250GB ~= 800Kbit every second of every day for 31 days.
Some people need to step away from the computer and drop this knee jerking insanity. Who cares how much bandwidth that equates to? The elephant in the room is Comcast's illegal monopoly.
You don't see articles about ASUS considering a polka-dotted laptop or Apple considering a diamond-studded Ipod.
The fact is, what Comcast decides is what millions of us are stuck with, if we want broadband. There is no alternative. That is the issue.
They took something of perceived value? What is this 'something' you speak of? Transitioning from analog to digital? So what, it's a standard. Since when does the government have to reimburse you for setting/changing a standard?
The government doesn't send me a check when they change the speed limit. But, my car's drivetrain is optimally fuel-efficient at 55mph. Now I have to go 65! An outrage.
Why should taxpayer money pay for this. Taxpayer money didn't pay for all their old analog televisions, why the hell are we paying for upgrades?
Oh, so the airwaves that were sold didn't have any value, and the money gained from the sale doesn't count as a taxpayer asset?
This is BS. Where's my coupon to buy a TV or radio, where's my coupon to buy a car?
Imagine how robust image editing will be. Instead of contrast-based edge-detection, you'll have 3d-surface based object detection.
Image analysis will be more accurate, in turn improving image search engine utility, giving robots better spatial vision, allowing big brother to identify bombs and brunettes more accurately, etc..
I don't think this is so much a supercomputer as it is a super-desktop pc. Tailoring hardware and software to optimize a specific task is always the most powerful solution. This machine is meant to run vista and 3d games real fast.
Paul's recent decision to pull out of the race has also made this thread far less useful.
This doesn't lend credence to your later assertion: I deny him because I have weighed his views in the light of history and the present political situation. Period.
It would appear you aren't as well-informed as you believe.
Will leaving immediately make things better or worse for us?
Good question; It's easy for one listening to White House press briefings to assume it's best to stay. There are arguments for leaving, however. From http://rawstory.com/news/2007/Counterterrorism_Dir._US_probably_not_safer_1015.html:
The director of the National Counterterrorism Center, the primary US organization responsible for analyzing terror threats, told NBC News that the nation is probably not "tactically" safer from the threat of terrorism following the invasion of Iraq.
An investigation by Engel into the motives of accused terrorists in Iraq -- many of whom previously held ordinary jobs prior to the US invasion -- indicated that America's presence in the country was a motivating factor in inspiring attacks.
"An aggressor occupied my country, destroyed it and made millions refugees. It is an honor to fight this," said one detainee, a construction company owner who admittedly attacked US troops. From http://www.newyorker.com/talk/comment/2007/10/22/071022taco_talk_wright:
In 2006, when the Iraqi government was in place, a poll by the University of Maryland found that seventy-one per cent of Iraqis wanted their government to ask the Americans to leave within a year
A poll released last month (by ABC News, the BBC, and the Japanese broadcaster NHK), half a year after the surge in American forces, found that nearly half of Iraqis favored an immediate withdrawal of U.S. forces
More Iraqis than ever--fifty-seven per cent--say that violence against American forces is acceptable
I'd argue to stay for strategic reasons. Ignore the past; the invasion was illegal and based on lies. Ignore the present; we're bolstering Al Qaeda's numbers, increasing American hatred across the globe, spending dollars we don't have, and losing American lives. Face the future alternatives; if we leave, other countries in the region will gain influence there, sectarian violence will rise, and many Iraqis will resent us for leaving their army and police forces all alone to fend for themselves.
So despite all the seemingly bad effects of remaining, we will prevent one of Iraq's neighboring countries from gaining influence over Iraq. Lord knows we wouldn't want to strengthen those evil forces. If we're lucky, once Iraq completely stabilizes in a few more years, we can invade some of those evil neighboring nations.
Excuse me now, I'm hopping on etrade to purchase some oil stocks; surely they'll benefit from contractually guaranteed access to Iraqi oil fields.
I see your argument: Not all products and services benefit from market competition, and they may not be individually affordable.
Even with the government purchasing aircraft carriers, no single person owns them. They are maintained, controlled, and staffed by countless personnel. The existence of even one aircraft carrier directly benefits the entire nation.
The existence of one school benefits those who attend the school. Thus the cost of the school is limited by how much money these people are willing to pay (without external funds). This seems to be basic economics to me.
A product or service has a utility. The implementation of this utility has a cost. The utility may be achieved for little cost, or for great cost. Generally, for a relatively higher cost implementation:
- The greater the quality of the implementation (comprehensive, satisfying)
- The less efficient or cost-effective it becomes (more waste, more bloat)
Note that is cost, not price. There are many other factors as well. Is the price too much for the utility? Then it will not be used. Is the price too little? Then quality and price will rise (in a competitive market).
Are consumers aware of the necessity of a utility? If not, it will not be used. Only if consumers then become aware of the necessity does a demand appear. For example, if the world is at peace for countless years and the history books make little mention of war, people will not invest in their nation's defense. So then, is defense spending still necessary?
There's a certain chance of attack, so it's worth considering. There's also alternative uses of those funds. So the cost of being prepared is weighed against the cost of not spending the money on whatever else there is.
..
So is the cost of attending a college comparable to the cost of owning an aircraft carrier? No. Can both be implemented to varying degrees and costs? Yes. Does each have a demand? The former has a consumerist market demand. The latter has a government demand due to decisions within the DoD.
If I donated money to a student for their school, sure, I'd be helping the student. However, I'd argue that injecting $12 billion into a market that is already overflowing with demand is not helping.
If a class of people can't afford existing schools, less-expensive schools will appear to supply the demand. Existing schools will distribute more scholarships to fill their ranks. Students will work harder to earn scholarships if they need them. Student loans will become more accessible.
To argue that throwing government money at a particular market or cause is good just because the market or cause is good is certainly a valid argument - if that money would otherwise end up somewhere not good. That's not the case though, as the alternative is to not spend the money - money which our government does not have, but rather must borrow or inflate to acquire.
This same economic vantage point can, of course, be applied to countless other government expenditures, most of which are much less apparently beneficial than Pell Grants. The excess is everywhere, and its effect on our economy trickles down into everything else, even civil liberties and foreign policy.
I'm starting to believe the only time federal government should be injecting money into consumer markets is on a temporary basis, and only if it clearly serves to end the market's need for government intervention.
I think it's quite possible for a libertarian to desire a position in office. Obviously, libertarian ideals are not dictating how the government is run today. The only way to change that is to change government which requires being a politician.
Thus, the logical conclusion to reaching libertarian goals is to become a politician. It's not so much a question of whether the lifestyle of a politician is appealing to a libertarian, as it is a question of how strongly does one libertarian feel about their ideals.
Maybe other people would want to vote for Ron Paul.
Did you ever just stop to think that maybe a majority of people don't agree with you? That if the world was well informed, they would reach precisely the same conclusions as michaelmalak?
Only an egotist would put forth their opinion of a candidate as one not worth believing in.
Most of the money goes right back to the taxpayers in the form of Pell Grants ($13 billion).. Those things do not sound like useless waste to me. laisdjflksdj
Are you serious? Put down your brain and pick up a calculator. I've not received any Pell Grant money, so I'll just pick a number off the top of my head: Let's say the average recipient receives $13,000 for a year's worth of college education. Let's see, you said $13 billion, right?
$13,000,000,000 / $13,000 = 1,000,000
So about one million students get free college every year. Ever wondered why college is so damned expensive? Why so many people go into debt for years to pay off their college loans? Ever noticed how extravagant some of these schools are? How about $13 billion in subsidies every year.
My God, "only 2%." It's this kind of thinking on Capitol Hill that is killing this country.
A sane person tends to dismiss conspiracy theories until.. A common person tends to dismiss them.
An open-minded person considers the possibility.
A smart person determines the feasibility of any possibility by considering aspects that have statistical significance.
A cowardly person avoids the question.
An ignorant person labels public knowledge as conspiracy theory.
The United Nations has a globalist agenda.
The General Assembly shall.. make recommendations for the.. development of international law and its codification; The Trilateral Commission has a globalist agenda.
The Trilateral Commission was formed.. to foster closer cooperation.. with shared leadership responsibilities in the wider international system. The Council on Foreign Relations has a globalist agenda.
.. the Council has promoted understanding of.. America's role in the world since its founding..
Ignoring the paragraphs describing your supreme intellect, your assertions that I'm a disproved conspiracy theorist, your little strawmen, etc. Our discussion didn't begin with an argument over law - it began with you arguing that Ron's statements about the Constitution weren't how courts rule on Constitutional law. Somehow you think this matters, like he's arguing a legal case. Good for you.
Ron doesn't think we should have left the gold standard in the 70's. He fought for a return for many years. His proposals now include introducing alternative commodity-backed currencies. This ends the Fed's monopoly on money, and gives them an incentive not to inflate our dollars. It would seem to me he's trying to stop inflation, but I'm sure your opinion that gold is kooky or evil or whatever is just fine and dandy.
He wants out of Iraq quickly, it would take perhaps six months. Our military presence is seen as aggression by many civilians there. Our occupation is the top recruiting tool for Al Qaeda there. Our war on terror is creating more of it than we're destroying. The only reason we are there is geopolitical strategy (oil, permanent bases), and some of us don't think America's military should be playing a big game of Risk.
Blah blah, yep that's right I just equated Iraq to a game of Risk. We don't need to occupy other nations around the world with foreign bases. People here and there can get by just fine without us bullying them around. I assume you have an argument for the US needing bases around the world, you seem to think the opposite is loony. Well, let's hear it, genius.
Although I'm not a general, I don't believe having foreign bases is in our best interest. We don't need troops on the ground over there to fight a war there, we have a huge arsenal of missiles. Their presence seems mostly for intimidation, serving as a reminder that we are the supreme military power of the world. I suppose they also serve as a target for any nations in those regions that get out of hand. Once one of our bases is attacked, we have a clear right to wage war against the aggressor. Like a bunch of miniature Pearl Harbors.
In the mean time, people around the world despise our country because of this. It's amplified when we start 'preemptive' invasions of other nations. We're supposed to make friends, not enemies, outside of our borders. I'm convinced there was no confusions about Iraq; It was on GW's hit list from day one according to Paul O'Neil, and the only bad intelligence was the unvetted, filtered intel from the Office of Special Plans which was intentionally formed to target Iraq. We should not be there.
The fact that we have people in the white house abusing their power to the point of invading other countries without merit is an excellent example of why the US should not attempt to control the world and maintain bases everywhere. We aren't a perfect angel that can keep evil at bay. We should restrict our military to our own homeland except for brief periods when they must wage war overseas. It would let other countries feel more independent and let them worry less about the US deciding to order their troops next door to open fire.
It would save tons of money, and we need it. We are $9 trillion in debt, and the hole's only getting deeper. Again, we don't need the foreign intervention, the foreign bases, they only cost incredible sums of money, and provide no positive benefits. I believe Ron said we could save about $600 billion annually by ending our foreign operations and bringing the boys home. That's $600 billion closer to saving our economy.
And yes, I said saving our economy. If you believe we can continue to increase the federal deficit without repercussions, you are kidding yourself. Our government has already locked itself into paying interest on all this borrowed money until it's paid off - the interest alone is going to cause plenty of inflation. We don't need more debt. If we don't start paying it off instead
Unlike you, I'm open-minded enough to view the link. It was, however, quite disappointing. Despite some theatrical heckling, it made no concrete arguments against Ron Paul other than a lame accusation of "we all know he's a white supremacist." C'mon, you can do better - can't you?
Slashdot Mirror
You don't see articles about ASUS considering a polka-dotted laptop or Apple considering a diamond-studded Ipod.
The fact is, what Comcast decides is what millions of us are stuck with, if we want broadband. There is no alternative. That is the issue.
The internet is still growing by leaps and bounds. More like net neutrality could hamper investment in your stock portfolios..
They took something of perceived value? What is this 'something' you speak of? Transitioning from analog to digital? So what, it's a standard. Since when does the government have to reimburse you for setting/changing a standard?
The government doesn't send me a check when they change the speed limit. But, my car's drivetrain is optimally fuel-efficient at 55mph. Now I have to go 65! An outrage.
Why should taxpayer money pay for this. Taxpayer money didn't pay for all their old analog televisions, why the hell are we paying for upgrades?
Oh, so the airwaves that were sold didn't have any value, and the money gained from the sale doesn't count as a taxpayer asset? This is BS. Where's my coupon to buy a TV or radio, where's my coupon to buy a car?
How can the article summary call defenders of our privacy critics? People who stand up for our privacy are critics? OP has a strange point of view..
Actually, you're legally required to differ - otherwise you get sued.
Imagine how robust image editing will be. Instead of contrast-based edge-detection, you'll have 3d-surface based object detection.
Image analysis will be more accurate, in turn improving image search engine utility, giving robots better spatial vision, allowing big brother to identify bombs and brunettes more accurately, etc..
I don't think this is so much a supercomputer as it is a super-desktop pc. Tailoring hardware and software to optimize a specific task is always the most powerful solution. This machine is meant to run vista and 3d games real fast.
Yeah, it's not like the US government employs naturalized citizens.
This doesn't lend credence to your later assertion:
I deny him because I have weighed his views in the light of history and the present political situation. Period.
It would appear you aren't as well-informed as you believe.
Will leaving immediately make things better or worse for us?
Good question; It's easy for one listening to White House press briefings to assume it's best to stay. There are arguments for leaving, however. From http://rawstory.com/news/2007/Counterterrorism_Dir._US_probably_not_safer_1015.html: The director of the National Counterterrorism Center, the primary US organization responsible for analyzing terror threats, told NBC News that the nation is probably not "tactically" safer from the threat of terrorism following the invasion of Iraq. An investigation by Engel into the motives of accused terrorists in Iraq -- many of whom previously held ordinary jobs prior to the US invasion -- indicated that America's presence in the country was a motivating factor in inspiring attacks. "An aggressor occupied my country, destroyed it and made millions refugees. It is an honor to fight this," said one detainee, a construction company owner who admittedly attacked US troops. From http://www.newyorker.com/talk/comment/2007/10/22/071022taco_talk_wright: In 2006, when the Iraqi government was in place, a poll by the University of Maryland found that seventy-one per cent of Iraqis wanted their government to ask the Americans to leave within a year A poll released last month (by ABC News, the BBC, and the Japanese broadcaster NHK), half a year after the surge in American forces, found that nearly half of Iraqis favored an immediate withdrawal of U.S. forces More Iraqis than ever--fifty-seven per cent--say that violence against American forces is acceptable
I'd argue to stay for strategic reasons. Ignore the past; the invasion was illegal and based on lies. Ignore the present; we're bolstering Al Qaeda's numbers, increasing American hatred across the globe, spending dollars we don't have, and losing American lives. Face the future alternatives; if we leave, other countries in the region will gain influence there, sectarian violence will rise, and many Iraqis will resent us for leaving their army and police forces all alone to fend for themselves.
So despite all the seemingly bad effects of remaining, we will prevent one of Iraq's neighboring countries from gaining influence over Iraq. Lord knows we wouldn't want to strengthen those evil forces. If we're lucky, once Iraq completely stabilizes in a few more years, we can invade some of those evil neighboring nations.
Excuse me now, I'm hopping on etrade to purchase some oil stocks; surely they'll benefit from contractually guaranteed access to Iraqi oil fields.
I see your argument: Not all products and services benefit from market competition, and they may not be individually affordable.
..
Even with the government purchasing aircraft carriers, no single person owns them. They are maintained, controlled, and staffed by countless personnel. The existence of even one aircraft carrier directly benefits the entire nation.
The existence of one school benefits those who attend the school. Thus the cost of the school is limited by how much money these people are willing to pay (without external funds). This seems to be basic economics to me.
A product or service has a utility. The implementation of this utility has a cost. The utility may be achieved for little cost, or for great cost. Generally, for a relatively higher cost implementation:
- The greater the quality of the implementation (comprehensive, satisfying)
- The less efficient or cost-effective it becomes (more waste, more bloat)
Note that is cost, not price. There are many other factors as well. Is the price too much for the utility? Then it will not be used. Is the price too little? Then quality and price will rise (in a competitive market).
Are consumers aware of the necessity of a utility? If not, it will not be used. Only if consumers then become aware of the necessity does a demand appear. For example, if the world is at peace for countless years and the history books make little mention of war, people will not invest in their nation's defense. So then, is defense spending still necessary?
There's a certain chance of attack, so it's worth considering. There's also alternative uses of those funds. So the cost of being prepared is weighed against the cost of not spending the money on whatever else there is.
So is the cost of attending a college comparable to the cost of owning an aircraft carrier? No. Can both be implemented to varying degrees and costs? Yes. Does each have a demand? The former has a consumerist market demand. The latter has a government demand due to decisions within the DoD.
Take out a loan then. Don't ask me to pay for your school, lazy ass.
If I donated money to a student for their school, sure, I'd be helping the student. However, I'd argue that injecting $12 billion into a market that is already overflowing with demand is not helping.
If a class of people can't afford existing schools, less-expensive schools will appear to supply the demand. Existing schools will distribute more scholarships to fill their ranks. Students will work harder to earn scholarships if they need them. Student loans will become more accessible.
To argue that throwing government money at a particular market or cause is good just because the market or cause is good is certainly a valid argument - if that money would otherwise end up somewhere not good. That's not the case though, as the alternative is to not spend the money - money which our government does not have, but rather must borrow or inflate to acquire.
This same economic vantage point can, of course, be applied to countless other government expenditures, most of which are much less apparently beneficial than Pell Grants. The excess is everywhere, and its effect on our economy trickles down into everything else, even civil liberties and foreign policy.
I'm starting to believe the only time federal government should be injecting money into consumer markets is on a temporary basis, and only if it clearly serves to end the market's need for government intervention.
I think it's quite possible for a libertarian to desire a position in office. Obviously, libertarian ideals are not dictating how the government is run today. The only way to change that is to change government which requires being a politician.
Thus, the logical conclusion to reaching libertarian goals is to become a politician. It's not so much a question of whether the lifestyle of a politician is appealing to a libertarian, as it is a question of how strongly does one libertarian feel about their ideals.
Maybe other people would want to vote for Ron Paul.
Did you ever just stop to think that maybe a majority of people don't agree with you? That if the world was well informed, they would reach precisely the same conclusions as michaelmalak?
Only an egotist would put forth their opinion of a candidate as one not worth believing in.
Are you serious? Put down your brain and pick up a calculator. I've not received any Pell Grant money, so I'll just pick a number off the top of my head: Let's say the average recipient receives $13,000 for a year's worth of college education. Let's see, you said $13 billion, right?
$13,000,000,000 / $13,000 = 1,000,000
So about one million students get free college every year. Ever wondered why college is so damned expensive? Why so many people go into debt for years to pay off their college loans? Ever noticed how extravagant some of these schools are? How about $13 billion in subsidies every year.
My God, "only 2%." It's this kind of thinking on Capitol Hill that is killing this country.
An open-minded person considers the possibility.
A smart person determines the feasibility of any possibility by considering aspects that have statistical significance.
A cowardly person avoids the question.
An ignorant person labels public knowledge as conspiracy theory.
The United Nations has a globalist agenda.
The General Assembly shall
The Trilateral Commission was formed
.. the Council has promoted understanding ofThis violates the Buy-our-oil law, and may result in spontaneous appearance of WMDs and/or Wait-for-Hydrogen-cell factors.
Agreed. Isn't Linus publicly taunting Microsoft to prove him wrong?
Ignoring the paragraphs describing your supreme intellect, your assertions that I'm a disproved conspiracy theorist, your little strawmen, etc. Our discussion didn't begin with an argument over law - it began with you arguing that Ron's statements about the Constitution weren't how courts rule on Constitutional law. Somehow you think this matters, like he's arguing a legal case. Good for you.
Ron doesn't think we should have left the gold standard in the 70's. He fought for a return for many years. His proposals now include introducing alternative commodity-backed currencies. This ends the Fed's monopoly on money, and gives them an incentive not to inflate our dollars. It would seem to me he's trying to stop inflation, but I'm sure your opinion that gold is kooky or evil or whatever is just fine and dandy.
He wants out of Iraq quickly, it would take perhaps six months. Our military presence is seen as aggression by many civilians there. Our occupation is the top recruiting tool for Al Qaeda there. Our war on terror is creating more of it than we're destroying. The only reason we are there is geopolitical strategy (oil, permanent bases), and some of us don't think America's military should be playing a big game of Risk.
Blah blah, yep that's right I just equated Iraq to a game of Risk. We don't need to occupy other nations around the world with foreign bases. People here and there can get by just fine without us bullying them around. I assume you have an argument for the US needing bases around the world, you seem to think the opposite is loony. Well, let's hear it, genius.
Although I'm not a general, I don't believe having foreign bases is in our best interest. We don't need troops on the ground over there to fight a war there, we have a huge arsenal of missiles. Their presence seems mostly for intimidation, serving as a reminder that we are the supreme military power of the world. I suppose they also serve as a target for any nations in those regions that get out of hand. Once one of our bases is attacked, we have a clear right to wage war against the aggressor. Like a bunch of miniature Pearl Harbors.
In the mean time, people around the world despise our country because of this. It's amplified when we start 'preemptive' invasions of other nations. We're supposed to make friends, not enemies, outside of our borders. I'm convinced there was no confusions about Iraq; It was on GW's hit list from day one according to Paul O'Neil, and the only bad intelligence was the unvetted, filtered intel from the Office of Special Plans which was intentionally formed to target Iraq. We should not be there.
The fact that we have people in the white house abusing their power to the point of invading other countries without merit is an excellent example of why the US should not attempt to control the world and maintain bases everywhere. We aren't a perfect angel that can keep evil at bay. We should restrict our military to our own homeland except for brief periods when they must wage war overseas. It would let other countries feel more independent and let them worry less about the US deciding to order their troops next door to open fire.
It would save tons of money, and we need it. We are $9 trillion in debt, and the hole's only getting deeper. Again, we don't need the foreign intervention, the foreign bases, they only cost incredible sums of money, and provide no positive benefits. I believe Ron said we could save about $600 billion annually by ending our foreign operations and bringing the boys home. That's $600 billion closer to saving our economy.
And yes, I said saving our economy. If you believe we can continue to increase the federal deficit without repercussions, you are kidding yourself. Our government has already locked itself into paying interest on all this borrowed money until it's paid off - the interest alone is going to cause plenty of inflation. We don't need more debt. If we don't start paying it off instead
Your post did well to reveal how clueless you are to any of Ron's positions. Everything you've said is a media fallacy, or a gross distortion.
Then you went and topped off your ignorance with "where the people's votes don't matter anyways"
Are you placing bets on the horse race, too? Fucking clueless.
Unlike you, I'm open-minded enough to view the link. It was, however, quite disappointing. Despite some theatrical heckling, it made no concrete arguments against Ron Paul other than a lame accusation of "we all know he's a white supremacist." C'mon, you can do better - can't you?
http://youtube.com/watch?v=fhAokoMgSDc