Slashdot Mirror
8.6 GB Internet?
prostoalex writes "Caltech computer scientists announced the protocol, capable of delivering 8,609 Mbps over the Internet, using 10 simultaneous flows of data. The research project was conducted in partnership with CERN, DataTAG, StarLight, Cisco, and Level 3. The practical applications, according to the press release, is ability 'to download a full-length DVD movie in less than five seconds'. There is a number of papers and scientific publications available."
Not only that, it's a different metric, because it's leaving out the 'per second'. My response to the title "8.6GB Internet" was 'the internet is much bigger than 2 DVDs, more like tera or exabytes'.
Otherwise, who needs Internet connections if you can carry a copy of the whole Internet on 2 discs?
--- Hindsight is 20/20, but walking backwards is not the answer.
that may be silly, but in the case this technology is actually developped, there will remain a crucial battle : the RIAA/MPAA (media lobbies) are going to be so scared by such a tech that they'll do all what they can so that it comes with some kind of DRM (digital rights managements).
In other words, such a technology would give a boost to legal attempts to allow hard DRM - as is today illegal under the liberty-preserving legislation of a lot of countries, especially in Europe.
Do not answer that the media lobbies aren't asked to give their opinions here. Because it is part of Microsoft's, Intel's and AMD's (to cite only 3 members of the vast TCPA alliance) strategy to maintain good relationships with the media companies in order to enlarge the computer market.
You know what I'm talking about - Palladium. I don't think it's necessary to insist on the fact that it would be a bad thing for us.
War doesn't prove who's right, just who's left.
Also a standard pc bus can not handle the load. This makes any card that can receive the signal at such a high speed useless.
Assumin its actually 8.6 bytes/sec and not bits like another poster suggested, the pci bus would become oversaturated since it can only transfer 3.2 gb/sec ( correct me if the transfer rate is wrong).
I wonder if a Sun or IBM unix box could handle this. My guess is this speed will only be used as a backbone anyway so only large unix mini's or dedicated routers will send and recieve at 8.6/gbs. Sorry Johny you can not download porn at that speed.
http://saveie6.com/
Also, this page, at least, says it would take 88 TB = 704 Tb to digitize the LoC.
That's correct; 30.992 Tb/hour. With 1 LoC = 80 Tb, we now get 30.992 Tb/hour / 80 Tb =With the much larger figure of 1 LoC = 88 TB = 704 Tb, we get 30.992 Tb/hour / 704 Tb = .044 LoC/hour.
First, they said it uses 10 parallel data streams. So any given stream is only running ~860Mbps. Could this be a resurgence of parallel commucations? For example, 10 cheap 100Mbps LAN transcievers integrated into 1 card for Gigabit Ethernet speed? Would there be any cost advantages of cramming large numbers of cheap devices onto a card VS a single fast but expensive device? Sort of like Billion-Dollar-Probes vs the smaller/faster/cheaper thing at NASA.
And I figure that by the time this becomes mainstream, the amount of data needing to be transferred will also have increased by 1 or 2 orders of magnitude, and you'll still be stuck waiting hours for the latest HoloVideo downloads. Just like you wait hours to download Attack of the Clones over DSL and Cable, and like you once waited hours to download that 5 meg shareware program over your 56K modem.
Seems like the amount of data being stored is always 1 step ahead of the amount that can be conveniently transferred... We need a war on program bloat.