PeakOil is You
I.T. must die
Re: I.T. must die
by mos6507 » Mon 10 Nov 2008, 15:11:32
I don't think I.T. will be spared some form of forced powerdown after all efficiency measures fail. I think some of the high bandwidth recreational stuff on the internet will get blocked or charged extra for. The core web and email stuff should be around for a long time.
- mos6507
Re: I.T. must die
by SchroedingersCat » Tue 11 Nov 2008, 00:31:32
Nobody gets it. I.T. is an enabling technology. The place I work could replace most of its expensive client-server architecture with index cards and be just as efficient. Plus, it would save money from the servers and PC's it wouldn't need any longer.
I would suggest that most places are the same.
I.T. allows individuals to waste resources at an increased rate. It is a multiplier. Remove the computers and things slow down.
I.T. must die.
I would suggest that most places are the same.
I.T. allows individuals to waste resources at an increased rate. It is a multiplier. Remove the computers and things slow down.
I.T. must die.
Civilization is a personal choice.
- SchroedingersCat
- Tar Sands
- Posts: 541
- Joined: Thu 26 May 2005, 03:00:00
- Location: The ragged edge
Re: I.T. must die
by ReverseEngineer » Tue 11 Nov 2008, 03:58:37
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('SchroedingersCat', 'N')obody gets it. I.T. is an enabling technology. The place I work could replace most of its expensive client-server architecture with index cards and be just as efficient. Plus, it would save money from the servers and PC's it wouldn't need any longer.
I would suggest that most places are the same.
I.T. allows individuals to waste resources at an increased rate. It is a multiplier. Remove the computers and things slow down.
I.T. must die.
I would suggest that most places are the same.
I.T. allows individuals to waste resources at an increased rate. It is a multiplier. Remove the computers and things slow down.
I.T. must die.
One thing you could say with some certainty is that without IT and computers, it would have been about impossible to develop the kind of derivatives developed to "counteract risk" in the markets, and it would have been about impossible to link together and globalize markets from China to India to Russia to the US and make them all so interdependent on each other. Its also unlikely we would be endlessly tacking on Zeros to the bailout numbers if it was all done on paper, the system would have collapsed a while back already.
Many of the trades on the market were already performed by programs which seeing certain imbalances would react to that, and an automatic trade of very large capital was initiated by the computer, with no human decision really behind it other than the decisions made in setting up the program parameters.
When you consider now how the markets are being manipulated, I think its fairly obvious the same programs are telling Hank when he needs to infuse a certain amount of funny money into the system to keep it balanced. Make the analogy here of sitting in the control room of Chernobyl, watching the dials spin out of control. The guy at the controls pushes control rods into the reactor trying to keep it from overheating, but unfortunately the sensors aren't giving him correct information and though it APPEARS the reactor is now cooling, its not. In this case, the control rods that Hank is using is Funny Money, billions pushed into the system each day in different places to maintain a systemic balance. Of course Hank can't tell you who he is "loaning" all this funny money to, its happening basically at the speed of light and its all he can do to pound the Zeros on his keyboard fast enough to keep the reactor from melting down on any given day.
For the most part, all these billions and trillions are now meaningless numbers. However, for a few people at the controls able to liquidate out some real money from these zeros and drop it into their own accounts, they can still get lots of real dollars to use to further enhance their Bunkers with portable Nuclear Power stations buried in the backyard for a measly $25M or so. 10 years of enough power to keep the bunker lit up, and perhaps power electric tractors to keep the farm going.
Cyberspace has provided an illusion, an illusion of growth but its really just a redistribution of wealth at light speed until the system crashes. So those in power will keep it running as long as they can, and consolidate in their bunkers and leave the rest of humanity hung out to dry for a decade or two to descend into chaos. Then they will emerge to try the same scheme over again. Its a gamble of course, but the thing is the last gamble has run out, so this is the last ditch effort to stay at the top of the heap in perpetuity. Unlikely it works though, because the corruption from within is greater than the corruption from without. In other words, the corporate raiders will eat each other alive. Nature of the beast.
Reverse Engineer
-
ReverseEngineer - Intermediate Crude
- Posts: 3352
- Joined: Wed 16 Jul 2008, 03:00:00
Re: I.T. must die
by mos6507 » Tue 11 Nov 2008, 04:23:31
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('SchroedingersCat', 'N')obody gets it. I.T. is an enabling technology. The place I work could replace most of its expensive client-server architecture with index cards and be just as efficient. Plus, it would save money from the servers and PC's it wouldn't need any longer.
I would suggest that most places are the same.
I.T. allows individuals to waste resources at an increased rate. It is a multiplier. Remove the computers and things slow down.
I.T. must die.
I would suggest that most places are the same.
I.T. allows individuals to waste resources at an increased rate. It is a multiplier. Remove the computers and things slow down.
I.T. must die.
This is a gross generalization. You want to know about waste? Driving a long ass commute to sit in front of a computer typing all day, which is what the majority of office workers do. Let them telecommute like I do (which wasn't possible pre-computer) and we will save tremendous amounts of liquid fuel. In the grand scheme of things it will be easier to switch from coal and natural gas to renewables (and nukes) for electricity than it will be to get off of fossil fuels for transport. So moving bits and bytes around rather than people and cargo is a clear net gain.
But a client server transaction such as a website is implicitly unlimited. "I want a webpage, I expect a webpage whenever I ask for it, and I don't want to wait." So that is a recipe for waste, since you set up a system that "waits" for theoretically unlimited traffic at any time of the day. When do you really know you have enough? It's always a guessing game. This is why things like denial of service attacks are possible. IT managers with cash to burn will build out overkill server farms that spend most of their time idle. A load balancer helps distribute the load evenly to the farm, but the farm is always live all the time. Historically this hasn't been a big deal, but it will be as energy costs rise. It's like running a car engine at a fixed high RPM at a stoplight. Idle computing power must be minimized. And ultimately high bandwidth activities will be pay as you go to discourage wanton use.
As for using application software, one of the DBAs I worked with came from Boeing. Do you know there are literally over a million unique parts that go into a passenger jet? Computers are invaluable ways to organize information. Maybe in your company you could go back to index cards, but that's the exception, not the rule. So don't be a luddite.
- mos6507
Re: I.T. must die
by outcast » Tue 11 Nov 2008, 04:40:16
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('mos6507', 'I') don't think I.T. will be spared some form of forced powerdown after all efficiency measures fail. I think some of the high bandwidth recreational stuff on the internet will get blocked or charged extra for. The core web and email stuff should be around for a long time.
Or nothing could happen. No one 30 years ago predicted the internet would have grown and evolved the way it did, so it isn't likely we can accurately predict what it will be like 30 years from now.
-
outcast - Tar Sands
- Posts: 885
- Joined: Mon 21 Apr 2008, 03:00:00
Re: I.T. must die
by mos6507 » Tue 11 Nov 2008, 11:10:09
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('outcast', '
')it isn't likely we can accurately predict what it will be like 30 years from now.
')it isn't likely we can accurately predict what it will be like 30 years from now.
That won't stop people from trying, especially where it seems most new posts are predictions of some form or another.
- mos6507
Its not prose style all people like, but I am not trying to get all people to like it either. I AM trying to drive home some very important points in the best way I know how to do it, which in my case is to write thundering and bombastic prose, to bring down Thor's Mighty Hammer on Loki, the God of War.