Study Shows We Consume 34GB of Data Daily

[jacobdrj]

Johnny 5 only had a 20 GB hard drive. How can Johnny Five be alive?

 

[Hiniberus]

[citation][nom]duckmanx88[/nom]so much porn...delicious, delicious porn[/citation]

The internet is a bad place m'boy...

...soon you shall probably see the darker side of it...



-coughfurriescoughcoughcough-

 

[BartG]

soooooo, if speaking in GB terms, how many GB`s can our brains store! i`m sorry to say, this is dumb, unless they show the article which explains in detail what this was based on its pointless...

 

[BartG]

before I get a smart ass comment, the "full" article does not show all that much either and leaves many questions.

 

[buwish]

Whatever the real number is, that is a crap ton of data.

 

[bill gates is your daddy]

I think "consume" is the wrong word for this.

I am "consuming" electricity when I am on the computer or watching TV.
I am "consuming" paper if I print something out.
I am "consuming" gasoline in my car when I am driving and listening to the radio.

As for the data itself I'm not really consuming it. In reality the little 1's and 0's are not being consumed...they are being shared...



...and I shared 34GB just in porn last night. They need to up that number some.

 

[nachowarrior]

if you consider, radio, music, that stupid t\/ in the grocery store, t\/ in your home, cell phone data, etc etc. Then I can see that. I know for a fact that I don't actually consume that much, and I am on the high side of data consumption, always downloading something or watching hulu or other t\/ programs/gaming. But 34 gigs a day? i don't think so. well... unless i watch like 5 high def t\/ shows in a row. that's a hunk of data there. 😛

 

[antilycus]

like all research, they were trying to prove a point so they picked teh data that works for them. I don't watch TV (not even over the air as the digital conversion screwed me). I surf the net(webpages), listen to music (probably the largest if everyones DATAUSAGE), and play video games on my 360. The rest is all my world.

 

[necronic]

I'm so thrilled that people are investigating such completely worthless metrics. Ignoring for now the assuredly questionable methodology the data they were tracking is effectively meaningless, especially considering the massive increases in data bloat over the last 2 decades.

 

[D2ModPlayer]

It all depends on how you measure text. If you were to make a PDF from a photo of a newspaper it would be significantly larger then a text file. Just because it's text doesn't mean it will be 600 KB. That's on the low end. It all depends on how it's stored.
If you were to watch one Blu-Ray in 1080p that's about 60GB. It's not just how much PC and TV bandwidth your using. It's total data used. So if you have a blu-ray player 30GB is a very small amount.

If you were to play a game, which I doubt was in the study, it would be amazing how much data you'd be assimilating. Say a Direct X 10 title at 1680x1200. Easily as much or more then a blu-ray outputs. Movies and TV are still behind what modern games can output data wise.

 

[D2ModPlayer]

It all depends on how you measure text. If you were to make a PDF from a photo of a newspaper it would be significantly larger then a text file. Just because it's text doesn't mean it will be 600 KB. That's on the low end. It all depends on how it's stored.
If you were to watch one Blu-Ray in 1080p that's about 60GB. It's not just how much PC and TV bandwidth your using. It's total data used. So if you have a blu-ray player 30GB is a very small amount.

If you were to play a game, which I doubt was in the study, it would be amazing how much data you'd be assimilating. Say a Direct X 10 title at 1680x1200. Easily as much or more then a blu-ray outputs. Movies and TV are still behind what modern games can output data wise.