|
Posted by Jack on 12/01/07 05:21
"Arny Krueger" <arnyk@hotpop.com> wrote in
news:uu2dnTg1X5MUls3anZ2dnUVZ_judnZ2d@comcast.com:
> "Jack" <jack@beanstalk.net> wrote in message
> news:13kv3v7g4rdoa4f@corp.supernews.com
>> Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote in
>> news:474EB9A0.BE11E4B3@hotmail.com:
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Jack wrote:
>>>
>>>> Kevin McMurtrie <mcmurtri@dslextreme.com> wrote
>>>>
>>>>> Audio compression will stay around for some uses.
>>>>> CPUs and algorithms will always be much cheaper than
>>>>> long distance bandwidth and wireless bandwidth.
>>>>> Regardless of how fast the internet gets, 10x
>>>>> compression still means 10x customer capacity. 10x
>>>>> compression on your mobile player means 10x the room
>>>>> for music.
>>>>
>>>> Also, there are now warnings of Internet bottlenecks by
>>>> 2010 due to multimedia content and increased
>>>> population/usership.
>>>
>>> The usual scaremongering. Journalists are clueless about
>>> technology.
>>>
>>> The pipes will simply get bigger to take the load.
>>
>> Like oil will keep flowing no matter what? They are
>> warning that billion$ must be spent now to make sure it
>> doesn't happen. The Net was not originally conceived for
>> this much audio and video transfer.
>
> Things change. Arpanet was not designed to support the world wide
> web. It could barely do light email.
My comment was also about people's perception that growth (of any kind) can
go on without limits in a finite world. It's a mass-delusion of modern life
in the oil age. At some point Internet capacity will peak, just like the
ability to supply electricity to power it all. Computers/servers have
become a major energy hog.
Jack
Navigation:
[Reply to this message]
|