Pointing at a bad value service doesnt tell us anything about how good of a value Googles service is. I've got no caps and no throttling for $45/month, and shortly it will be 15mbit/2mbit for no additional cost.
Just to re-iterate.. pointing to a bad service only tells us about the bad service. Its like pointing at a criminal and concluding that non-criminals are saints. Thats not how logic works.
The guy makes a little mistake that really doesn't affect his point much
Doesnt effect his point much? His point is that the cost is only a years worth of broadband, instead of the more than 2 years worth of broadband that it actually is. Thats not a "little" mistake, chief.
"Yeah, I know that I quoted you $466.. but actually you owe us $1037.. but its only a small mistake, see?"
Are you suggesting we're going to invent something better than fibre in the near future?
You mean like maybe microwave wireless networks which can already push 1gbps but can also be scaled to nearly any imaginable bandwidth without stringing up or burying coax and/or fiber? Yeah.
Most common GPU: Intel HD 3000.
Most common CPU: dual core @ ~2.5ghz
Thats a survey of gamers. The market is quite different than it once was, when only enthusiasts played games.
You can build a better box for sub-$400 easily. The AMD A8-3850 is currently $90 retail, quad core @ 2.9ghz and has a significantly better GPU than the Intel HD 3000 (and even the XBOX 360's GPU since that is about equal to the HD 3000), and thats without any volume discount.
This sort of commodity use is exactly what the APU's were designed for.
why would anyone base their opinion about a topic on the perceived manners, or lack thereof, of other people expressing their opinions, rather than on well established facts?
This goes both ways. Why should anyways listen to people with a penchant for emotional outbursts? Especially when there were those 'facts' that they could have used, but decided to go on an emotional outburst instead?
You can see it by reading his post before replying to it, as well.
Since clearly you did not read his post, since you began with something he already said while acting like he didnt know it, well.. that tells us how emotionally involved you are, which explains the insults you were using too.
It is very clear that your belief, be it scientifically right or wrong, is internally justified on an emotional rather than rational level. That you are so vocal about it means that nobody should listen to you on any topic, because you clearly believe internally that emotion-inspired reasoning trumps rational arguments.
..but as far as I am concerned the ability to inexpensively consume CSPAN and other government-funded media at realtime rates is the only guarantee that we should be making. So my definition of broadband in this context is quite low. If you can read the on-screen text in the CSPAN stream, its good enough quality for a "minimum standard."
Since it costs less than many of us are paying for cable Internet or cable and Internet, the additional cost problem isn't an issue.
Are you so sure it costs less? A lot of people are saying $25/mnth but thats for Googles 5mbit/1mbit service. For the 1gbps service its $70/month which is distinctly not less than most peoples broadband bill.
They could ask the households to cover the cost. To signup for the service, and have fiber built to you, you agree to sign a contract to pay $500, which you can finance over 2 years at 10% interest; coming to $25 a month for 2 years, then free for life.
Hate to break it to you, but that $500 figure was per person, not per household. ,br>
Its $1037 per household. For a 2 year loan at 10%, the household pays $1255 or $52.29/month.
And the Google model of $25/month is only for 5mbit/1mbit.
For Googles 1gbps package, you have to pay $70/month.
Not looking so good now, is it?
I like how you folks use numbers without even knowing what they mean.
$180BN / 300M (cost/population) -- and you're looking at about $466/person. Break that down and its basically a year of High Speed internet service that most people pay about 40-50 bux for each month.
You are comparing cost/person to cost/household. It is that sort of week quasi-intellectualism that stands to fuck us all.
For the cost of the SERVICE for one year, the infrastructure can be brought up over 100 fold. THIS IS WORTH DOING
30 years ago state of the art in the home was 128kbps ISDN, nearly 100 times as fast as the average home modem.
Collection of data for insurance purposes is another matter though, that's more a way for a corporate to wheedle out of their financial responsibilities than it is to keep the roads safe.
First I'd like to say that I am against this kind of tracking in an involuntary manner, however... this reasoning of yours is bullshit.
When some dipshit wraps his vehicle around a tree while he or she was speeding.. it is not the 'financial responsibility' of the insurance company to pay his or her comprehensive collision claims... its the exact fucking opposite of that fucking shit.
Now, if the insurance companies are trying to get out of liability claims made by other parties (the owner of the tree, for example), then that is a different matter. Proof that the driver was at fault has never been valid grounds for insurance companies to avoid payment to 3rd parties on matters of liability. Liability insurance covers your faults even when you admit to being at fault, even when 1000 people witnessed it, even when its caught on video, even when you have a black box in your car.
I for one welcome this trend of voluntary monitoring by insurance companies. Over time we will get to see exactly how much the bullshit comprehensive claims are costing us. They already offer reduced rates for installing one, but surely these reductions are still conservative because they dont have much actuarial data yet.
Physical lock makers will tell you that their cheap locks are pickable. But they'll sell you "security" locks that cost much, much more, and are much more resistant to lockpicks.
Are you suggesting that every physical lock maker also offers the advanced tumblers? Are you also suggesting that offering such tumblers is a prerequisite to not getting sued into oblivion on your cheap tumblers? Finally, are you suggesting that this electronic lock company claimed that its locks were unpickable?
You can approximate any sequence of values with complex formulas.. but you can't do so with simple formulas. The Occam's razor of information theory, Kolmogorov Complexity.
That logic doesnt follow at all. You dont need to get married to have children, and one could easily conclude that it reduces the number of children because when you are married there are associated penalties for having a child with any other partner, even when the partner you have can't or wont participate.
But isn't gay marriage a step in the right direction? If more and more people receive the benefits, then maybe someday everyone will.
The problem is that some of those benefits of marriage are at the expense of others.
Which is more unfair:
The government declares that 1 out of 6 people get something awesome at the expense of those that don't.
The government declares that 5 out of 6 people get something awesome at the expense of those that don't.
Why are you compaRing single people to married people?
I am comparing people with people. The reason that you automatically consider married people as different is because they are already treated differently. Thats the cart leading the horse.
Its easy to answer the question "Why should anyone be treated differently?" There are lots of reasonable reasons for various kinds of special treatment.
Its hard to answer "Why should marriage be a requirement for that special treatment?"
Did you think that homosexuals want to get married because of their great undying respect for the institution of marriage?
Contributors are your customers.
Policies are your product.
Voters are your regulators.
Now imagine that one of your employees was handing out newsletters in your store that says that your customers have an indefensible belief system and because of that you sell harmful products.
The only way that you don't fire this person is if the regulators say that you can't.
Slashdot Mirror
..all this talk of caps...
Pointing at a bad value service doesnt tell us anything about how good of a value Googles service is. I've got no caps and no throttling for $45/month, and shortly it will be 15mbit/2mbit for no additional cost.
Just to re-iterate.. pointing to a bad service only tells us about the bad service. Its like pointing at a criminal and concluding that non-criminals are saints. Thats not how logic works.
That's still cheaper than $69.99 a month for 3 megabit cable internet, plus modem lease.
You want service too? That $52.29/moth just covers the installation cost. Note how Google doesnt offer 1gbps for less than $70/month.
The guy makes a little mistake that really doesn't affect his point much
Doesnt effect his point much? His point is that the cost is only a years worth of broadband, instead of the more than 2 years worth of broadband that it actually is. Thats not a "little" mistake, chief.
"Yeah, I know that I quoted you $466.. but actually you owe us $1037.. but its only a small mistake, see?"
Are you suggesting we're going to invent something better than fibre in the near future?
You mean like maybe microwave wireless networks which can already push 1gbps but can also be scaled to nearly any imaginable bandwidth without stringing up or burying coax and/or fiber? Yeah.
"I'm seeing it being 800+ tbh if they want to make sure their games run at higher frames and in better quality than consoles."
Valve Steam Survey
Most common GPU: Intel HD 3000.
Most common CPU: dual core @ ~2.5ghz
Thats a survey of gamers. The market is quite different than it once was, when only enthusiasts played games.
You can build a better box for sub-$400 easily. The AMD A8-3850 is currently $90 retail, quad core @ 2.9ghz and has a significantly better GPU than the Intel HD 3000 (and even the XBOX 360's GPU since that is about equal to the HD 3000), and thats without any volume discount.
This sort of commodity use is exactly what the APU's were designed for.
why would anyone base their opinion about a topic on the perceived manners, or lack thereof, of other people expressing their opinions, rather than on well established facts?
This goes both ways. Why should anyways listen to people with a penchant for emotional outbursts? Especially when there were those 'facts' that they could have used, but decided to go on an emotional outburst instead?
But you see, I *did* attack the argument
You can see it by reading his post before replying to it, as well.
Since clearly you did not read his post, since you began with something he already said while acting like he didnt know it, well.. that tells us how emotionally involved you are, which explains the insults you were using too.
It is very clear that your belief, be it scientifically right or wrong, is internally justified on an emotional rather than rational level. That you are so vocal about it means that nobody should listen to you on any topic, because you clearly believe internally that emotion-inspired reasoning trumps rational arguments.
Exactly.
..but as far as I am concerned the ability to inexpensively consume CSPAN and other government-funded media at realtime rates is the only guarantee that we should be making. So my definition of broadband in this context is quite low. If you can read the on-screen text in the CSPAN stream, its good enough quality for a "minimum standard."
Since it costs less than many of us are paying for cable Internet or cable and Internet, the additional cost problem isn't an issue.
Are you so sure it costs less? A lot of people are saying $25/mnth but thats for Googles 5mbit/1mbit service. For the 1gbps service its $70/month which is distinctly not less than most peoples broadband bill.
So we can bailout Wall St. and the banks to the tune of hundreds of billions, but we can't afford to invest in infrastructure. Good to know.
Two wrongs make a right, right?
They could ask the households to cover the cost. To signup for the service, and have fiber built to you, you agree to sign a contract to pay $500, which you can finance over 2 years at 10% interest; coming to $25 a month for 2 years, then free for life.
Hate to break it to you, but that $500 figure was per person, not per household.
,br>
Its $1037 per household. For a 2 year loan at 10%, the household pays $1255 or $52.29/month.
And the Google model of $25/month is only for 5mbit/1mbit.
For Googles 1gbps package, you have to pay $70/month.
Not looking so good now, is it?
I like how you folks use numbers without even knowing what they mean.
so two wrongs make a right, eh?
Nice logic.
$180BN / 300M (cost/population) -- and you're looking at about $466/person. Break that down and its basically a year of High Speed internet service that most people pay about 40-50 bux for each month.
You are comparing cost/person to cost/household. It is that sort of week quasi-intellectualism that stands to fuck us all.
For the cost of the SERVICE for one year, the infrastructure can be brought up over 100 fold. THIS IS WORTH DOING
30 years ago state of the art in the home was 128kbps ISDN, nearly 100 times as fast as the average home modem.
Arent you glad that we didnt standardize on it?
Collection of data for insurance purposes is another matter though, that's more a way for a corporate to wheedle out of their financial responsibilities than it is to keep the roads safe.
First I'd like to say that I am against this kind of tracking in an involuntary manner, however... this reasoning of yours is bullshit.
When some dipshit wraps his vehicle around a tree while he or she was speeding.. it is not the 'financial responsibility' of the insurance company to pay his or her comprehensive collision claims... its the exact fucking opposite of that fucking shit.
Now, if the insurance companies are trying to get out of liability claims made by other parties (the owner of the tree, for example), then that is a different matter. Proof that the driver was at fault has never been valid grounds for insurance companies to avoid payment to 3rd parties on matters of liability. Liability insurance covers your faults even when you admit to being at fault, even when 1000 people witnessed it, even when its caught on video, even when you have a black box in your car.
I for one welcome this trend of voluntary monitoring by insurance companies. Over time we will get to see exactly how much the bullshit comprehensive claims are costing us. They already offer reduced rates for installing one, but surely these reductions are still conservative because they dont have much actuarial data yet.
Physical lock makers will tell you that their cheap locks are pickable. But they'll sell you "security" locks that cost much, much more, and are much more resistant to lockpicks.
Are you suggesting that every physical lock maker also offers the advanced tumblers? Are you also suggesting that offering such tumblers is a prerequisite to not getting sued into oblivion on your cheap tumblers? Finally, are you suggesting that this electronic lock company claimed that its locks were unpickable?
..because species with 1000 years lives dont evolve all that quickly.
Not all formulas are created equal.
You can approximate any sequence of values with complex formulas.. but you can't do so with simple formulas. The Occam's razor of information theory, Kolmogorov Complexity.
Meanwhile, most of the non-electronic locks manufactured in the world can be "hacked" by a pair of paper clips.
I'm calling bullshit here. Looks to me like their locks were fit for purpose, where its purpose is to keep honest people honest.
Thats barely more than 1 hour per day.... I think you are bad at conclusions.
yeah but past treaties are toilette paper during times of war
That logic doesnt follow at all. You dont need to get married to have children, and one could easily conclude that it reduces the number of children because when you are married there are associated penalties for having a child with any other partner, even when the partner you have can't or wont participate.
But isn't gay marriage a step in the right direction? If more and more people receive the benefits, then maybe someday everyone will.
The problem is that some of those benefits of marriage are at the expense of others.
Which is more unfair:
The government declares that 1 out of 6 people get something awesome at the expense of those that don't.
The government declares that 5 out of 6 people get something awesome at the expense of those that don't.
So no, its not a step in the right direction.
Why are you compaRing single people to married people?
I am comparing people with people. The reason that you automatically consider married people as different is because they are already treated differently. Thats the cart leading the horse.
Its easy to answer the question "Why should anyone be treated differently?" There are lots of reasonable reasons for various kinds of special treatment.
Its hard to answer "Why should marriage be a requirement for that special treatment?"
Did you think that homosexuals want to get married because of their great undying respect for the institution of marriage?
TLDR: Just because you don't value it, doesn't mean others don't. One man's junk is another's treasure.
Translation: free trade can make everyone better off.
You are completely missing it.
Contributors are your customers.
Policies are your product.
Voters are your regulators.
Now imagine that one of your employees was handing out newsletters in your store that says that your customers have an indefensible belief system and because of that you sell harmful products.
The only way that you don't fire this person is if the regulators say that you can't.
There is a difference between being a liar and aggressively lying.
Its a shame that you don't seem to understand that.