×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Each American Consumed 34 Gigabytes Per Day In '08

CmdrTaco posted more than 4 years ago | from the gonna-need-more-than-isdn dept.

Education 245

eldavojohn writes "Metrics can get really strange — especially on the scale of national consumption. Information consumption is one such area that has a lot of strange metrics to offer. A new report from the University of California, San Diego entitled 'How Much Information?' reveals that in 2008 your average American consumed 34 gigabytes per day. These values are entirely estimates of the flows of data delivered to consumers as bytes, words and hours of consumer information. From the executive summary: 'In 2008, Americans consumed information for about 1.3 trillion hours, an average of almost 12 hours per day. Consumption totaled 3.6 zettabytes and 10,845 trillion words, corresponding to 100,500 words and 34 gigabytes for an average person on an average day. A zettabyte is 10 to the 21st power bytes, a million million gigabytes. These estimates are from an analysis of more than 20 different sources of information, from very old (newspapers and books) to very new (portable computer games, satellite radio, and Internet video). Information at work is not included.' Has the flow and importance of information really become this prolific in our daily lives?"

cancel ×
This is a preview of your comment

No Comment Title Entered

Anonymous Coward 1 minute ago

No Comment Entered

245 comments

Yes, but... (4, Insightful)

tool462 (677306) | more than 4 years ago | (#30378352)

How much of that is redirected to /dev/null?

Re:Yes, but... (4, Insightful)

dotgain (630123) | more than 4 years ago | (#30378402)

and did they calculate the total the same way as they do the "street value" of "drugs"? 34 gigs a day, come on...

Re:Yes, but... (3, Insightful)

ImYourVirus (1443523) | more than 4 years ago | (#30379146)

They average everyone's among everyone, thus all the data of data centers and the like are probably included. In the end these stories are generally always full of shit and misleading.

Or reposts of the same story everywhere... (3, Insightful)

IANAAC (692242) | more than 4 years ago | (#30378768)

I'm only half joking.

If you visit any sort of tech site, you see the same stories/pictures/videos on many, many sites (this is from a blog, but I read the same story over on Gizmodo this morning).

I remember when you could come to slashdot and truly read original content. Now all these sites just seem to regurgitate the same thing.

Re:Or reposts of the same story everywhere... (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30379010)


I remember when you could come to slashdot and truly read original content.

Where's your 5 digit UID?

Re:Or reposts of the same story everywhere... (4, Funny)

SomeJoel (1061138) | more than 4 years ago | (#30379026)

I remember when you could come to slashdot and truly read original content. Now all these sites just seem to regurgitate the same thing.

The original content appears in the comments.

Or is "TMZ" type crap (2, Insightful)

crovira (10242) | more than 4 years ago | (#30378936)

where even the original is content-less, never mind all of the repros and repeats.

There is an awful lot of crap on the tube, in print and in the movies which is just more-of-the-same.

Still, with the internet, the population of the western world and Europe has never been so educated nor have had they has such opportunity to drink so deeply from the fount of knowledge.

I blame "The System" for teaching these unwashed masses to read. :-)

Re:Yes, but... (4, Insightful)

Medieval_Gnome (250212) | more than 4 years ago | (#30379114)

Exactly. I could make the outrageous claim that I am currently consuming 12 gigabytes of data per second, based on my monitor's resolution and refresh rate. And since it's hooked up over DVI-D, this is, strictly speaking, digital information.

How is that excreted? (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30378364)

and does it need wiping?

That's not that interesting a stat (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30378880)

On the other hand, CmdrTaco and kdawson consume 5 gallons of semen a day from their repeated trips to the glory hole.

We are fat. (1)

orlanz (882574) | more than 4 years ago | (#30378396)

Yes, we Americans are FAT, we get it! Just leave us, our couches, and potato chips (I mean Pringles) alone already!

Re:We are fat. (5, Funny)

Kratisto (1080113) | more than 4 years ago | (#30378488)

My file structure is NTFS, you insensitive clod!

Re:We are fat. (1)

anss123 (985305) | more than 4 years ago | (#30378592)

Sorry, you have been dethroned by the australians [breitbart.com] .

Re:We are fat. (1)

orlanz (882574) | more than 4 years ago | (#30378780)

Is... is that where our old school potato chips been going? Cause I would gladly take that back as one of those bags is more satisfying as 10 Pringle cans (that's when I get shortness of breath doing the "One you pop..." song and dance).

obligatory (3, Funny)

Icegryphon (715550) | more than 4 years ago | (#30378412)

how many of these [loc.gov] is that?

Re:obligatory (3, Informative)

Chris Mattern (191822) | more than 4 years ago | (#30378730)

Since the LoC is traditionally pegged at 20 terabytes, this would be 1.66 milliLoCs. Or, to put it another way, the person consumes a Library of Congress once about every 20 months.

Re:obligatory (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30378990)

damn thats a lot of fiber. Americans must be some very regular peoples.

and thats just my porn (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30378414)

you should see how much i consume in illegal MP3 / MOVIES

Jasper (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30379014)

34 Gigabytes, nothing but cats.

Massive exaggeration (4, Insightful)

14erCleaner (745600) | more than 4 years ago | (#30378424)

Has the flow and importance of information really become this prolific in our daily lives?

No, they're just making up big numbers to get attention. Apparently, it's working.

Consider how many "gigabytes" you "consume" just by watching TV for a few hours. Nothing new here...

Re:Massive exaggeration (3, Insightful)

jandrese (485) | more than 4 years ago | (#30378458)

I was wondering how much this number jumped up since Americans started buying HDTVs. It's a completely useless statistic regardless though.

Re:Massive exaggeration (4, Funny)

Tired and Emotional (750842) | more than 4 years ago | (#30378534)

But they said information, so not much TV counts. (do they subtract for Fox news?)

Re:Massive exaggeration (2, Insightful)

lwsimon (724555) | more than 4 years ago | (#30378852)

Opinion is information, and at least it is presented as such on Fox.

I don't understand the blind hatred for Fox by many libs --- MSNBC is the equivalent on the left, and you guys never get upset about that. CNN is left-of-center, but not as extreme. Neither separate opinion from news in their programming.

The only complaint I have with Fox is the whole "Fair and Balanced" line. They aren't balanced, and that's okay - they should own up to it.

Re:Massive exaggeration (1)

jeffshoaf (611794) | more than 4 years ago | (#30378920)

The only complaint I have with Fox is the whole "Fair and Balanced" line. They aren't balanced, and that's okay - they should own up to it.

So, you agree that they're unbalanced?

Re:Massive exaggeration (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30379030)

Probably because Fox News doesn't actually have news. It is all based around the opinion side of things. The fact that Fox News is found to be lying and deceiving all the time. The fact that while MSNBC does show its opinion, it also shows actual news.

Also, asshats like Glenn Beck, Bill O'Reilly, Hannity, and all the other ilk at Fox News that claim to be journalist yet don't have the first clue about what real journalism actually is.

Fox News isn't balanced, and it isn't fair, either.

Re:Massive exaggeration (1)

AndersOSU (873247) | more than 4 years ago | (#30379054)

First, I disagree that either CNN or MSNBCs inserts opinion into their news shows, and second, Fox is much worse about just plain making [mediamatters.org] shit [mediamatters.org] up [mediamatters.org]

Re:Massive exaggeration (3, Insightful)

LandDolphin (1202876) | more than 4 years ago | (#30379088)

"When we do it, it's ok" is usually a good reason.

I personally don't watch MSNBC or CNN, so I couldn't really respond to their programing. However, I do occationally watch Fox News (good to know what others are thinking and being told). The reporting is far from fair and balanced, but they say it is to mislead their audiance. They use horrible tactics (Glenn Beck) and sometimes down right lie (Daily Show pointed this out with footage of Washington Demonstrations).

The reason you see more hate for Fox News is probably because it is not only the "libs", but some middle of the road people who take offense to their "journalism".

Also, I'd be willing to bet that Fox has much higher ratings than MSNBC. So, beign larger, they get more attention.

Re:Massive exaggeration (1)

kainino (1042936) | more than 4 years ago | (#30378568)

This is all kind of silly. You could see it as an exaggeration or a gross understatement. You could fit your results to your ulterior motives. If you recorded all of the input to your eyes, ears, touch, pain, temperature, taste, smell, etc in full detail 24 hours per day, that would probably be measured in petabytes. If you're at a real theater instead of a cinema, that doesn't mean that you're not taking in an equal amount of information via your senses.

Re:Massive exaggeration (1)

Jay Maynard (54798) | more than 4 years ago | (#30378708)

Me, I just find it ironic they felt compelled to ask the question on Slashdot, home of the biggest information junkies around...

Re:Massive exaggeration (3, Insightful)

devjoe (88696) | more than 4 years ago | (#30378784)

Since it is counted by bytes, the old adage that a picture is worth a thousand words is a bit of an understatement. Digital cameras these days put out 2 MB jpgs, compared with the average word taking about 6 bytes. So a picture is actually worth about 300,000 words.

Re:Massive exaggeration (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30378896)

Not that much actually. Digital SD-TV is about 1-3GB per hour.

Re:Massive exaggeration (1)

Waffle Iron (339739) | more than 4 years ago | (#30378982)

Consider how many "gigabytes" you "consume" just by watching TV for a few hours. Nothing new here...

It's totally meaningless, too, since it depends on the particular compression algorithms used. (For example, it's probably theoretically possible to get much better video compression than current block-based DCT technologies by better understanding and modeling how the human brain processes images.)

Back in the 1970s before MPEG was invented, measuring video data rates would have required about 720*480*30*2 = 20 Mbytes/sec. So someone who averaged 2 hours of daily TV would have "consumed" about 150 GB per day. Thus, using this logic, I conclude that the amount of information we absorb is plummeting!

Re:Massive exaggeration (1)

StikyPad (445176) | more than 4 years ago | (#30379128)

Well even the computer portion seems to be a huge overestimate. 26.97% of 34GB/day = 9.1GB/day, or 3.3TB/year. It's also -- and this is key -- 275GB per month, which is 25GB over the cap on Comcast's "unlimited" service.

I've *seen* usage charts for my ISP (not Comcast) and 275GB/mo would place you squarely in the top 2%, and after the top 5% there's a very long and shallow tail. Either these numbers were simply pulled out of somebody's rectum, or if they did an actual study with very flawed methodology.

Data Hogs (3, Funny)

Reason58 (775044) | more than 4 years ago | (#30378426)

The study found that the top 5% would digest over 70 GiB a day. Upon reading this Comcast, for the purpose of easing traffic, has installed horse blinders on them.

Re:Data Hogs (1)

DeadDecoy (877617) | more than 4 years ago | (#30378992)

The study found that the top 5% would digest over 70 GiB a day

And, they were given lots of fiber to poop out their stolen bits.

slow internets (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30378452)

36507222016 / 24 / 60 / 60 = 422,537.292

thats aprox. 3.4 mbits/s

time to upgrade America...

According to comcast (3, Funny)

anticlone (1245294) | more than 4 years ago | (#30378456)

only the bandwidth hogs using P2P are responsible for almost all of that. The rest of "normal" American users only read a couple emails a day...

Re:According to comcast (1)

Icegryphon (715550) | more than 4 years ago | (#30378496)

You say that like there is a Shortage of Bandwidth.
You don't have to stand in line so you can get a roll of bandwidth to wipe your butt.
Thank god we don't, some people may neglect wiping.

Re:According to comcast (2, Funny)

jeffasselin (566598) | more than 4 years ago | (#30378960)

Of course there's a shortage, most of the bandwidth mines in North America are already empty. We've importing all our bandwidth from China and Russia for a while now. Is it wise to rely on such countries for our bandwidth?

Pretty impressive (2, Insightful)

dingen (958134) | more than 4 years ago | (#30378460)

Especially considering 10% of US internet users are still on dial up.

What's this information business? (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30378466)

Shouldn't it be parsed out further into [A: something close to Truth, and B: Lies]?

I can believe it (3, Interesting)

alop (67204) | more than 4 years ago | (#30378468)

Just think of ALL the information... Pandora in the background, HDTV at home... pr0n.... SMS messages. I guess this includes things like the Newspaper you'd pick up in the morning, or the leaflet you grab in a lobby of a building. It can all be considered data.

I would be interested in how much *information* we consume also.

Channel capacity? (1)

1zenerdiode (777004) | more than 4 years ago | (#30378470)

But, most humans only have a channel capacity of a few *bits* per decision. Means most of this consumption is not even considered; it just gets dumped. (an advertiser would tell you that getting a few of those bits is worth it, though).

Re:Channel capacity? (1)

bipbop (1144919) | more than 4 years ago | (#30378844)

I'm not aware of any context in which this makes sense. Could you please provide a reference so I can read more?

Definitions so broad as to be pointless (3, Insightful)

richmaine (128733) | more than 4 years ago | (#30378480)

Their definitions almost allow grandma to count time sitting in a rocking chair on the porch watching the outside world as "consuming information". Lots of bits of data comming into those eyeballs. Or maybe even if she closes her eyes and starts daydreaming, those dreams count too. :-)

When a "report" spends a substantial amount of time explaining the notations for large numbers, it is a pretty clear sign that it isn't a very serious work.

Re:Definitions so broad as to be pointless (1)

gzearfoss (829360) | more than 4 years ago | (#30378720)

You hit this on the head. It's easy to get gigantic numbers when everything coming in counts as data.

In addition, they count all 'data streams' received as being consumed, despite the chances of occurring at the same time. It's like saying that a hydroelectric dam consumes all water that passes it - whether it passes through the turbines or over the causeway.

There may be some interest in comparing the change in this number as a percent, but the fact "34 Gigabytes consumed per day" by itself means next to nothing.

Data is just data. (2, Insightful)

crovira (10242) | more than 4 years ago | (#30378998)

Knowledge is data in some form of context.

Wisdom is the ability to shape these contexts correctly.

This "34 Gigabytes consumed per day" metric is worth nothing except to estimate the size of the pipe required to deliver the bilge.

Re:Definitions so broad as to be pointless (1)

LandDolphin (1202876) | more than 4 years ago | (#30379130)

I'm not understanding the Dam Metaphor. Could you rephrase it using cars instead of a dam and water?

Re:Definitions so broad as to be pointless (1)

gandhi_2 (1108023) | more than 4 years ago | (#30378870)

Since all the visual information has nearly-infinite resolution and analog color depth is infinitely-nuanced, your grandma is consuming +infinity bits of information at any given time. Sound and smell data...who knows.

Someone should throttle her connection, she's hogging all the bandwidths.

Outdated Americans? (4, Funny)

Darkness404 (1287218) | more than 4 years ago | (#30378542)

If the average American gets 44.8% of their information from the TV, per day. Something is wrong with the MPAA/RIAA's facts. Also odd seems to be the 10.59% of radio that the average American listens to. And also strange is the 1.11% of recorded music that the average American listens to. That means that 55.44% of words that Americans listen to is controlled by many factors, including the government and private (think RIAA/MPAA) interests. This study should more or less prove that the RIAA is in no danger, as user created and RIAA/MPAA uncontrolled mediums only add up to 28.28% of what an average American is exposed to.

Re:Outdated Americans? (0, Troll)

AndersOSU (873247) | more than 4 years ago | (#30378878)

government or private interests... what else is there?

I know you're trying to make a dig at the the corporate media hegemony (which incidentally isn't a private interest but rather a public one), but your statement is almost as meaningless as the study. Not all info that makes it to our retinas is equal, just because some poor sap actually made it to page 7F of Today's Washington Times, doesn't mean the data was consumed in any meaningful way.

Also, consuming information isn't really what the content industry want from you. They either want you to buy information, or sell your retina time to an advertiser. Remember, every time you go to news.google.com, you're stealing from Rupert Murdoch - you're consuming data, but no one's getting paid - and according to the conservipedia bible project, this makes baby jesus cry.

Consumed...? (4, Insightful)

eepok (545733) | more than 4 years ago | (#30378558)

Ya... I consumed 64GB per day. That's right. I also consumed a couch last night. And I consumed an apartment. And I consumed a 2009 Mazda MP3. And I consumed a Christmas tree.

Sensationalist weasel words...

Re:Consumed...? (3, Funny)

dingen (958134) | more than 4 years ago | (#30378584)

You must be heavily obese.

Re:Consumed...? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30378888)

Nah, his apartment's really small. Economy's rough.

"consumed" (0, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30378564)

and expelled as ejaculate.

12 hours per day? I call shenanigans. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30378570)

This doesn't include information at work. -8 hours. The average person doesn't consume information while sleeping. -8 hours (OK, not a full 8, but add in a shower and a shave, brushing teeth, etc. and call it 8). So how, exactly, do I consume 12 hours worth of information in my 8 waking, non-working hours?

Re:12 hours per day? I call shenanigans. (1)

AndersOSU (873247) | more than 4 years ago | (#30378928)

Because your dreams were derived from the latest adaptation of A Christmas Carol Disney holds the rights to them.

This number is meaningless (4, Insightful)

jcronen (325664) | more than 4 years ago | (#30378586)

This number is entirely meaningless.

Is a phone conversation "consumed" as its transcript (a few hundred bytes) or as an audio file (a few hundred kb) or a really well sampled audio file that conveys nuance perfectly (a few Mb)?

A tweet is 140 characters, but if I were to take a screenshot of a screen with Twitter (and about 20 tweets) that could be a couple of Mb.

And much of that "data" could be compressed in a meaningful way. I spend most of my day in my cubicle staring at my monitor. Does all of the visual data that my eyes are receiving (about eight hours' worth of grey walls and a small computer monitor's contents) count?

Re:This number is meaningless (1)

McNihil (612243) | more than 4 years ago | (#30378906)

Or why not take a couple of 100MP shots of the screen at different light and angles and post those huge file... should be worth a couple of gigs right there :D

Re:This number is meaningless (1)

McNihil (612243) | more than 4 years ago | (#30378954)

And I mean posting it as bmp's with full 32 RGBA glory!

Oh did I crack someones monitor? Sorry!

Resource overuse (5, Funny)

mtrachtenberg (67780) | more than 4 years ago | (#30378594)

While the average American uses 34 gig per day, the average citizen of a developing country uses only 27.3 megabytes.

A proposal to cap and trade rights to generate and transmit information was introduced today by Bernie Sanders; Fox News immediately called it a "dangerous step towards communism."

Sarah Palin said she didn't believe Americans used that much more information than the rest of the world, and if we did it's just because Americans are smarter.

President Obama, in a forty minute speech (30.27 gig), explained the details of information theory and laid out a twenty point plan for getting Congress to reduce Americans' transmission of information by 10% over the next thirty years. A coalition of conservative Democrats replied that the President, while obviously well-informed, was moving too aggressively, and that more research was needed.

George W Bush asked what a gigabyte was.

Re:Resource overuse (1)

mtrachtenberg (67780) | more than 4 years ago | (#30378632)

In other news, the Defense Advanced Research Agency, in association with MIT (a wholly owned subsidiary), announced that it would be hiding the Democratic party's cojones at three sites, each visible from roads. The Republican party's heart, once located, will be placed at a fourth site. The American people's intelligence... no, never mind.

Re:Resource overuse (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30378918)

Awesome. Mod parent up!

Re:Resource overuse (1)

tmosley (996283) | more than 4 years ago | (#30379090)

George W Bush asked what a gigabyte was.

Technically, he asked what a jiggabyte is. He then asked if it had anything to do with nukeular bombs.

Daily wtf (1)

aBaldrich (1692238) | more than 4 years ago | (#30378604)

When calculating the number of bytes of "information" they add: TV, Radio, etc etc, and GAMES. Games are 54.62% of the total number of bytes (see the figure 2 in page 11). Of course, you play 30 minutes GTA 4, that's like 8 gigas of your daily average. (estimate you dont access 100% of the gameplay in 30 mins, but car physics and 3d textures add a LOT of "information". Figure 11 in page 26 shows how computer games affect the equation: they take less than 10% of the average "time" and over 50% of the average "bytes of information".

Gaming... (1)

gabereiser (1662967) | more than 4 years ago | (#30378648)

I'll admit to sucking up gb's of data gaming. It's interesting to see their research. I know a lot of my coworkers probably suck up over a gb a day in facebook alone. Ohh facebook, how you consume idle time.....

they must of used a lot of non comcast customes (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30378664)

they must of used a lot of non comcast customes

window (4, Interesting)

bigdavex (155746) | more than 4 years ago | (#30378668)

If I look outside my window and observe reality in its full high-definion glory, am I consuming data?

If not, what if I set up a camera outside my home and watch the video feed on my televion?

Not including work? (1)

flibbidyfloo (451053) | more than 4 years ago | (#30378680)

I'm not sure how I'm supposedly consuming information for 12 hours a day not including my time at work. After I work for 8 hours and sleep for 8 hours, there are only 8 hours left in the day, and I'm not "consuming information" for about 100% of that remaining time. Is the average being pumped up by all the people who aren't working and are sitting at home watching daytime TV for 16 hours a day? I wouldn't consider that "information" anyway, but the study might.

Anthropomorphizing data (2, Interesting)

mattOzan (165392) | more than 4 years ago | (#30378702)

Data is not "consumed." That is a ridiculous way to put it. Tt has no shelf life, it produces no waste byproducts, it can be reused indefinitely. It is transmitted, stored, deleted, and maybe in there it delivers information to a brain. Even then, do we really delete data, or just representations of data?

Re:Anthropomorphizing data (1)

wdavies (163941) | more than 4 years ago | (#30378814)

actually, I believe physics shows there is an energy cost to data, or rather more precisely maintaining information. Too early in the morning for me to go and look it up in Wikipedia. I'm sure someone can elaborate. I believe data doesn't have an independent existence - if a picture is on a hard-drive, and you drop it in acid, that picture, is gone. Sure it existed in some time frame, but you REALLY can't afford the energy to retrieve it.

how much data collected per person per day? (2, Funny)

bugi (8479) | more than 4 years ago | (#30378734)

More interesting would be how much data is collected on each American each day.

Be sure to count each datum separately for each person to make sure it's a big number. Please also break it down into several categories, both private and government.

Do not disturb, idiots at work (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30378758)

The fish I caught was at least thiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiis big. Cuz biggar R bettar, u kno.

Shameful (2, Insightful)

miasmic (669645) | more than 4 years ago | (#30378764)

Shameful.

Shameful that the 'researchers' thought this information worthy of release - anyone with brain cells would revise their metrics after their data showed results like this.

Shameful that the NY Times didn't discard it as self-promotional garbage from UCSD.

Shameful that it made it to the front page of Slashdot.

Shameful.

National Broadband Plan a Success! (1)

Neuroelectronic (643221) | more than 4 years ago | (#30378770)

I see that the last mile problem has been solved. This is great! We have solved all the major issues with America including the depression, spiraling medical costs, outsourcing of jobs and crime simply with better reports.

Statistics... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30378800)

Lies,

Damn Lies,

Statistics.

Prolific (2, Interesting)

countertrolling (1585477) | more than 4 years ago | (#30378842)

What has become prolific is the amount of useless (read advertising) information consumed each day. And, ironically, we consume more paper (in our paperless society) than ever to print all this crap out. The bean counting business has never been better. Just another day in a bureaucrat's paradise...

Broadband definition (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30378868)

This is why the US definition for Broadband need to be at least 1Mbps, preferrably higher!

Each American Consumed 34 Gigabytes Per Day In '08 (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30378910)

Ohs nos, Think of the children. What will they ever do? What kind of future is there when all the bits are consumed?

What about our eyes? (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30378914)

Did they forget to account that my eyes see at a higher quality than blue ray with a much wider camera angle.
Figure a blu ray movie is equal to 10 gb per hour and im awake for about 16 hours each day so thats like 160 GB of video data I consume.

ADVERTS? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30378942)

i wonder how much of that is advertisements

Yes and... (3, Insightful)

shaitand (626655) | more than 4 years ago | (#30378958)

any ISP peak bandwidth caps should be required by the fcc to use this as a baseline. Caps below the consumption of the average american are obviously anti-consumer.

This includes cell phone data plans of course.

Is there value in 34 gigabytes? (1)

box330 (1696836) | more than 4 years ago | (#30379032)

Not everything that counts, can be counted / Not everything that can be counted, counts. Does 34 gigabytes per day have any value? That depends on whether or not you are a bureaucrat in a recession. What would be the value of 34 gigabytes per day be if you were a bereacrat? That depends on whether you are a red bureacrat or blue bureacrat.

Data, not Information (1)

Exanon (1277926) | more than 4 years ago | (#30379154)

Having taken "Informatics" (which I still consider a useless course as this is the first time I have had a chance to use it in everyday life) at the university I studied at, I feel obligated to point out the fact that "information" only exists when you take "data" and put it together with a "frame of reference". Hence, the "recievers" are getting so and so many gigabytes of "data" as opposed to information.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Sign up for Slashdot Newsletters
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...