I would agree about price disparity. The question posed was "how much does one use" and I was suggesting a possible answer (in my case, about 5 gigs a day during heavy usage months).
A more serious answer: 5-10 gigs per heavy person, per day. I say this based on the following: Assuming I wanted to download h.264 encoded videos, and that I wanted to read/., read fark, and the news, plus watch random youtube videos, play games (that maybe I need to download via a content delivery system)... standard geek pursuits. On top of that, assume I have a normal work schedule (well, at least 8 hours a day). To pre-empt the "what about those that work from home" argument: they should pay for business class if they're doing business.
I sleep from 3am-9am on weekdays, and 4am-1pm on weekends. Assuming I can watch a video a day on the weekdays, that's 10 hours on a weekday of video at about 800 megs/hour (pretty high quality). On the weekends, let's face it, I sit around and watch seasons of episodes (fortunately for my bandwidth, costco has seasons of stuff for like...20 bucks), assuming my gf doesn't want me to actually be productive around the house;). That's about 15 gigs a day worth of television to rot my brain. Adding this up, we get 38 gigs a week plus an additional 2-3 gigs for standard surfing, or approximately 5.75 gigs per day. This gives 172.5 gigs per month for me, a single (heavy) user. For a "home" with multiple family members who aren't all computer geeks, I'd say about 1/4 of my monthly usage per person, tops. This means a family of four would use about what I, alone, do.
As for my bandwidth logs... they say I use about 5 gigs/day on average... Not too far off my estimates.
...28 (renting the modem for now), but it's the introductory rate. If, after 6 months, I can't get them to keep that rate, we'll see what happens. I think part of the issue is that FiOS is closing in on this area, and Comcast has to compete in a manner they don't in other areas. It's not unheard of for people here at MS (yes, I work for/.'s arch nemisis;) ) to get the introductory rate for a couple years by calling and saying that they're not happy with the increased price and considering going to another service.
I've got the choice between Qwest (turd sandwich) and Comcast (douchenozzle). I tried Qwest for less than a week before calling Comcast and asking for an install, and I dropped Qwest the day after Comcast was installed. Even with the unknowns, the service quality difference was undeniable.
Compare: Qwest charged over 50 bucks a month, required a 1 year contract (you could only cancel penalty-free within the first 30 days, I got out just in time), and had a "max speed" of 3Mbps. I was lucky to get 2Mbps. The modem was such a POS that if I refreshed servers on Steam, it would drop all connections for about 10 seconds as the buffers overflowed. I only fixed that by putting it into bridge mode and configuring my router to handle all connectivity (DD-WRT on Linksys WRT54Gv2).
Qwest's site was often down or not working, and their tech support/customer service was nonexistant.
Compare that to my service thus far with Comcast: I called up, and was told that the 6Mbps for 20 bucks a month was only for existing customers, but that they could give it to me for 25/month (plus $3 if I wanted a modem rental). Install was normally $99, but they knocked that down to $50 because I asked. When I got the modem plugged in, it had trouble synchronizing with comcast, and wasn't finishing the setup. I called tech support, and the guy didn't jerk me around at all. I explained what I'd tried, he said "sounds like you know what you're doing, since all you need is the firmware, how about I set that up for you, and I'll give you blast for free (16Mbps down, 1-2Mbps up)?"
I thanked him, the modem came up, and the performance has been consistently good. I get about 10Mbps down, and 5 (!) up. My pings are between 10-50 (versus 60-200 on Qwest). Now that there's a hard cap, I'm even happier, because I have an official limit to monitor.
Sure, it's not FiOS, but cable, in this area, is a hell of a lot better than DSL.
The source engine, while "capable" of scaling to multiple cores, does a very poor job on current x86 chips. The games become very unstable with mat_queue_mode 2 on, and there are problems with jerky motion in any sort of latency.
It's a shame, too, because the engine works with multicore on various consoles, and it's a lot faster when it does work on PC.
Re:Does Red Cost You More?
on
The Red Team Wins
·
· Score: 4, Informative
Grey is actually the car to get the most speeding tickets. Red isn't anything special. White gets fewer.
Yes, because in the magical free software land, file formats never change and become incompatible, even over the course of time between hypercard and now. Sure, you could, in theory, write a converter, but that's assuming the user has the time, skills, and inclination to do so, when they can often recreate the information on a new system in less time and headache.
He's confusing Virtual address space with addressable hardware memory. GP was right, hardware devices have memory addresses mapped to them, reducing the amount of available space to the OS. Just because the OS usually reserves upper memory for the kernel does not change the fact that a large portion of memory is mapped to devices.
For proof of this, open device management (in windows) Start>Run>devmgmt.msc Select View>Resources by connection Expand the "Memory" tree
See those? They're memory addresses mapped to hardware.
And all slashdotters like you seem to want is validation of your own rants against society.
If you're so unhappy with all the stuff you see online, get outside and talk a walk. You'll feel better.
TCP has a 16 bit checksum. That means there's a 1 in 2^16 chance of an error getting by the checksum. Let's assume, for a moment, that the packets were sent 1kb at a time (ethernet max is greater than this, but it's an easy number). In a 1.5Gb file (assuming base 10 throughout for simplicity), this means a total of 1,500,000 packets must be transmitted. Using only the TCP checksum, 22 of these packets would be corrupt, but allowed through. Even though there are additional checks at layer 2, the fact is that when dealing with large amounts of data, relying on TCP for data integrity is not enough.
Because there's a lot of user time spent looking at each individual file for viruses, and everyone who runs Windows must have spyware. Obviously, that half a second to click "allow" is eating up years of our lives, and we must reboot daily or things never work. To top it all off, we have to keep doing things to make the "NTFS filesystem (NT filesystem filesystem...)" work.
You know, compared to all the time spent running apt-get to check for software updates, running netstat to check for ports that shouldn't be open to the world but for some reason are, deleting and reinstalling 50 libraries to fix a dependency hell broken by the aforementioned apt-get update, and trying to defragment reiserfs only to realize you can't, so going back to ext3, which isn't much better (or worse) than NTFS.
Both systems have their upsides. Both have their downsides. Let's at least try for a little intellectual honesty when comparing them, instead of using hyperbole and strawmen to say why OS 1 sucks but OS 2 should run the world.
Your comments contradict each other. Specifically, the "pretty transparent windows" doesn't steal CPU cycles from your apps - it provides more. By offloading window handling to the GPU, the new features provide more CPU time to apps.
I'll get modded troll, but I lay much of this at Microsoft's feet. Modded troll? For bashing Microsoft on slashdot? Isn't that the path to +5 insightful or informative?
You assume companies want the typical slashdot poster. The truth is that people here are often opinionated, brash, and hostile to ideas they dislike. While many of them may fit the role of "good coder," they often miss the bigger picture of what it is to be a "good programmer."
As you said, good programmers work well in teams. They're open to suggestions, and only butt heads on issues when not to do so would be negligent. What happens when the candidate being interviewed is told "we'll be working in windows vista, using visual studio 2008?" Do they throw a hissy fit, and constantly complain about how the shortcomings of the windows environment could be improved by moving to linux? This attitude, which seems to be fostered and even encouraged here at slashdot, would be devastating in the work environment.
I think the only real way to find superstar programmers is, realistically, to find good programmers and lots of them, through various recruiting drives (temp work, contractor work, college co-ops/interns). When the term of their employment is up, you'll have a much better idea of how they are as a programmer, something that is relatively hard to do during an interview. From here, you'll have a resource pool to say "look, you're awesome, we'd like to hire you." This avoids the problem of missing the amazing programmer because they only looked "good" on paper, and it also gives a pool to draw "great" programmers from (even if no superstars are found).
Slashdot Mirror
I would agree about price disparity. The question posed was "how much does one use" and I was suggesting a possible answer (in my case, about 5 gigs a day during heavy usage months).
A more serious answer: /., read fark, and the news, plus watch random youtube videos, play games (that maybe I need to download via a content delivery system)... standard geek pursuits. On top of that, assume I have a normal work schedule (well, at least 8 hours a day). To pre-empt the "what about those that work from home" argument: they should pay for business class if they're doing business.
5-10 gigs per heavy person, per day. I say this based on the following:
Assuming I wanted to download h.264 encoded videos, and that I wanted to read
I sleep from 3am-9am on weekdays, and 4am-1pm on weekends. Assuming I can watch a video a day on the weekdays, that's 10 hours on a weekday of video at about 800 megs/hour (pretty high quality). On the weekends, let's face it, I sit around and watch seasons of episodes (fortunately for my bandwidth, costco has seasons of stuff for like...20 bucks), assuming my gf doesn't want me to actually be productive around the house ;). That's about 15 gigs a day worth of television to rot my brain. Adding this up, we get 38 gigs a week plus an additional 2-3 gigs for standard surfing, or approximately 5.75 gigs per day. This gives 172.5 gigs per month for me, a single (heavy) user. For a "home" with multiple family members who aren't all computer geeks, I'd say about 1/4 of my monthly usage per person, tops. This means a family of four would use about what I, alone, do.
As for my bandwidth logs... they say I use about 5 gigs/day on average... Not too far off my estimates.
Funny, but NSFW. Please mark that, as it can get people who work Saturdays in trouble (not me, but others)
I run DD-WRT through the router connected directly to the modem. I know exactly how much I'm using.
My god man! You're right! How did you ever deduce that when it says "crosspasted" at the top?!
Not everyone visits both sites, you know ;).
Also, I edited the one on Fark... I wrote the one above in a hurry, and had a bit excessive comma-usage. I'm my own worst grammar nazi.
...28 (renting the modem for now), but it's the introductory rate. If, after 6 months, I can't get them to keep that rate, we'll see what happens. I think part of the issue is that FiOS is closing in on this area, and Comcast has to compete in a manner they don't in other areas. It's not unheard of for people here at MS (yes, I work for /.'s arch nemisis ;) ) to get the introductory rate for a couple years by calling and saying that they're not happy with the increased price and considering going to another service.
I've got the choice between Qwest (turd sandwich) and Comcast (douchenozzle). I tried Qwest for less than a week before calling Comcast and asking for an install, and I dropped Qwest the day after Comcast was installed. Even with the unknowns, the service quality difference was undeniable.
Compare:
Qwest charged over 50 bucks a month, required a 1 year contract (you could only cancel penalty-free within the first 30 days, I got out just in time), and had a "max speed" of 3Mbps. I was lucky to get 2Mbps. The modem was such a POS that if I refreshed servers on Steam, it would drop all connections for about 10 seconds as the buffers overflowed. I only fixed that by putting it into bridge mode and configuring my router to handle all connectivity (DD-WRT on Linksys WRT54Gv2).
Qwest's site was often down or not working, and their tech support/customer service was nonexistant.
Compare that to my service thus far with Comcast:
I called up, and was told that the 6Mbps for 20 bucks a month was only for existing customers, but that they could give it to me for 25/month (plus $3 if I wanted a modem rental). Install was normally $99, but they knocked that down to $50 because I asked. When I got the modem plugged in, it had trouble synchronizing with comcast, and wasn't finishing the setup. I called tech support, and the guy didn't jerk me around at all. I explained what I'd tried, he said "sounds like you know what you're doing, since all you need is the firmware, how about I set that up for you, and I'll give you blast for free (16Mbps down, 1-2Mbps up)?"
I thanked him, the modem came up, and the performance has been consistently good. I get about 10Mbps down, and 5 (!) up. My pings are between 10-50 (versus 60-200 on Qwest). Now that there's a hard cap, I'm even happier, because I have an official limit to monitor.
Sure, it's not FiOS, but cable, in this area, is a hell of a lot better than DSL.
words?
That did happen, and it didn't lead to the iPhone failing:
http://www.htc.com/www/product.aspx?id=356
Released a couple months prior to the iPhone.
Speak for yourself. I appear on a particular xkcd-guitar related website :P
The source engine, while "capable" of scaling to multiple cores, does a very poor job on current x86 chips. The games become very unstable with mat_queue_mode 2 on, and there are problems with jerky motion in any sort of latency.
It's a shame, too, because the engine works with multicore on various consoles, and it's a lot faster when it does work on PC.
Grey is actually the car to get the most speeding tickets. Red isn't anything special. White gets fewer.
Source: http://www.snopes.com/autos/law/redcars.asp
Yes, because in the magical free software land, file formats never change and become incompatible, even over the course of time between hypercard and now. Sure, you could, in theory, write a converter, but that's assuming the user has the time, skills, and inclination to do so, when they can often recreate the information on a new system in less time and headache.
Mod parent down.
He's confusing Virtual address space with addressable hardware memory. GP was right, hardware devices have memory addresses mapped to them, reducing the amount of available space to the OS. Just because the OS usually reserves upper memory for the kernel does not change the fact that a large portion of memory is mapped to devices.
For proof of this, open device management (in windows) Start>Run>devmgmt.msc
Select View>Resources by connection
Expand the "Memory" tree
See those? They're memory addresses mapped to hardware.
And all slashdotters like you seem to want is validation of your own rants against society. If you're so unhappy with all the stuff you see online, get outside and talk a walk. You'll feel better.
TCP has a 16 bit checksum. That means there's a 1 in 2^16 chance of an error getting by the checksum. Let's assume, for a moment, that the packets were sent 1kb at a time (ethernet max is greater than this, but it's an easy number). In a 1.5Gb file (assuming base 10 throughout for simplicity), this means a total of 1,500,000 packets must be transmitted. Using only the TCP checksum, 22 of these packets would be corrupt, but allowed through. Even though there are additional checks at layer 2, the fact is that when dealing with large amounts of data, relying on TCP for data integrity is not enough.
Internal strife, I think, hit both companies. Word from the inside was that the mere offer severly damaged morale at MS.
Except, after seeing it last night, I can your statements BS. The movie was AWESOME (and the only thing it was advertising was Audi and Burger King).
Because there's a lot of user time spent looking at each individual file for viruses, and everyone who runs Windows must have spyware. Obviously, that half a second to click "allow" is eating up years of our lives, and we must reboot daily or things never work. To top it all off, we have to keep doing things to make the "NTFS filesystem (NT filesystem filesystem...)" work.
You know, compared to all the time spent running apt-get to check for software updates, running netstat to check for ports that shouldn't be open to the world but for some reason are, deleting and reinstalling 50 libraries to fix a dependency hell broken by the aforementioned apt-get update, and trying to defragment reiserfs only to realize you can't, so going back to ext3, which isn't much better (or worse) than NTFS.
Both systems have their upsides. Both have their downsides. Let's at least try for a little intellectual honesty when comparing them, instead of using hyperbole and strawmen to say why OS 1 sucks but OS 2 should run the world.
Your comments contradict each other. Specifically, the "pretty transparent windows" doesn't steal CPU cycles from your apps - it provides more. By offloading window handling to the GPU, the new features provide more CPU time to apps.
Unless they truly could care less, yet doing so would require effort on their part, thereby making the "Caring less" more work.
I think that saying is a shortening similar to "easy as pie" which used to be "easy as eating pie."
I could care less... it would require effort though.
You assume companies want the typical slashdot poster. The truth is that people here are often opinionated, brash, and hostile to ideas they dislike. While many of them may fit the role of "good coder," they often miss the bigger picture of what it is to be a "good programmer."
As you said, good programmers work well in teams. They're open to suggestions, and only butt heads on issues when not to do so would be negligent. What happens when the candidate being interviewed is told "we'll be working in windows vista, using visual studio 2008?" Do they throw a hissy fit, and constantly complain about how the shortcomings of the windows environment could be improved by moving to linux? This attitude, which seems to be fostered and even encouraged here at slashdot, would be devastating in the work environment.
I think the only real way to find superstar programmers is, realistically, to find good programmers and lots of them, through various recruiting drives (temp work, contractor work, college co-ops/interns). When the term of their employment is up, you'll have a much better idea of how they are as a programmer, something that is relatively hard to do during an interview. From here, you'll have a resource pool to say "look, you're awesome, we'd like to hire you." This avoids the problem of missing the amazing programmer because they only looked "good" on paper, and it also gives a pool to draw "great" programmers from (even if no superstars are found).
...Isn't Remote Disk just mounting a network shared media?