According to research conducted by a three scientists from UC San Diego, each year, Internet users consume something in the neighborhood of 9.57 zettabytes of information per year. How big is a zettabyte? 1000 exabytes, one of which equals 1000 petabytes, one of which equals 1000 terabytes, of which there are 1000 gigabytes for one terabyte.

Another way to look at the amount is one zettabyte equals one million gigabytes. In other words, a whole lot of information is being consumed on a yearly basis.

Image courtesy

Written out, the estimated amount of consumed Internet information per year looks like so: 9,570,000,000,000,000,000,000 bytes. Considering the research findings come from 2008 levels of consumption, the 9.57 zettabyte total could be over 10 zettabytes per year by now. If you consider the increase in mobile computing as well as access courtesy of mobile applications, such an increase seems reasonable.

In a report by PhysOrg.com, the details of the research are discussed:

The first-of-its kind rigorous estimate was generated with server-processing performance standards, server-industry reports, interviews with information technology experts, sales figures from server manufacturers and other sources… The study estimated that enterprise server workloads are doubling about every two years, which means that by 2024 the world’s enterprise servers will annually process the digital equivalent of a stack of books extending more than 4.37 light-years to Alpha Centauri, our closest neighboring star system in the Milky Way Galaxy.

As for the current level of consumption in relation to book-stacking, the article reveals that, with current levels of consumption — 9,570,000,000,000,000,000,000 bytes per year — the equivalent would be a stack of books that extended over 5.6 billion miles, large enough to go to Neptune and back.

The results of a preliminary study—these are for deciding whether something needs further, more wide scale testing—show that knowledge-based work, or work that is mentally taxing, contributes to obesity. While that sounds like it might be obvious—if you’re thinking and not moving, you’re not burning calories—the reasons cited in the study are not: When you have to think really hard, it screws up your insulin levels and you eat more.

It’s perfectly natural (sort of) that Michael Phelps consumes and burns 12,000 calories daily. Physical activity, anybody who’s done it knows, will make you hungry. You burn it off with more physical activity.

Knowledged-based activity, though, like sitting at a computer and performing tasks, also makes you hungry, but if your job involves sitting while you do that heavy thinking, there’s nothing to burn off the calories you might consume to assuage the hunger.

In short, thinking can make you fat because the brain relies on sugars to operate. Taxing the brain, then, sends out the signal more sugar is needed, hence what the researchers called “spontaneous energy intake” leading to fluctuating glucose and insulin levels.

Yikes, right?

That’s one explanation, anyway. The other is that mental work leads to the production of cortisol, the stress hormone that annoying woman on TV talked about after asking if you had too much fat on your belly and thighs.

The results of the study were published in Psychosomatic Magazine by several scholars, all with Ph.D. trailing behind their names. They grabbed a little more than a dozen women from Laval University (adjusting for menstrual cycles) and tested the effects of different tasks on their hunger levels. A couple of hours after breakfast, some were given the task to relax, others to summarize some text, and others to perform a challenging computer task. The scientists also took blood samples to analyze, and each student performed each of the tasks on three different days.

After the tasks, the students were given access to a buffet and their food intake was monitored. They found that the students who performed the summarizing task ate on average 848 kiloJoules more food than the students relaxing, and those who performed the challenging computer task ate 1057 kJ more.

Sigh. Thinking makes you fat. No wonder.

Just remember, though, this study was preliminary with a small sample of women.

But still…

This, coupled with that silly New York Times article about blogging leading to cardiac arrest should make you think twice about skipping out on exercise, which is still the only way to really combat it. It’s especially bad news in the wake of another discovery that carbs actually kill appetite control cells in the brain, making those older than 25 overeat.

You could say Atkins was right about carbs, but where will you get that sugar for thinking? I guess that settles it. Better hit the jogging trail, huh? 

Or whichever teenage expletive keeps them out of Mom-trouble in 2108. That it’s kind of trashy is just a bonus.

Update: The New York Post just posted pics. Hmmm. Tattoos on her shoulder, hand, forearms, and belly. Not artsy, pretty tatts, but prison tatts. Well, what do you expect on a Governor’s wages?

Documenting, though, is kind of difficult when it’s not very clear who exactly Ashley is. It’s worse when documenting the Web/Social Media developments in association with Ashley, when there could be countless posers, and where news outlets change their stories more than an Idaho Senator.

She seems to have a MySpace profile, which was in constant flux and spoof yesterday, and a Facebook profile, which was set up just yesterday, and now even a personal blog which I’m calling BS on because it’s just a little too entertaining and bombshell-dropping.

There’s no real way to validate any of it. But the search sure is fun.

Offline historians would have a hard enough time verifying the woman in the flesh, much less the pixilated version. Her hooker-handle was Kristen. Then we find out her name is Ashley Alexandra Dupre, who was born Ashley Youmans, only to learn she has a much more Italian stage name, Ashley Rae Maika DiPietro, headshots available.

And one report says she might be 32, not 22, at least according to public records for Ashley Youmans. It’s going to take a while to get to the bottom of her…well, longer than it used to anyway.

It’s only compounded online where anybody can be anybody and nobody can really tell for sure. The excepted wisdom is that the address of her MySpace page is this: http://www.myspace.com/ninavenetta. Yesterday though, that page was continuously in ownership flux, and spoof pages appeared on MySpace as well.

Though MySpace never got back with us about that, one anonymous commentator (the elusive Ashley?) explained that MySpace red flags went off when the page went from few page views to millions over night. Always sensible with its reactions, MySpace deleted it, which left that address open to a number of brand new one-namers like Barry, Johnny, Brandy, and Nina.

That last name brings attention back to the address. Why does Ashley Whatshername’s MySpace profile URL point to yet another name?  

The original MySpace profile was restored, suggesting the social network validated that at least the traffic was legitimate.

All this attention has been good for her, if you don’t assume she’s also humiliated or that her humiliation isn’t outweighed by her new fame. Her previously free songs on Amie Street, which offers download prices based on popularity, skyrocketed to the cap of 98 cents faster than even recent Bare Naked Ladies tracks.

Nice choice of artists for comparison from Valleywag, eh?

Speaking of Valleywag, and by guilty association Gawker, they are the chief suspects behind the recent appearance of Ashley’s brand new blog, entitled "High-Class Hooker With a Heart Of Gold." Not because anybody tipped us off but because it looks like something they’d do.

The blog is very Fake Steve Jobs in its sublime, hilarious pseudo-reality. On it, Ashley (or maybe in this case, Nick?) posts the texts of email requests for interviews from major news outlets, brags about her two million downloads, as well as offers from Penthouse and Playboy. All of this makes it sound like she is now very comfortable being known that way and is giddy about cashing in. The best posts – ingenious if created and hilarious if true – involve revelations that Spitzer liked her to call him "Mr. Governor," and was more of a Shar-Pei than a Pit-bull.

It’s good enough that this guy bought it, anyway.

But the biggest tip-offs are the copious mentions of Valleywag and Gawker there, to which "Ashley" links among the gazillions of sites and posts popping up around the Net. Hmmm. Fishy.

The most recent post reveals a $10,000 offer from Digg-founder Kevin Rose to come spend the night…which is either way too good to be true or monumentally stupid. I’m going for the first one, and that makes it very clever.

Still, how does one trace it back to someone associated with Valleywag or Gawker? Well, you stretch it till it nearly breaks. The blog design came from Bill Israel, who follows Jason Kottke on Twitter, who follows Andy Baio, who follows none other than Valleywag’s Nick Douglas!

Score!

Or not. The truth is, at the end of the day, it’s not worth investigating too thoroughly, unless you’re the official historian that will be going mad trying to get it right for the books (or ebooks), and who will not be able to rely on the Internet for that true reflection of reality.