New Coding Could Make Internet 99 Percent More Energy Efficient

how about we go to fiber.

his idea

Your numbers are off. 99% less energy use means that it will be using approximately 1/99th of the energy used today. So your title should be 99 TIMES more efficient. 99% more efficient isn't even twice as efficient. Or is you want to stick with percentages, it would be almost 10,000% more efficient.

I commented on the same article on New Scientist yesterday I think.

Its a good step forward. Just goes to show though that new content is hard to come by though

--GTO--

@The Adama, That's why Stuart Fox is a writer, not a mathematician or scientist. He doesn't really know anything, except how to put a liberal spin on a story (which necessarily requires a steep reduction in factual information.)

Damn, this could be good lol

I'm beginning to dispair of this.. I thought I was reading a science mag.. it's more like a comic.

Given a choice, do you scold or teach?

I would love to have 99 times more Speed efficientinternet. work on more compact program languages; in saving processing time it saves on energy consumption. Plus we get faster internet.

@ The Adama, please express the increase in efficiency as a percentage of what it is now.

"99% more efficient" is meaningless without knowing its present "efficiency". It's probably meaningless even with that factum included. What are the units of efficiency? Percentage points? I think not!

Ars Technica should realize it is essentially a science site, and that it should (therefore) be clearer about these things. There's a battle shaping up between Science and Ignorance, and science needs to USE its tools (like clarity, for instance) if it hopes to win.

If Ars Technica headlines are written by people without understanding of the topics involved (i.e. editors who only know editing), WELL THEN that's what you need to change: the editors. This 'mistake' is a bit infuriating to me! Science websites need to understand that the standards they should aspire to are the very same ones scientists aspire to, or the system breaks down - and a 'system' of interconnected nodes it most definitely is.

hey why not instead of worrying about the title of the article realize that the internet is going to be a crap ton greener now than what it was when we first had the idea of blogging! think, cheaper internet with faster speeds, we can finally ditch the phone cable.

Almost 2x more efficient, not too bad, but couldnt we focus on our situation with creating energy first.

They probably knew about this coding for decades and just now decided to implement it for the WWW. The same philosophy applies to most technology that reaches the general consumer market decades later.

I think you are all missing the point. We will be able to get spam, malware, and virus infestations twice as fast! What's not to love?

"What are the units of efficiency"

The amount of energy it takes to deliver an average bit of data.

I write the codes... (or at least, I'm a programmer for the WWW).
Those who design the programs people like Stuart Fox use for these articles should learn about the WWW.
Or in this case the w3c (world wide web consortium), and in this case also, validator.w3.org/
If we "view" then "source" the DTD (Document Type Definition) identifies this page as being xhtml1.0 transitional.
The w3c recommends the web convert to xhtml1.1 but so many seem to think just slapping a xhtml DTD on a page makes their stuff cutting edge (without changing the coding on the page or if so not by much)
Problem: When the computer trying to open the page hits this, it assumes it is what it is being identified as.
When it is not (i.e. in the case of this page the validation shows over 100 errors and is invalid markup) my computer (or more accurately, browser) then needs to turn on error handling programing.... which does require more power.
I'm on (approx. 90%)wind and (approx. 10%) solar for my power so things like this DO add up and take a tole on my power supply, as well as increase the time it takes to load pages (this site not being as bad as many I go to).
So, a good place to start with things like this is at home, or here at popsci.com (fixing the programing errors in their html)

@jimbo92107 "Given a choice, do you scold or teach?"

Answer: Teach

Before you scold be sure you are learned. Once you know a part of anything, scolding makes no sense (does not help), teaching is the only effective opportunity to engage. "scolders" have interest and passion, maybe not enough applied interest. To research the facts and opinions, apply attention to possibilities, without preconceived results, it's what drives science.

I could be wrong!

SP

99.9 percent is a very high waste percentage. I find it very dificult to undestand that no one have tought of this before.
internet tv

Live long and prosper friends.