response to 1) The Internet was funded by the government long before it was a viable medium for private industry. Once private industries were shown to be able to sustain the internet, the USA government pretty much backed out of the whole thing. 2) Of course it wouldnt be a large increase. And maybe something else will be cut in some way to free funds for this. But there's no such thing as free lunch, and I doubt this is an exception. 3) The government pays for the roads. But the guy who builds by house pays for the driveway. The driveway is private, for use only by me. The roads are public, and can be used by anyone who cares to. The analogy here is between the "last mile" of telecommunications and the driveway. 4) I dont doubt the city of Hamburgs intentions, only its effectiveness. Free and unfettered access is all good. I think its more important, however, to be free to chose exactly who gives me free and unfettered access.
response to point 1) Does the UK government pay for the internet access though (they might, but I'm not sure)? There is free internet access in the US too (through NetZero and the like) but its not payed by the government, so it still counts as competition in the private sector. 2) Which is why I'm not suprised that government sponsered free internet is appearing first in Western Europe. 3) I'm sure the plan for governnment payed internet access is well-intentioned. I'm doubting, however, that this will cause internet usage to increase faster than just private competition would have. 4) Local calls cost money in the US, its just typically a small amount. The internet access is not truely free either, because it is being paid for in taxes. 5) Well, I guess it would good to feel that your taxes are being used to your benifit, even if just by a small amount. Thanks for your response. I enjoy hearing the point of view of others, and I don't mean to put you down by with my possibly odd beliefs.:)
I'm not saying that the government must pay for all public goods, such as the backbone. But if the backbone were to go underdeveloped because no private company had incentive to build it up, it should be the governments responsibility to fund it. I pretty much agree with your second statement though. Historically it seems that when governments try to compete in the private market, when private industries in that market are thriving, it generally a failure. I say, let be.
I never thought I would see the day when Internet access would be wholy subsized by the governent. Perhaps I shouldn't be suprised that these things are occuring in Western Europe before the United States. There ain't no such thing as a free lunch, and this is no exception. Surely the cost of internet access is being paid by increased taxes. Only a reasonably socialist government would even try to get away with this. The entire notion is pretty anit-capitalistic... I'm sure this stifles competition. What happens when the technologies change, but you are locked into your city's slow (but free) internet access? Although free internet access is a neat idea, I doubt it will hold up in the real world. In my opinion, the government should only be responsible to pay the cost of a public good, such as highways, and national defense. Internet access, however, is unargueably a private good (the backbone bandwith is public, but this is not what the city of Hamburg is providing).
This is just another example of web censors failing at their job. Its ridiculous for a college to have to change their name soley because some poorly written software decides to block all access information about the university. Besides Beaver College must be making significant cash off their name. I've seen shirts and hats in stores all around my college's Campustown for "Beaver College" and I'm nowhere near where the college really is.
Interesting But the SCSI bandwith is nowhere near enough to drive a monitor. Case in point:
A monitor running at 1600x1200x24bpp requires about five and a half megs of video memory to display. The fastest SCSI specification has 160MB/s bandwith. Since display needs to be sent to the monitor in full every time the monitor refreshes, we divide the two to get the refresh rate. So, in the best case, we get a refresh rate of 29Hz.
By the way, even AGP 1X has something like 532MB/s bandwith. There is certainly a reason why we have video cards instead of SCSI monitors.
More interesting to me is the software constraints of running at super-high resolutions (36inch 200ppi). Very few operating systems offer the ability scale icons or font size on your desktop. This obviously needs to be changed before any super high-res displays can be adopted. The hardware will surely catch up in time to support these displays, it always does.
Everything I've read so far, even withstanding Compaq's propaganda, indicates that the Alpha will be faster cheaper *and* more powerful than Merced. Not to mention that the Alpha, anyways, is proven technology.
Ok, so we have the technology to force an animal of one species to give birth to an animal of another. We have the technology to clone an animal (and presumably, with enough dedicated attempts, humans).
I want my clone to be birthed by a gorilla!! Anyone else really scared by the wacky shit science lets us get away with now days?
Slashdot Mirror
response to
1) The Internet was funded by the government long before it was a viable medium for private industry. Once private industries were shown to be able to sustain the internet, the USA government pretty much backed out of the whole thing.
2) Of course it wouldnt be a large increase. And maybe something else will be cut in some way to free funds for this. But there's no such thing as free lunch, and I doubt this is an exception.
3) The government pays for the roads. But the guy who builds by house pays for the driveway. The driveway is private, for use only by me. The roads are public, and can be used by anyone who cares to. The analogy here is between the "last mile" of telecommunications and the driveway.
4) I dont doubt the city of Hamburgs intentions, only its effectiveness.
Free and unfettered access is all good. I think its more important, however, to be free to chose exactly who gives me free and unfettered access.
response to point :)
1) Does the UK government pay for the internet access though (they might, but I'm not sure)? There is free internet access in the US too (through NetZero and the like) but its not payed by the government, so it still counts as competition in the private sector.
2) Which is why I'm not suprised that government sponsered free internet is appearing first in Western Europe.
3) I'm sure the plan for governnment payed internet access is well-intentioned. I'm doubting, however, that this will cause internet usage to increase faster than just private competition would have.
4) Local calls cost money in the US, its just typically a small amount. The internet access is not truely free either, because it is being paid for in taxes. 5) Well, I guess it would good to feel that your taxes are being used to your benifit, even if just by a small amount. Thanks for your response. I enjoy hearing the point of view of others, and I don't mean to put you down by with my possibly odd beliefs.
I'm not saying that the government must pay for all public goods, such as the backbone. But if the backbone were to go underdeveloped because no private company had incentive to build it up, it should be the governments responsibility to fund it.
I pretty much agree with your second statement though. Historically it seems that when governments try to compete in the private market, when private industries in that market are thriving, it generally a failure. I say, let be.
I never thought I would see the day when Internet access would be wholy subsized by the governent. Perhaps I shouldn't be suprised that these things are occuring in Western Europe before the United States. There ain't no such thing as a free lunch, and this is no exception. Surely the cost of internet access is being paid by increased taxes. Only a reasonably socialist government would even try to get away with this. The entire notion is pretty anit-capitalistic... I'm sure this stifles competition. What happens when the technologies change, but you are locked into your city's slow (but free) internet access?
Although free internet access is a neat idea, I doubt it will hold up in the real world. In my opinion, the government should only be responsible to pay the cost of a public good, such as highways, and national defense. Internet access, however, is unargueably a private good (the backbone bandwith is public, but this is not what the city of Hamburg is providing).
This is just another example of web censors failing at their job.
Its ridiculous for a college to have to change their name soley because some poorly written software decides to block all access information about the university.
Besides Beaver College must be making significant cash off their name. I've seen shirts and hats in stores all around my college's Campustown for "Beaver College" and I'm nowhere near where the college really is.
But the SCSI bandwith is nowhere near enough to drive a monitor. Case in point:
A monitor running at 1600x1200x24bpp requires about five and a half megs of video memory to display. The fastest SCSI specification has 160MB/s bandwith. Since display needs to be sent to the monitor in full every time the monitor refreshes, we divide the two to get the refresh rate. So, in the best case, we get a refresh rate of 29Hz.
By the way, even AGP 1X has something like 532MB/s bandwith. There is certainly a reason why we have video cards instead of SCSI monitors.
More interesting to me is the software constraints of running at super-high resolutions (36inch 200ppi). Very few operating systems offer the ability scale icons or font size on your desktop. This obviously needs to be changed before any super high-res displays can be adopted. The hardware will surely catch up in time to support these displays, it always does.
The summary should read 13 billion of course, not 13 million.
Everything I've read so far, even withstanding Compaq's propaganda, indicates that the Alpha will be
faster
cheaper
*and* more powerful than Merced.
Not to mention that the Alpha, anyways, is proven technology.
We have the technology to clone an animal (and presumably, with enough dedicated attempts, humans).
I want my clone to be birthed by a gorilla!!
Anyone else really scared by the wacky shit science lets us get away with now days?