Slashdot Mirror


How Heavy Is the Internet?

An anonymous reader writes "Ever wondered how much the internet physically weighs? 498,438,559,990kg, according to CNET. To reach this figure, they added together public data on the weight of every computer, server and connecting cable. To this they added 6,075,000kg of iPhones, and over 6,800,000kg of Blackberries. Finally, they added the weight of 287,524 viruses and 85 billion+ webpages."

174 comments

  1. OOOPS! by Philip+K+Dickhead · · Score: 1

    I just typed something, and made it heavier than that!

    --
    "Speaking the Truth in times of universal deceit is a revolutionary act." -- George Orwell
    1. Re:OOOPS! by WaywardGeek · · Score: 4, Funny

      Sorry for this lame thought: One day, long after it as it becomes self-aware, the Internet will collapse under it's own weight into a black hole, becoming the creator of a whole new universe.

      --
      Celebrate failure, and then learn from it - Nolan Bushnell
    2. Re:OOOPS! by jecowa · · Score: 1

      Yeah, the internet had to install a hard drive for that post of yours. And a second one for the backup. Those two hard drive should add almost 0.2 kg to the total weight of the internet.

      --
      my opportunity to freely express myself with the potential persecution and hangings and such
    3. Re:OOOPS! by Elary · · Score: 1

      He made more electrons move every time someone downloads this page... Moving objects has more mass... This is slashdot... He made Internet a lot heavier...

    4. Re:OOOPS! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      At the current rate of growth, the weight of the internet will slowly sink the US to below sea level by 2050

    5. Re:OOOPS! by dziban303 · · Score: 1

      Coolest thing I've heard today.

    6. Re:OOOPS! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      MY GOD!

      I hope i am not reborn on the planet spawned by goatse.

    7. Re:OOOPS! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ref

    8. Re:OOOPS! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      At least an AI will know the difference between "its" and "it's."

    9. Re:OOOPS! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Put down the bong

    10. Re:OOOPS! by commodore64_love · · Score: 1

      Read:

      "The Last Question" by Isaac Asimov
      http://www.multivax.com/last_question.html

      --
      "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall
  2. Slightly heavier then... by Anachragnome · · Score: 5, Funny

    "How Heavy Is the Internet?"

    Slightly heavier then the total weight of the worlds useless journalists.

    1. Re:Slightly heavier then... by Platemaster · · Score: 1

      "How Heavy Is the Internet?"

      Slightly heavier then the total weight of the worlds useless journalists.

      Can't agree more, it's worse to be the guy who actually makes this research though.

    2. Re:Slightly heavier then... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I would narrow it down to just the staff of crave.cnet.co.uk.

    3. Re:Slightly heavier then... by MightyMartian · · Score: 5, Funny

      What a fucked up metric. That's like asking "how red is 7?" or "what's the personality of a grapefruit?"

      --
      The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
    4. Re:Slightly heavier then... by tool462 · · Score: 5, Funny

      "how red is 7?"

      Just about half, assuming 4 bits per channel.

      "what's the personality of a grapefruit?"

      Bitter.

    5. Re:Slightly heavier then... by Philip+K+Dickhead · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Top half or bottom?

      --
      "Speaking the Truth in times of universal deceit is a revolutionary act." -- George Orwell
    6. Re:Slightly heavier then... by TubeSteak · · Score: 5, Funny

      What a fucked up metric. That's like asking "how red is 7?" or "what's the personality of a grapefruit?"

      Your momma is so fat, her circumference is 3.1415 internets.
      /idleispants

      --
      [Fuck Beta]
      o0t!
    7. Re:Slightly heavier then... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hey! Without useless journalists there'd be a lot less comedy. A world without the Daily Show or the Colbert Report would not be as fun. Both shows (and many mire) depend on the brainless idiots that present themselves as arbiters of 'truth'.

    8. Re:Slightly heavier then... by Xeno+man · · Score: 1

      Mmmmm... Pie internets....

    9. Re:Slightly heavier then... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Depends on the architecture.

    10. Re:Slightly heavier then... by LowlyWorm · · Score: 1

      It is strange you should say that. Since I was in grade school I always personally assigned individual personalities to the digits 1-9. I know of no one else who does this. Just a personal quirk I guess. 7 is a little aggressive but not as much so as 4 or 8. I don't know about the color of numbers or personalities of fruit.

      --
      Time flies like an arrow. Fruit flies like a banana.
    11. Re:Slightly heavier then... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's a stupid metric, but it's not an intangible one. In order for data to exist, there must be media for it to be stored on. Whether that be hard drives, optical discs or punch cards, there is still a minimum weight that the all of the data in the world would require in order to merely exist.

    12. Re:Slightly heavier then... by RobDollar · · Score: 0

      Kudos to you good sir.

    13. Re:Slightly heavier then... by master5o1 · · Score: 1

      I always pictured 7 to be a little hungry monster -- You know, 7 ate 9.

      --
      signature is pants
    14. Re:Slightly heavier then... by ChefInnocent · · Score: 1

      What do you mean 7 is a little aggressive? It's the most aggressive number there is; it ate 9! Poor little 6 is terrified of it. 1 is a bit cocky never being a looser. 2 is pretty passive; he'll go along with anything. Not much to say about 3. 4 isn't really the aggressor, it's the person who shouts it that is aggressive....

    15. Re:Slightly heavier then... by theshowmecanuck · · Score: 1

      The left.

      --
      -- I ignore anonymous replies to my comments and postings.
    16. Re:Slightly heavier then... by d34dluk3 · · Score: 1

      That's what she said

    17. Re:Slightly heavier then... by CrtxReavr · · Score: 1

      Fucked-up metric indeed. . . it weighs kilograms? Idiots.

      -CR

      --
      "So is the BSD licence even more 'free' (than GPLv2)? Yes. Unquestionably." --Linus Torvalds (TinyURL.com/2vugzl)
    18. Re:Slightly heavier then... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Top half or bottom?

      yes

    19. Re:Slightly heavier then... by camperdave · · Score: 1
      --
      When our name is on the back of your car, we're behind you all the way!
    20. Re:Slightly heavier then... by yRabbit · · Score: 1

      Maybe you have synesthesia. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Synesthesia#Personification , one of many types of it.

    21. Re:Slightly heavier then... by war4peace · · Score: 1

      You're wrong, nothing is heavier than that.
      Jokes apart, the Internet doesn't have a weight attribute. When I see such articles, I remember that episode from "The IT Crowd":
      "This is... the Internet!" (audience gasps) - it was just a box with a red LED blinking on it.
      It's just people having no clue what the Internet is and trying to make it understandable by applying measurable attributes; or people trying to be funny. No atter the reason, they're unsuccessful.
      Now all of you, please turn off your computers, iPhones and Blackberries, so that the Power Grid, GSM Array AND the Internet can lose some weight and live happily ever after... in the most amazing threesome we ever had the chance not to see.

      --
      ...gis sdrawkcab (usually not responding to ACs; don't bother posting as AC)
    22. Re:Slightly heavier then... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Both halfs of the grapefruit have the same personality.

    23. Re:Slightly heavier then... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "how red is 7?"

      None, don't you know that 7 is for blues ?!

    24. Re:Slightly heavier then... by MattGWU · · Score: 1

      The first time I had it, Delirium Tremens tasted purple to me. "If I poured this beer into a glass* it wouldn't surprise me if it was purple." Seven is an interesting shade of mauve.

      *I know, it was at a chain sports bar and they didn't give us glasses

      --
      "These people look deep within my soul and assign me a number based on the order in which I joined" --Homer re:
    25. Re:Slightly heavier then... by Philip+K+Dickhead · · Score: 1

      She said you don't understand what I said

      I said no no no you're wrong

      When I was a boy everything was right everything was right

      --
      "Speaking the Truth in times of universal deceit is a revolutionary act." -- George Orwell
    26. Re:Slightly heavier then... by LowlyWorm · · Score: 2, Funny

      I believe I do. I never knew it had a name. You are as helpful as 9 :).

      --
      Time flies like an arrow. Fruit flies like a banana.
    27. Re:Slightly heavier then... by Neil+Hodges · · Score: 1

      A looser isn't tighter, obviously.

  3. Not to mention by Megaweapon · · Score: 1

    the users...

    --
    I'm sure "SlashdotMedia" will improve on all the wonders that Dice Holdings blessed us all with
    1. Re:Not to mention by swanzilla · · Score: 1

      and the tubes...

    2. Re:Not to mention by sconeu · · Score: 1

      And CowboyNeal accounts for half of all that user weight.

      --
      General Relativity: Space-time tells matter where to go; Matter tells space-time what shape to be.
    3. Re:Not to mention by pixelpusher220 · · Score: 1

      no no...CowboyNeal is the 'darkmatter' of the intarwebs

      --
      People in cars cause accidents....accidents in cars cause people :-D
    4. Re:Not to mention by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But not the dumptrucks...

    5. Re:Not to mention by machine321 · · Score: 2, Funny

      So, nobody's really sure if he exists or is just a math error?

  4. It doesn't weigh anything by MrFancyPants · · Score: 1, Insightful

    0 lbs, 0 kgs. Duh. The internet doesn't weigh anything.

    1. Re:It doesn't weigh anything by MrFancyPants · · Score: 2, Funny

      Argh, hit submit too soon. Reference: IT Crowd

    2. Re:It doesn't weigh anything by ehrichweiss · · Score: 1

      But there are no wires or anything...

      It's WIRELESS!!
      **********************
      I LOVE that episode and was gonna post it but figure there had to be at least one person who'd beat me to it. Thanks

      --
      0x09F911029D74E35BD84156C5635688C0
    3. Re:It doesn't weigh anything by timmarhy · · Score: 1

      actually your wrong wrong WRONG. even if you only count the electrons and photons that make up the signals, they all have mass and hence the internet weighs something.

      --
      If you mod me down, I will become more powerful than you can imagine....
    4. Re:It doesn't weigh anything by eepok · · Score: 1

      The electrons aren't the internet. The status of the electrons are. The status "here" has no mass/weight... just like the number 1 has no weight.

    5. Re:It doesn't weigh anything by theshowmecanuck · · Score: 1

      whoa dude... that's heavy

      --
      -- I ignore anonymous replies to my comments and postings.
    6. Re:It doesn't weigh anything by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      dude....that's heavy.

    7. Re:It doesn't weigh anything by Ralph+Spoilsport · · Score: 1

      It doesn't weigh anything, ever. It has its servant do that.

      --
      Shoes for Industry. Shoes for the Dead.
    8. Re:It doesn't weigh anything by timmarhy · · Score: 1

      the internet is what carries the signals, without said electrical pulses there is no "here" it's not transmitted magically. they aren't trying to measure the weight of the word "here" that's fucking retarded, they are trying to measure the mass of what provides the ability for you post such inane crap. sure it's a stupid pointless task, but then so was your logic failing post.

      --
      If you mod me down, I will become more powerful than you can imagine....
    9. Re:It doesn't weigh anything by pilybaby · · Score: 1

      You wont mind if I put everything connected to the internet on your lap then?

      I think you'd start to cry after I put only the PCs in my house on your lap.

    10. Re:It doesn't weigh anything by HTH+NE1 · · Score: 1

      whoa dude... that's heavy

      Actually, that's massive.

      4.888 petanewtons (PN), now that's heavy.

      --
      Oh, say does that Star-Spangled Banner entwine / The myrtle of Venus with Bacchus's vine?
    11. Re:It doesn't weigh anything by HTH+NE1 · · Score: 1

      Uh, make that 4.888 teranewtons (TN).

      "Gee, that's really heavy, Tennessee."
      "Come along, Chumley. Time to go see Mr. Whoopee."

      --
      Oh, say does that Star-Spangled Banner entwine / The myrtle of Venus with Bacchus's vine?
  5. Lightest post! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Lightest post!

  6. Don't be silly. by Mr.+Bad+Example · · Score: 4, Funny

    The internet doesn't weigh anything.

    1. Re:Don't be silly. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Best episode ever.

    2. Re:Don't be silly. by DeadRat4life · · Score: 1

      First thing i thought of when i saw this. Best show ever. Wish we could get it in the states.

  7. idleispants by davidwr · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Why isn't this in idle?

    If it's supposed to be serious, you have to amortize the weight of the equipment over its uses. A desktop that spends half its use playing solitaire, 1/4 of its use surfing the web, and 1/4 of its use spamming the world under viral control only counts for half.

    --
    Knowledge is how to play a game, intelligence is how to win, wisdom is knowing what game to play.
    1. Re:idleispants by Joren · · Score: 1

      Why isn't this in idle?

      If it's supposed to be serious, you have to amortize the weight of the equipment over its uses. A desktop that spends half its use playing solitaire, 1/4 of its use surfing the web, and 1/4 of its use spamming the world under viral control only counts for half.

      If you're weighing traffic, sure. I figured they were weighing connectivity - an analogous question might be, "how much does your corporate network weigh?" Being part of a network doesn't require actually using it

      Of course, you'd still have to decide whether/how to amortize time spent off the network (e.g. computer is off, phone is outside of data plan area, etc).

      --
      -- Joren
    2. Re:idleispants by CarpetShark · · Score: 1

      And if it's a wikipedia, digg, slashdot, or other popular server, then you need to multiply.

    3. Re:idleispants by PingPongBoy · · Score: 1

      A desktop that spends half its use playing solitaire, 1/4 of its use surfing the web, and 1/4 of its use spamming the world under viral control only counts for half.

      But isn't the weight for the machines holding public data? So your desktop isn't even addable unless it's sharing something.

      Some things that may be considered: what does it take to pack it all up in boxes and carry it to another place in case the Earth/free world is no longer a viable place to host the Internet? A sense of the mining and manufacturing that was required to assemble the current state of the Internet is implied, though that would include things like buildings and food for researchers, factories, infrastructure (power, water, etc.)

      There's a lot of physical hardware to make the Internet such a pervasive entity. What would be the impact as this hardware mass is multiplied? Speculation is hard to resist.

      Perhaps one question should start to take hold - why isn't strong AI a reality? If a team or government agency was to just build a computer weighing 500 billion kg, it ought to solve problems intelligently, as in being able to understand problems and compute solutions without programming that targets the particular problem domains. The 500 billion kg system has now been demonstrated to be buildable - is it just a matter of time for the 500 billion kg computer to be assembled? Factoring in Moore's Law, long time no Cylon?

      --
      Know your pads. One time pad: good for cryptography. Two timing pad: where to take your mistress.
  8. They forgot.... by ArcadeNut · · Score: 1

    To add the weight of all the Tubes and Dump Trucks!

    --
    Visit the Arcade Restoration Workshop @ http://www.arcaderestoration.com
  9. Rosie O'Donnell still has it beat. by GPLDAN · · Score: 2, Funny

    BOOM! POWZA!

  10. Chevy by Idiomatick · · Score: 1

    I KNOW I couldn't throw that on the back of a truck.

    Seriously though this is the shit /. has grown to despise on idle(why does it still exist?), how did it escape onto real /.?

    1. Re:Chevy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Because samzenpus can't get enough views on idle to legitimize his existence, so he started posting idle's crap on 'legitimate' parts of /.

  11. It's not... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    April yet, is it?

  12. Weight Distribution by Reason58 · · Score: 1

    If that kind of weight is spread evenly then we are dangerously close to causing a global implosion. If one hemisphere gets too much technology then we may very well drift out of orbit and crash into another planet. This is what the Mayans were telling us, people.

  13. When I saw the headline by EkriirkE · · Score: 1

    When I saw the headline I was expecting kdawson's name attached. For shame.

    --
    from 09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0
    to 45 2F 6E 40 3C DF 10 71 4E 41 DF AA 25 7D 31 3F
  14. Something this heavy... by Looce · · Score: 1

    Something this heavy... must be slow, right? Slow like this slow news day maybe? ... What do you mean, it's constantly getting faster? Are you nuts?

  15. That number needs updating. by JustNiz · · Score: 1

    I've just removed the watercooling system on my PC so the internet weighs 10KG less now.
    So its exactly 498,438,559,980kg now.

    1. Re:That number needs updating. by MightyMartian · · Score: 1

      Fat PC Guy - I'm on a diet because the Internet weighs too much.

      Fat Mac Guy - I'm eating thirty twinkies a minute because the Internet needs more weight!

      Trim Linux Guy - I think I'm going to puke.

      Malnourished OpenSolaris Guy - When is someone going to drop off some crates of food.

      Outdated Amiga Guy - I remember when we grew up in a hole in the road and our ol' dad used to come and kill us before breakfast.

      --
      The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
    2. Re:That number needs updating. by toddestan · · Score: 1

      No wonder. I thought I sensed a few less 1's out there.

    3. Re:That number needs updating. by JustNiz · · Score: 1

      >> Outdated Amiga Guy - I remember when we grew up in a hole in the road and our ol' dad used to come and kill us before breakfast.

      You had a WHOLE hole to yourselves AND had breakfast? I hate snobs.
      Our dad used to wake us up 4 hours before we went to bed just so we could work 28 hour days. Life was hard but we where happy.

  16. Almost 500 megatons? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    640 megatons ought to be enough for anyone.

  17. A wise man once told me by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Never underestimate the throughput of a mac truck full of hard drives.

  18. What a useless question by straponego · · Score: 4, Funny

    I need to know how much of the internet is 1, and how much is 0.

    I suppose I could get a start on that by running VMs of the most popular OSs, and examining snapshots of each one, multiplying that by... oh, and do the same with backbone traffic... be a bit of a pain to handle all the embedded stuff, but in principle... well, in principle, the internet could be represented as a single number. I wonder if it's odd or even. I guess it depends on who has the last bit.

    Ooops, time to takes me pills again.

    1. Re:What a useless question by hippo_of_knowledge · · Score: 1

      It's also a useless answer. Like all measurements, 498,438,559,990kg needs to be given in Libraries of Congress to make any sense at all.

    2. Re:What a useless question by Thinboy00 · · Score: 1

      "Library of Congress" is a measure of information (bits, bytes)
      What you want is, oh, I don't know, some massive object. LoC does not have a well defined mass (do you mean just the books? What about the CDs? Digital stuff? The whole building?)

      --
      $ make available
    3. Re:What a useless question by ChefInnocent · · Score: 1

      I thought the standard unit of weight around here was Volkswagens which would make that about 422,047,892 Volkswagens.

    4. Re:What a useless question by Ralph+Spoilsport · · Score: 1
      I need to know how much of the internet is 1, and how much is 0.

      That's a really good question. I'm betting that it's more nothing than something. But I wonder if the nothing is as big compared to the something as things are to the void.

      We are Atlantis.

      --
      Shoes for Industry. Shoes for the Dead.
    5. Re:What a useless question by rdnetto · · Score: 1

      Let me save you some time:
      it's 50% 1, 50% 0, and 50% i.

      --
      Most human behaviour can be explained in terms of identity.
  19. hey don't joke about this by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    its a systems of tubes I tell you. it's a system of tubes that already weighs half a billion tonnes so dont add more

  20. Your Internet by Reason58 · · Score: 1

    Yo internet's so fat the only time it sees 90210 is on the scale.

  21. The above comment has zero intellectual weight by davidwr · · Score: 1

    Or less, if it is possible to have negative intellectual weight.

    --
    Knowledge is how to play a game, intelligence is how to win, wisdom is knowing what game to play.
    1. Re:The above comment has zero intellectual weight by Thinboy00 · · Score: 1

      Negative mass gets kind of weird, though.

      --
      $ make available
  22. No by N7DR · · Score: 5, Funny

    Ever wondered how much the internet physically weighs?

    No.

    And, oddly, even after someone else has asked the question, I still don't.

  23. I don't care how HEAVY it is... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ...I just know that it's only half as long as my e-penis.

    1. Re:I don't care how HEAVY it is... by MightyMartian · · Score: 1

      ...I just know that it's only half as long as my e-penis.

      Or the e-anus you have it stuck in.

      --
      The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
  24. Hi, I'm a mac truck by davidwr · · Score: 1

    and I'm a pc, and we're here to*BOOM then silence as mac truck turns John Hodgson into a pancake*

    --
    Knowledge is how to play a game, intelligence is how to win, wisdom is knowing what game to play.
  25. How heavy is the Internet by Psychotria · · Score: 1

    Well, I don't know about you guys but I actually get asked this question quite often. Just the other day I was in a board meeting when my CEO turned to me and whispered in my ear "Do you know how heavy the internet is?" I didn't know the answer and ended up looking like a fool.

    1. Re:How heavy is the Internet by dangitman · · Score: 1

      Just the other day I was in a board meeting when my CEO turned to me and whispered in my ear "Do you know how heavy the internet is?"

      He's not the internet, he's my brother.

      --
      ... and then they built the supercollider.
  26. Amazing precision by uberdilligaff · · Score: 1

    Really exceptional that they managed to measure the weight to 11 significant figures -- 12 if that last zero wasn't from rounding. A tribute to CNET's diligence.

    --
    Against stupidity, the Gods themselves contend in vain. --Friederich Schiller
  27. What about the colos? by linuxwrangler · · Score: 1

    Given their methodology, you'd better add the weight of all the colocation facilities. That's a heap of concrete, lead-acid batteries, flywheels, generators, steel supports and cabinets, etc.

    --

    ~~~~~~~
    "You are not remembered for doing what is expected of you." - Atul Chitnis
    1. Re:What about the colos? by maxume · · Score: 1

      Well, if you are going to go in that direction, don't forget the earth and the sun. I'm not sure about the galaxy, but it may be what gives the internet its momentum.

      --
      Nerd rage is the funniest rage.
  28. It's a good thing.. by Technician · · Score: 1

    It is a good thing they didn't try to calculate the amount of power used and how much it adds to global warming.. They may decide to shut it down tomorrow.

    --
    The truth shall set you free!
    1. Re:It's a good thing.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What I would love to know is how much energy does Java waste on this planet?

    2. Re:It's a good thing.. by ribuck · · Score: 1

      It is a good thing they didn't try to calculate the amount of power used...

      An informed estimate of the power consumption of the internet was 868 billion kWh per year in 2007.

  29. are they counting stupid stuff on monitors by swschrad · · Score: 1

    like the Dogberts and "beatings will continue" buttons and mirrors to see the boss coming up behind you?

    add another 300,000 Kg at least.

    --
    if this is supposed to be a new economy, how come they still want my old fashioned money?
  30. did they add E/c^2? by Bazman · · Score: 1

    E = mc^2, hence m = E/c^2. How much energy is there in a running computer compared to one switched off? Convert to mass, multiply by the number of computers on the internet to get... well, yet another meaningless figure, but it might be fun to estimate.

  31. Not weight by royallthefourth · · Score: 1

    Grams is a measure of mass, not weight. Take something to the Moon and it will have far less weight, but the mass will remain constant.

  32. Usenet was RIGHT! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ATTENTION: By posting this to Slashdot you will add electrons to numerous computers all over the world, adding hundreds if not thousands of pounds to the Internet.

    Are you sure you want to continue?

  33. Based on this estimate by mysidia · · Score: 1

    The internet gained about 6 billion pounds after the release of Windows Vista, due to all the additional beefier systems needing to be purchased in place of older systems.

    It's far time the Internet went on a diet.

    Oh WTF is with the supposition that Viruses or web pages "weigh" something?

    It's already factored in by the weight of the hard drives of internet connected PCs... actually, that counts free disk space too.

    Technically.. the entire weight of the PC is not all attributable to the Internet.

    For example, the weight of the internet has nothing to do with the weight of that extra-large display you happened to have installed so you could watch DVDs on your computer.

    1. Re:Based on this estimate by Thinboy00 · · Score: 1

      Netbooks would have been a diet, except Microsoft fucked everything up.

      --
      $ make available
  34. CNET exists to serve ads by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    to boring house-parents who think they know how to setup their wireless router. I hate them so much.

  35. and for by rossdee · · Score: 1

    The next stupid question:

        How long is the Internet?

        How wide is the internet?

    and then calculate the area of the internet using standard units like football fields, or states of texas.

  36. The weight of a virus by glwtta · · Score: 1

    Um, what?

    --
    sic transit gloria mundi
    1. Re:The weight of a virus by pclminion · · Score: 1

      When a bit pattern is stored on a magnetic medium, there is a certain energy associated with it due to the interactions of neighboring magnetic fields. Two opposed magnetic domains exert a force on each other. This force is caused by the presence of a magnetic field. This magnetic field entails a certain quantity of potential energy. E = mc^2. Thus, a bit pattern in fact has mass due to the intrinsic energy of its magnetic fields.

      The mass is maximum for an alternating pattern of bits, i.e. 101010101.... and minimum for a pattern of repeated bits, i.e. 0000... or 1111...

      Another way of thinking of it is that the magnetic head has to use more energy when writing a bit that differs in value from its neighbors, since it needs to "work harder" to align the magnetic domain opposite to its neighbors. This energy ultimately goes into the magnetic field between the domains, and contributes to mass-energy.

      It's not MUCH mass, but it's there.

    2. Re:The weight of a virus by glwtta · · Score: 1

      This magnetic field entails a certain quantity of potential energy. E = mc^2. Thus, a bit pattern in fact has mass due to the intrinsic energy of its magnetic fields.

      An energy potential has weight now? I don't think that's exactly what's meant by mass-energy equivalence.

      --
      sic transit gloria mundi
    3. Re:The weight of a virus by John+Hasler · · Score: 1

      > I don't think that's exactly what's meant by mass-energy equivalence.

      It is exactly what is meant by mass-energy equivalence.

      --
      Warning: this article may contain humor, sarcasm, parody, and perhaps even irony. Read at your own risk.
  37. Not as heavy as its users! by Snaller · · Score: 1

    *thank you* *thank you* - Don't forget to tip the waitress on the way out!

    --
    If Google really cared they would fix Android Chrome to reflow text, instead of discriminating
  38. Computers are heavy by Kenoli · · Score: 1

    Let's just weigh the portions of human brains containing the abstract concept of the internet instead.

  39. Re: That's like asking "how red is 7?" by Animaether · · Score: 1

    What a fucked up metric. That's like asking "how red is 7?"

    That's not nearly as f'ed up as you might think. See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grapheme-color_synesthesia

    Ask enough people and I'm sure you can actually come to an appropriate answer to the question of just how red the number 7 is.

  40. Obligatory... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    African or European?

  41. How Heavy is The Internet? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The Internet’s so heavy it left the house in high heels and when it came back it had on flip flops.
    The Internet’s so heavy it went to KFC to get a bucket of chicken they asked it what size and it said the one on the roof.
    The Internet’s so heavy that I ran out of gas trying to drive around it.
    The Internet’s so heavy its on both sides of the family
    The Internet’s so heavy you have to grease the door frame and hold a twinkie on the other side just to get it through
    The Internet’s so heavy it sets off car alarms when it runs.
    The Internet’s so heavy it laid on the beach and greenpeace tried to push it back in the water
    The Internet’s so heavy the only pictures you have of it are satellite pictures
    The Internet’s so heavy it jumped in the air and got stuck.
    The Internet’s so heavy it put on some BVD's and by the time they reached its waist they spelled out boulevard.
    The Internet’s so heavy it stepped on a rainbow and made Skittles.
    The Internet’s so heavy that it would have been in E.T., but when it rode the bike across the moon it caused an eclipse.
    The Internet’s so heavy it was baptised in the ocean.
    The Internet’s so heavy it has to iron its clothes in the driveway.
    The Internet’s so heavy they tie a rope around its infrastructure and drag it through a tunnel when they want to clean it.
    The Internet’s so heavy when it got hit by a bus, it said, "Who threw that rock?"
    The Internet’s so heavy when it stands in a left-turn lane it gives it the green arrow.
    The Internet’s so heavy that when it was born it gave the hospital stretch marks.
    The Internet’s so heavy we went to the drive-in and didn't have to pay because we dressed it as a Chevrolet.
    The Internet’s so heavy when it beeper goes off, people thought it was backing up.
    The Internet’s so heavy it eats Wheat Thicks.
    The Internet’s so heavy we're in it right now.
    The Internet’s so heavy people jog around it for exercise
    The Internet’s so heavy it wears neck deorderant
    The Internet’s so heavy it has pork rind incense burning in its house.
    The Internet’s so heavy when it sits on the beach it makes sandpaper
    The Internet’s so heavy it wears a sock on each toe
    The Internet’s so heavy it DNA is DRO (for Dorito)
    The Internet’s so heavy it went to the movies and sat next to everyone
    The Internet’s so heavy you have to roll over twice to get off it
    The Internet’s so heavy it was floating in the ocean and Spain claimed it for then new world
    The Internet’s so heavy when you get on top of it your ears pop
    The Internet’s so heavy the army stole its underwear to use as parachutes
    The Internet’s so heavy when it wears a yellow raincoat, people said "Taxi!"
    The Internet’s so heavy it had to go to Sea World to get baptized
    The Internet’s so heavy its got to iron its pants on the driveway
    The Internet’s so heavy it puts insurance on its food
    The Internet’s so heavy it can hear bacon cooking in Canada
    The Internet’s so heavy it put on its lipstick with a paint-roller
    The Internet’s so heavy NASA thought it caused a solar eclipse
    The Internet’s so heavy it's got to pull down its pants to get into its pockets
    The Internet’s so heavy when it tripped over on 4th Ave, it landed on 12th
    The Internet’s so heavy when it bungee jumps, it brings down the bridge too
    The Internet’s so heavy the highway patrol made it wear "Caution! Wide Turn"
    The Internet’s so heavy when it sits around the house, it SITS AROUND THE HOUSE!
    The Internet’s so heavy when it steps on a scale, it reads "one at a time, please"
    The Internet’s so heavy when it sits on my face I can't hear the stereo.
    The Internet’s so heavy it fell in love and broke it.
    The Internet’s so heavy when

  42. why equipment? by Animaether · · Score: 1

    I'm wondering why the measurement is with the equipment at all. 'The Internet' isn't so much the hardware it's being run on, is it?
    Wouldn't do much good if that hardware wasn't moving bits and bytes around.

    So perhaps the question should be... how much data traffic is there for 'the internet' and, by splitting that up into electrons and photons (presuming wireless signals have no mass), how much does that weigh.

    I wonder if that could actually end up being an appreciable amount if measured over the course of seconds/minutes/hours/days/a week/a month/a year.

  43. Lighter Than Before by BryanL · · Score: 1

    Well, after this fluff piece, I would say the internet just got lighter.

  44. kg? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This 'kg' concept means nothing to me. Tell me in a unit I can understand, like how many libraries of congress is it?

  45. Made me wonder by CrazyJim1 · · Score: 1

    How much does the Earth weigh? At first, you think just weigh up every object in the Earth, but you need to remember it has less weight the deeper it gets into the core, so I'm thinking you'll run into some Calculus there.

    1. Re:Made me wonder by Mikkeles · · Score: 1

      'How much does the Earth weigh?'

      Nothing, although you could carry it to Uranus and weigh it there, I guess.

      --
      Great minds think alike; fools seldom differ.
    2. Re:Made me wonder by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And the Calculus says, since weight is a vector quantity, that the Earth in its own reference frame weighs zero. Everything cancels.

  46. Units by spoonist · · Score: 1

    Can someone please convert this to some useful unit of measure like "Libraries of Congress"?

    1. Re:Units by krray · · Score: 1

      ~27.5 million dump trucks (+/-2%:) worth.
      Which sadly is easily filled with last years equipment...

    2. Re:Units by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Comparing the weight of the Internet with the weight of culture is difficult but looking into the opposite direction as the Internet is 10% heavier than 500 million tons, then according to this WJS article it is a little heavier than the three times the amount of human waste produced by the U.S. yearly.

  47. don't be silly by roman_mir · · Score: 1

    The Internet doesn't weigh anything. Just ask the Elders of the Internet!

  48. The internet has no weight... by eepok · · Score: 2, Interesting

    The internet is a mass of data interconnected by address. Data is not an object, but the status of variables. Data has no more weight than any other abstract concept.

    1. Re:The internet has no weight... by Rakishi · · Score: 2, Interesting
    2. Re:The internet has no weight... by calzones · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Thank you!!!

      I came to read this posting thinking there would be some great discussion on the weight of information. What's the difference in weight between a full hard drive and an empty hard drive for instance, and what can qualify as empty (since it's possible having a series of alternating 1s and 0s is lighter than pure 0s for instance... I wouldn't know) .. point being, that there is a difference between the average drive containing random or "no" bits encoded on it, and one that does actually contain information encoded on it by intention.

      But instead this was all about the weight of devices storing said data. Humbug!

      I want to know how much all the data (and only the data) on all devices and transmitting on all lines actually weighs. Because the media can and probably will become lighter with time, but information itself can not become any lighter.

      I hope some mods gives you some points because this was the best post on here today. Of course, I'm late to the party and this is waaay down the page, so who knows if mods will ever make it down this far :|

      --
      Asking people to think is like asking them to buy you a new car
    3. Re:The internet has no weight... by V50 · · Score: 1

      The internet is a mass of data interconnected by address. Data is not an object, but the status of variables. Data has no more weight than any other abstract concept.

      WHAT!? I thought the internet was a series of tubes. :-/

    4. Re:The internet has no weight... by Richard_J_N · · Score: 1

      Well, data = information = entropy. What's the minimum amount of energy required (in theory) to store a single bit of data?
      It's probably not zero. Therefore data does actually have energy, i.e. mass.

    5. Re:The internet has no weight... by eepok · · Score: 1

      Storage has mass. The energy required to make notes in storage to denote data has mass. The data does not have mass. Data is a pattern not an object.

    6. Re:The internet has no weight... by Richard_J_N · · Score: 1

      Well, that's the question. Is it really so? (This is an interesting quantum-mechanical conundrum, to which I don't know the answer).

  49. Air-speed velocity of an unladen swallow? by UTF-8 · · Score: 1

    This knowledge seems about as useful as knowing the air-speed velocity of an unladen swallow. I'll keep this in mind if I'm ever asked this question.

    BTW, is this the African or European Internet?

  50. Oh shit! by StikyPad · · Score: 1

    If it gets much heavier the Earth might sink!!

  51. Hard to give this any creditability by frovingslosh · · Score: 1

    Finally, they added the weight of 287,524 viruses

    When they make a statement like this, when no weight can be assigned to a computer virus, they pretty much completely discredit themselves.

    --
    I'm an American. I love this country and the freedoms that we used to have.
    1. Re:Hard to give this any creditability by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      it's a joke...relax

  52. A mathematician from Scunthorpe by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Discovered the weight of his balls
    His scrotum times three
    Was approximately
    Two thirds of four fifths of fuck all.

  53. The question is, do they include the users weight? by AbRASiON · · Score: 1

    I hope not :(

  54. Electrons? by dandart · · Score: 1, Interesting

    But, isn't the Internet electrons and light? The internet is not a wire, it flows in a wire.... so surely it's the mass of the electrons and light!

    And of course they're more massive than you might expect due to relativistic effects.

  55. How Much? by cacepi · · Score: 1

    498,438,559,990KG? What does that convert to in tubes?

  56. useful? by myVarNamesAreTooLon · · Score: 1

    Obviously this information is only really useful to someone attempting to work out the cost of posting the Internet somewhere

    ...and this would be useful? Ever?

  57. Re: That's like asking "how red is 7?" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    5 is red. 2 is blue. 2 + 5 is red + blue is 7 is violet. brown is similarly 8

  58. 498,438,559,990kg?? by AC-x · · Score: 1

    That's a very precise figure for something that's just a rough estimate!

    Surely "around 500,000,000 tonnes" is a better way to put it?

    1. Re:498,438,559,990kg?? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They forgot the cluster of Beowulf which would have made it an even 500 million tonnes

    2. Re:498,438,559,990kg?? by 4181 · · Score: 1

      That's a very precise figure for something that's just a rough estimate!

      Besides being both overly precise and essentially meaningless, there is no indication of how it was derived. They give a number of subtotals that sum to less than 5% of their total.

      22,837,511,120 kg = 570,937,778 computers * 40 kg/computer [those are heavy boxen]
      1,754,809,310 kg = 175,480,931 servers * 10 kg/server
      87,000,000 kg = 15,000 km TAT-14 cable * 5.8 kg/m-of-cable
      6,075,000 kg = 42,000,000 iPhones * approx 144.64 g/iPhone [the review they link to claims 133 g]
      6,800,000 kg = 50,000,000 Blackberries * 136 g/Blackberry

      24,692,195,430 kg sum
      498,438,559,990 kg their total

      The cable figure is only for the "TAT-14 cable that links the US to France, the Netherlands, Germany, Denmark and the UK", but they make no indication that they are scaling it up.

      So, I wonder how they did arrive at their meaningless number.

  59. Where is that scale from? by eamonman · · Score: 1

    I can't find it on tineye... That's pretty cool!

    --
    0- Eamonman Proud member of DNRC
  60. About 105% of by midicase · · Score: 1

    the weight of the porn it carries.

  61. Network Gear? by jvp · · Score: 1

    Newer Cisco routers are measured in tons. I'm not actually kidding... The CRS model breaches 4000lbs, depending on how it's configured and optioned out. I don't know if the folks that did this considered the networking gear required to move packets from point A to Z, but that stuff isn't necessarily light weight.

    jas

    --
    Jason Van Patten
  62. Gentry wants to know... by jeko · · Score: 1

    ...if they've discovered its shape yet.

    --
    He put his boots up on the table and made a face. "The sig," he smirked. "You can waste your life in search of the sig."
  63. Re: That's like asking "how red is 7?" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Alizarin crimson ...Donovan

  64. That picture... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Is anyone else bothered by the fact they're clearly in the wrong order?

    giraffe > rhino > elephant > sparrow > frog > duck

    when it should be

    elephant > rhino > giraffe > duck > frog > sparrow

  65. This reminds me of by bguiz · · Score: 1

    The episode of the IT crowd, where the protagonsists got a black cardboard box and put blinking lights on it, and fooled everyone into thinking it was "The Intenet"

    Q: "How come there's no wires?"
    A: "Because it'wireless!"

  66. Sorry to ask but ... by freaker_TuC · · Score: 1

    how much is this in vw beetles exactly?
    if that's impossible it's also possible to get it in library of congress units, that might be easier to remember..

    --
    --- I am known for the ones who want to find me on the net. Is that a privacy risk or a privilege? One might wonder..
  67. Negative "weight" by tombeard · · Score: 1

    Well, I don't know about the "internet", but the www has a positive buoyancy at earth normal pressure, due to the huge amount of hydrogen generated by the flatulence of most of the posts, such as this one. And really, how many web pages have you seen that were actually just crap? ; it all adds up. I say it is floating up in the ozone layer and blocking enough solar radiation to counteract global warming due to data center cooling.

    --
    The reason we subjugate ourselves to law is to better procure justice. If law does not accomplish this purpose then it m
  68. 20 billion kilos short. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Did they add 100,000,000 @ 200kg = 20,000,000,000kg for the weight of the addicts?

  69. weight of things by JumpSocial · · Score: 1

    How heavy is religion?

    --
    Inventor, Artist http://www.Rubber-Power.com
  70. Cloud by corychristison · · Score: 1

    How heavy is a cloud?

    You've got your answer. /mesnickers

  71. Use metric prefices: about half a petagram by erlkonig · · Score: 1

    Geez, use metric already:

    labrat@yggdrasil:~$ units
    2411 units, 71 prefixes, 33 nonlinear units
    You have: 498438559990 kilograms
    You want: petagrams
            * 0.49843856
            / 2.0062653

    1/2 petagram. Easy.

    1. Re:Use metric prefices: about half a petagram by HTH+NE1 · · Score: 1

      Actually, when talking weight, you want teranewtons.

      498438559990 kg * 9.80662 N/kg = 4.88800 TN

      --
      Oh, say does that Star-Spangled Banner entwine / The myrtle of Venus with Bacchus's vine?
  72. E=mc^2 by nerdyalien · · Score: 0

    IMHO, Internet live, breathe on electricity and if no electricity, no Internet at all.

    Hence it is worth to calculate its electricity usage (Energy usage, to be precise) on a given time (say a day), then plug into E=mc^2 to calculate the Mass.

    what do you think?

  73. Dude, by carpefishus · · Score: 1

    That's heavy.

    --
    Facts take all of the premium out of arm waving - T. Reynolds
  74. and i thought... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    and here i thought we'd get some nice map on the overhead of cables, or something like that...
    sigh...

  75. Not just Iphones! Ignorance from CNET by mdwh2 · · Score: 1

    iPhones and Blackberries

    Talking of which, I'm saddened to see yet another media outlet pushing the myth that the only Internet phones in existence are the Iphone and the Blackberry (although I suppose we should be grateful they at least acknowledge the existence of the Blackberry, and don't pretend that the Iphone is the only phone in existence). Together they only make up a few per cent of the total figure. If they wanted to just pick on one set of phones, they should have chosen Nokias at 40% of the market.

    "Quite a lot of iPhones have been sold, 42 million in total" - woo! Or maybe quoted the figure of 2 billion Java Internet phones.

    Fair enough if this was the Daily Mail or something, but I expect better from a tech site like CNET. With a major blooper like this, the data is useless. It also seems pointless bothering about them anyway, since they make up about 0.0026% of the total! And then we have embarrassments like saying not owning an Iphone is "the modern-day equivalent of not having a head" - yes, I guess 98% of the Internet phone owning population don't have a head. Just because some Apple fans see it as a fashion statement, doesn't mean anyone else cares.

  76. Good to know, but... by xactuary · · Score: 0

    Will it blend?

    --
    Say hello to my little sig.
  77. What i think. by gcaronte · · Score: 1

    I really love slashdot, i come every day to this site to see something interesting, don't get me wrong i really love a good joke...but this post makes me sad, this is just stupid, shame on the poster.

  78. the number is way off by vuffi_raa · · Score: 1

    think of it this way- in my house alone: ps3 wii 3pcs 2laptops internet enabled media player psp (2)(ds isn't online as it only supports wep) internet enabled blue ray player wifi enabled non blackberry phone I am sure that I am forgetting something, but according to the way that the #s are it would prolly register as 1 pc on the survey.

  79. Wrong, both mathematically and conceptually by clone53421 · · Score: 1

    This is grossly inaccurate.

    Mathematically speaking, how the holy hell did they get almost 500 billion kg? Those numbers add up to less than 25 billion kg (24,692,195,430 kg, to be exact).

    Conceptually, they both included things they shouldn’t have and omitted things they should have included.

    Devices which connect to the internet and suck information from it should not be included. Getting groceries from the grocer doesn’t make you a grocer yourself. Get rid of the personal computers and mobile devices.
    Amount reduced: 22,850,386,120 kg, or almost 93% of the total weight (using the correct figure, not theirs).

    On the other hand, the cellular infrastructure (cell towers and repeaters) which the mobile devices connect to should most definitely be included.
    Amount added: unknown.

    --
    Alexander Peter Kristopeit bought his basement from his mommy for one dollar.