<img src="/sites/all/libraries/tinymce/jscripts/tiny_mce/plugins/emotions/img/smiley-frown.gif" alt="Frown" title="Frown" /><img src="/sites/all/libraries/tinymce/jscripts/tiny_mce/plugins/emotions/img/smiley-cry.gif" alt="Cry" title="Cry" /><img src="/sites/all/libraries/tinymce/jscripts/tiny_mce/plugins/emotions/img/smiley-yell.gif" alt="Yell" title="Yell" /> wrote:Why is babble so slow?!
Power, Pollution and the Internet
Mon, 2012-09-24 03:45
#1
Power, Pollution and the Internet
Why is babble so slow?!
Mon, 2012-09-24 03:46
#2
These quotes caught my eye, and made me think about all the complaints about how slow babble is.
The inefficient use of power is largely driven by a symbiotic relationship between users who demand an instantaneous response to the click of a mouse and companies that put their business at risk if they fail to meet that expectation.
“It’s staggering for most people, even people in the industry, to understand the numbers, the sheer size of these systems,” said Peter Gross, who helped design hundreds of data centers. “A single data center can take more power than a medium-size town.”
[url=http://www.nytimes.com/2012/09/23/technology/data-centers-waste-vast-amo..., Pollution and the Internet[/url]
I know there's no comparison between rabble's servers and the ones being talked about here, but I think it's worth remembering that convenience often comes with a hefty price tag.
Mon, 2012-09-24 06:34
#3
Very questionable analogy. When I talk to you on the phone, I expect you to hear me "instantaneously". How would you like a 15 second lag? And that system, well over a century old, costs hefty sums to maintain. If the internet can't do likewise, then there's a problem. Luckily, we know that the internet is up to the job, Rabble should identify its speed problem and resolve it.
Mon, 2012-09-24 08:28
#4
It's not clear to me that you read the article. ITT, the hefty cost is not money, but energy - and the environmental costs of producing that energy.
Mon, 2012-09-24 10:03
#5
It's not clear to me that you read the article. ITT, the hefty cost is not money, but energy - and the environmental costs of producing that energy.
1. I read the article - found it fascinating and woke me up somewhat on the environmental cost of the internet, though I need to think about it some more and especially look for comparisons with energy consumption of other communications modes. Thanks for posting it!
2. My comment wasn't about the article. It was about your post #1, which I know you meant somewhat humorously as a lead-in. But the problem highlighted by the article is not the high cost of instant communication - it's the cost of building multiple fail-safe system to ensure against electrical power failure. At least, that's the way I read it. That's the part I found illuminating. But to even hint that we should accept less-than-instant communication because of the environmental cost? I'd need to see convincing, conclusive, and carbon-intensive proof before I would take such a contention seriously.