can u touch data?

[evolutionbanjo]

ho0w can u touch data, is it possible to experiance internet...?
can i touch anything thats downloaded..?

[oracle128]

By definition, data is information, and information does not have a physical presence - you can't touch it. You can touch the medium it's stored on (eg paper, hard drive), and even touch the physical representation of it (ink, electrons). But no you cannot touch the data itself.

[renegade600]

Originally Posted by evolutionbanjo

ho0w can u touch data, is it possible to experiance internet...?
can i touch anything thats downloaded..?

only if you print it

[Snurfen]

No dan, thats meeja. Stick your tongue across the terminals of your phone plug whilst downloading from the etherweb/tinternet thingy, the voltage differentials you experience are in fact raw data.

Argue all you want pedants, I will be sticking my fingers in my ears and going "la la la la I'm not listening...." (physical layer of a network - thats data).

So to answer your question eb, yes, you can.

p.s., one more post to become a senior member. Well done.

[oracle128]

If you can touch data, it must be matter. If it's matter, it has a mass.
So Snurfen, why is it that an empty hard drive weighs exactly as much as a full one?

[Ned Seagoon]

On a more subtle note there is another meaning to "touch" eg alter. Yes it is possible to alter downloaded data. In fact there is a command of "touch" in the Linux world, that is used to change the time and date stamp of a file. This can also be done in the windows world, but not so conveniently.

And if we are getting technical I suspect that a magnetised particle will have a slightly different mass to an unmagnetised particle. Once it was thought that light had no mass, but that notion has now been proved to be incorrect.

[oracle128]

http://www.dansdata.com/io076.htm
Scroll down to third question.

You assume that a weight difference between unmagnetised and magnetised materials causes a weight difference in a hard drive. I'm quite certain magnetised materials are heavier, but it doesn't matter; the platters are coated in a ferromagnetic substance (cobalt alloy) - they remain magnetised whether or not they are holding data. I'm pretty sure this is true even for disks which have yet to be low-level formatted (for magnetic storage old enough to require LLFing).

Hence the reason we can use hystersis as one method to recover data with data remanence. When you alter data on a hard drive, you don't magnetise or demagnetise it; you change its magnetic alignment. It is electromechanically true that a hard drive will be heavier whilst in use than not; electron flow, induced magnetic fields and magnetic moments, and weight change due to heat generated from mechanical components and electricity (special theory of relativity leading to equivalence principle says so) all play a role. But once switched off, the weight is unchanged. Weight will also changed due to degradation of the magnetic fields, and general degradation of the materials themselves, over long periods of time. Neither of these is relevant to the weight of data.

Of course, the point is moot anyway. Ink has a weight, but ink is nothing more than the physical representation of the information, not the information itself; as the paper is the medium. Data, information and knowledge are still metaphysical terms regardless.

[zipulrich]

Yes, you can.

[Snurfen]

hahahahhaha zip!



told you I'd get pedanted!



OK, I'll type slow so you can follow - data transmission at the physical layer (copper/fibre etc) is pulses of high/low signal. On fibre, it's light. On copper, it's voltage. You can feel the voltage differential with the tip of your tongue. It was part of a lab I did years back when I worked for Cisco, I was touching (because I could feel it through my tongue) the data.

Quite simple to understand, but if you want to try and obsfucate a simple fact by wiki-ing etc and contradict a simple experience realted by a member, go ahead and make a fool of yourself.

[oracle128]

One wonders if one even knows the meaning of the word pedantic. Pointing out grammar and spelling errors in a post? Pedantic. Pointing out that my knowledge and references were gained from everything but Wikipedia? Pedantic. Pointing out that the Application layer is the more applicable layer of the OSI model relevant to the ethereal concept of data? Pedantic.
Wondering how much voltage data, information or knowledge have when they're not being transmitted over a copper wire, and why the consistency of data's metaphysical (by the very dictionary definition of the term) existence should rely so much on any arbitrary method of transference or storage? Totally pertinent to the discussion.

Saying that you can touch data because you got electrocuted while licking the wire it was being transferred across, is like saying you can touch knowledge, and it tastes mysteriously like ink; or at least it did when you swallowed the contents of your pen.

Electrons are not data, they are one of the many forms used for the physical representation of data (a type of information) for the purpose of storage or transmission. Proof of concept? x=7. That data is, as of now, represented in magnetic form in the database this post is stored in; represented by the electrical pulses travelling through the Internet; represented by the flip-flops in your RAM; represented by the liquid crustal, phosphor or plasma on your screen; represented by the photons hitting your retina; represented by the electrical impulses from your retina to your brain; and finally, implanted and represented in the neurons in your brain's short-term memory (and hopefully, to avoid further embarrassment, your long-term memory). How can the data have so many different forms? Answer: because the data itself never changes, only the physical representation of the data, which is merely the most convenient form to use it in for a particular purpose at any arbitrary point over this piece of information's life.

If you want to debate philosophy (not that I think this is particularly philosophical, seeing as how thousands of years of the English language has already answered the question for us), don't start acting surprised when someone decides to actually discuss something more philosophical than "it burned my tongue, it must be real!"

[Snurfen]

Mate, your making yourself look like a bufoon, as predicted. End of story.

[oracle128]

I show a complete understanding of philosophy, electronics, networking, and the English language. You admit to electrocuting yourself and using it as evidence that data, regardless of what those quacks at Oxford and Merriam-Webster say, exists in some physical form that can magically be in every possible form imaginable, simultaneously.

You can copy information. You can't copy atoms. Even quantum physics are against you on this. Remind me again who is the buffoon? And this time, perhaps with a little more effort than an irrelevant anecdote or stooping down as low as ad hominem attacks.

[Snurfen]

You, for being such a predictable bore.

[oracle128]

I see. Playing Devil's Advocate again are we? I should have refused to play this game way back in post #4. But hey, at least next time this question is asked, we have some decent postulation to refer to. Posts 2 and 5 are a little lacking, after all - thanks for helping me expand the knowledgebase

[Snurfen]

oh dear oh dear oh dear, Oracle, fancy editing after I'd responded! Cheap shot bwty! "ad hominem" - aye alright, if you want to try and back out of it. See here for a witty piddle take of those who decide to throw in the "ad hominem" card (about as pathetic as trying to use the race card when not appropriate).

I'll go back to what I was saying earlier (much against my better judgement, but there again my pals are pinging me about your cheapshot edit). You can spout boring stuff all you like, even contradicting the spirit of your "ad hominem" wuss out (read the thread you edited, all high and mighty about "I show a complete understanding of philosophy, electronics, networking, and the English language.") and then do exactly the same yourself in that very post.

My usual ad hominem snipe is "you smell of wee-wee and live in a ditch" - a purile parody of myself - which is what is intended.

What I am saying to you Oracle, as I have countless times before, is stop being such a bore, stop being so pedantic, introduce MORE humour into your repsonses, and you'll get better responses. Your last one in the music downloading threa was a master of the art - 10/10. Just do it a little more often and yu'll get yourself some pals.

Who gives a flying yahoo about the actual possibility of feeling data - I have one view, you have the other, we ain't gonna say "oh yeah, you're right" are we?

Oh yeah, and practice what you preach! "ad hominem"