Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by martyb on Sunday June 28 2015, @12:55AM   Printer-friendly
from the all-your-bits-Я-belong-to-us dept.

In May, Google made international headlines when it announced that it was going to offer free, unlimited storage for photos and videos. If you read Google's press release, you'll see that the free storage plan limits images to 16 megapixels and videos to 1080p resolution. But if digital images are simply collections of binary data and if all other files on your computer also just collections of binary data then isn't unlimited photo storage simply unlimited storage?

If only something existed that made this easy to do; you know, something that could bitmap all the things....

[ Ed's Comment: This link points to the author's own personal software solution, but I'm sure that others will come up with alternative ideas.]


Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday June 28 2015, @07:27PM

    by Anonymous Coward on Sunday June 28 2015, @07:27PM (#202483)
    How many of you are actually creating terabytes of actual original data to be stored?

    Average internet speed in the USA = 10Mbps. Time it takes to transfer 1TB at 10Mbps = 9 days. So if you were actually creating more than 1TB per day, you wouldn't be storing it with Google especially if you're using some steganographic scheme which will greatly multiply the required storage amount.

    If you were creating much less, then you can store it on a few hard drives or maybe even portable flashdrives. And even if you were storing it on Google, you wouldn't have enough data to need to resort to convoluted schemes to get "unlimited" storage.

    And if you were somewhere in between, relying on Google probably won't make sense in most scenarios, perhaps more as a last resort backup.
  • (Score: 1) by tripstah on Monday June 29 2015, @12:04PM

    by tripstah (4913) on Monday June 29 2015, @12:04PM (#202743) Homepage

    B.A.T.T. isn't as complex as that; there's no stenography. B.A.T.T.'s overhead is 54 bytes per each 64,000,000 chunk, so the overhead works out to just under a megabyte per terabyte of data encoded as bitmaps.