IBM patents idea of making your files worse over time
147 replies, posted
This sounds like great DRM for game companies. EA loads this shit up for a game of theirs and after a year the game files are totally corrupt and you have to buy the game again.
IBM should dissolve
5 dollars or 4 euroes for each "recovery" of the said files from the cloud system.
:tinfoil:
What if EA or Activision or any game publishers for that matter, gets a hold of this, eventually your saved stats/game/ect will gradually disappear and/or be corrupt. And then they charge just a tiny bit of money a month to keep your shit together.
Of course this idea would come from the skidmark on the underwear of technology that is the IBM corporation. IBM is like Atari: Once a pioneer, now all they do is useless shit that pisses off their customers.
[QUOTE=rinoaff33;33437824]Wow...apparently :godwin: can strike anywhere.[/QUOTE]
That is the point.
People, there are a crapload of amazing reasons posted in this thread on why this was patented.
Yet somehow people are still posting the dumb ones.
We need the "Bad Reading" rating back.
Sorry IBM, but everyone knows this is just a bullshit scheme. Good luck wasting your time.
This sounds like the sort of terrible idea Apple would patent.
IBM, you are a cool, practical company. Stop following the retarded path of Apple.
Think about this for a minute. Is it a shit idea for personal computers? Yes, of course. But I like the idea of naturally degrading data for companies that collect and stockpile customer data to sell or reference later on. Nobody wants shit they posted on the internet dug up and thrown in their faces ten years from now. I'm nervous about Google's file on me lasting as long as they can keep the hard drives from failing.
[QUOTE=Used Car Salesman;33441417]Think about this for a minute. Is it a shit idea for personal computers? Yes, of course. But I like the idea of naturally degrading data for companies that collect and stockpile customer data to sell or reference later on. Nobody wants shit they posted on the internet dug up and thrown in their faces ten years from now. I'm nervous about Google's file on me lasting as long as they can keep the hard drives from failing.[/QUOTE]
I thought they use tape for storage?
Other than that, yes, I agree
Guys, IBM Could be patenting it so that others companys don't do so and fucking use the shit out of it. Or IBM is about to do some dirty shit
[QUOTE=Holy-Smokes;33431541]Kill IBM. Kill money assholes, back with people who actually care for the true development of technology.
Such bunch of fucking assholes.[/QUOTE]
[IMG]http://letmeholdyoutight.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/10/ibm.gif[/IMG]
They fucking wrote IBM using 35 Xe atoms.
Case closed.
[QUOTE=Fetret;33441934][IMG]http://letmeholdyoutight.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/10/ibm.gif[/IMG]
They fucking wrote IBM using 35 Xe atoms.
Case closed.[/QUOTE]
That was in 1990. Those people have long given way to "You know what we should do? Reverse the whole purpose of digital NOT degrading over time, and disregard the fact that anyone with basic knowledge in coding could write a program that combs a database for old files and deletes them without the bullshit of the file slowly fading away."
Looks like someone brains have rusted.
Actually in a way this is nice: if anyone else makes it so your files corrupt themselves overtime IBM can sue them and put an end to it.
[QUOTE=asteroidrules;33442982]Actually in a way this is nice: if anyone else makes it so your files corrupt themselves overtime IBM can sue them and put an end to it.[/QUOTE]
Assuming it isn't IBM themselves that do this.
Even then, if anyone does do that, they'd of gotten the idea from IBM. No one else but Apple would think of this.
holy shit this is like one of those anti-ideas that sound like they come from aperture science
this idea is almost as brilliant as the counter heimlich manuever
So can anyone tell me, is this different from just deleting files after x amount of time or is the "degrading" something different?
Because if it's the first one, can you even patent that?
[QUOTE=Omali;33442056]That was in 1990. Those people have long given way to "You know what we should do? Reverse the whole purpose of digital NOT degrading over time, and disregard the fact that anyone with basic knowledge in coding could write a program that combs a database for old files and deletes them without the bullshit of the file slowly fading away."[/QUOTE]
No, no, no. Stop. You don't even know what the fuck you're talking about.
In 2006 they made Watson, an artificial intelligence capable of learning and answering questions that are asked in natural language. In 2009 IBM scientists were the first to ever to take a picture of the atomic structure of a molecule.They're also working on the Milipede computer-memory technology, capable of storing 1 terabyte per square inch. Their closing value surpassed that of Microsoft in 2011.
I don't see how people construed making this into something to hurt consumers.
This is just a technology that does seem to have viable purposes, though the whole concept everyone seems to be suggesting isn't one.
[QUOTE=Terminutter;33431085]Could it be used to stop the regeneration of old, unwanted documents in a very large cloud, to conserve space?
Kind of like how libraries get rid of books that aren't borrowed for absoultely ages.
Of course, it's going to be used for loads of emone, instead.[/QUOTE]
Why would they word the application like that if that's the case? It's already there in many cloud services, not enough people use the link, remove it. Been there for too long? Remove it. IBM is probably just doing it so they can sue the people already doing it.
Don't we already have things that automatically get rid of old files? That sounds like something very simple. This sounds like some kind of virtual planned obsolescence.
[QUOTE=Mingebox;33446747]Don't we already have things that automatically get rid of old files? That sounds like something very simple. This sounds like some kind of virtual planned obsolescence.[/QUOTE]
Going by the patent this isn't to remove old files, but degrade them in the same way a paper document degrades over time. You give it parameters, it degrades the file over time appropriately.
And I'm sorry, but have most of you lost all higher brain functions recently? Do you even know what IBM do today? What they have done for computing in the past? This technology will not affect consumer PCs, IBM don't deal with consumer electronics as much anymore, mainframes, servers, and embedded systems are kind of what they deal with, stop panicking and calling them an evil Apple-like monster, this will not affect you at fucking all.
[QUOTE=AaRoNg11;33435304]In a business sense, this could actually turn out to be a pretty good idea in specific environments with certain types of data. Imagine a library of a million images. Images that are frequently accessed over time (for example, 100 times per day) wouldn't age at all and therefore would stay in their original state. Images that were accessed less frequently (maybe 2-3 times per year) could have a lossy compression algorithm applied to them. The images would still be there, but would be slightly lower quality and hardly anybody would notice. This would mean there would be more space for new images.[/QUOTE]
Agreed. I think It comes down to a cost-benefit curve. After a certain amount of time, the cost of keeping a 1Mb file outweighs the benefits of having it.
I think what IBM are suggesting, is that rather than just deleting all files older than a certain time, you apply an algorithm to determine the storage 'value' of the file.
Lets say the 1Mb file was only accessed 0.5 times as often as it needed to be in order to be worth saving. Currently, a company either deletes it, or errs on the side of caution and keeps it, loosing them money either way (unnecessary storage or loss of product). With this new IBM idea, the file is compressed to 0.5 Mb and the cost-benefit is kept at an optimum, maximising profits.
With .doc files this might be converting to plaintext, with .jpegs this might be higher compressions ratios or loss of resolution. The file retains most of its product value, and the storage cost is brought down to a profitable level.
Edit: The algorithm gets more complex when you consider the 0.5Mb lossy compressed file will predictably have a slight loss in product value (but not a 50% loss), but you can predict this; Therefore the optimum file size will actually generate less demand than the original 1 Mb file, perhaps a 10% drop. So, you reduce file size by (demand + 10%), in this case, demand is 0.5, so you reduce file size by 55%.
[QUOTE=hexpunK;33447144]
[B]And I'm sorry, but have most of you lost all higher brain functions recently?[/B][/QUOTE]
Yes. Yes, they have.
digital stuff already loses quality with age
[QUOTE=windows67;33448093]digital stuff already loses quality with age[/QUOTE]
Not usually, not unless the storage medium itself degrades, like with CDs and magnetic tape
[QUOTE=hexpunK;33447144]Going by the patent this isn't to remove old files, but degrade them in the same way a paper document degrades over time. You give it parameters, it degrades the file over time appropriately.
And I'm sorry, but have most of you lost all higher brain functions recently? Do you even know what IBM do today? What they have done for computing in the past? This technology will not affect consumer PCs, IBM don't deal with consumer electronics as much anymore, mainframes, servers, and embedded systems are kind of what they deal with, stop panicking and calling them an evil Apple-like monster, this will not affect you at fucking all.[/QUOTE]
Why would you want files to degrade? I can't imagine why anyone would want a half-degraded file, unless this is just for the novelty of it or something.
Storage space, or security.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.