Quote:
|
Originally Posted by BigV
Look, the projects just want your CPU cycles, not your bandwidth. Sure you have to transmit the results, and get the project elements, but each of these parts is trivially small compared to the time required to calculate the results.
|
I guess I was just thinking fatalistically here: How big will shared computing get? Yes, transferring a small packet (or several small packets) of data is minute relative to your typical Internet usage (or is it?). But as more and more computers come online to serve such a function, there's more opportunity to bottle up what's available. What if a program decides your computer can handle two, three or 500 simultaneous calculations, or staggers them so there's a constant stream of data flowing in and out?
Quote:
|
Why in the world would a carmaker resist increased use of cars?
|
It's not increased use of computers, it's more efficient use. What if everyone in a community shared a handful of cars? Carmakers could only make their money by building more expensive, powerful vehicles able to tolerate the extensive use (hypothetically 24 hrs a day) and reducing car life to, say, 2 or 3 years, but that would severely restrict their annual volume growth. Or, it could resemble an erie outsourcing scenario: why buy a Cray when you have thousands of cheap Dells - which you don't even have to pay for - at your disposal via network?
These are extreme examples. Admittedly I do not know much about this subject. I was bored at work and dreaming of the apacolypse in hopes that at the very least, my editor might burst into flames and die. Just being a royal pain in the ass.
