 2 weeks.
      • Wizang, on 07/09/2008, -1/+4Are we talking like h.264 dvd rips or 320x240 wmvs you got off kazaa in middle school? Hours of video cannot be directly related to bits!! Who do you think you are? Apple?
      • th3heretic, on 07/09/2008, -0/+1How the hell is it shorter when you add the sleep time in?
      • TheInimitable, on 07/11/2008, -0/+1It seems th3heretic has discovered my weakness: distinguishing between addition and subtraction!
    • Cloud7654, on 07/09/2008, -0/+1Not enough.
  • BlackJackJester, on 07/08/2008, -2/+2So that's like...a little under a million floppy disks? That's more reasonable than 5 billion sheets of paper I think.
    • hotpuck6, on 07/08/2008, -0/+2uhmmm, you mean those floppy disks that hold 1.44MB of info and a terabyte is 1,000,000MB.. that would be 8,333,334 floppies.
      • BlackJackJester, on 07/08/2008, -1/+4fine, a little under 10 million
  • Hoogs, on 07/08/2008, -3/+23I don't know about you guys, but I thought the most interesting part of that article was that the human brain holds 1.25 terabytes worth of data. Seems like it should be more than that, maybe even limitless. I mean, you can't "fill up" your brain and no longer learn new things, right?
    • Sairynn, on 07/08/2008, -0/+22Maybe the "files" that we store our information in aren't that big. Of course, we (humans) would really suck as computers. Important information gets lost and corrupted over time, our virus protection is rubbish, very little of our hardware is upgradable, and installing new programs can take years.
      • Coffeedemon, on 07/08/2008, -0/+16We probably store "data" in dissociated chunks which can then be recompiled to form the pictures we have in our memory. That way there is less redundancy and you can store more. I don't know though... I'm neither a practitioner neuroscience or a futurist.
      • thepxc, on 07/08/2008, -1/+15Computers suck more as humans than humans suck as computers.
      • fas2, on 07/09/2008, -0/+4Words of wisdom.
    • wilsondus, on 07/08/2008, -0/+4Some people believe that if your brain is full and you continue to learn new things, that you forget things you don't use... old memories perhaps...
    • nyx210, on 07/08/2008, -0/+2Well that's assuming that our brains are digital and story information in bits and bytes. Our brains don't actually store information like computers do. So trying to figure out how many bytes of information our memories can hold may result in a number that might not mean too much.
    • Jones82, on 07/09/2008, -1/+3Every time I learn something new, it pushes some old stuff out of my brain. Remember when I took that home winemaking course, and I forgot how to drive?
    • scy1192, on 07/09/2008, -0/+2I myself probably couldn't memorize a 2KB word document, much less a bit map.
    • mrblue182, on 07/09/2008, -0/+2But you can forget.
      • Hoogs, on 07/09/2008, -0/+1Yeah, but you never really TOTALLY forget things, they just get pushed waaay back there in your mind..
    • stevehanler, on 07/09/2008, -0/+1Depends on who you are. If you're a blond named Kelly then...
      http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0642312/plotsummary
    • bipolarruledout, on 07/09/2008, -0/+1I'm calling *****. Map a working model of the human brain on a computer and then we will talk.
  • thelock65, on 07/08/2008, -3/+3dugg or the axis scale
  • drbuns, on 07/08/2008, -3/+3Wait, are these DVDs the 4.7 GB variety (DVD5), or the 8.4GB variety (DVD9)???
    • exscape, on 07/08/2008, -0/+1712 TiB = 12288 GiB. 12288/2615 (the amount of DVDs) ~ 4.7GB.
  • minorthreat, on 07/08/2008, -1/+9i would totally hand over Viacom 5 billion printed pages.
  • howdareyou, on 07/08/2008, -1/+15There's no way my brain can remember 250,000 phone book pages.
    • keeron, on 07/08/2008, -1/+7Its the same phone book used over and over :-) So just memorize the first one

    • Sage920, on 07/09/2008, -2/+1Rain man could!
    • Davoidbot, on 07/09/2008, -1/+2Yeah, I usually get stuck around phone book #239,562.
  • Temo1, on 07/08/2008, -0/+16I'm seriously doubting the methodology of determining how much information the human brain can store.
  • mogebier, on 07/08/2008, -9/+1Wow. That's really amazing. No, it really is. Amazing. That it made it to the front page. Amazing. Really. Amazingly lame.
  • Kristijan12, on 07/08/2008, -2/+13How did they determined the capacity of a human brain memory?
    • PolicePeople, on 07/09/2008, -1/+2In the article it states that it was an estimation by Raymond Kurzweil in The Singularity Is Near.
      • Kristijan12, on 07/09/2008, -0/+1Thanks, silly me, should have read the article.
  • TwistyMcFister, on 07/08/2008, -1/+10Or 3,428,572 clips of pr0n averaging 30 secs in length and 3.5MB in size
    • matt.rubin, on 07/08/2008, -0/+163.5mb? that's some low quality. You need to up your standards.
      • Cloud7654, on 07/09/2008, -0/+1Yeah, but they're just 30 seconds. Clearly they are only samples.
  • scalemodlgiant, on 07/08/2008, -0/+9use a logarithmic scale, dude.
  • mttyd, on 07/08/2008, -9/+1Why doesn't google do us all a favor and give Viacom it's data... In paper format...
  • vbullinger, on 07/08/2008, -13/+1They forgot this one:

    "5 Able Danger programs."

    The amount of data in the Able Danger program: 2.5 terabytes. 1/4th of all information in the Library of Congress.

    All about Able Danger: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pObod47rTs4

    From Loose Change: Final Cut - http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-371925900 ...
  • KJKJava, on 07/08/2008, -2/+17lol "recently ordered the Google"
  • zadadka, on 07/08/2008, -2/+11I always remember that :
    1Mb = 22 sheets of paper; A4, double-sided, close-typed.
    ....and...
    One MATURE tree is needed to provide roughly 90,000 sheets of 90gsm (letterhead quality) paper.....

    But, I'm sure we all agree that in a legal milestone such as this...a few trees don't matter....right?

    So, 1TB = 22 million sheets of paper; A4, double-sided, close-typed.
    That's nearly 250 trees !!!

    ...and just THINK of the poor secretary having to staple them !!
    • Rainmaker90, on 07/09/2008, -1/+2Soooo...

      90,000 papers per mature tree.

      22 sheets of paper (A4, double-sided close-typed.) = MB

      90,000/20 = Approx 4091

      Each tree is worth 4 Gigs? 1250 Gigs to a human brain.

      Meaning...

      1250/4.091 = Me being 305 times smarter than a mature tree? Or can memorize 305 times the things a mature tree can. Something like that.
  • BigPapi, on 07/08/2008, -0/+24Screw handing it over on paper to Viacom. Put all the data on those good ol' 5.25 inch floppy disks. Good luck reading that *****.
  • coltraning, on 07/08/2008, -1/+5Dugg for "I don’t know the details of the legal order, but it seems that if information is information, then Google should just hand over the data in 5 billion sheets of single-spaced typewritten page. Comic sans font. IN CAPS!!1!"

    That's ***** hilarious, although not exactly friendly to the trees...
  • Shadowgamers, on 07/08/2008, -0/+6I thought the storage needed for human memory was (something in the realm of) Petabytes moreso than Terrabytes...
  • Spade914, on 07/08/2008, -8/+2Now THATS a lot of porn
  • heretrix, on 07/08/2008, -7/+1That's it? *****! somebody run to Best Buy and get me 12 terabyte drives.
    Isn't it amazing that someone could actually have that amount of HD space in their house right now filled with porn?
  • Fetching more discussions...
    Show 51 - 100 of 115 discussions
  •  

    Login or register to add a comment

    Create a new account or login to join in the conversation on Digg. You'll also be able to Digg stories to help promote things you like.


© Digg Inc. 2008 — Content posted by Digg users is dedicated to the public domain.
DIGG, DIGG IT, DUGG, DIGG THIS, Digg graphics, logos, designs, page headers, button icons, scripts, and other service names are the trademarks of Digg Inc.