« Why some animals are shy of habitat corridors | Main | Transit of Earth-like planet eludes astronomers »

Throw away your PC

Power savings for those willing to relinquish control over home computing

Read the story here

Posted by Katharine Sanderson on June 12, 2007
Categories: | | Comments (4) | TrackBacks (0)

TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://blogs.nature.com/cgi-bin/mt/mt-tb.cgi/2763

Comments

The idea of having a central processing domain has always been there. I am not a computer expert, but I am sure that most computer users are aware that Apple Inc. has tried out this idea of 'barebone' client desktop computers a while ago as well as some other big computer giants, and most importantly, none of them succeeded. This idea is good in terms of saving resources and energy, but practically, it is very difficult to achieve. Firstly, computer users may not be too happy to let their tasks to be processed by a government controlled superserver. As stated by Green Shift Taskforce, “A thin-client system also requires far less maintenance, as all new software is installed centrally by specialists rather than by untrained users at home.” That also translates to the lost of control by the user/owner of the client machine and obviously, this also involves a lot of privacy issues which is still a very sensitive subject in the current cyber space.

Secondly, by relying on a central processing server, there is always a risk of bringing the whole network down when the server is malfunctioning, and needless to say, when attacked by cyberspace terrorists.

It is not entirely proper to use the campus computers in the US as example. The fact is that campus computers have been around for over a decade, even in some of the British universities. The initial aim of having these thin client computers was to give easy access for users with within the institute and on top of that, easy maintenance and control of the entire network for the I.T. managers; and bear in mind that these campus computers are property of the universities, not individuals, so whether you are in control is not critical. Moreover, wireless campus network has overtaken as the choice of computing in the US. Students bring their own notebook/laptop computers into lecture theaters and libraries instead of using the public domains. It looks like a step backward in terms of technological advances with only an energy saving tag on the project.

I do not know how much tax money the UK government has put into this project. Instead, tax money should be placed to improve other public utilities such as a better public transport system instead of improving computer efficiency. I think this project is deemed to fail.

Posted by: C Kwok | June 13, 2007 01:13 PM

The fact that companies have tried to market that, and failed, doesn't guarantee that an entity with no selling interest will fail. The strategies they will adopt will probably not be the same; a pilot project in a specific community is far different than somone trying to sell you their product. Apple didn't gointo each house to install their client, which the GST could actually do.

I agree about the privacy issue (and the risks of outages), but as for "lost of control by the user/owner of the client machine," most users already let other (e.g. store technicians or automatic update server) maintain their computer for them.

I think the key issue, beside green considerations, is affordability. According to a recent BBC article, 800,000 pupils in the UK have no internet access at home, and half the low-income population of the country have never been online. If such an initiative can help bridge the digital divide, I think it's worth the mony spent. Is it a "step backward" to let more people in?

Posted by: Marc Andre Belanger | June 13, 2007 05:50 PM

The real danger is that of censorship.

Governments would love to control the internet, but cannot.

A central server offers all the possibilities of invasion of privacy at the source and also of blocking certain news services which disgree with the generally accepted point of view.

We have only to think of the discussion that the US and UK governments had about whether to bomb Al Jazeera or not, and the bombing of Serbian state tv during the Kosovo war.

Given the UK parliament's track record recently - there are no grounds for trust.

Far more realistic would be to encourage people to switch from cathode ray tubes to lcd technology for their computer monitors.

It would also be good if the government would discourage microsoft, for example, from only offering operating systems which require high-performance PC's in order to be able to use these new operating systems.

Posted by: harry haller | June 13, 2007 10:41 PM

Reminds me of George Orwell's 1984. We are no longer just coming closer to that scenario, we are there now. University campuses are different, but this would be entering our homes, your home will no longer be your castle. Are we all ready to give up this little bit of 'pretence' of privacy we are under the illusion of still possesing?
But as an alternative, providing free access in schools or in community areas would be more conducive for poor income or even older generation, so that we can let more 'people in'.

Posted by: Dr. Urmila Nair | June 19, 2007 08:31 AM

Post a comment

Comments will be reviewed by staff before being published. You can be as critical or controversial as you like, but please don't get personal or offensive, and do keep it brief. Excessively long entries may be cropped. Remember this is for feedback and discussion - not for publishing papers or press releases.

We strongly encourage you to use your real, full name. Email addresses are required: this is just in case we need to discuss your comment with you privately. They won’t be published.


Please enter the numbers you see below - this helps us to cut down on spam. Note that attempting to post within 30 seconds of hitting ‘preview’ or ‘post’ can cause the system to think you are spamming the site. If you are having trouble with this system, you can instead e-mail a comment to 'inthefield at nature.com'.

Search