Ask the horses how many jobs internal combustion created for them. So far humans have stayed ahead of automation because there has always been some other job we could shift to we were better at than the machines. That will not always be true. Soon your choices may be show pony or the glue factory.
There are plenty of service jobs inside the home that are nowhere close to being automated. Cooking, cleaning, even folding clothes is something that AI and robotics still severely lags even people with very low IQs. Worst case scenerio is not massive unemployment but rather going back to a caste system where you have the middle/upper class with dozens of low class servants. This was the norm for the founding fathers of the USA and having household servants is still common in many countries like India. The only reason it is not more common in the USA is because the average middle class person only makes 2-3 multiples of minimum wage.
The hotspots have a waiting list but there are always plenty of computers open every time I go to the library. I'm not sure I've ever seen them all full.
Even programming I feel like could be learned on a phone to a high level.
.
And you can cut a lawn with a pair of scissors.
Let us know how it works out for you, you goddamned imbecile.
The only reason I own an Ipad is because there were several "teach your kids programming" apps that were only available on an Ipad. In order to gets kids interested in programming you need an environment with a relatively quick feedback loop. Things like scratch, mindstorm, coding apps, and javascript probably are the best at immediate feedback. All that (with the possible exception of scratch) is available on the Ipad.
A so called "smart" phone or tablet can NEVER EVER replace a computer!
They cannot in any way come close to the capabilities of a desktop or laptop computer!
I would much rather have a modern LTE Ipad than any 486/modem combination of the 90s. There is pretty much nothing you could do on a dialup 486 that you can't do better with a modern Ipad. The exception might be secretarial or accountant work where you have to do a lot of typing but even then I would rather hook up a physical keyboard to an Ipad than deal with all the other limitations of a 486.
Did you mean DuckDuckGo or Bing? Because public library branches aren't open today.
Not only are most libraries open extended hours 7 days a week, they also have free computers with free internet access. My town has multiple book mobiles that drive around to different neighborhoods so you don't even have to go to them. You can also check out hotspots and I think even laptops.
The US is littered with used computers. Just ask around and you will find some spare ones and can avoid the $150.
Yep. I recently took about 50 computers and enough parts to build 50 more to the scrap yard. They pay $2 per pound for disassembled computers and 5 cents per pound for fully assembled computers. I took several dozen apart and made $100 and then sold the rest for the 5 cents because it wasn't worth my time to disassemble them. I regularly see computers on the curb on trash day and you have to PAY to dispose of CRTs. I disposed of several 19 inch and 21 inch CRTs that likely have much better picture quality and refresh rates than most of the cheap LCDs they currently sell. Nobody wants them.
I've heard UK numbers have a caller shield sometimes now. It's an extra telco service that does a kind of captcha on the caller, I've been told it works pretty well.
I would love this kind of service. Unfortunately, a large percentage of my legitimate calls are things like verifying your account where they give you a 6 digit number. These automated systems would never make it thru.
AFAIC, The phone system's been outright ruined by spammers. And so far, unlike email, there's no phone call spam filter worth the name. Text me or email me, otherwise, you go your way, I'll go mine.
The same system that prevents scammers from flooding text messaging could be used to stop scam phone calls.
Obligatory "No True Scotsman" fallacy that always comes up in AI discussions.
It's not a "No True Scotsman". It's not even a "raising the bar". It's that what we call AI isn't intelligent AT ALL. It's not even that it's not sentient, it's that it has no ability to really learn and remember at all. A housefly has more actual intelligence that what we call AI.
But yeah, the real nice thing about AI is that they start from a mostly blank slate.
And that's LITERALLY what "training" an AI is instilling. They give it a pile of "experiences"/data with some sort of "this is good, this is bad" or "this is a tree, this is a car" and it can then extrapolate that to future scenarios.
But this is what the problem with current AI. Every problem starts with a blank slate. True general intelligence doesn't work this way. An intelligent program shouldn't have to start over with a blank slate every time it wants to solve a problem. We do this because we have no idea how to actually create real AI. When you teach a dog what a stick is it doesn't forget what the stick is the next day when you teach it what a ball is and just because you teach it to fetch doesn't mean that it forgets how to eat. Current AI is a bunch of fragmented stuff all siloed in their own domains and we have no way to combine these into a unified AI that can actually use acquired knowledge.
The SJW are trying to do the exact opposite. They have deemed the phrase "melting pot" offensive because it implies someone has to give up their culture. They don't think that an immigrant should have to learn the culture or even the language. They also get offended by "cultural appropriation" because again this makes the tribes blend. They don't want people to assimilate. They want everyone to be a hyphenated american because that way everyone is a minority and they can easily pit one group against the other.
Some cultural intelligence will naturally follow after we have real intelligence but we are no where close to real intelligence. Real intelligence that can use context to figure things out should also be able to figure out cultural cues just like a normal person does. Current AI doesn't have any cultural knowledge because it really doesn't have any prior knowledge at all. Practically every animal on earth has the ability to use past experiences and past knowledge to help it make decisions. What we call AI can't really do that at all. AI for the most part has no context so it has no ability to decipher situations at all. It can't detect the difference between an erotic picture and a medical picture or anything else that has to take context and external cues into account to decide whether it is acceptable in the current situation.
Exactly. For iphones it makes sense only because apple doesn't give the user a way to expand their storage and also because storing your photos on the cloud gives you a backup when/if your phone gets lost/stolen/destroyed. For desktop, online backup makes sense but if you've bought your computer in the last decade then you should have ample storage and if you don't then you probably need to spend the $40 needed to upgrade your computer. Anybody who needs more than the default amount of storage likely needs the data to be available faster than what broadband would allow it.
Wouldn't a 4 day work week just start making people romanticize a 3-day work week?
And why not? If we can automate stuff and still get the stuff needed to survive, why should people be forced to work just to live? There will still be plenty of other stuff to do if you didn't have to work all the time. You could teach your kids, you could learn a new skill, you could exercise more, you could volunteer more. I have tons of projects and ideas and desires that I could follow if I could work less.
We're already somewhat there. You can live quite comfortable at 30k/year. You can raise a family relatively comfortably on 50k/year. If you are making 100k/year there are plenty of places even in the USA that you can live like a king with a large yard, housekeeper, large house, multiple vacations a year. If you are one of those people at 100k/year and struggling then find a freind or neighbor who makes 30k/year and let them show you their budget. I guarantee that you are upscaling a ton of stuff that you don't need whether it is an expensive car, an expensive neighborhood, or some habit that is consuming all your "excess" money. Most peoples expenses naturally grow to use up whatever money is available whether it is with a larger house, a nicer car, or a more upscale neighborhood.
The wooden shipping pallet reduced shipping labor by 85%.
Right. Because pallets can pick apples, load them into boxes, load the boxes onto themselves and drive them to the warehouse. Then do all that in reverse.
The pallet eliminated all the intermediate steps of taking things off of trucks and putting things on ships and taking things off ships and putting things on trains. The shipping container did something similar. By containerizing something and treating it like a single entity it greatly reduces the amount of handling that needs to be done. One guy with a forklift can unload a truck full of palletized apples faster than 20 guys can unload an unpalletized load of apples.
However the issue of 40 hours vs. 32 hours is more of a case of human ability vs. technology. 40 hours 8 hours a day for 5 days a week. is an easy to manage number. However having employees work 5 days a week at 6+ hours or 4 days a week at 8 hours. It solves the employee life problems, but it is just difficult for the company to manage coverage. This we can probably use computers to help calculate.
This doesn't make any sense. How is 32 a harder number to manage that 40? Most people aren't working 8-5 with a 1 hour lunch break anyways. Businesses already have to deal with people working weekends, after 5, days off, sick, etc...
And how does such a database of copyrighted works work?
Full text of anything ever generated? every frame of every film in case someone might make a meme of it?
Not to mention, who oversees it. " He who has the Gold (copyright DB control) makes the Rules. "
Exactly. This is mostly the publishers trying to double dip. Memes using a single frame of a movie and sharing of links benefits the copyright holder. Most of this seems to be targetting google and facebook. Practically everything on google and facebook links back to the original article. What facebook/google needs to do is just start banning links to any site that doesn't want to be included. Then lets see how many views their articles get when they aren't allowed to be shared on google or facebook. A summary and a link to the original article is what every content producer should want. It's free advertising. Give them a way to opt out if they don't want it and let's see how many actually opt out.
I have cameras in my house that alert me if someone jumps a fence into my backyard. If I only had 4 hours of high speed then I wouldn't be able to receive any notifications.
If you need high speed internet for notification from your security camera then you are doing it wrong. You need 24/7 internet for notification and you need high speed internet to view the camera feed but unless you are watching that video 24/7 you don't need high speed all the time. Unlimited bandwidth encourages this kind of wasteful bandwidth like leaving netflix or slingtv playing 24/7. I'm on the internet all day for work and my kids are on netflix, youtube etc all evening and we only use about 250G/month. Granted, we are only on a 10mbps connection but it's plenty fast for multiple streams at once but we don't try to limit it at all and don't get anywhere near a 1TB cap.
That's great while you're inside your country the size of one of our smallest states.
The size of the territory shouldn't make much difference for data caps. The size of the territory makes a difference for the last mile price but data caps are primarily for regulating contention on the aggregate connection. Once the connections are all aggregated, the size of the territory makes little difference.
How does having a data cap prevent all users from using at the same time? It's statistically unlikely that all users will use their max bandwidth at the same time. Power companies deal with this all of the time, except they have to actually consume resources to produce power. 10,000 homes in the city with 400-800 amp services. You think the power company could handle everyone at a 400amp draw?
You answered your own question. "data cap prevent all users from using at the same time" because "It's statistically unlikely that all users will use their max bandwidth at the same time". Yes, power companies deal with this all the time. They do this by charging per kilowatt, giving cheaper rates during offpeak times, and even by installing special units to cycle hot water heaters and AC so they are not all being used at the exact same time. The same sort of thing that ISPs need to be doing. For the record, I think monthly data caps are one of the worst ways of regulating bandwidth usage. Internet even more than power has a step peak usage time but there are lots of ways that ISPs can try to shift stuff off that peak. Using an example from power companies, they could give people special apps where they can download things like updates during off-peak hours or just give users price breaks for doing so.
Net neutrality doesn't make QoS illegal. It requires that all traffic of the _same_type_ be treated the same.
This is a terrible definition of network neutrality. It allows the ISP to make random decisions on what types of traffic get priority. The ISP could arbitrarily classify youtube and netflix as different "types" of video and give them different priorities. It also encourages consumers to masquerade their traffic as other traffic. ALL traffic should be treated the same by the ISP whether it is a torrent download or a real time video chat. The consumer is welcome to prioritize traffic and the ISP is welcome to give incentives to the consumer so they do that but the ISP shouldn't be deciding that customer A's live video chat is higher priority than customer B's torrent download or visa versa.
We're not talking about something "impossible" or by hardware constraints, we're talking about artificial caps imposed by the providers to encourage people to move to more expensive plans.
The artificial caps have a very good reason. Because the ISPs connection to the internet is not unlimited either. There are physical and hardware limits on the ISP side. Sure, your connection to them might be 100 mbps and the hardware is more than capable of handling that. The problem is that the ISP has 10k customers and they don't have a 1,000,000 mpbs connection to the internet capable of handling all 10k customers at max throughput at the same time. There needs to be some sort of system in place to ensure fair access to all 10k customers. You could make it a free for all and give everyone 1/10k of the currently available bandwidith (which is what your home network does) but this is probably not the most optimal way to make all your customers happy. You are always going to have peak periods when everyone is trying to watch Netflix at the same time so probably the most beneficial way for ISPs to reduce their upstream bandwidth needs is to either peer with big producers like Netflix or to encourage their customers to do their non-realtime downloads during non-peak times.
No, they are not double charging. There are two ways to get a packet to a network. One way is to use transit. The customer pays for some amount of max bandwidth and the packet can go to any point on the Internet. The other service is peering. The customer pays for packets to be delivered to a single destination network (not THROUGH it). This cost is lower than transit. Since these are entirely different services, they are NOT double charging. One way, both sides pay transit. The other way one pays transit and the other pays peering (much cheaper than transit).
Companies like Netflix already pay for peering agreements. What the ISPs want to do is double charge for transit. You aren't violating net neutrality by creating a mutually beneficial peering agreement with Netflix so that your customers can have faster access to Netflix. You are violating net neutrality (and double dipping) when you want to charge Netflix for sending packets across the public internet transit to your customer when you are already charging your customer to receive those same packets.
the consumer is paying more in one way or the other. there is a real hidden cost that cannot be ignored anymore due to the sheer explosion of users on the internet.
in the end, we the consumer will pay more. in order to keep tomorrow's prices the same today, that's where traffic shaping and active management comes into play.
It's not the number of consumers. It's that the average consumer is consuming more and more bandwidth per user. The correct solution is give up on the idea of "unlimited" internet. Let the consumer decide how they want to throttle their internet. If they want unlimited for 2 hours a day for netflix then let them sign up for that. If they want 1M/s 24/7 then let them sign up for that. An ISP shouldn't be traffic shaping or actively managing the types of service. One consumer might only watch netflix while another might only watch youtube or watch no video at all. It shouldn't be the ISPs job to decide whether netflix is allowed or torrents are not. It should be their job to offer reasonable options to consumers knowing that some consumers are going to use 100% of whatever they offer and be connected 24/7. If a consumer was given the option of 4 hours per day of gigabit at $50 per month versus 24 hours per day of 1Mbps at $50 per month, most consumers would probably choose the 4 hours of high speed. Likewise, noone is going to pay $500/month for 24/7 gigabit. We need to stop treating internet like an all you can stuff in your backpack buffet and set reasonable limits selectable by the end user. If given the option, I would probably choose 1M/s for sustained 24/7 usage with the ability to burst up to 100M/s for up to 4 hours a day. That should cover most consumers and an ISP should be able to sell a reasonable connection like this for what they are currently charging.
If a society thinks it is funny and normal to be raped in prison, you have an issue. It means you have not yet understood the difference between revenge and punishment (let alone rehabilitation)
Yep. That's a whole different problem. Prisons are broken. You have people literally in cages with 24/7 surveillance and somehow they still can't enforce basic rules against drugs, rape, and smuggled cell phones. I'm not sure if it's a lack of money, bad bureaucracy, or just complete incompetence but these should be easily solved problems in a completely controlled facility.
Slashdot Mirror
Ask the horses how many jobs internal combustion created for them. So far humans have stayed ahead of automation because there has always been some other job we could shift to we were better at than the machines. That will not always be true. Soon your choices may be show pony or the glue factory.
There are plenty of service jobs inside the home that are nowhere close to being automated. Cooking, cleaning, even folding clothes is something that AI and robotics still severely lags even people with very low IQs. Worst case scenerio is not massive unemployment but rather going back to a caste system where you have the middle/upper class with dozens of low class servants. This was the norm for the founding fathers of the USA and having household servants is still common in many countries like India. The only reason it is not more common in the USA is because the average middle class person only makes 2-3 multiples of minimum wage.
Yep & they are all taken most of the time.
The hotspots have a waiting list but there are always plenty of computers open every time I go to the library. I'm not sure I've ever seen them all full.
Even programming I feel like could be learned on a phone to a high level.
.
And you can cut a lawn with a pair of scissors.
Let us know how it works out for you, you goddamned imbecile.
The only reason I own an Ipad is because there were several "teach your kids programming" apps that were only available on an Ipad. In order to gets kids interested in programming you need an environment with a relatively quick feedback loop. Things like scratch, mindstorm, coding apps, and javascript probably are the best at immediate feedback. All that (with the possible exception of scratch) is available on the Ipad.
A so called "smart" phone or tablet can NEVER EVER replace a computer!
They cannot in any way come close to the capabilities of a desktop or laptop computer!
I would much rather have a modern LTE Ipad than any 486/modem combination of the 90s. There is pretty much nothing you could do on a dialup 486 that you can't do better with a modern Ipad. The exception might be secretarial or accountant work where you have to do a lot of typing but even then I would rather hook up a physical keyboard to an Ipad than deal with all the other limitations of a 486.
learn to do research without Google
Did you mean DuckDuckGo or Bing? Because public library branches aren't open today.
Not only are most libraries open extended hours 7 days a week, they also have free computers with free internet access. My town has multiple book mobiles that drive around to different neighborhoods so you don't even have to go to them. You can also check out hotspots and I think even laptops.
The US is littered with used computers. Just ask around and you will find some spare ones and can avoid the $150.
Yep. I recently took about 50 computers and enough parts to build 50 more to the scrap yard. They pay $2 per pound for disassembled computers and 5 cents per pound for fully assembled computers. I took several dozen apart and made $100 and then sold the rest for the 5 cents because it wasn't worth my time to disassemble them. I regularly see computers on the curb on trash day and you have to PAY to dispose of CRTs. I disposed of several 19 inch and 21 inch CRTs that likely have much better picture quality and refresh rates than most of the cheap LCDs they currently sell. Nobody wants them.
I've heard UK numbers have a caller shield sometimes now. It's an extra telco service that does a kind of captcha on the caller, I've been told it works pretty well.
I would love this kind of service. Unfortunately, a large percentage of my legitimate calls are things like verifying your account where they give you a 6 digit number. These automated systems would never make it thru.
AFAIC, The phone system's been outright ruined by spammers. And so far, unlike email, there's no phone call spam filter worth the name.
Text me or email me, otherwise, you go your way, I'll go mine.
The same system that prevents scammers from flooding text messaging could be used to stop scam phone calls.
Obligatory "No True Scotsman" fallacy that always comes up in AI discussions.
It's not a "No True Scotsman". It's not even a "raising the bar". It's that what we call AI isn't intelligent AT ALL. It's not even that it's
not sentient, it's that it has no ability to really learn and remember at all. A housefly has more actual intelligence that what we call AI.
But yeah, the real nice thing about AI is that they start from a mostly blank slate.
And that's LITERALLY what "training" an AI is instilling. They give it a pile of "experiences"/data with some sort of "this is good, this is bad" or "this is a tree, this is a car" and it can then extrapolate that to future scenarios.
But this is what the problem with current AI. Every problem starts with a blank slate. True general intelligence doesn't work this way. An intelligent program shouldn't have to start over with a blank slate every time it wants to solve a problem. We do this because we have no idea how to actually create real AI. When you teach a dog what a stick is it doesn't forget what the stick is the next day when you teach it what a ball is and just because you teach it to fetch doesn't mean that it forgets how to eat. Current AI is a bunch of fragmented stuff all siloed in their own domains and we have no way to combine these into a unified AI that can actually use acquired knowledge.
The SJW are trying to do the exact opposite. They have deemed the phrase "melting pot" offensive because it implies someone has to give up their culture. They don't think that an immigrant should have to learn the culture or even the language. They also get offended by "cultural appropriation" because again this makes the tribes blend. They don't want people to assimilate. They want everyone to be a hyphenated american because that way everyone is a minority and they can easily pit one group against the other.
Some cultural intelligence will naturally follow after we have real intelligence but we are no where close to real intelligence. Real intelligence that can use context to figure things out should also be able to figure out cultural cues just like a normal person does. Current AI doesn't have any cultural knowledge because it really doesn't have any prior knowledge at all. Practically every animal on earth has the ability to use past experiences and past knowledge to help it make decisions. What we call AI can't really do that at all. AI for the most part has no context so it has no ability to decipher situations at all. It can't detect the difference between an erotic picture and a medical picture or anything else that has to take context and external cues into account to decide whether it is acceptable in the current situation.
Exactly. For iphones it makes sense only because apple doesn't give the user a way to expand their storage and also because storing your photos on the cloud gives you a backup when/if your phone gets lost/stolen/destroyed. For desktop, online backup makes sense but if you've bought your computer in the last decade then you should have ample storage and if you don't then you probably need to spend the $40 needed to upgrade your computer. Anybody who needs more than the default amount of storage likely needs the data to be available faster than what broadband would allow it.
Wouldn't a 4 day work week just start making people romanticize a 3-day work week?
And why not? If we can automate stuff and still get the stuff needed to survive, why should people be forced to work just to live? There will still be plenty of other stuff to do if you didn't have to work all the time. You could teach your kids, you could learn a new skill, you could exercise more, you could volunteer more. I have tons of projects and ideas and desires that I could follow if I could work less.
We're already somewhat there. You can live quite comfortable at 30k/year. You can raise a family relatively comfortably on 50k/year. If you are making 100k/year there are plenty of places even in the USA that you can live like a king with a large yard, housekeeper, large house, multiple vacations a year. If you are one of those people at 100k/year and struggling then find a freind or neighbor who makes 30k/year and let them show you their budget. I guarantee that you are upscaling a ton of stuff that you don't need whether it is an expensive car, an expensive neighborhood, or some habit that is consuming all your "excess" money. Most peoples expenses naturally grow to use up whatever money is available whether it is with a larger house, a nicer car, or a more upscale neighborhood.
Right. Because pallets can pick apples, load them into boxes, load the boxes onto themselves and drive them to the warehouse. Then do all that in reverse.
The pallet eliminated all the intermediate steps of taking things off of trucks and putting things on ships and taking things off ships and putting things on trains. The shipping container did something similar. By containerizing something and treating it like a single entity it greatly reduces the amount of handling that needs to be done. One guy with a forklift can unload a truck full of palletized apples faster than 20 guys can unload an unpalletized load of apples.
However the issue of 40 hours vs. 32 hours is more of a case of human ability vs. technology. 40 hours 8 hours a day for 5 days a week. is an easy to manage number. However having employees work 5 days a week at 6+ hours or 4 days a week at 8 hours. It solves the employee life problems, but it is just difficult for the company to manage coverage. This we can probably use computers to help calculate.
This doesn't make any sense. How is 32 a harder number to manage that 40? Most people aren't working 8-5 with a 1 hour lunch break anyways. Businesses already have to deal with people working weekends, after 5, days off, sick, etc...
And how does such a database of copyrighted works work?
Full text of anything ever generated? every frame of every film in case someone might make a meme of it?
Not to mention, who oversees it. " He who has the Gold (copyright DB control) makes the Rules. "
Exactly. This is mostly the publishers trying to double dip. Memes using a single frame of a movie and sharing of links benefits the copyright holder. Most of this seems to be targetting google and facebook. Practically everything on google and facebook links back to the original article. What facebook/google needs to do is just start banning links to any site that doesn't want to be included. Then lets see how many views their articles get when they aren't allowed to be shared on google or facebook. A summary and a link to the original article is what every content producer should want. It's free advertising. Give them a way to opt out if they don't want it and let's see how many actually opt out.
I have cameras in my house that alert me if someone jumps a fence into my backyard. If I only had 4 hours of high speed then I wouldn't be able to receive any notifications.
If you need high speed internet for notification from your security camera then you are doing it wrong. You need 24/7 internet for notification and you need high speed internet to view the camera feed but unless you are watching that video 24/7 you don't need high speed all the time. Unlimited bandwidth encourages this kind of wasteful bandwidth like leaving netflix or slingtv playing 24/7. I'm on the internet all day for work and my kids are on netflix, youtube etc all evening and we only use about 250G/month. Granted, we are only on a 10mbps connection but it's plenty fast for multiple streams at once but we don't try to limit it at all and don't get anywhere near a 1TB cap.
That's great while you're inside your country the size of one of our smallest states.
The size of the territory shouldn't make much difference for data caps. The size of the territory makes a difference for the last mile price but data caps are primarily for regulating contention on the aggregate connection. Once the connections are all aggregated, the size of the territory makes little difference.
How does having a data cap prevent all users from using at the same time? It's statistically unlikely that all users will use their max bandwidth at the same time. Power companies deal with this all of the time, except they have to actually consume resources to produce power. 10,000 homes in the city with 400-800 amp services. You think the power company could handle everyone at a 400amp draw?
You answered your own question. "data cap prevent all users from using at the same time" because "It's statistically unlikely that all users will use their max bandwidth at the same time". Yes, power companies deal with this all the time. They do this by charging per kilowatt, giving cheaper rates during offpeak times, and even by installing special units to cycle hot water heaters and AC so they are not all being used at the exact same time. The same sort of thing that ISPs need to be doing. For the record, I think monthly data caps are one of the worst ways of regulating bandwidth usage. Internet even more than power has a step peak usage time but there are lots of ways that ISPs can try to shift stuff off that peak. Using an example from power companies, they could give people special apps where they can download things like updates during off-peak hours or just give users price breaks for doing so.
Net neutrality doesn't make QoS illegal. It requires that all traffic of the _same_type_ be treated the same.
This is a terrible definition of network neutrality. It allows the ISP to make random decisions on what types of traffic get priority. The ISP could arbitrarily classify youtube and netflix as different "types" of video and give them different priorities. It also encourages consumers to masquerade their traffic as other traffic. ALL traffic should be treated the same by the ISP whether it is a torrent download or a real time video chat. The consumer is welcome to prioritize traffic and the ISP is welcome to give incentives to the consumer so they do that but the ISP shouldn't be deciding that customer A's live video chat is higher priority than customer B's torrent download or visa versa.
Is the bandwidth in your home network unlimited?
We're not talking about something "impossible" or by hardware constraints, we're talking about artificial caps imposed by the providers to encourage people to move to more expensive plans.
The artificial caps have a very good reason. Because the ISPs connection to the internet is not unlimited either. There are physical and hardware limits on the ISP side. Sure, your connection to them might be 100 mbps and the hardware is more than capable of handling that. The problem is that the ISP has 10k customers and they don't have a 1,000,000 mpbs connection to the internet capable of handling all 10k customers at max throughput at the same time. There needs to be some sort of system in place to ensure fair access to all 10k customers. You could make it a free for all and give everyone 1/10k of the currently available bandwidith (which is what your home network does) but this is probably not the most optimal way to make all your customers happy. You are always going to have peak periods when everyone is trying to watch Netflix at the same time so probably the most beneficial way for ISPs to reduce their upstream bandwidth needs is to either peer with big producers like Netflix or to encourage their customers to do their non-realtime downloads during non-peak times.
No, they are not double charging. There are two ways to get a packet to a network. One way is to use transit. The customer pays for some amount of max bandwidth and the packet can go to any point on the Internet. The other service is peering. The customer pays for packets to be delivered to a single destination network (not THROUGH it). This cost is lower than transit. Since these are entirely different services, they are NOT double charging.
One way, both sides pay transit. The other way one pays transit and the other pays peering (much cheaper than transit).
Companies like Netflix already pay for peering agreements. What the ISPs want to do is double charge for transit. You aren't violating net neutrality by creating a mutually beneficial peering agreement with Netflix so that your customers can have faster access to Netflix. You are violating net neutrality (and double dipping) when you want to charge Netflix for sending packets across the public internet transit to your customer when you are already charging your customer to receive those same packets.
the consumer is paying more in one way or the other. there is a real hidden cost that cannot be ignored anymore due to the sheer explosion of users on the internet.
in the end, we the consumer will pay more. in order to keep tomorrow's prices the same today, that's where traffic shaping and active management comes into play.
It's not the number of consumers. It's that the average consumer is consuming more and more bandwidth per user. The correct solution is give up on the idea of "unlimited" internet. Let the consumer decide how they want to throttle their internet. If they want unlimited for 2 hours a day for netflix then let them sign up for that. If they want 1M/s 24/7 then let them sign up for that. An ISP shouldn't be traffic shaping or actively managing the types of service. One consumer might only watch netflix while another might only watch youtube or watch no video at all. It shouldn't be the ISPs job to decide whether netflix is allowed or torrents are not. It should be their job to offer reasonable options to consumers knowing that some consumers are going to use 100% of whatever they offer and be connected 24/7. If a consumer was given the option of 4 hours per day of gigabit at $50 per month versus 24 hours per day of 1Mbps at $50 per month, most consumers would probably choose the 4 hours of high speed. Likewise, noone is going to pay $500/month for 24/7 gigabit. We need to stop treating internet like an all you can stuff in your backpack buffet and set reasonable limits selectable by the end user. If given the option, I would probably choose 1M/s for sustained 24/7 usage with the ability to burst up to 100M/s for up to 4 hours a day. That should cover most consumers and an ISP should be able to sell a reasonable connection like this for what they are currently charging.
If a society thinks it is funny and normal to be raped in prison, you have an issue.
It means you have not yet understood the difference between revenge and punishment (let alone rehabilitation)
Yep. That's a whole different problem. Prisons are broken. You have people literally in cages with 24/7 surveillance and somehow they still can't enforce basic rules against drugs, rape, and smuggled cell phones. I'm not sure if it's a lack of money, bad bureaucracy, or just complete incompetence but these should be easily solved problems in a completely controlled facility.