Presumably something like Zopa is close to this? As I understand it they're not pulling off any tricks involving lending the same capital several times.
Because you have a justice system that sets the punishments for criminal actions. If being raped in prison is to be part of the punishment then the judge should state the number of times during sentencing.
Why not just use the death penalty for every crime? Cheaper than imprisoning people, zero re-offending rate, what's the catch?
You really didn't read what he said did you? The whole point was that basing an entire policy on a few bad examples is doomed to failure, so your argument is to point out a bad example. You could at least have thought of two...
The problem with drug use is three things - they're bad for you (arguably due to the quality, but I digress), they are expensive and they are illegal. So if we take away the illegality we have an expensive health problem. The proposed solutions to alcohol and smoking seem to be to make them more expensive, or in some places illegal. My guess is that won't work because it doesn't seem to be a major barrier to every other drug. There are also obesity problems in some nations (UK/US particularly). This is generally seen as a health problem, although there are many who would say that people 'shouldn't eat so much'.
Would anyone suggest that we treat overweight people by making a supersize big mac meal cost several times as much - or a minimum price per calorie for food? Or how about we lock them up for eating too much? Of course not, it's a medical problem that can and should be dealt with in better ways than criminalizing the behaviour. So how is it that with drugs we rely on criminalization to control drug use? Because we don't see drug problems as 'medical' problems. They are seen as a lack of self control, or weak personality or something equally preachy and unhelpful. The very fact that they are illegal seems to stop people from looking rationally at the problem, and comparing it with other problems that on the individual level are nothing more than health problems. Why are we more accepting of someone who eats too much than we are of someone who uses drugs? Why are people ok with alcohol, up to the point where people are functioning alcoholics, but not ok with someone who uses drugs in a controlled way that has no significant impact on their health? Why is smoking still legal - it's not even that much fun!
We should look to control drug use, and other health issues, regardless of the legality of the problem, through trying to stop the problems in the first place, and by treating and rehabilitating those who suffer from them. Criminalisation hasn't worked, and doesn't seem to do much for reducing demand. Would you describe a drive to get people to eat better, or exercise more, or become better educated, or more conscious of the environment, or more charitable, or to vote, as a war on society because it seeks to change the desires and behaviour of that society? If so then we are already fighting an enormous number of 'wars with society', and describing them as such is just inflammatory rhetoric, and is a way of deflecting the reality of the problems.
I'm sorry to tell you this, but some drug dealers are a bit smarter when it comes to creating a market than that. When you've got guys who go round housing estates with high unemployment, befriending people, offering them a couple of free hits, then coming back the next day and charging them some small amount, then the day after, charging a bit more etc. until they're at full price and coming back for more (sitting around watching Jeremy Kyle/Oprah/Whatever? Getting high is probably quite an easy thing to get into when you've got nothing better to do).
Look at how the crack epidemic started in the US: It was given away, couple of rocks at a time, to heroin addicts to help with the comedown. The dealers knew then, as they do now, that they stand to make a lot more money selling crack than heroin, and they created the market intentionally
I'm of the belief that drug use should be seen as a medical, not criminal problem. That drugs should be manufactured, prescribed, monitored and controlled. There will still be people whose lives get ruined, there will still be addicts, but I think the overall cost to society will be lesser than if we continue down the incredibly expensive and ineffective path we are on. That's the only way I can see to have a system that doesn't 'push' drugs. To suggest that drug dealers play a completely passive role in selling their product at the moment is naive at best.
If someone takes the time to write it, and the result is readable, well formatted, contains correct (if pointless) information, and has some source that bases it in reality what's the harm? As people have said, storage is cheap. You don't need an article on TheDarkMaster, probably no-one does, but if one exists and someone views it then it has served a purpose.
Why not have a slashdot like system: Things can be moderated down, but rarely completely removed. Users can then have the choice of filtering stuff to the level they want to see.
Always thought of that as an odd brandname - I always associate it with a trojan horse. A thing that appears to be for pleasant purposes but once taken into an inner sanctuary will allow something nasty to escape that will ruin your day. I can't say it's a reassuring thought...
True, but then surely it's up to god to judge you for your sins. Judgement is for god, everyone else should love you as they love themselves. Of course I can see how people would feel awkward if they misunderstood that sentence...
Yes they do. Printing is usually handled by CUPS (which was bought by and is now maintained by Apple). The desktop environments provide their own front end tools, but the underlying system is the same.
Except that a large number of API changes in the kernel are accompanied by the relevant changes to affected drivers. Either get the driver in the kernel, or accept the cost of patching drivers as part of the (I'd assume significantly greater) cost of moving to a new kernel version. In a corporate/government environment I'd guess this doesn't happen every couple of months.
Buying new devices: You could do the research and buy ones that are supported. Factor it in as part of the support cost of the device. If the hardware is so esoteric that you can only buy it from one source it behoves the manufacturer of said hardware to provide the drivers for you if they want to sell their incredibly unusual kit.
What bass-ackwards printers are they using? I'd have guessed that most printers used in a corporate environment are postscript based, so support shouldn't really be an issue. Secondly I thought scanners just used SANE? Which is why the Windows drivers work right? Why not have a windows print server?
I think what's happened here is that the spokesman has had the problem 'simplified' to his level of understanding because the actual issue is either to complex or is actually BS.
In line with some of the posters below: Presumably this mythical IT department has other stuff to do. I know governments are inefficient, but still I reckon you'd be taking a bunch of people away from other necessary work. Secondly, which IT department? I'd guess there are many IT departments that operate for the different parts of the government, you think anyone is going to give their people over to a project outside their remit for free? Do you take on staff to do the job, leaving yourself the difficulty of getting rid of them afterwards?
I think the government wastes money as much as the next guy, but in this case it looks like a reasonable figure (contrasted with the projected - and undoubtedly massively underestimated - costs of the ID card scheme) for the work required, and the most efficient way to do it is to hire some people who have the equipment, experience and expertise to do the job. So long as the contracts are written properly (e.g. fixed time and money, some reasonable method of ensuring that the company doesn't walk off with the cash having done no work etc. etc) then what's the problem. That's the only area that should be under scrutiny, but the only people that ever seem to look at that side of things are Private Eye...
Whilst I'm not the greatest fan of the way most governments in the world seem to work these days I have to ask: Have you met the rabble? I'm probably no better informed than they are but still, it's scary when you talk to a lot of people, who don't really have an interest in understanding anything beyond what they've heard from the media or other like-minded people.
Consider direct democracy in this case: Most people will be thinking 'what's wrong with Microsoft, I use it all the time.' The few voices who are better informed (IMHO) and have considered the consequences of this will be completely drowned out. You'll be taking the keys to power from politicians and giving them to Rupert Murdoch.
I'd say a principle of a representative democracy should be that the representatives seek to understand the issues on which they cast votes in our names, the fact that that is rarely the case is possibly down to the 'rabble' often voting for people who think along their lines. They have less interest in trying to reach the best conclusion on an issue, and more the most popular one. That said I can't imagine that the collective wisdom of the general public would be any better...
My experience (of people who are vegetarians) is that they tend to be anaemic. This is from a fairly limited sample size, but I'm not going to let that stop me asserting it as a fact. Some of this is down to trendy girls who 'couldn't harm a poor baby animal' but also don't actually like vegetables that much and don't eat what they should to get the correct nutrients. Vitamin B, Iron, Complete Amino Acid profile etc. Most vegetarians that are doing it for health reasons are more health-conscious than the average person, so would likely be more healthy even if they ate meat. I'd like to see some proper statistics on whether vegetarians who are no more health conscious than anyone else end up being healthier on average.
A bit like editing the twin towers out of a load of movies? To allow bad things to control you is foolish, to forget them is shameful, but to ignore them is just stupid.
As some people have said it's a middle-class tax. The government will bend over backwards to minimize the number of people from poor incomes who can't go to university because it's bad politically for them to do so. As you say the rich parents will have no concerns because they can afford it. There's a huge swathe of people in the middle for whom it's just out of reach - especially since there are many with teenagers who haven't had a number of years to build up savings to send their children to university because they didn't expect to need to.
The £36,000 that my degree could have cost me (as well as living expenses etc.) is a fair proportion of a house, or any number of other major expenses. Before tuition fees the consideration was that I might have got a job earning 20-30% less, but I'd have 4 years additional pay and no debt. Now if I was lucky enough to have parents who can scrape together £36,000 for an Engineering Masters (who's going to do a masters now?) I don't think I'd be going to uni. I'd put that money towards a house, since it takes several times that in earnings to actually save that amount. The degree only just pays off now, if I was 17 today, it wouldn't. The only sensible choices I can see for an intelligent and capable young person are to either study medicine/finance/law where the pay rises steeply and you will absolutely get your money's worth, or to become a plumber/electrician/decorator where the pay you get these days is probably more than the average graduate, and you aren't saddling yourself with £36,000 debt + 3 years lost income.
The only positives I can see from this is that perhaps we will see an increase in apprenticeships and similar schemes as companies find themselves short of technical workers with skills that they currently get as part of their degrees, but I won't hold my breath. There aren't many people in my family who have gone to university. It seems that those of us who have might struggle to send our children now.
Perhaps if we had the oversight that medicine and aviation gets, where cutting corners or rushing things doesn't happen (often) because the consequences are much more dire we would be more perfect. It's a cost-benefit thing: software that just about works is usually good enough for people, and the crashes/data loss/inconvenience don't justify the cost of producing better software. That is, of course, in the eyes of whoever is managing the product, so they may well be completely wrong, but it is the decision they make.
In the right circumstances software is developed to be nigh on perfect - think industrial control systems, aviation, your cars engine management, most of which will operate for years on end without any problems (I know there are counter examples, but for the most part this sort of stuff works pretty well). There's an article somewhere describing the processes used by the company that writes the software for the space shuttle, it's phenomenal, they don't make mistakes because they scrutinize _everything_ in crazy detail.
I'd be interested to see some statistics comparing medical and other procedures with different levels of 'consequence'. I'd bet there are more botched sutures than heart bypasses for example, because suturing is simpler and less likely to kill someone and can therefore be rushed or done to a lower standard.
Absolutely. I for one live in fear that just about any crazy in the UK can get a gun with no waiting period. All the kids have them, everywhere. Our murder rate is so high it's ridiculous. Why I saw a bunch of drive by shootings just last week.
All those teenage gangs that say they carry knives 'because everyone else does'. That's the mentality you espouse - one that quite clearly keeps everyone safe from harm. I'm going to get a Samurai sword so that I can protect myself on the way to the shops. I'm saving up for an assault rifle so that I feel safe going out in the evening. I'm also putting land mines in my garden and flamethrowers under my car.
You know why the police here don't carry guns as standard? Because no-one else does. Because we are a whole lot safer than the US, and gun control has a lot to do with it (as does higher driving test standards). I agree with the concept that it's the people that are the problem - as evidenced by countries that have very high rates of gun ownership and next to no gun crime - but since we _already_ have those people, and many of them _don't_ already have guns I can't see how making it easier for them to get hold of is going to make anything better for anyone. If you _really_ want to own a gun, join a club or take up hunting, get a license and fire away. Ever tried getting a motorcycle license? CBT, Theory, Module 1 test, Module 2 test - you can do it, it's just not instantaneous - and the reason is the same: Idiots would just go out and get one and cause problems. Guns, motorcycles, cars, aeroplanes, heavy machinery, demolition/mining explosives, professional fireworks, hazardous chemicals, gas boilers, electrical installation. The list of things you _can_ do if you get some kind of license or prove some competence is huge. So I propose this reductio ad absurdum: If we should have no restriction on gun ownership because it will make us safer then surely no licensing or control over anything that is potentially dangerous will also make us safer. We don't have a 'right to bear arms as part of an organised militia' so don't tell me we have a 'right' to defend ourselves - we do have that right but it doesn't extend to using any more than the minimum amount of force to protect yourself or another. If you think you need a gun to be safe because some idiot kid who's only aspiration in life is to be part of a gang thinks that it will make him safe then you're equally as misguided as they are
If I remember correctly he's a manic depressive, so possibly the odd strop is not unreasonable. Also given the propensity for Slashdotters to be a bit odd, I don't think it's entirely fair to put him down for some behavioural quirks, many of which are less serious than those exhibited by stereotypical computer types.
Slashdot Mirror
Presumably something like Zopa is close to this? As I understand it they're not pulling off any tricks involving lending the same capital several times.
Because you have a justice system that sets the punishments for criminal actions. If being raped in prison is to be part of the punishment then the judge should state the number of times during sentencing.
Why not just use the death penalty for every crime? Cheaper than imprisoning people, zero re-offending rate, what's the catch?
You really didn't read what he said did you? The whole point was that basing an entire policy on a few bad examples is doomed to failure, so your argument is to point out a bad example. You could at least have thought of two...
The problem with drug use is three things - they're bad for you (arguably due to the quality, but I digress), they are expensive and they are illegal. So if we take away the illegality we have an expensive health problem. The proposed solutions to alcohol and smoking seem to be to make them more expensive, or in some places illegal. My guess is that won't work because it doesn't seem to be a major barrier to every other drug. There are also obesity problems in some nations (UK/US particularly). This is generally seen as a health problem, although there are many who would say that people 'shouldn't eat so much'.
Would anyone suggest that we treat overweight people by making a supersize big mac meal cost several times as much - or a minimum price per calorie for food? Or how about we lock them up for eating too much? Of course not, it's a medical problem that can and should be dealt with in better ways than criminalizing the behaviour. So how is it that with drugs we rely on criminalization to control drug use? Because we don't see drug problems as 'medical' problems. They are seen as a lack of self control, or weak personality or something equally preachy and unhelpful. The very fact that they are illegal seems to stop people from looking rationally at the problem, and comparing it with other problems that on the individual level are nothing more than health problems. Why are we more accepting of someone who eats too much than we are of someone who uses drugs? Why are people ok with alcohol, up to the point where people are functioning alcoholics, but not ok with someone who uses drugs in a controlled way that has no significant impact on their health? Why is smoking still legal - it's not even that much fun!
We should look to control drug use, and other health issues, regardless of the legality of the problem, through trying to stop the problems in the first place, and by treating and rehabilitating those who suffer from them. Criminalisation hasn't worked, and doesn't seem to do much for reducing demand. Would you describe a drive to get people to eat better, or exercise more, or become better educated, or more conscious of the environment, or more charitable, or to vote, as a war on society because it seeks to change the desires and behaviour of that society? If so then we are already fighting an enormous number of 'wars with society', and describing them as such is just inflammatory rhetoric, and is a way of deflecting the reality of the problems.
I'm sorry to tell you this, but some drug dealers are a bit smarter when it comes to creating a market than that. When you've got guys who go round housing estates with high unemployment, befriending people, offering them a couple of free hits, then coming back the next day and charging them some small amount, then the day after, charging a bit more etc. until they're at full price and coming back for more (sitting around watching Jeremy Kyle/Oprah/Whatever? Getting high is probably quite an easy thing to get into when you've got nothing better to do).
Look at how the crack epidemic started in the US: It was given away, couple of rocks at a time, to heroin addicts to help with the comedown. The dealers knew then, as they do now, that they stand to make a lot more money selling crack than heroin, and they created the market intentionally
I'm of the belief that drug use should be seen as a medical, not criminal problem. That drugs should be manufactured, prescribed, monitored and controlled. There will still be people whose lives get ruined, there will still be addicts, but I think the overall cost to society will be lesser than if we continue down the incredibly expensive and ineffective path we are on. That's the only way I can see to have a system that doesn't 'push' drugs. To suggest that drug dealers play a completely passive role in selling their product at the moment is naive at best.
If someone takes the time to write it, and the result is readable, well formatted, contains correct (if pointless) information, and has some source that bases it in reality what's the harm? As people have said, storage is cheap. You don't need an article on TheDarkMaster, probably no-one does, but if one exists and someone views it then it has served a purpose.
Why not have a slashdot like system: Things can be moderated down, but rarely completely removed. Users can then have the choice of filtering stuff to the level they want to see.
Always thought of that as an odd brandname - I always associate it with a trojan horse. A thing that appears to be for pleasant purposes but once taken into an inner sanctuary will allow something nasty to escape that will ruin your day. I can't say it's a reassuring thought...
Cake or death?
True, but then surely it's up to god to judge you for your sins. Judgement is for god, everyone else should love you as they love themselves. Of course I can see how people would feel awkward if they misunderstood that sentence...
Yes they do. Printing is usually handled by CUPS (which was bought by and is now maintained by Apple). The desktop environments provide their own front end tools, but the underlying system is the same.
Except that a large number of API changes in the kernel are accompanied by the relevant changes to affected drivers. Either get the driver in the kernel, or accept the cost of patching drivers as part of the (I'd assume significantly greater) cost of moving to a new kernel version. In a corporate/government environment I'd guess this doesn't happen every couple of months.
Buying new devices: You could do the research and buy ones that are supported. Factor it in as part of the support cost of the device. If the hardware is so esoteric that you can only buy it from one source it behoves the manufacturer of said hardware to provide the drivers for you if they want to sell their incredibly unusual kit.
What bass-ackwards printers are they using? I'd have guessed that most printers used in a corporate environment are postscript based, so support shouldn't really be an issue. Secondly I thought scanners just used SANE? Which is why the Windows drivers work right? Why not have a windows print server?
I think what's happened here is that the spokesman has had the problem 'simplified' to his level of understanding because the actual issue is either to complex or is actually BS.
But the financial aid does not stretch to supplying an aide to aid you with spelling. Or alternatively find the 'Jared has Aides' South Park episode
When your memory's nonvolatile
Nothing is forgot, nothing is forgot, nothing is forgot
If your bits try to get at you
flip 'em with a not, flip 'em with a not, flip 'em with a not
security isn't easy y'all,
no it's fsckin not, no it's fscking not, no it's fscking not
With a triple-des key in some volatile ram,
encrypt all your memory and hide it from the man?
In line with some of the posters below: Presumably this mythical IT department has other stuff to do. I know governments are inefficient, but still I reckon you'd be taking a bunch of people away from other necessary work. Secondly, which IT department? I'd guess there are many IT departments that operate for the different parts of the government, you think anyone is going to give their people over to a project outside their remit for free? Do you take on staff to do the job, leaving yourself the difficulty of getting rid of them afterwards?
I think the government wastes money as much as the next guy, but in this case it looks like a reasonable figure (contrasted with the projected - and undoubtedly massively underestimated - costs of the ID card scheme) for the work required, and the most efficient way to do it is to hire some people who have the equipment, experience and expertise to do the job. So long as the contracts are written properly (e.g. fixed time and money, some reasonable method of ensuring that the company doesn't walk off with the cash having done no work etc. etc) then what's the problem. That's the only area that should be under scrutiny, but the only people that ever seem to look at that side of things are Private Eye...
Whilst I'm not the greatest fan of the way most governments in the world seem to work these days I have to ask: Have you met the rabble? I'm probably no better informed than they are but still, it's scary when you talk to a lot of people, who don't really have an interest in understanding anything beyond what they've heard from the media or other like-minded people.
Consider direct democracy in this case: Most people will be thinking 'what's wrong with Microsoft, I use it all the time.' The few voices who are better informed (IMHO) and have considered the consequences of this will be completely drowned out. You'll be taking the keys to power from politicians and giving them to Rupert Murdoch.
I'd say a principle of a representative democracy should be that the representatives seek to understand the issues on which they cast votes in our names, the fact that that is rarely the case is possibly down to the 'rabble' often voting for people who think along their lines. They have less interest in trying to reach the best conclusion on an issue, and more the most popular one. That said I can't imagine that the collective wisdom of the general public would be any better...
My experience (of people who are vegetarians) is that they tend to be anaemic. This is from a fairly limited sample size, but I'm not going to let that stop me asserting it as a fact. Some of this is down to trendy girls who 'couldn't harm a poor baby animal' but also don't actually like vegetables that much and don't eat what they should to get the correct nutrients. Vitamin B, Iron, Complete Amino Acid profile etc. Most vegetarians that are doing it for health reasons are more health-conscious than the average person, so would likely be more healthy even if they ate meat. I'd like to see some proper statistics on whether vegetarians who are no more health conscious than anyone else end up being healthier on average.
A bit like editing the twin towers out of a load of movies? To allow bad things to control you is foolish, to forget them is shameful, but to ignore them is just stupid.
As some people have said it's a middle-class tax. The government will bend over backwards to minimize the number of people from poor incomes who can't go to university because it's bad politically for them to do so. As you say the rich parents will have no concerns because they can afford it. There's a huge swathe of people in the middle for whom it's just out of reach - especially since there are many with teenagers who haven't had a number of years to build up savings to send their children to university because they didn't expect to need to.
The £36,000 that my degree could have cost me (as well as living expenses etc.) is a fair proportion of a house, or any number of other major expenses. Before tuition fees the consideration was that I might have got a job earning 20-30% less, but I'd have 4 years additional pay and no debt. Now if I was lucky enough to have parents who can scrape together £36,000 for an Engineering Masters (who's going to do a masters now?) I don't think I'd be going to uni. I'd put that money towards a house, since it takes several times that in earnings to actually save that amount. The degree only just pays off now, if I was 17 today, it wouldn't. The only sensible choices I can see for an intelligent and capable young person are to either study medicine/finance/law where the pay rises steeply and you will absolutely get your money's worth, or to become a plumber/electrician/decorator where the pay you get these days is probably more than the average graduate, and you aren't saddling yourself with £36,000 debt + 3 years lost income.
The only positives I can see from this is that perhaps we will see an increase in apprenticeships and similar schemes as companies find themselves short of technical workers with skills that they currently get as part of their degrees, but I won't hold my breath. There aren't many people in my family who have gone to university. It seems that those of us who have might struggle to send our children now.
Perhaps if we had the oversight that medicine and aviation gets, where cutting corners or rushing things doesn't happen (often) because the consequences are much more dire we would be more perfect. It's a cost-benefit thing: software that just about works is usually good enough for people, and the crashes/data loss/inconvenience don't justify the cost of producing better software. That is, of course, in the eyes of whoever is managing the product, so they may well be completely wrong, but it is the decision they make.
In the right circumstances software is developed to be nigh on perfect - think industrial control systems, aviation, your cars engine management, most of which will operate for years on end without any problems (I know there are counter examples, but for the most part this sort of stuff works pretty well). There's an article somewhere describing the processes used by the company that writes the software for the space shuttle, it's phenomenal, they don't make mistakes because they scrutinize _everything_ in crazy detail.
I'd be interested to see some statistics comparing medical and other procedures with different levels of 'consequence'. I'd bet there are more botched sutures than heart bypasses for example, because suturing is simpler and less likely to kill someone and can therefore be rushed or done to a lower standard.
Absolutely. I for one live in fear that just about any crazy in the UK can get a gun with no waiting period. All the kids have them, everywhere. Our murder rate is so high it's ridiculous. Why I saw a bunch of drive by shootings just last week.
All those teenage gangs that say they carry knives 'because everyone else does'. That's the mentality you espouse - one that quite clearly keeps everyone safe from harm. I'm going to get a Samurai sword so that I can protect myself on the way to the shops. I'm saving up for an assault rifle so that I feel safe going out in the evening. I'm also putting land mines in my garden and flamethrowers under my car.
You know why the police here don't carry guns as standard? Because no-one else does. Because we are a whole lot safer than the US, and gun control has a lot to do with it (as does higher driving test standards). I agree with the concept that it's the people that are the problem - as evidenced by countries that have very high rates of gun ownership and next to no gun crime - but since we _already_ have those people, and many of them _don't_ already have guns I can't see how making it easier for them to get hold of is going to make anything better for anyone. If you _really_ want to own a gun, join a club or take up hunting, get a license and fire away. Ever tried getting a motorcycle license? CBT, Theory, Module 1 test, Module 2 test - you can do it, it's just not instantaneous - and the reason is the same: Idiots would just go out and get one and cause problems. Guns, motorcycles, cars, aeroplanes, heavy machinery, demolition/mining explosives, professional fireworks, hazardous chemicals, gas boilers, electrical installation. The list of things you _can_ do if you get some kind of license or prove some competence is huge. So I propose this reductio ad absurdum: If we should have no restriction on gun ownership because it will make us safer then surely no licensing or control over anything that is potentially dangerous will also make us safer. We don't have a 'right to bear arms as part of an organised militia' so don't tell me we have a 'right' to defend ourselves - we do have that right but it doesn't extend to using any more than the minimum amount of force to protect yourself or another. If you think you need a gun to be safe because some idiot kid who's only aspiration in life is to be part of a gang thinks that it will make him safe then you're equally as misguided as they are
If I remember correctly he's a manic depressive, so possibly the odd strop is not unreasonable. Also given the propensity for Slashdotters to be a bit odd, I don't think it's entirely fair to put him down for some behavioural quirks, many of which are less serious than those exhibited by stereotypical computer types.
I thought part of the problem was the TSA doing stuff that normally only your wife would do?
Video resizing/deinterlacing. 1 PCIE lane is 2.5GBps, uncompressed 1080P60 at 10 bit RGB is 3.7GBps.
Shush AC, there there, don't let the scary electronics frighten you...