Back on the topic of server power, there is an interesting statistic in an HP webpage about its Moonshot server, that if the public cloud were a nation, it would be the world's fifth largest consumer of electricity. Cutting server power demand by 50% would free up enough power to run the UK.
The move to burbs is getting reversed now...and it will quickly accelerate, downtown density will win over your backyard with 1 hour commute...just look how young people want to live in the world, many don't even have cars!
Hardly a non-sequitor -- the article, and more directly, CISCO, leads with the story of how data centers are using so much power. The implication being that its too much. But is it? How do we know? Shouldn't we instead put all our efforts on office buildings because they use 70% of our electricity? Or stop heating homes because they use the lion's share of a homeowner's energy budget? The whole premise that data centers use too much energy is totally without context and frankly, just transparent fear mongering to sell something.
I am just adding perspective and merely point out that many other uses, like innocuous-seeming cell phones, use more energy in the grand scheme, but no one is up in arms about them.
The real danger is that, in our lack of perspective, we clamp down on data center energy use and "throw the baby out with the bathwater" -- i.e., ignore the 5-to-1 benefit and condemn ourselves to use MORE energy in the rest of the economy, instead of judiciously use it to make the overall energy economy better. In the end, it's more a commentary on our collective lack of perspective in the age of the "sound bite."
@Any1: Indeed in the 12+ years I have been here downtown San Jose has been redeveloped into a mixed residential, office, shopping space which is quite a pleasant place to live with several mass transit hubs.
Meanwhile Tasman Ave. is getting similar residential/commercial developments along side the many office buildings out there.
Slowly these hubs are springing up and getting connected.
When the fruit orchards were being cut down and developed for housing in the early days of Silicon Valley I believe that some local ordinances were in place that prevented buildings taller than about four stories for reasons of fire protection and earthquakes (fire department ladders could only reach up about four stories). Over time I think that parts of Silicon Valley will get redeveloped with higher density that will encourage better mass transit. I think the city of San Jose has already embraced smart growth in principle.
Yes the trend has been to move to the burbs to raise your family. But there also seems to be a current trend to move back into the city once the kids are gone. Empty nester seem to be downsizing and moving back into cities for many of the same reasons as younger people.
@betajet, I do hear the same thing from a number of people working in the automotive industry I interviewed throughout this year.
Although it goes against my first instinct (because I do see young people driving cars everywhere, and it is not so obvious to me), I think some of the data and comments you shared is beginning to worry a lot people in the automotive industry. The demographic change appears to be real in the United States.
It's time to rethink what sort of cars are needed in the matured automotive market.
Replay available now: A handful of emerging network technologies are competing to be the preferred wide-area connection for the Internet of Things. All claim lower costs and power use than cellular but none have wide deployment yet. Listen in as proponents of leading contenders make their case to be the metro or national IoT network of the future. Rick Merritt, EE Times Silicon Valley Bureau Chief, moderators this discussion. Join in and ask his guests questions.