Nanotech Memory Could Hold Data For 1 Billion Years 239
Hugh Pickens writes "Digital storage devices have become ubiquitous in our lives but the move to digital storage has raised concerns about the lifetime of the storage media. Now Alex Zettl and his group at the University of California, Berkeley report that they have developed an experimental memory device consisting of a crystalline iron nanoparticle enclosed in a multiwalled carbon nanotube that could have a storage capacity as high as 1 terabyte per square inch and temperature-stability in excess of one billion years. The nanoparticle can be moved through the nanotube by applying a low voltage, writing the device to a binary state represented by the position of the nanoparticle. The state of the device can then be subsequently read by a simple resistance measurement while reversing the nanoparticle's motion allows a memory 'bit' to be rewritten. This creates a programmable memory system that, like a silicon chip, can record digital information and play it back using conventional computer hardware storing data at a high density with a very long lifetime. Details of the process are available at the American Chemical Society for $30."
If you don't misplace it.. (Score:3, Insightful)
If you don't misplace it..
A billion years? (Score:5, Interesting)
That's great. Will the readers and systems able to display such information be around for even a hundred? Will they even accept the same power?
Re:A billion years? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
You could store instructions for accessing the data right in the device! Then you'd be sure there's a durable copy available.
Re: (Score:2)
Ken. Meet Barbie. (Score:2)
Can. Meet Will Be. And this is her sister Should Be.
Oldest stone tools [archaeology.org] are millions of years old.
Can we still use them for hunting or whatever? Sure.
Should we still use them? Depends on the situation.
Would we still use them? Highly unlikely if there is anything a bit more modern at hand. Like a stick.
In another 50-100 years we ourselves may not be able to read those audio messages we sent out to space on those golden records. [wikipedia.org]
Whose recording may outlive most of today's CDs and DVDs. Should we still be using
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
> In another 50-100 years we ourselves may not be able to read
> those audio messages we sent out to space on those golden records.
Why not? You should be able to play them back with any sharp metal wire poked through a sheet of paper or plastic. Put the disk on a turntable, poke a wire through a thin piece of plastic or paper, lay the point of the wire in the groove while holding the sheet. When you turn the disk, the needle will vibrate the sheet and you'll hear the sounds.
Of course, you'll probabl
May... Meet Will. (Score:3, Insightful)
Sure, you could play it like that. But will you be able to match the right speed? How about the sound volume? And like you said - scratching problem.
We MAY not be able to read those messages.
Most people WILL not be able to read them pretty soon due to obscurity.
As you've implied - many kids today don't know they can play a record without electricity.
Heck, a dedicated tinkerer could relatively easily make a magnetic tape player from scratch.
Not so likely with CDs. Nearly impossible with DVDs.
The point of the
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
We MAY not be able to read those messages.
Most people WILL not be able to read them pretty soon due to obscurity.
Obscurity is not a problem for any sufficiently advanced civilization.
Its not like the records on Voyager were meant for your teen-ager to play on your old dusted off turntable from the attic.
The point made by the GP is that it is easily readable by any society likely to recover Voyager (unless it crash lands on Planet of the Apes).
Yes, they might initially mistake it for a Religious symbol, or random etching by a long gone microbe, or dismiss it all together because its JUST a physical object and the physi
Re:Ken. Meet Barbie. (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
If something lasts that long, and can hold that much stuff, there will always be a reader available (unless we return to the dark ages, that is.
It should be sufficiently evident by now that data is much more expensive than the method used to read that data. If you build it (high capacity durable memory), they (access hardware developers) will come.
Anyway, if the stored data has no value who cares whether or not a reader is available?
Re: (Score:2)
That's easy, you just have to include instructions on exactly what voltage/amp electricity you'll need to run it, and a clear description of the encoding format. Of course, you'll have to make sure this information is recorded for a billion years as well... so just record it with this nanotech memory! It's a perfectly reasonable and not-at-all-completely-retarded solution!
Re:A billion years? (Score:5, Insightful)
The papyrus medium developed by the Egyptians are still readable today
Only if they were stored under conditions conducive to them not rotting away which was the fate of most papyrus.
compared to DVD-RWs that can hold a few GBs of data, but only has a shelf life of a few years.
Stop buying cheap DVD-RWs and you don't have that problem.
Re: (Score:2)
The papyrus medium developed by the Egyptians are still readable today
Only if they were stored under conditions conducive to them not rotting away which was the fate of most papyrus.
And if you read the language they are written in. Also known as recognizing the file format. So even durable papyrus only addressed half the issue.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
If you have experience with a brand that lasts for a lot longer I'd really appreciate to hear about it.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
How are you storing these CD's? I have 10 year old disks that read just fine.
Note: I don't write on the back of the disk which helps them last longer.
Main problem (Score:5, Insightful)
The main problem isn't the length of time that data can be stored. Hard drives and tape drives still carry data from the 1970s, but no one can use them. Why? Because of format changes. We recently transitioned to Blu-Ray, and there are countless codecs for video at this point in time. I don't think the problem is with the length of time for storage, as useful as that is, but rather with the format in which we store them.
An excellent anecdote was mentioned on slashdot recently: http://science.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=09/04/13/005224 [slashdot.org]
Re: (Score:2)
That's why we should store info on something more permanent.....like CASSETTE TAPES.
Wait....oh never mind.
Re:Main problem (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Main problem (Score:4, Interesting)
Hard drives and tape drives still carry data from the 1970s
Interesting side note to this. My sister's computer recently wouldn't work. She brought it to a computer tech to be fixed. (I wouldn't fix it for two big reasons. 1) They live too far away and 2) I've fixed it in the past only to have them disable the protections I put in place - firewall, antivirus, etc - because they were "too annoying.") As my sister was telling me of what the tech said he needed to do, I stopped her on one important point. He was insisting on replacing the hard drive because "they only work for 3-5 years so this one's likely to die any day now." I told her that I had hard drives work for 8 or more years and there's no reason (short of abuse) why a hard drive shouldn't last over a decade. Whether the drive's space limits will make it useful past 10 years is another question entirely, but it should still be usable. I advised her that the tech was just trying to sell her stuff that she didn't need. Of course, during my next phone call to her, I won't be surprised to hear how she replaced the hard drive because it was 5 years old and going to die soon.
Re:Main problem (Score:5, Insightful)
Unsolicited advice: If you aren't going to do the work, don't second guess the tech doing the work. Likely you are right. However, say something does go wrong with the drive... now you are the one who takes the blame. Best to go "uh huh... yea... sounds good" and leave it like that.
Re:Main problem (Score:4, Insightful)
The thing is, those drives were never abused, never hurt in any way, they just simply died because they were about 5 years old. Clicking noises. Crashy computer. Bad sectors. Death.
What I'm trying to say is that yes, storage itself should work almost indefinitely on a hard drive, but if wear&tear occurs on the bearings or the arm the drive WILL kill itself and most commercial hard drives simply aren't made to last more than about five years of regular use.
Re:Main problem (Score:5, Interesting)
A few years ago I had four hard drives fail within two weeks of each other resulting in near complete data loss. Luckily I went and bought a big HDD right after the first died so I saved something like 30% of the data because I had somewhere to put it ... but anyway
The thing is, those drives were never abused, never hurt in any way, they just simply died because they were about 5 years old. Clicking noises. Crashy computer. Bad sectors. Death.
That, to me, sounds like they were killed by an environmental factor, just not one you were aware of. It could be anything, but I'll name a few: Humidity, excessive vibration, excessive read/write cycling, excessive power up/down of motor, poor power supply, excessive heat, static electricity, or a physical abuse by somebody else. Assuming these were your only 4 drives (based on your claim of 'near complete data loss'), it's highly unlikely that all 4 drives would die at the same time due to regular wear-and-tear.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Ten years ago, hard drives could last ten years, easily. (I've got plenty of drives from the late 90s that still work fine)
As of five years ago, hard drives can't reliably last five years. (I have one working five-year old drive)
As of two years ago, hard drives are not reliable for more than six months. (I've replaced enough now to know: Yeah, it 'could' last five years, but it's statistically unlikely)
Re: (Score:2)
interesting... but six months is too short. even now, most 'supposed to be serious' HDDs are available with at least 1 year warranty.
a few years ago that was usually 3 years, with 5 years available. going to 1 year is obviously a bad sign about quality and resiliency; but still more than 6 months!
Re: (Score:2)
Where are you buying your hard drives? Granted, we buy business class at our company, but of thirty we have purchased over the last two years, one has had a couple bad sectors, certainly no failures.
Re: (Score:2)
Well honestly, I'd say that both you and your sister are just a little bit off-point. It's not at all uncommon for hard drives to die within a span of 5 years. The problem is that it's not at all predictable when your particular hard drive will die. If you have thousands of hard drives, you might be able to calculate the failure rate that you're experiencing, but any given hard drive might last for a year or for a decade.
But because of the unpredictability, you generally don't replace hard drives on a r
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Citation needed (Score:2)
I think you'll find that if you had the ancient systems required to read them, knew the formats involved, etc, 40-year-old tapes are still going to be tough to read from. The fast pace of "progress" making things obsolete before they even wear out, only serves to hide the fact that old things /do/ wear out, even if old things wear out more slowly than new things.
Sure it can (Score:5, Funny)
Wow, what a claim. And by the time someone figures out it's bullshit, the guy who made it will be dust long ago.
BRILLIANT!
Re:Sure it can (Score:4, Funny)
Wow, what a claim. And by the time someone figures out it's bullshit, the guy who made it will be dust long ago.
Bah! I already have a medium that can store data for a billion years [uncp.edu]. Now you kids can take your newfangled nanotech memory and get off of my lawn!
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Only if it is stored properly. There are plenty of other inscriptions on other stone tablets that are lost to us due to erosion.
Re: (Score:2)
In that you could easily make dozens or hundreds of copies of the data, store it and play the numbers that several copies will survive over a few millennium. Not sure how much stone you would need to do that with tablets...
Re:Sure it can (Score:4, Funny)
Re:Sure it can (Score:5, Interesting)
More interesting: now that we know how to make these, we might find these already on our planet (left by a super intelligent species who abandoned our planet a billion years ago :-)
Re: (Score:2)
And how would we recognise these?
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Wow, what a claim. And by the time someone figures out it's bullshit, the guy who made it will be dust long ago.
BRILLIANT!
I hope I turn to dust before my drives die....wait!?
Finally an archival format we can use. (Score:5, Funny)
The problem with CD-Rs, DVD-Rs, tapes, and so on is that they have extremely short lifetimes (6 to 3 years for most optical media, 10-20 years for most magnetic media).
This is a solution that would finally allow our civilization's information to last beyond the apocalypse occurring in 2012.
Or think think how long Atlantis was lost to intelligent life...
Re:Finally an archival format we can use. (Score:4, Interesting)
The problem with CD-Rs, DVD-Rs, tapes, and so on is that they have extremely short lifetimes (6 to 3 years for most optical media, 10-20 years for most magnetic media).
I call Horseshit.
Yes, some of them die early, but I have CD's from 10 years ago that are fine. I took a stroll down memory lane this weekend and looked at some old CD's I had, so i have direct experience as of yesterday. Some commercial CD's of games (Critical Path circa 1994..wow, what a stinker) I just looked at yesterday are fine. Kirk's Comm disk from 1994....no problem at all.
I also have casette tapes from the 70's and 80's that are fine.
VHS videos from the early 80's, disk drives from early 90's....and with a few exceptions, most are totally servicable.
I would say that most will live longer than your claims, yet maybe 10% to 20% will not, instea
Re:Finally an archival format we can use. (Score:5, Informative)
Yes, some of them die early, but I have CD's from 10 years ago that are fine
Maybe, but that's not what's important is it... What matters is if you record something, after how long are you guaranteed to still be able to read the data. With CD-rs I'd put that as low as 1 and a half years.
Notably, you also seem to confuse CDs and CD-rs, the dies used in CD-rs go south far far faster than the data layers used on comercial CDs.
Finally, your cassette tapes from the 70s may be "fine" in terms of listening to them, but how many scratches, pops, whirs and whistles have they picked up? If that were digital data, do you honestly think you'd be able to recover it still?
Re: (Score:2)
Actually, I did mix commercial with CD-R's, but I examined both and had very good success. Now, I would not say mission critical, absolutly HAVE to have it when I want to retrieve it data should be only on CD-R's, I will agree with you on that. But that's why I would have multiple copies on a variety of media.
My proclomation of Horseshit was on the general claim of lifespan.
Re: (Score:2)
I have CD-Rs from over 10 years ago that still read fine.
I would say it matters on two things. First the quality of the CD-R. The 5 cent ones may not last as long as the 25 cent ones (price per 100 spindle). Second how you store the CD-R. If you leave the disk loose in a drawer with a bunch of other disks and papers it may not last that long. if you store it in an actual CD case or CD binder it should last longer. Also with storing the CDs. Leaving them in an outside shed is a bad idea. Temperature extremes
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
It's not a format, it's a medium. (Score:2, Funny)
Sheesh.
Seriously? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Oh, no, these places -help- to spread the word by removing roadblocks to scientific research. /sarcasm
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Seriously? We're just abandoning any pretense that these are news summaries now and just outright turning them into ads for products? We're now outright trying to sell things? Weak. Very weak indeed.
Yeah and when the summary notes that a NYT link requires registration, they're trying to get you to register at NYT. Or was that warn you? I guess you could view it either way...
There are two links to free articles with the usual amount of information and details that we get in any tech-related article on Slas
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Wonderful, lucky you. And for everyone that *doesn't* have a subscription, the article is about as much benefit as a game of Punch the Monkey.
I'm with the GP, if it's a paid article, it has no place being linked / discussed on a "free" website.
Re: (Score:2)
There are plenty of peer reviewed articles on citeseer, that are, get this, FREE. Link away, by all means.
Just don't say "here's a very interesting article, but you'll have to cough up 30 quid before you are qualified to discuss it on Slashdot".
My comment stands, paid articles have no place on a free discussion website.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
They need to "publish" the paper on their own web site for free as well (or on fucking rapidshare or something!) so that we can see it without paying. They paid for peer review, and a name. If they gave away the sole right to publish, they're lames.
In 1 billion years... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Trust me, if you store your Porn collection, some geek in the future will move heaven and earth to get a peek.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes they will.
In a billion years, there will be a galactic war between the Church of the Holy Goatse, and Two Gods one Cup.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Unfred called it (Score:3, Interesting)
I knew this had the ring of truth about it
http://www.scribd.com/doc/13855395/Weaseljumper-Read-Me-First/ [scribd.com]
Pay-per-view science (Score:3, Insightful)
"Details of the process are available at the American Chemical Society for $30."
Does anyone else find the trend of pay-per-view science disturbing?
All too often, if you search the internet for a topic with ongoing research, you may likely find links to papers with restricted access and not generally accessible.
Any you should assume that several patents are pending based on this ongoing research, even if the idea is a seemingly obvious application of the research.
In software, it is worse. Papers are rarely written, as there are rarely any new ideas. Most all software companies reinvent the same wheels, then attempt to patent cosmetic qualities of the wheeels. Then other companies apply effort to avoid use of such cosmetic patents. and create their own similar cosmetic features (and patents).
Fabtastic! (Score:2)
So now the intelligent cockroaches of the far future can read our Twitters[tm]! That's stupendilicious! LOL! BRB! :-)
Or Slashdot posts! Hey, bugs! How ya doing!
So? (Score:5, Funny)
Nanotech - 1 Billion years
Elephant - Forever
Technology simply cannot compete with mother nature.
Re: (Score:2)
Now we just need to invent immortal elephants and we've got the universe in our grasp.
Screw that... (Score:4, Funny)
Build nano-elephants.
That way we will be combining nano-technology and nature and we will have a device that stores data for billion forevers.
Re: (Score:2)
One billion years... (Score:4, Funny)
Is our stuff that important? (Score:3, Interesting)
I guess the question is, is the data of today's living really that important? I mean, sure, you might wish you had every bit of minute info from the builders of the pyramids, but, does it really undermine our life to not have it? Indeed, can the imagination and argument required to envision how the past was actually make the past more relevant to us today?
I almost wonder if, instead of having data that lasts forever, if we should have data that deletes itself when you die.
Its a trap!! (Score:2)
No way should this tech be used by anybody. It will only take a few more decades before the RIAA legally own all data everywhere, then you will be worrying how to keep your data files hidden for millions of years so that they don't sue your ass.
Refund? (Score:2, Interesting)
Do I get a refund if the memory fails before a billion years?
Re: (Score:2)
1. Get warranty plan that will pay interest on the value if device fails before the warranty expires
2. Wait billion years
3. ???
4. Profit!
Right. (Score:2)
Too bad it doesn't exist.
Also good luck FINDING it after a billion years... "I know it is around here somewhere!"
In other news, my patented Pixie Dust and Ground Unicorn Horn method for data storage may be retrievable after about 1.5 trillion years.
Next story please.
ridiculous (Score:2)
We live in a universe permeated by cosmic rays of very high energies. The flux is about 0.2 ray per square centimeter per second. Each ray can easily ionize a track a billion atoms long.
In a billion years that's about 6 x 10^21 bits damaged per square cm. Not exactly legible.
Heard This Before ... CDs Last Forever. Not! (Score:2)
Back when music CDs first came out, many made similar claims; would basically last forever, which turned out to not be true, as many early CD adopters found out the hard way by the late 1980s.
I'd doubt such nanotech memory, especially at the extreme densities mentioned in the article summery, would last (as in being easily readable and having zero uncorrectable errors) even 50 years.
What about the stability of the substrate / packaging, cosmic rays, etc? Still too many unknowns for any credible longevity cl
nanoSETI? (Score:2)
Could this mean that we should be looking for crystals instead of radiowaves?
Oh!.. We may even find data from the very beginning of the times! And the message is: "Oooops... Sorry..."
OR... (Score:2)
Or, it fails after a million years. How would anyone know?
Hasn't this been done before? (Score:4, Funny)
I think there is prior art [slashdot.org] on this one:
Where do they get the figure for stone? (Score:2)
The oldest information-bearing material we know of are fossil stromatolites over three billion years old.
More crap from "Physorg" (Score:2)
It's another one of those crap articles from Physorg. They regularly report some minor advance in chemistry or device physics as a new product available Real Soon Now. Then somebody posts it to Slashdot, whose "editors" post it as news.
Wikipedia has better editing than this.
Precision? Speed? (Score:2)
Some questions arise:
1) Some data like movies can suffer a certain degree of data loss. But some other data (code, for example) can not. How precise is this new storage technique?
2) what is the performance? can we use it as main memory? or it is to replace hard disks?
Thinking ahead (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Well, how were they stored? Did someone use them as a coaster?
The 5.25 were the true floppy as in flexible and easily bent.
And are you sure the drive is aligned properly (i.e. it can read the other data on the disk).
I have an old 1993 Zeos 486 that I may fire back up and see if I can read my DOS disks.
Re: (Score:2)
360kB floppies can last damned near forever, if they're not subjected to a lot of cold/hot cycles. If they are, fuggedaboudit. Still, you might try aligning the floppy drive, as was suggested, if you can't read ANY of them. 1.2 MB floppies (which you don't have) don't last for shit.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Zettl [wikipedia.org] is a pretty well known figure in this field. He's not throwing around the term because it's a buzzword.
Re:Nano this, carbon nano that... (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
This just in, people use buzzwords to sound smart, get funding.
Shit, you can use buzzwords to get funding too? I never thought of that! I guess that's the downside of only sounding smart.
Re:Nano this, carbon nano that... (Score:4, Insightful)
It reminds me of the word "ubiquitous". Prior to 1997 or so no one had ever heard of this word, much less used it in a computer/business setting. Now I see even my boss, someone who does not come from an IT background, using it.
No offense, but is English not your first language? Because that word has been in use for nearly 200 years, and therefore was not originally IT-specific.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
No, Mork from Ork was using it in the mid 70's ("Nano Nano").
ubiquitous (Score:2, Informative)
Actually Bell Telephone popularized the term "ubiquitous" in a series of nationwide print advertisements in the mid-1960's [flickr.com].
Re: (Score:2)
It reminds me of the word "ubiquitous". Prior to 1997 or so no one had ever heard of this word...
Some quick and dirty research [reference.com] tells me that it comes from the Latin ubique ("everywhere"). I'm fairly certain that Latin existed before 1997.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Lots of work? Normal weathering will destroy stone carvings, and many ancient carvings are either lost completely or so faded as to be unreadable simply because they were left out in the weather for a few thousand years. The well-preserved ones are the ones that were kept in big vaults like the pyramids and protected from the weather. Also, lots and lots of stone carvings have been deliberately destroyed throughout history for various reasons, including times when invading armies tried to destroy the rel
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
You know I am sick of people saying the Egyptians had us beat. Sure the data was there but they didn't leave any way to read the data. A lucky find hundreds of miles away called the rosetta stone is what allowed us to crack their encryptian.
Format matters little if you don't leave a method of retrivial. I have tons of programs written back in the early 80's. However since they are all for a TI 99/4a on 5 1/2" floppies I can't use them anymore.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
...but nothing today comes even close to the reliability of carving information into stone if you want to store it for 1 billion years. And its easily accessible/readable to anyone or I guess maybe at this point in time, anything alive and aware of it.
Wake me up when you figure out how to store video on a stone tablet and have it easily accessible to anyone...
Re:Ah, the psychics are here again (Score:4, Insightful)
What kind of skill is required to see a billion years into the future?
Umm... how about the skill of science?
Okay, to be fair, the summary exaggerates the claim from the scientific paper quite a bit. The summary implies that they are claiming to have built a device that will last for a billion years. Not so. They are claiming that the individual bits should be stable to random thermal flipping over that timescale. Whether or not a device can be built around those bits that also last a billion years is another question. In the words of the authors:
Again, they are not claiming that they have built a device that will last a billion years. But they are saying that they have at least achieved the first step for archival storage. If you want a device that will last for, say, a thousand years, then having bits that persist over at least that long is required. Of course, there are gotchas:
-A real device may have other weak points that degrade first.
-The analysis only considers some dangers of long-term storage. E.g. electric or magnetic fields could cause the bits to flip. Elevated temperatures would reduce the stability time.
-Many memory devices would in principle be stable over very long timescales if analyzed similarly. E.g. for a normal hard drive, at room temperature without any electric or magnetic fields, the actual magnetic domain orientation is also stable over very long times.
Point being, the authors of the paper are correct in what they wrote (it's not hard to calculate the kinds of things they were considering, even over timescales of billions of years), but as they point out that's not the whole story for a real device.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm not caring about the real device even. Just the single bit isn't stable for a billion years. It's merely theorhetically stable from a single influence for a calculated billion years. That's pure bullshit.
Hey, when did the first sun spot or solar flare start to break things?
Tell me, what _does_ affect nano-scale devices? The answer is that no ones been looking for very long. I promiss you that within a billion years, some effect, some dynamic, some event will break the device.
Rocks used to be stable
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Just the single bit isn't stable for a billion years. It's merely theorhetically stable from a single influence for a calculated billion years. That's pure bullshit.
If you're saying that there is always room for us to discover new effects and revise our calculations, then I agree. But if you're saying that we cannot make any kind of predictions, with useful error bars, about events over long timescale, then I have to disagree.
Rocks used to be stable -- until general weathering was observed. And it wasn't observed on the first day.
That's a good example. Apparently you accept the general theories of erosion and weathering, even though we have not measured them over the timescales we think they operate. It wasn't observed on the first day, but we also have not watched a mount
Re: (Score:2)
We need to distinguish two very different types of scientific predictions. Weathering and erosion over long periods is very different than stability over long periods. Predictions regarding niagara falls eventually producing a canyon larger than the grand canyon certainly doesn't take into account a meteorite stopping the falls, or their being dammed artificially. Instead, it simply predicts the continued effects of current observations. In other words, we see it eroding slowly, if this continues, and w
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)