# Digital Longevity



## Jesse17 (Apr 7, 2016)

I just attended a short talk by the Humanities Montana Speakers Bureau program, called “Starting With Huffman: Photographers of Montana’s High Plains”.  It was a presentation that showed the differences in styles of various photographers who have done work to showcase the plains/prairie side of Montana since the 1880s. It was quite interesting to see that some of these famed photographers were known for styles that directly violated many of the 'rules' of composition. 

But something that really stuck with me was the fact that the presenter is a professional historic preservation photographer who takes photographs of old bridges for the Library of Congress. She said she uses a 4x5 (IIRC) black and white camera because the Library of Congress requires a 500 year archive life of photograph media. She said B&W negatives, if stored correctly, are suppose to have a 500 year life, but there is no means of storing a digital photo that will last 500 years.

She didn't go into details, and it's something I've heard touched on before, but I thought it was something interesting to think about. Sure, we back up files but we store them on machines that WILL not last 500 years. So unless we're constantly moving the files to newer storage facilities, in only 100 years, where will we find a historic photo taken in 2015?

I took an online photography course a couple months ago and it talked about exporting photos to .jpg simply because it's mainstream and you may wake up in 20 years and find out no editing programs support the proprietary RAW format your camera used when you took the photo.

I'm sure there will be conversion programs when that happens, but will you have time and the desire to buy software and dedicate a week to converting files? What if you'll just 'get to it later' until the external hard drive you store them on is obsolete too?

I'm sure they will invent new technology, but I just thought it was interesting that there is no media (not even print) that will allow you to store your photos for 100 years, or pass them on to the next generation, without a proactive approach to actively preserving them. There's no locking them in a trunk for 50 years for someone else to find, because that someone else won't have any equipment to read the files, assuming the media you used even lasted 50 years. (not likely)


----------



## 480sparky (Apr 7, 2016)

Yep.  We are living in the Digital Dark Ages right now.


----------



## ClickAddict (Apr 8, 2016)

The key point is "unless we're constantly moving files to newer storage facilities".  in this day and age any important data has the appropriate level of backups and as the systems get upgraded, the data is passed along.

Is it possible your PC crashes and you lose everything?  Yes, but if it was important enough you would have backups on another PC / Hard Drive.  If it's business related photos, you should also have them offsite.  Prior to Digital, you could lose your negatives just as easily as losing a PC.  (House fire, lost box during move.....)
With only one copy, I would argue you were more likely to lose them than today.  (Any of your good family photos you've shared with family and friends.  Your PC dies, they may still have copies.)

As for business, any place like an official Gov Archive will not lose digital files short of a nuclear apocalyptic future with no PCs. (And do you think if such an event occurred, all those negatives would still be around?)  (Yes there's the "incompetent people" factor that someone could delete them, but that same person could end up throwing a box of negatives to the curb along with garbage, so it's not a risk only seen in Digital Storage)

I still have photos on my PC that are from when my son was born.  (1997)  So that's nearly 20 years ago.  I can pull it up in minutes if I had to.  I don't honestly think I could find any negatives of photos taken back then.


----------



## Ysarex (Apr 8, 2016)

You need to separate out practice from physical reality. This topic is constantly confused when someone takes a physical feature of film and then equates that to practice in using digital photos. They are different concerns.

Joe


----------



## robbins.photo (Apr 8, 2016)

ClickAddict said:


> The key point is "unless we're constantly moving files to newer storage facilities".  in this day and age any important data has the appropriate level of backups and as the systems get upgraded, the data is passed along.



It's also interesting to note that the film negatives are simply given the benefit of the doubt, whereas digital media isn't.

Well of course 500 years from now we'll still have working equipment on hand to create a print from a negative!  But we'll never be able to read a floppy disk again, that would be completely impossible.. 

And for the record, I still have stuff from the golden oldy days of computing - I have programs that were written in basic for a an old Vic 20 - they were originally saved to a tape drive, later transferred to a floppy, from a floppy to a zip disk and eventually moved to the archives storage of my network.  But even now, decades later, if I wanted to access the original code I could quite easily.. even though the tape drive on which they were originally stored hasn't been used in a very, very long time indeed.


----------



## fmw (Apr 8, 2016)

Strangely, nobody knows whether any kind of photographic medium will last for 500 years because we don't have any 500 year old media.  B&W negatives are certainly stable but digital files are even more so.  The requirement would require scheduled backups and movement to current media but bits are bits and if you can read them, you can construct an image from them.


----------



## robbins.photo (Apr 8, 2016)

fmw said:


> Strangely, nobody knows whether any kind of photographic medium will last for 500 years because we don't have any 500 year old media.  B&W negatives are certainly stable but digital files are even more so.  The requirement would require scheduled backups and movement to current media but bits are bits and if you can read them, you can construct an image from them.


Well I guess if someone were uber paranoid they could print out the hex code of the file as well as info on the file format, laminate those pages and store them properly and even 500 years from now they could be rebuilt and then converted to whatever format is the rage at that juncture

Sent from my N9518 using Tapatalk


----------



## 480sparky (Apr 8, 2016)

robbins.photo said:


> Well I guess if someone were uber paranoid they could print out the hex code of the file as well as info on the file format, laminate those pages and store them properly and even 500 years from now they could be rebuilt and then converted to whatever format is the rage at that juncture
> 
> Sent from my N9518 using Tapatalk



I actually converted a .NEF file to text.  I stopped it once the file reached 9,200 pages of mostly random letters, numbers and characters.


----------



## robbins.photo (Apr 8, 2016)

480sparky said:


> I actually converted a .NEF file to text.  I stopped it once the file reached 9,200 pages of mostly random letters, numbers and characters.



Oh ya, lot of dead trees involved in the process, but you'd be sure to be able to create the file again at some point that way.


----------



## 480sparky (Apr 8, 2016)

robbins.photo said:


> 480sparky said:
> 
> 
> > I actually converted a .NEF file to text.  I stopped it once the file reached 9,200 pages of mostly random letters, numbers and characters.
> ...



I sure wouldn't want to be the poor schmuck that had to key in over 9,200 pages of characters into some computer.  Make one mistake, and the recreated file is corrupt.


----------



## robbins.photo (Apr 8, 2016)

480sparky said:


> I sure wouldn't want to be the poor schmuck that had to key in over 9,200 pages of characters into some computer.  Make one mistake, and the recreated file is corrupt.



Well, counting heavily on the fact that even 500 years in the future you'll still be able to hire a temp.. of course.. lol


----------



## Jesse17 (Apr 8, 2016)

You guys make some good points. I was particularly thinking about the idea of the great grand kids finding an old hard drive of grandpas photos  in a trunk in the attic and not having any way to see them (assuming the hard drive still worked). But I guess if you found a 50 year old negatives in the attic now it's not like you would just pop them in your computer. You'd have to take them somewhere that did that kind of work. So I guess that's no different than having to take a HDD to someone that could still work with the then obsolete technology.

The lady giving the presentation did say she loved her digital camera and checks all the time to see if the National Library of Congress will except digital yet.


----------



## Watchful (Apr 9, 2016)

480sparky said:


> robbins.photo said:
> 
> 
> > 480sparky said:
> ...


Why wouldn't a person just use OCR to read it back?

Anyways there is already digital media that will last more than 1000 years that is commercially available today for very low cost. 

There is also 5D data storage that uses a digital matrix etched into glass that can store incredibly vast amounts of data for perhaps many millennium in a very small size.

I save my digital photo archives with the former method. I'll decide in a thousand years if I want to try the latter.


----------



## gsgary (Apr 9, 2016)

fmw said:


> Strangely, nobody knows whether any kind of photographic medium will last for 500 years because we don't have any 500 year old media.  B&W negatives are certainly stable but digital files are even more so.  The requirement would require scheduled backups and movement to current media but bits are bits and if you can read them, you can construct an image from them.


This is where digital becomes more expensive and harder work than film

Sent from my SM-G903F using Tapatalk


----------



## fmw (Apr 9, 2016)

gsgary said:


> fmw said:
> 
> 
> > Strangely, nobody knows whether any kind of photographic medium will last for 500 years because we don't have any 500 year old media.  B&W negatives are certainly stable but digital files are even more so.  The requirement would require scheduled backups and movement to current media but bits are bits and if you can read them, you can construct an image from them.
> ...



I agree but the point is to make the most archival photo.  I would say the Library of Congress probably has the most practical policy.   If color is important then the digital file would be the choice.  I have Ektachromes from the 1960's that are washed out.


----------



## Bebulamar (Apr 9, 2016)

You can simply write down the binary code for the image plus the encoding algorithm. Someone in the distance future should be able to reconstruct your image precisely from that.


----------



## WayneF (Apr 9, 2016)

In the last few years, there is now a M-disk, a type of DVD claimed to have a life of 1000 years.  It is available at Amazon, not expensive ($30 for ten 4.7GB, or 100GB for $27 each), and there are drives that can write them.  Not the same as longevity, but it has passed stress tests by the Dept of Defense.  It would provide color, and to me, that sounds like a better bet than the gelatin or polyester film bases. 

Maybe we should write uncompressed data to be easier when unknown in the future?   I don't know if they compressed theirs, but heck, movies have shown us that we can decode alien binary data from space.


----------



## Watchful (Apr 9, 2016)

WayneF said:


> In the last few years, there is now a M-disk, a type of DVD claimed to have a life of 1000 years.  It is available at Amazon, not expensive ($30 for ten 4.7GB, or 100GB for $27 each), and there are drives that can write them.  Not the same as longevity, but it has passed stress tests by the Dept of Defense.  It would provide color, and to me, that sounds like a better bet than the gelatin or polyester film bases.
> 
> Maybe we should write uncompressed data to be easier when unknown in the future?   I don't know if they compressed theirs, but heck, movies have shown us that we can decode alien binary data from space.


I mentioned the m-disc above, I use BD not DVD for more space per disc, but same organic technology.
I use an LG BD writer multi drive to write them.
I create and burn movies so I had the writer anyways and started using m-disc when it came on the market.
M-disc has a life of at least 1000 years, could easily be double that.


----------



## table1349 (Apr 9, 2016)

Watchful said:


> WayneF said:
> 
> 
> > In the last few years, there is now a M-disk, a type of DVD claimed to have a life of 1000 years.  It is available at Amazon, not expensive ($30 for ten 4.7GB, or 100GB for $27 each), and there are drives that can write them.  Not the same as longevity, but it has passed stress tests by the Dept of Defense.  It would provide color, and to me, that sounds like a better bet than the gelatin or polyester film bases.
> ...


Wow, I didn't know m disks had been around for 1000 years.  Sounds like a Gutenberg m-disk would be easier.   

Are they good? Yes.  I will buy the 1000 year thing 999 years from now.


----------



## WayneF (Apr 9, 2016)

gryphonslair99 said:


> Wow, I didn't know m disks had been around for 1000 years.



Everyone can learn something from the internet.


----------



## table1349 (Apr 9, 2016)

WayneF said:


> gryphonslair99 said:
> 
> 
> > Wow, I didn't know m disks had been around for 1000 years.
> ...


Yep, I've learned that Betamax wasn't the VCR to go with.
DVD's weren't the last word in recording devices, nor would they last the predicted 100 years or more,
And if a guy tells you he is a french fashion model on the internet it just might not be true. 

They are better than the other optical devices right now, but I will reserve judgment for another 999 years.

However if the nuns tell me it is so, I might change my mind after 500 years.


----------



## 480sparky (Apr 9, 2016)

_Never believe everything you read on the internet._
.................................................................-Thomas Jefferson


----------



## petrochemist (Apr 10, 2016)

Jesse17 said:


> You guys make some good points. I was particularly thinking about the idea of the great grand kids finding an old hard drive of grandpas photos  in a trunk in the attic and not having any way to see them (assuming the hard drive still worked). But I guess if you found a 50 year old negatives in the attic now it's not like you would just pop them in your computer. You'd have to take them somewhere that did that kind of work. So I guess that's no different than having to take a HDD to someone that could still work with the then obsolete technology.
> 
> The lady giving the presentation did say she loved her digital camera and checks all the time to see if the National Library of Congress will except digital yet.


I've found 100 year old glass negatives at my parents house. If you hold them up or put a sheet of blank paper behind they are clearly visible. There's enough visible even without this for someone not knowing photography to realize there's an image present, and a fairly good chance they'd be able to make it out eventually.
If not updated digital data will become unreadable. But if it's data that you want to keep, it's much safer as exact copies can be kept on different locations (even different continents for the ultimate bomb proofing). Transferring to new physical media types is relatively easy, and even re-coding to a different format is not much of an issue. Actively archived digital data should keep much longer than film.


----------



## table1349 (Apr 10, 2016)

480sparky said:


> _Never believe everything you read on the internet._
> .................................................................-Thomas Jefferson


No, no, no..... That was Lincolc that said that.


----------



## robbins.photo (Apr 10, 2016)

gryphonslair99 said:


> 480sparky said:
> 
> 
> > _Never believe everything you read on the internet._
> ...


Pretty sure I read on a blog where Lincoln actually stole that from Jefferson

Sent from my N9518 using Tapatalk


----------



## table1349 (Apr 10, 2016)

robbins.photo said:


> gryphonslair99 said:
> 
> 
> > 480sparky said:
> ...


Who stole it from Shakespeare ....


----------



## robbins.photo (Apr 10, 2016)

Actually pretty sure Shakespeare said "Believeth not all that thou readeth on thine internet, for thine ISP is not but a nesteth of viper.  Thine cruel, outrageous slingers of misfortune and woe"

Apparently AOL overcharged him at some point and he was pretty cheesed.

Sent from my N9518 using Tapatalk


----------



## table1349 (Apr 10, 2016)

For those that are truly serious about long term image storage.  Scientists Using DNA to Store Digital Photos for Centuries


----------



## 480sparky (Apr 10, 2016)

Jeffersons quote starts with _Never _. Lincolns starts with _Don't  _.


----------



## Watchful (Apr 10, 2016)

petrochemist said:


> Jesse17 said:
> 
> 
> > You guys make some good points. I was particularly thinking about the idea of the great grand kids finding an old hard drive of grandpas photos  in a trunk in the attic and not having any way to see them (assuming the hard drive still worked). But I guess if you found a 50 year old negatives in the attic now it's not like you would just pop them in your computer. You'd have to take them somewhere that did that kind of work. So I guess that's no different than having to take a HDD to someone that could still work with the then obsolete technology.
> ...


That is incorrect, digital data stored in a glass matrix will remain readable for hundreds of thousands of years and survive extremes in temperature humidity and other environmental factors that will quickly destroy other methods of storage.
The storage allows unprecedented properties including 360 TB/disc data capacity, thermal stability up to 1,000°C and virtually unlimited lifetime at room temperature (13.8 billion years at 190°C ) opening a new era of eternal data archiving. As a very stable and safe form of portable memory, the technology could be highly useful for organisations with big archives, such as national archives, museums and libraries, to preserve their information and records.
M-discs do not need to be re-written to remain intact and fully operable.

Eternal 5D data storage could record the history of humankind | University of Southampton
Torture testing the 1,000 year DVD | ZDNet


----------



## Ysarex (Apr 10, 2016)

Joe


----------



## 480sparky (Apr 10, 2016)

Watchful said:


> petrochemist said:
> 
> 
> > Jesse17 said:
> ...



Do you even read the threads you respond to?



Two people are talking about glass NEGATIVES, and you start in about 'digitial data stored in a glass matrix' and '360 TB discs'?  WTH does that have to do with glass NEGATIVES, which is merely a film medium that uses GLASS PLATES as a support for the emulsion?


----------



## Watchful (Apr 10, 2016)

It is a storage medium for modern digital images taken with digital cameras, it's real hard to shove a glass plate negative into my Nikon D5.  lol

My response was to this:





> If not updated digital data will become unreadable.


I hope this helps you understand what was said and why.


----------



## 480sparky (Apr 10, 2016)

Watchful said:


> It is a storage medium for modern digital images taken with digital cameras, it's real hard to shove a glass plate negative into my Nikon D5.  lol
> 
> My response was to this:
> 
> ...



Your Nikon D5 was around 50 or 100 years ago,* as referred to in the posts you quoted*?


----------



## Watchful (Apr 10, 2016)

480sparky said:


> Watchful said:
> 
> 
> > It is a storage medium for modern digital images taken with digital cameras, it's real hard to shove a glass plate negative into my Nikon D5.  lol
> ...


The post I replied to was made Today at 12:12, not a hundred years ago.
My comment was to the line I specified, it's simple really. There was no digital data 100 years ago yet the person posting mentioned digital data will degrade unless it's re-written.

This was in the original post, in case it was missed: 





> She said B&W negatives, if stored correctly, are suppose to have a 500 year life, but there is no means of storing a digital photo that will last 500 years.


So, as you see this is a thread comparing digital storage to traditional B&W film.
Thank you for your interest.


----------



## Overread (Apr 10, 2016)

Until such time as we reach the dates proposed we won't know for sure what technology will or won't survive long term. Nothing lasts forever; we can spread things about;run backups; use clouds; printouts; negatives; vaults; lockers and all and yet it can all end in loss. 

Or rather change; what we treasure as a photo will change to something else in life and become something or part of something new. Such is the destiny of all matter in this physical universe that we reside within.


----------



## 480sparky (Apr 10, 2016)

Watchful said:


> 480sparky said:
> 
> 
> > Watchful said:
> ...



You need to either start taking your meds again, or get off the stuff your pusher is selling you.

*No fake *there wasn't any digital media 100 years ago.  This ain't my first rodeo, sonny.


----------



## Watchful (Apr 10, 2016)

Overread said:


> Until such time as we reach the dates proposed we won't know for sure what technology will or won't survive long term. Nothing lasts forever; we can spread things about;run backups; use clouds; printouts; negatives; vaults; lockers and all and yet it can all end in loss.
> 
> Or rather change; what we treasure as a photo will change to something else in life and become something or part of something new. Such is the destiny of all matter in this physical universe that we reside within.



True, but a one will remain a one and a zero will always be a zero.



480sparky said:


> You need to either start taking your meds again, or get off the stuff your pusher is selling you.
> 
> *No fake *there wasn't any digital media 100 years ago.  This ain't my first rodeo, sonny.



That's fantastic.  Thanks


----------



## Overread (Apr 10, 2016)

Watchful said:


> Overread said:
> 
> 
> > Until such time as we reach the dates proposed we won't know for sure what technology will or won't survive long term. Nothing lasts forever; we can spread things about;run backups; use clouds; printouts; negatives; vaults; lockers and all and yet it can all end in loss.
> ...



Unless you speak to maths students - then numbers are stupid and confusing and 1 becomes 0 and 0 becomes X and X becomes Y which is 1 but also 3


----------



## 480sparky (Apr 10, 2016)

Watchful said:


> That's fantastic.  Thanks



Especially the units made with base-plates of prefabulated amulite, surmounted by a malleable logarithmic casing in such a way that the two spurving bearings were in a direct line with the pentametric fan. The main winding is of the normal lotus-o-delta type placed in panendermic semi-boloid slots in the stator, every seventh conductor being connected by a nonreversible _trem'e_ pipe to the differential girdlespring on the 'up' end of the grammeters.

You will also need a Moreover, especially whenever fluorescence score motion is required so it may also be employed in conjunction with a drawn reciprocation dingle-arm to reduce sinusoidal depleneration. 

This method not only provides inverse reactive current for use in unilateral phase detractors, but would also be capable of automatically synchronizing cardinal frumotons.


----------



## beachrat (Apr 10, 2016)

I just tell my kids to make a bunch of prints and hold on to them.
You people think wayyyy toooo much.


----------



## table1349 (Apr 10, 2016)

beachrat said:


> I just tell my kids to make a bunch of prints and hold on to them.
> You people think wayyyy toooo much.


Or in some cases Wayyyyy tooooooo little.


----------



## 480sparky (Apr 10, 2016)

gryphonslair99 said:


> beachrat said:
> 
> 
> > I just tell my kids to make a bunch of prints and hold on to them.
> ...



On in a very singular case, not at all.


----------



## table1349 (Apr 10, 2016)

480sparky said:


> Watchful said:
> 
> 
> > That's fantastic.  Thanks
> ...


Oooohhh I love sciency stuff.   Excuse me now, I'm gonna go smoke a cigarette.  




P.S.  I think we now know who bought the time machine that Sheldon, Leonard, Raj, and Howard sold.  Bet it looks good parked next to helicopter.


----------



## Watchful (Apr 10, 2016)

beachrat said:


> I just tell my kids to make a bunch of prints and hold on to them.
> You people think wayyyy toooo much.


My wife tells me that a lot.  I don't believe it's possible to think too much, but I see a lot of the effects of too little thinking. Just look at a little site called youtube. lol


----------



## gsgary (Apr 11, 2016)

Watchful said:


> petrochemist said:
> 
> 
> > Jesse17 said:
> ...


Have you got proof, I'll stick with film and wash my negative well

Sent from my SM-G903F using Tapatalk


----------



## petrochemist (Apr 11, 2016)

[QUOTE="Watchful, post: 3614538, member: 213144
That is incorrect, digital data stored in a glass matrix will remain readable for hundreds of thousands of years and survive extremes in temperature humidity and other environmental factors that will quickly destroy other methods of storage.
The storage allows unprecedented properties including 360 TB/disc data capacity, thermal stability up to 1,000°C and virtually unlimited lifetime at room temperature (13.8 billion years at 190°C ) opening a new era of eternal data archiving. As a very stable and safe form of portable memory, the technology could be highly useful for organisations with big archives, such as national archives, museums and libraries, to preserve their information and records.
M-discs do not need to be re-written to remain intact and fully operable.

Eternal 5D data storage could record the history of humankind | University of Southampton
Torture testing the 1,000 year DVD | ZDNet[/QUOTE]

My own experience with glass is that it's somewhat prone to shock, which may or may not be an issue, with glass matrixes. 

It MAY be that the data will remain readable for many years but as a yet very new technology it's predicted lifespan may prove to be very different. (I have hundreds of CDs that haven't lived up to the early claims of longevity) It is also very likely that within a relatively short time an improved storage technology will be available so the readers will no longer be around in 100 years...

My main point however was that if the data is managed, it can be transposed to whatever new medium takes the place of that being used. If it's saved with checksum data any data corruption can be detected as well so corrupted data can be rebuilt from one of the identical copies stored elsewhere. Together these make digital archiving considerably better than print/film which have proved to be very vulnerable to fire...


----------



## Watchful (Apr 11, 2016)

Normal CDs last about 8 years as predicted.


----------



## table1349 (Apr 11, 2016)

Well according to these guys it's more like 25-50 years.
How Long Do CDs, DVDs, and Tapes Last?


----------



## KenC (Apr 11, 2016)

I've already recovered files from 13-year-old CD's.  I should pop one of my oldest ones in now to see - I think I have some from almost 17 years ago.


----------



## gsgary (Apr 11, 2016)

Watchful said:


> Normal CDs last about 8 years as predicted.


Well I've lost loads of digital photos if that's true and I couldn't give a **** my digital  photos mean nothing to me

Sent from my SM-G903F using Tapatalk


----------



## bribrius (Apr 11, 2016)

when it comes up with corrupt file or corrupted format unknown format you know your screwed


----------



## 480sparky (Apr 11, 2016)

Scientists have Figured out How to Store Digital Images in DNA


----------



## robbins.photo (Apr 11, 2016)

480sparky said:


> Scientists have Figured out How to Store Digital Images in DNA



Well, thank goodness.  Now we just need to cyrogenically freeze a few folks and problem solved.


----------



## 480sparky (Apr 11, 2016)

robbins.photo said:


> 480sparky said:
> 
> 
> > Scientists have Figured out How to Store Digital Images in DNA
> ...



It's in your DNA, man.  Just pass it all on to your kids.


----------



## ClickAddict (Apr 11, 2016)

480sparky said:


> robbins.photo said:
> 
> 
> > 480sparky said:
> ...




Great,  now the law will have to worry about people saving NSFW photos in their DNA and passing it along to their kids who are underage.    "Sorry Johnny, the image reader wont pull the files from your right arm until you are 21."


----------



## Watchful (Apr 11, 2016)

ClickAddict said:


> 480sparky said:
> 
> 
> > robbins.photo said:
> ...


21 is the age for drinking. 18 is for x rated material.
Just as a side thought, why would the DNA in your right arm be different than anywhere else?


----------



## robbins.photo (Apr 11, 2016)

480sparky said:


> robbins.photo said:
> 
> 
> > 480sparky said:
> ...



Huh.. so do you think this will lead to the expression, but honey, I don't like using an ND filter.. just doesn't feel natural. do I have too?


----------



## ClickAddict (Apr 11, 2016)

Watchful said:


> ClickAddict said:
> 
> 
> > 480sparky said:
> ...




Dude, it was a joke.    21 was arbitrary.  it's 19 for drinking here, 18 just a few miles away in Quebec, x rated material is 18 here as well (Although our PG 13 vs PG14 is different), but since this is a world wide forum, the numbers may vary from place to place.  If you want to change it to 18, the point stays the same.    As for the DNA from one part of your body, you are correct.  (Wow, I'll have to remember to do strict fact checking before trying humor next time.  lol )


----------



## Watchful (Apr 11, 2016)

OK...rotflmao


----------



## robbins.photo (Apr 11, 2016)

ClickAddict said:


> Dude, it was a joke.    21 was arbitrary.  it's 19 for drinking here, 18 just a few miles away in Quebec, x rated material is 18 here as well (Although our PG 13 vs PG14 is different), but since this is a world wide forum, the numbers may vary from place to place.  If you want to change it to 18, the point stays the same.    As for the DNA from one part of your body, you are correct.  (Wow, I'll have to remember to do strict fact checking before trying humor next time.  lol )



Or just click on ignore.  Worked wonders for me.


----------



## 480sparky (Apr 11, 2016)

robbins.photo said:


> 480sparky said:
> 
> 
> > robbins.photo said:
> ...



As long as she's using a CPL.


----------



## robbins.photo (Apr 11, 2016)

480sparky said:


> As long as she's using a CPL.



Well they all say they are, but you know how that goes.. before you know it you got a micro 4/3rd on the way....


----------



## table1349 (Apr 11, 2016)

480sparky said:


> Scientists have Figured out How to Store Digital Images in DNA


Beat ya too it.  Digital Longevity


----------



## table1349 (Apr 11, 2016)

ClickAddict said:


> Watchful said:
> 
> 
> > ClickAddict said:
> ...


Nah your fine, the rest of us got it some people just need to download the app.


----------

