Star Trek has superior data storage?

[His Divine Shadow]

No, it isnt. If it was then this page wouldnt be 3 pages long.

Sure it is clear, if thats not enough, how about an explicit quote:
========================
Pg. 236: "Each night clean new memory cores are placed in the computers and trillions of exabytes of transactions are transferred to the new cores. This happens throughout the system."
========================
-Wedge's Gamble

[ClaysGhost]

No, there's something mysterious called "energy" and once it's lost, the data in the transporter is useless (it's in Wong's database.)

What are you on about. Even if the transporters never store a person in some form (I'm dubious; how can they disable weapons, test for diseases when someone's in the buffer if they don't have access to a representation of them from the transporter?) the replicators must have to store the patterns for the objects they replicate.

[ClaysGhost]

No, it isnt. If it was then this page wouldnt be 3 pages long.

There are many questions, on this board and on others, that have clear answers but are many, many pages long.

[Lord Pounder]

It was mentioned on the last page how Data had to learn also, but i remember in an EU book, one of the Corellian Trilogy i think, it stating that Threepio was hunched over a terminal learning 7 or 8 completely new languages. In the same scene it mentioned that the way the Republics boundries was expanding he was having to learn 8 new languages a week. Added to the fact that Threepio was secretary to Leia he must have had an enormous amount of protocal/language data plus a load of memory left over. Also Threepio was never a top of the line model. He was made out of junk by a slave boy. Data is a one of a kind original.

For a better view on the computer cores check out the HTTE trilogy. IIRC there is a part mentioning the memory cores of a ISD. Luke had infiltrated the Chimera with Mara in an attempt to rescue Karade. Thrawn orders the computers to be shut down and IIRC there is some mention of them. I'd check the quote myself but my books are in my parents house and i'm avoiding there.

[Xon]

Actually in the case of DNA computers they trend to be pretty self supporting they act as CPU,Memory and as a power source. They would need a lot less supporting devices than any other methods..

A single DNA string is fairly useless. It is effectively a memory storage & a list of instructions to run when the string is processed.

A DNA string requires an external reader to trigger the changes & do the work.

linky

Think of DNA as software, and enzymes as hardware. Put them together in a test tube. The way in which these molecules undergo chemical reactions with each other allows simple operations to be performed as a byproduct of the reactions. The scientists tell the devices what to do by controlling the composition of the DNA software molecules. It's a completely different approach to pushing electrons around a dry circuit in a conventional computer.

A single 1 of these nanites isnt useless, and they are independant agents.


Also:
1 trillion exabytes is (10^12) * (10^18) = 10^30 bytes.

At ~6 million GB per cubic millimeter, it would take ~1.79 *10^14 millimetres to equal that.

Thats ~1.79 *10^5 cubic metres.

But keep in mind, that isnt a single memory core, but a shit load of nanites.

If you stripped out everything but memory storage you could probable drastically reduce the equired volumn.

His Divine Shadow, the real question is how big are those things and what size operation requires them.

[Grand Moff Yenchin]

Or, a good 100,000 TB and a few times the processor power of the room-sized computer that renders Pixar's films.

Recently in a discussion I mentioned this, a guy disagreed, saying Toy Story 2 required 120 14-CPU Sun Enterprise 4500, and according to the same level machines listed on Top500, the 720-CPU HPC 10000, using the same Linpack performance was about 0.272TFLOPS

Are there any flaws in this argument? Or just pure babble??
(Disregard the fact that he mentioned that there are 6 machines over 6TFLOPS in June's Top500, my question is focused on the Pixar computer.)

[Darth Wong]

Or, a good 100,000 TB and a few times the processor power of the room-sized computer that renders Pixar's films.

Recently in a discussion I mentioned this, a guy disagreed, saying Toy Story 2 required 120 14-CPU Sun Enterprise 4500, and according to the same level machines listed on Top500, the 720-CPU HPC 10000, using the same Linpack performance was about 0.272TFLOPS

Are there any flaws in this argument? Or just pure babble??

A FLOP is different from an OP.

[Grand Moff Yenchin]

Pressed a button too fast

[Darth Fanboy]

Maybe the Wars peple should concede this one. Because for the upcoming Imperial/ Fderation conflict the Feds are going to need all that extra space to list all the redshirts killed in combat, and to process all of the resignations that will be coming in after the first battle.

Oh, that and without it Riker couldn't run his XXX Holodeck Scenarios which take up more space than all of the worlds PCs combined now.