Home
Archive
Columnists
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise

The amount of information in the world is always expanding faster than the data storage systems available to capture it.

Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Register to Vote: Rock the Vote, powered by Working Assets Wireless
  • AlterNetYour turn

Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.


Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.

A New Version of Moore's Law

By Annalee Newitz, AlterNet. Posted January 8, 2008.


The amount of information in the world is always expanding faster than the data storage systems available to capture it.

Share and save this post:
Digg iconDelicious iconReddit iconFark iconYahoo! iconNewsvine! iconFacebook iconNewsTrust icon

More stories by Annalee Newitz

Get AlterNet in
your mailbox!

 
Advertisement

I'd like to propose a version of Moore's law, only related to the expansion of information instead of the speed of processors. My new law goes like this: the amount of information in the world is always expanding faster than the data storage systems available to capture it.

You see what I'm getting at? Every time you invent a new, groovier kind of storage -- the book, the reel of film, the cassette tape, the petabyte hard drive, the nanoflop crystal -- the information that people are creating out in the world expands to elude it.

I don't mean to say that information, or what Web nerds call content, is literally too big to fit on all of our nifty storage devices. In fact, it's likely that all of the content in the world, including every phone call and movie, could fit onto existing computers.

About 10 years ago an information studies professor named Michael Lesk wrote a terrific essay about the expansion of electronic storage in which he estimated that "soon after the year 2000 the production of disks and tapes will outrun human production of information to put on them. Most computer storage units will have to contain information generated by computer; there won't be enough of anything else."

He's probably right about that. But note that he also predicts how all of that extra storage space will be devoted to computer-generated information. Now it has come to pass that one of the greatest storage systems of our time -- the Google server empire -- does contain mostly computer-generated information in the form of indexes and queries and tons of other crap that isn't really human readable. Of course, it also contains the World Wide Web, which is mostly human readable and human created. And yet I'll predict that the machine information on Google's servers will be stored much longer than the human stuff.

What my law gets at -- and let's call it Lesk's law, since he made me think of it -- is the way the totality of human content expands in a peculiar way that makes it not technically impossible to store but practically impossible. Consider that content expands in the way that humans do in geographical space.

Look at all of the storage space available in a city and you'll see immediately that there is technically enough room for everyone in that city to have a room to sleep. Yet some people have 50 rooms to sleep in, and some sleep 50 to a room. Or they don't get stored in rooms at all because they live in the park. Again, this isn't because there are literally not enough houses for them. It's a human peculiarity that we give lots of space to some people and very little to others.

So how does this apply to content storage? Well, just as Lesk predicted a decade ago, a lot of our content is now computer generated. And because that stuff tends to be the data that helps large companies make tons of money, it gets primo storage space.

In addition, because that computer content is valuable, it gets backed up onto more storage, and that makes it easy to save over time. Content created by your human friends on Facebook -- well, if Facebook happens to lose that due to a server outage, there may not be a backup. That information is now lost -- not because we couldn't store it but because we didn't maintain it in a stored state.

I'm not saying computer-generated content is prized over human content, though that does seem to be true in many cases. I could have made the same argument about content that is created by famous or influential people, which gets excellent storage in a variety of formats with plenty of backups.

What Lesk's law says is that content outruns our ability to store it. And now we see that's not because content expands exponentially over limited time but instead because content must be maintained in order to be considered truly stored. Content that exists only on one hard drive is stored temporarily, but nowhere near forever. So while it may be true that we have the technical capability to hold all of human knowledge in our future nanoflop crystals, we never will.

Content outruns storage because humans store things capriciously and illogically. Plus, we never make backups until it's too late.

Digg!

See more stories tagged with: information, technology

Annalee Newitz (annalee@techsploitation.com) is a surly media nerd who almost lost this column because she forgot to save it until she was nearly done.

Liked this story? Get top stories in your inbox each week from AlterNet! Sign up now »


Advertisement

 

Comments Turn comments off sitewide Give us feedback »
Comments closed.
The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.
View:
Miniturization only goes so far.
Posted by: ABetterFuture on Jan 8, 2008 11:13 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The trick is--increasingly--is to find information that is both accurate and worthwhile as obfuscation by utter crap increasingly muddies the waters of information.

Sure, we have the storage capacity to set up a digitized goo-tube in hi-definition, provided submitters have the equipment. The question is whether or not seeing "the Britney Rant" in high definition is worth the effort to archive for posterity.

My grandma's college dictionary--that's something that is still useful 60 years later. Can we say that about whatever the current top-ten videos are on goo-tube?

Hmmm...maybe.

P.S. Optical storage (with 20/20 hindsight, an absolutely horrid way to store media, unless you're in the media-selling business) and hard drives do not have the shelf life or archival properties of printed media of any kind.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Have you been busy archiving CPSR's records?
Posted by: johnclark on Jan 9, 2008 1:01 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
What gets saved vs deleted/lost is as old as us. Who controls history controls the present. The ruling class built impressive grave sites in Egypt but the people that built them documented their labor disputes before leaving. St Patrick burned the library then told the Irish they were illiterate. Ray Fadden taught school & built a museum to save his people by giving them their story. I've taken old PageMaker newsletters from floppy to publish as .pdf files.

I guess I'm saying that what gets preserved is political. I love how you compare housing of people to storage of data. When my kids wanted me to pull up my first home page it wasn't in the way back machine. If the zip disk didn't click of death, I may be able to recover the files with a lot of work.

Many of my web design projects, leaflets, ad designs, ... are not easy to show on my resume because they aren't where I put them anymore. That not only effects the future, but my own present.

On the other hand, the computer in the dining room has 3/4 of a terr of tv, movies, and music serving content for the house. I've got 8mm (film) movies degrading that need to be transferred and reel to reel tapes that my family made before I was born. Too bad I'm not important enough to have aides to do this for me.

When I consult with organizations about backups, I tell them that the most important stuff to have backed up is what is currently open. Real-time backups have proved invaluable for my customers when a computer dies in the middle of a grant proposal, press release, or two days before the 'big demo'. Just as important, though, is rescuing an old laptop's data to show staff a history of what the place was like 'back in the day'.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Stop maligning St. Pat Posted by: Sojourner
» RE: Stop maligning St. Pat Posted by: johnclark
"MS FND IN A LBRY"
Posted by: smendler on Jan 10, 2008 10:04 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
On this subject, check out the hilarious (in a way) sci-fi story by Hal Draper called "MS FND IN A LBRY":

http://home.comcast.net/~bcleere/texts/draper.html

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Corollary to Moore's Law 2.0
Posted by: sweet_byrd on Jan 11, 2008 5:55 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
"the amount of information in the world is always expanding faster than the data storage systems available to capture it"

I think an obvious corollary to this is the fact that, as the amount of information increases, the more difficult -- both in terms of complexity and time-efficiency -- it will become to navigate and locate specific pieces of information.

That is why the dummkopfs who periodically predict the obsolescence of librarianship have it all wrong. Librarians are not mere custodians of books, but are engaged in the application of "theory and technology to the creation, selection, organization, management, preservation, dissemination, and utilization of collections of information in all formats" It isn't about books -- it is about the organization and location of information, no matter what medium houses it.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

answers evade statistical treatment
Posted by: traintalk on Jan 14, 2008 12:18 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
As the quantity of digital information becomes increasingly impossible to measure or even to define, it is refreshing to see that it can be still be dealt with as a function of something else. Perhaps we could learn more from studying the information orphans - those not registering not even on long tail or anyone else's radar - than on the ones our fingers are becoming too trained to walk on.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

I read through this article a couple of times. Only on the last pass...
Posted by: ABetterFuture on Jan 17, 2008 4:13 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
...did I perceive the *oops* in the title.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]