Slashdot Mirror


Each American Consumed 34 Gigabytes Per Day In '08

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?"

32 of 245 comments (clear)

  1. Yes, but... by tool462 · · Score: 4, Insightful

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

    1. Re:Yes, but... by dotgain · · Score: 4, Insightful

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

    2. Re:Yes, but... by Medieval_Gnome · · Score: 4, Insightful

      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.

      --

      :wq

    3. Re:Yes, but... by ImYourVirus · · Score: 3, Insightful

      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.

      --
      Why is common sense called that if it's not common?
    4. Re:Yes, but... by Bakkster · · Score: 5, Insightful

      It seems they converted any information you consume to digital. For example, the headline "The New York Times" would be 18 bytes encoded as characters (assuming no byte packing). Television and audio (including radio and phone) were also measured, I assume by the size of the digital signals on the provider's backend.

      TV was 45% of the overall data consumed per day, clocking in at 4.5 hours of watching. That's 34GB * 45% = 15.3GB of television. 15.3GB/4.5 hours = 3.4GB/hour => ~1MB/s => ~8Mbit/s. That's a fairly reasonable (and conservative) estimate, since compressed 720p is 20Mbit/s. I'd say 34GB/day overall is a reasonable number.

      --
      Write your representatives! Repeal the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics!
  2. obligatory by Icegryphon · · Score: 3, Funny

    how many of these is that?

    1. Re:obligatory by Chris+Mattern · · Score: 3, Informative

      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.

  3. Massive exaggeration by 14erCleaner · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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...

    --
    Have you read my blog lately?
    1. Re:Massive exaggeration by jandrese · · Score: 3, Insightful

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

      --

      I read the internet for the articles.
    2. Re:Massive exaggeration by Tired+and+Emotional · · Score: 4, Funny

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

      --
      Squirrel!
    3. Re:Massive exaggeration by devjoe · · Score: 3, Insightful

      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.

    4. Re:Massive exaggeration by LandDolphin · · Score: 3, Insightful

      "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.

      --
      Spelling and Grammar errors have been added to this post for your enjoyment
  4. Data Hogs by Reason58 · · Score: 3, Funny

    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.

  5. According to comcast by anticlone · · Score: 3, Funny

    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...

  6. I can believe it by alop · · Score: 3, Interesting

    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.

    --
    --alop
    1. Re:I can believe it by cerberusss · · Score: 3, Insightful

      [..] SMS messages [..]

      Yes, those really add up.

      On your bill, they do!!

      --
      8 of 13 people found this answer helpful. Did you?
  7. Definitions so broad as to be pointless by richmaine · · Score: 3, Insightful

    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.

  8. Re:We are fat. by Kratisto · · Score: 5, Funny

    My file structure is NTFS, you insensitive clod!

    --
    Conscience is the inner voice which warns us that someone may be looking.
  9. Outdated Americans? by Darkness404 · · Score: 4, Funny

    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.

    --
    Taxation is legalized theft, no more, no less.
  10. Consumed...? by eepok · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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...

    1. Re:Consumed...? by dingen · · Score: 3, Funny

      You must be heavily obese.

      --
      Pretty good is actually pretty bad.
    2. Re:Consumed...? by ahem · · Score: 3, Funny

      He's actually just a *really* obsessive Katamari player.

      --
      Not A Sig
  11. This number is meaningless by jcronen · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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?

    1. Re:This number is meaningless by xZgf6xHx2uhoAj9D · · Score: 3, Informative

      It shouldn't be entirely meaningless. Claude Shannon showed that no matter how you represent something, it contains the same amount of information. If I remember right, he did a study early on that showed that each letter in English text carries, on average, about 1 bit of information (in the information theory sense of "information"). You can store it in ASCII or UCS-4 or as a JPEG and even though the different representations require different amounts of data, they all contain the same amount of information: some representations just have more redundancy than others. (Sadly it's undecidable to determine how much information something contains; otherwise compression would be a lot easier).

      Unfortunately this study seems to have ignored all of that good research and ignored the whole field of "information theory" in general. The numbers they're using on page 8 are totally exaggerated and seem to have no basis in information theory. There's no way a "small picture" contains 8 million bits of information, and even if it did there's no way a person could actually appreciate all that information unless they were staring at it for hours.

  12. Resource overuse by mtrachtenberg · · Score: 5, Funny

    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.

  13. window by bigdavex · · Score: 4, Interesting

    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?

    --
    -Dave
  14. Re:We are fat. by gzearfoss · · Score: 4, Funny

    Easy there, he's just trying to get a Reiser out of you.

  15. Or reposts of the same story everywhere... by IANAAC · · Score: 3, Insightful
    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.

    1. Re:Or reposts of the same story everywhere... by SomeJoel · · Score: 4, Funny

      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.

      --
      <Complete your profile by adding a signature!>
    2. Re:Or reposts of the same story everywhere... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Funny

      In Soviet Russia, beowulf cluster of the Natalie Portman's hot grits welcome you as their overlord.

  16. Re:Anthropomorphizing data by Locke2005 · · Score: 3, Funny

    You should never anthropomorphize data -- it hates it when you do that!

    --
    I've abandoned my search for truth; now I'm just looking for some useful delusions.
  17. Yes and... by shaitand · · Score: 3, Insightful

    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.