Actually that's a different university. USF != UCSF
It goes back even farther than that!
Here's an article from 2010 reporting Seagate promising 100TB HAMR hard drives:
Here's an article from 2006 reporting Seagate promising HAMR hard drives in "a few years":
Also I'm puzzled by the claims about hundred layer 3D NAND chips. I can see how a hundred-layer chip would increase density and therefore could reduce access latency, but I don't see how it could significantly reduce cost-per-bit. Sure, there will be a hundred times as many bits per square cm, but a hundred times as many manufacturing processing steps should be required to make it, thereby increasing manufacturing cost a hundred-fold. Also, with all those manufacturing steps, the chance of defects also goes up, thereby reducing yields and increasing costs even more. Reduced latency would be cool, but I don't see it reducing cost-per-bit by much, if at all.
Also, Intel seems to be peculiarly self-contradicting when discussing their 3D XPoint technology. In 2015 they claimed that 3D XPoint was NOT phase-change technology and that it was already in volume production to prepare for sale in early 2016. In 2016 they're claiming that 3D XPoint IS phase-change technology and will not enter volume production until 2017.
I've become very cynical about all this. Frankly, I'll believe these things when I can see them with my own eyes.
You got 28,900,000 results because you forgot to use quotation marks.
Doesn't make any sense.
1) The first paper you linked to was entitled "5D Data Storage by Ultrafast Laser Nanostructuring in Glass" published in 2013 - not the same title as the one referred to by the article: "5D Data Storage by Ultrafast Laser Writing in Glass" due to be published tomorrow (2016).
2) The second paper you linked to mentions a pitch of "up to" 150 nm but was published in 2006.
3) Using the 150 nm pitch figure from the 2006 paper:
25400000 nm per inch / 150 nm pitch = 170000 dots per inch per layer
170000 dots per inch per layer * 3 layers = 510000 dots per inch
510000 dots per inch * 3 bits per dot = 1530000 bits per inch
(1530000 bits per inch)^2 = 2.3 Tb per square inch
2.3 Tb per square inch / 8 bits per byte = 293 GB per square inch
So only twice the density of the latest 10TB HDDs (140 GB per square inch)
3) According to the phys.org article linked in the summary: "The file is written in three layers of nanostructured dots separated by five micrometres (one millionth of a metre)."
25400 um per inch / 5 um pitch = 5000 dots per inch per layer
5000 dots per inch per layer * 3 layers = 15000 dots per inch
15000 dots per inch * 3 bits per dot = 45000 bits per inch
(45000 bits per inch)^2 = 2 Gb per square inch
2 Gb per square inch / 8 bits per byte = 250 MB per square inch
So only 0.0018 times the density of the latest 10TB HDDs (140 GB per square inch)
4) 200kHz laser pulses would give:
200 kb per second / 8 bits per byte = 25 kB per second
360TB claimed data storage / 25 kB per second = 14400000000 seconds
14400000000 seconds / 32 Million seconds per year = 450 years
So 450 years to read or write the disk.
The best time to get into crypto-currency is six years ago. The second-best time is today.
"mine keeps loosing the spellcheck"
I see what you did there.
90% Isopropyl Alcohol (Rubbing Alcohol) works well for removing the adhesive.
Interesting, but it still doesn't clarify any tax implications. Under U.S. law (not applicable in Australia, of course) bitcoin is taxable under capital gains law only when it's exchanged for something else of value. That doesn't appear to have happened in this case. Newly-mined bitcoin is also treatable as business revenue based on *bitcoin's price at the time the bitcoin was mined* which until Mt. Gox opened in July 2010, was measurable only at fixed-rate bitcoin exchanges such as New Liberty Standard that set their prices equal to estimated mining cost. So revenue - mining cost = taxable profit = zero. Bitcoin mined after Mt. Gox opened may have been deemed profitable, depending on difficulty and mining expense. I haven't seen any analysis of any immediate profitability of Nakamoto's likely mining rewards. I suppose it's doubtful that anyone involved with bitcoin mining filed relevant information in their tax returns in bitcoin's early days. Perhaps the home invasion is just a fishing expedition.
They noticed odd things about the light curve throughout the four-year observation period, while the earth was making four orbits around the sun, so the occulting object would have to be big enough to occult the the star from anywhere in earth's orbit. That means an occulting object would have to have significant size compared to the area of either the earth' s orbital area or the star's cross-sectional area, whichever is smaller.
He who steps on others to reach the top has good balance.