Will the internet ever reach saturation point?

[Cyclone]

Why will they keep being wrong? Yes when I said it, I was wrong! Are 'you' saying that there will always be an infinite amount of useable storage?...Always?...Forever?

 

No, nobody said anything like that...

 

The statement that will keep being wrong is

 

"Wow, that's so much space, I will never fill it up".

 

We will keep finding ways to fill up the storage we have available.

 

I didn't say anything about there always being more available, and I definitely didn't mention infinite.

[PeteMorris]

No, nobody said anything like that...

 

The statement that will keep being wrong is

 

"Wow, that's so much space, I will never fill it up".

 

We will keep finding ways to fill up the storage we have available.

 

I didn't say anything about there always being more available, and I definitely didn't mention infinite.

 

Does that mean you are of the notion that at some point we'll run out of space? Or it will never happen?

 

I'm just asking a question.

[Cyclone]

I'm not sure how we, the entire species, could "run out" of space.

Would we have to run out of the raw materials to create any new storage medium (of whatever kind it was)?

 

I'm sure that some data will be thrown away as there is no benefit to storing it, and the equation about whether it's worth storing or not will change over time... But that's as much as I'd like to try to predict.

 

Is "run out of space" what you meant by saturation?

[PeteMorris]

I'm not sure how we, the entire species, could "run out" of space.

Would we have to run out of the raw materials to create any new storage medium (of whatever kind it was)?

 

I'm sure that some data will be thrown away as there is no benefit to storing it, and the equation about whether it's worth storing or not will change over time... But that's as much as I'd like to try to predict.

 

Is "run out of space" what you meant by saturation?

 

Yes...well sort of...Loosely. Add to that 'information overload'.

 

It's sort of an esoteric question really and I don't honestly believe anyone can give a definitive answer one way or the other.

 

I know you're not good with things that don't have a definitive 'yes or no' answer.

[truman]

Yes...well sort of...Loosely. Add to that 'information overload'.

 

It's sort of an esoteric question really and I don't honestly believe anyone can give a definitive answer one way or the other.

 

I know you're not good with things that don't have a definitive 'yes or no' answer.

 

What was your question exactly? That's the problem Pete, you're not being very specific with what you'd like to know..

[PeteMorris]

What was your question exactly? That's the problem Pete, you're not being very specific with what you'd like to know..

 

Well...It was a discussion point...That's all.

 

Maybe my fist post needed to be specific, or at least more specific, and I'm afraid that's the problem with a lot of 'regulars'. They're not altogether comfortable with non-quantifiable discussions.

 

I can see and mostly agree with all the quantifiable statements that have been made. I just wonder if it will all end up being a bit too much. A little like you see some sites 'brought down' by hackers using DDos attacks, which effectively (for a time) shut down a particular website. Perhaps this or something similar 'may' be an inadvertent problem with information overload in the future.

 

Sorry if I'm being a bit non-specific...It's just a civilised discussion!

[Cyclone]

Yes...well sort of...Loosely. Add to that 'information overload'.

 

It's sort of an esoteric question really and I don't honestly believe anyone can give a definitive answer one way or the other.

 

I know you're not good with things that don't have a definitive 'yes or no' answer.

 

Why ask a question to which you think there is no answer and in which you can't explain what the word saturation means?

 

It's not that I don't like things without a clear answer. It's that I don't like questions that don't really mean anything.

[truman]

Well...It was a discussion point...That's all.

 

Maybe my fist post needed to be specific, or at least more specific, and I'm afraid that's the problem with a lot of 'regulars'. They're not altogether comfortable with non-quantifiable discussions.

 

I can see and mostly agree with all the quantifiable statements that have been made. I just wonder if it will all end up being a bit too much. A little like you see some sites 'brought down' by hackers using DDos attacks, which effectively (for a time) shut down a particular website. Perhaps this or something similar 'may' be an inadvertent problem with information overload in the future.

 

Sorry if I'm being a bit non-specific...It's just a civilised discussion!

 

Your question wasn't quantifiable is was qualitative as I see it...and the answer is the same..no it won't get saturated for all the reasons given...

[Obelix]

Well...It was a discussion point...That's all.

 

So not a question, and you don't care about the answer and will just dismiss it regardless.

 

Thanks for nothing. I wont bother putting in the spadework and digging stuff up for you if that's your attitude.

[PeteMorris]

Why ask a question to which you think there is no answer and in which you can't explain what the word saturation means?

 

It's not that I don't like things without a clear answer. It's that I don't like questions that don't really mean anything.

 

Well...I googled the word saturate and here's one of the answers, if you're unsure what it means.

 

If the first post 'you' deemed to "not really mean anything", then what prompted you to post on the thread?....I'll accept that your posts on here have been your perception, based on your knowledge and experience of the subject, and that's fine. I don't have a problem with it. I haven't disagreed at all...Which based on history must be a first.

 

Would you really expect to post on a thread with your 'opinion' and then nobody else post because 'you' have spoken? It doesn't work like that.

 

We see increasing examples on the net of 'unreliable' website, whether it be propaganda, informational or news. The web is awash with plain and simple 'guff'...I've heard talk that Wikipedia is increasingly being corrupted and manipulated by individuals for their own ends, and even that website is becoming more and more 'unreliable'.

 

If as you are of the opinion, that there will almost certainly be no problem with storage, will there be a point where you can't rely on anything you see on there?...Where the 'guff' overtakes reality?....Information overload!