Re: Slap n' tickle
- From: rick_sobie@xxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Tue, 8 Apr 2008 16:45:45 -0700 (PDT)
So although more work needs to be done, the wave people are far ahead
of the particle people once again and on budget as usual.
As far as being able to download the Stones anthology in a 2 seconds
well they must be big Stones fans at CERN. The grid sounds mahvellous,
but the actual content itself, that is worth downloading, would take a
mere 5 or 6 minutes tops. Do we really need all that information
rushing all over the planet and is this yet another attempt to reroute
all the traffic in the world through filters, to censor out the good
porn?
Now regarding the Grid at CERN which is to become Internet II fiber
optic cables in place and going live in a few months, the local cable
company here, 5 years ago, stretched their fiber optic cables from
pole to pole even in remote areas outside of town.
Although it is not connected to the houses yet.
Now the problem is however, if you are using your computer to download
the example they gave being the Stones anthology in 2 seconds, via
fiber optic cable, the problem is your harddrive cannot store data
much faster, than the current download speeds.
If you download, 2 gigabytes, at lets say 400 kb/s then move that 2
gigabytes to another drive, in many instances, it takes about 30 or 40
minutes, just to move it to another drive inside your own computer.
So harddrives need to be much faster and fiber optics need to be
inside your computer as well, in order for you to gain any real
advantage.
Now they were saying that people would simply use the net to store
data and well other people's harddrives would still have to store that
data, and unless everyone had amazingly instant super servers,
supercomputers working at light speed, again you would be waiting for
the data, to be retrieved from the harddrive at harddrive speeds.
Broadcasting television, to a receiver would work, but you are not
transferring much data at a time there.
You are not sending a movie in two seconds, you are streaming the
data.
So I fail to see what all the hoopla is about, when for instance the
cable company, is presently, limiting your data flow speeds.
You get 500 kb/s at the basic rate and you can get 600 kb/s at the
premium rate.
So then you could expect a gradient scale of super premium rate, at
twice the price, and so on probably.
But whats the benefit?
Merely for downloading movies and music faster?
Presently using utorrent and the torrent system, you can download more
content than you can listen to, and really its not quantity that is
the issue but quality.
There just aren't that many movies worth watching. People have
probably rented or gone to the theater and seen the best ones already.
How many times can you watch the same movies? Twice maybe?
Here's an example of a quality filter, being applied to mp3's.
The top hits of the UK, since 1950.
http://isohunt.com/torrent_details/29332144/Paul+Walker?tab=summary
So there you have 3.5 gig of all the tops songs according to the
people of the UK, and you can get that in oh probably 4 to 6 hours or
less using utorrent and a cable connection.
Finding that much good content that has not been filtered by public
opinion, as top hits are, would take a very long time kissing frogs
looking for princes. So I think the real issue is not so much the
speed of the Internet as how the data is managed, and how the
information is managed and accessed.
Youtube is a great success story. They are managing the data well. And
it could be faster agreed, but at least the data is managed well.
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: Slap n' tickle
- From: rick_sobie
- Re: Slap n' tickle
- References:
- Slap n' tickle
- From: rick_sobie
- Slap n' tickle
- Prev by Date: Slap n' tickle
- Next by Date: Re: Dropping Coriolis Like a Feather (is Copyrighted.)
- Previous by thread: Slap n' tickle
- Next by thread: Re: Slap n' tickle
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
