How good would the recording be, say, compared to a typical commercial VHS? An analog recording from a cable box source? Sound looped from the projector/sound system or live miked (stereo or mono)?
I would imagine if you could shoot it with a telephoto lens on a hidef camera from the projection booth and grab line-level audio it would be reasonably watchable.
I'd worry about the generic cam videos, but maybe they're VHS/VCR cable recording OK.
I got in trouble in high school for "stealing" timesharing time at the local University (early 80s) and back then at least the time was valued based on some "retail" cost of the computing time based on operational costs.
Back then it was really bullshit, because unless you kept other jobs from running the damn system was up anyway and really didn't use any less resources if nothing was running. The same overpaid fulltimers and grad students still worked at the computer center, etc.
It's probably mostly still the same bullshit, but I would imagine the energy efficiency of modern systems, especially clustered ones where whole nodes get shutdown, is much higher.
Assuming a large transformation of the auto fleet to electric, will supercharging stations show up everywhere?
Will recharging, especially high-current recharging, be free everywhere?
I would assume that someone has to pay for bringing in the half-megawatt of power required to charge 20-some cars at the same time. I don't know, but I assume this might be non-trivial in a lot of places or require the power company to upgrade service to make this happen.
And I also assume that the electricity wouldn't be free, someone will be paying for that somehow, too.
Is the problem more of leverage and gravity? A normal door is basically balanced with respect to gravity and most of the opening force is away from the hinge. A gullwing door has to fight gravity and the opening force is closer to the hinge. I'm sure the gullwing has struts but the door would have to be open at least a little for them to work.
If my wife had let me buy that SLS Mercedes instead of a house I'd have more first hand experience.
I think this is right, Universities have turned themselves into vocational systems which claim to provide educations that provide white-collar middle class jobs. It's why everyone "wants" to go to college so that they can get some corporate job.
Of course the irony is that nobody gets a job anymore with their corporate-approved education.
Mobile Safari gets banners at the top and obnoxious floaters at the bottom. On iPhone the floater often goes off the side and doesn't zoom right, making the dumb "hide" button hard/impossible to get at.
Isn't the likely answer to this (and the answer to most complaints involving HFT) something like "enhances market liquidity"?
In the case of HFT I find the answer unsatisfying, but in the case of large taxes on assets held less than a year it seems more compelling.
I wonder if the better choice might be increasing capital gains overall but cutting capital gains (perhaps in half) for assets held over 5 years. Basically increase the incentive for long-term holding versus penalizing short term holding.
I think it's generally assumed that a poorly regulated monopoly is bad -- rent seeking, no innovation, etc. A duopoly isn't much better, even when it's not explicit you end up with defacto collusion on pricing and market segmentation.
Is a triopoly any better? Is there any economics that says how many vendors in a market are necessary to improve efficiency and consumer choice?
Figure that whatever network wiring you install, will have to be replaced in its entirety once every DECADE.
This is what you wrote in your original post.
Neither telcos or cable operators built cable plants for data networking. Telco last mile is essentially a 19th century technology, it's a little unrealistic for any design to predict the future a century out. Everyone expects upgrades on that timeline.
Cable plants are data networks by accident, not by design. They were designed as one-way distribution systems -- whatever predictions they made have worked out well for the designed use considering that only backhaul and encoding upgrades have been necessary to transition from analog NTSC to digital hidef with data added on without altering end-user physical connectivity.
A municipal fiber network is a data network by design, not by adaption or transformation from something not baked into its design. Will it need to be upgraded in whole or in part over its life? Obviously. But it seems unclear to me what would cause 1 gig drops to homes to suddenly seem obsolete given what we know about how people use networks now and for the next 10-20 years.
Given its design purpose and structure, upgrades should be manageable, not the kind of wholesale rip-and-replace needed to go from ancient technologies (POTS) or adapted technologies like coax which weren't designed to be data networks.
There's no arguing that 1 gig Ethernet is only marginally adequate in the data center, but 10 gig pricing is still ridiculous for anything but very large data storage and niche adoption for uplinks or storage-specific uses. I doubt anybody has considered it for general purpose rollouts at $300/port or more (not including cabling restrictions).
For a lot of smaller organizations only running 2k IOPS, iSCSI @ 1 gig is still pretty usable and likely to stay that way until enterprise ports are much cheaper.
But the point was that gigabit Ethernet is still used and useful even where its limitations are seen in bandwidth-intensive applications, so for consumer WAN access, arguing that gigabit Ethernet needs to be ripped out and wholesale replaced in 10 years is ludicrous when it's hard to advocate any kind of consumer consumption that would exceed 100 megabit, and that includes thinking of multiple 4k streams and concurrent data access.
Plus any kind of municipal fiber is going to have structured buildout with upgrades and modularity baked into the design, not tacked on afterwards like POTS or coax cable. The stress on the network isn't going to be the drops to houses but aggregation points, but these will have that kind of upgradability built into the design.
Gigabit ethernet is still a mainstay in business environments, used for everything from desktop connectivity to SANs with little motivation to adopt 10 gig ethernet or fiber channel except in larger organizations for specific applications and usually only storage networks. It's been like this for nearly 10 years and unless the price of 10 gig drops substantially I think 1 gig will seem pretty adequate for most connectivity for some time to come.
I would imagine that for consumer WAN use, gigabit fiber would have a lifespan of 20 years easily. Netflix streams 4k at about 16 Mbps, gigabit would support many simultaneous streams.
I think the upgrade factor would happen from the neighborhood-level distribution systems as the oversubscription there would be felt first since the majority of consumers (not geeks torrenting everything and doing continuous online backups of TBs of data) wouldn't use more than about 25 Mbps at peak.
But even those upgrades could be handled with some kind of consumption-based pricing, which I think would be inevitable.
And while previous technologies adopted for Internet use quickly proved inadequate (copper pairs, coax, etc) they weren't designed for two way data and none were installed with any kind of modularity or easy upgrades. A structured fiber network would be much easier to upgrade piecemeal where it was needed (eg, adding backhaul in denser areas) or even individual house drops for early adopters.
I actually RTFA and was shocked with the police comment about releasing data because "..people would use it to make a point."
Shocked is probably the wrong word to use, because at this point I expect it, but it was surprising that the police would be so public about their desire to not release data because people would use to redress their grievances with them.
The school zone thing is totally open to interpretation.
The road to a friend's house passes one of those elementary school-public park agglomerations, with about a half-dozen baseball fields. He tells me the cops love to pull people over on Sundays when there's a single game at a ball field 2-300 yards from the road and school.
Why? Children present. Sign says "School Zone: 25 mph when children present". Doesn't mean school in session, school kids coming/going, etc, it means any damn minor around.
The police everywhere seem to be given to a general trend of militarization. Assault rifles, military-style clothing and accessories, armored vehicles, intelligence gathering operations, air power (helicopters, drones, etc).
They no longer resemble the "beat cop" who managed to keep order with a whistle and a truncheon in a uniform with shiny brass buttons. They resemble a military assault force.
I wonder how many wanted an iPhone but ended up buying an Android because it's cheaper?
I've noticed that a lot of people want X (often for specific reasons) but decide to buy Y because it's cheaper, even thought it doesn't meet their criteria like X does and then are disappointed because it doesn't do what they want.
Maybe I'm just bad with my money, but it seems like there's a lot of people out there for whom the "deal" is at least as important as the functionality/thing they are buying, yet often they make the "deal" the priority and end up with an unsatisfying purchase that seems to cost them more money than just spending what they needed to get the right thing the first time.
I think there's some kind of expression about the unhappiness with poor quality lingering long after the joy of a good deal.
The only thing I can think of is that it's a marketing-driven kind of change, a desire to hide how Windows actually works for cosmetic/PR reasons, as if throwing a facade on it turned it into MacOS somehow. Eliminate anything that resembles or implies "DOS" or some kind of DOS origins.
What's frustrating about it is that all they've really done is cosmetic (at best) -- it doesn't actually change how anything *works*. It's made the entire system less transparent and more difficult to use.
What's worse is that what Microsoft used to be sort of good at was providing a usable GUI for a lot of system functions that, say, Linux required command line interfaces for. With the transition to Powershell, in a lot of ways they have abandoned what they were good at -- leaving a facade GUI that doesn't do anything and replacing it with a so-so scripting environment.
Maybe it's an improvement in some ways, but it strikes me as making the system just all that less transparent.
Microsoft has been on a long-term trend in the name of ease of use of burying everything behind complicated and convoluted UIs since at least Vista, although the default XP UI was also in on it a little.
Little things, like changing your computer's IP address seem to require more and more clicks, dialog boxes and window changes to accomplish the same tasks as before. More and more settings seem to default to "idiot light' mode where basic information is deliberately turned off or hidden.
This might be tolerable for a "home" edition of something designed to get grandma on the internet with a minimum of long distance phone calls to her grandkids, but it's absolutely maddening for "professional" editions and simply uncalled for in "server" editions.
I just cannot fathom what group or individual decided that Server 2012 needed the same UI as the most basic desktop OS. I don't mind the concept of Metro and the execution seems OK on a Surface Pro provided you stay in Metro mode, but there should be a switch or something that just completely disabled Metro mode for server OSes (and should be the default) and it should be switchable for desktop OSes.
Further, the desktop UI needs an "expert" mode where some of the "wizards" are disabled (can't I just have my network connections without the network and sharing center) and more details and technical information are presented to the end users without being filtered/turned off.
Slashdot Mirror
How good would the recording be, say, compared to a typical commercial VHS? An analog recording from a cable box source? Sound looped from the projector/sound system or live miked (stereo or mono)?
I would imagine if you could shoot it with a telephoto lens on a hidef camera from the projection booth and grab line-level audio it would be reasonably watchable.
I'd worry about the generic cam videos, but maybe they're VHS/VCR cable recording OK.
I got in trouble in high school for "stealing" timesharing time at the local University (early 80s) and back then at least the time was valued based on some "retail" cost of the computing time based on operational costs.
Back then it was really bullshit, because unless you kept other jobs from running the damn system was up anyway and really didn't use any less resources if nothing was running. The same overpaid fulltimers and grad students still worked at the computer center, etc.
It's probably mostly still the same bullshit, but I would imagine the energy efficiency of modern systems, especially clustered ones where whole nodes get shutdown, is much higher.
Will they?
Assuming a large transformation of the auto fleet to electric, will supercharging stations show up everywhere?
Will recharging, especially high-current recharging, be free everywhere?
I would assume that someone has to pay for bringing in the half-megawatt of power required to charge 20-some cars at the same time. I don't know, but I assume this might be non-trivial in a lot of places or require the power company to upgrade service to make this happen.
And I also assume that the electricity wouldn't be free, someone will be paying for that somehow, too.
Is the problem more of leverage and gravity? A normal door is basically balanced with respect to gravity and most of the opening force is away from the hinge. A gullwing door has to fight gravity and the opening force is closer to the hinge. I'm sure the gullwing has struts but the door would have to be open at least a little for them to work.
If my wife had let me buy that SLS Mercedes instead of a house I'd have more first hand experience.
Which is funny, because "army" culture shouldn't mean anything to him but I guess everything old is new to somebody.
You mean all those stickers on (mostly) trucks that show Calvin pissing on something aren't licensed?
The smartest guy I've ever known, Jeff Dean of Google fame, used to cast his own lead soldiers.
People are rational. Give them information but let them assess risk and make their own decisions.
I think this is right, Universities have turned themselves into vocational systems which claim to provide educations that provide white-collar middle class jobs. It's why everyone "wants" to go to college so that they can get some corporate job.
Of course the irony is that nobody gets a job anymore with their corporate-approved education.
Mobile Safari gets banners at the top and obnoxious floaters at the bottom. On iPhone the floater often goes off the side and doesn't zoom right, making the dumb "hide" button hard/impossible to get at.
It's better than Beta, but not much.
Isn't the likely answer to this (and the answer to most complaints involving HFT) something like "enhances market liquidity"?
In the case of HFT I find the answer unsatisfying, but in the case of large taxes on assets held less than a year it seems more compelling.
I wonder if the better choice might be increasing capital gains overall but cutting capital gains (perhaps in half) for assets held over 5 years. Basically increase the incentive for long-term holding versus penalizing short term holding.
"What I mean isn't what I say." Have a nice day.
I think it's generally assumed that a poorly regulated monopoly is bad -- rent seeking, no innovation, etc. A duopoly isn't much better, even when it's not explicit you end up with defacto collusion on pricing and market segmentation.
Is a triopoly any better? Is there any economics that says how many vendors in a market are necessary to improve efficiency and consumer choice?
Figure that whatever network wiring you install, will have to be replaced in its entirety once every DECADE.
This is what you wrote in your original post.
Neither telcos or cable operators built cable plants for data networking. Telco last mile is essentially a 19th century technology, it's a little unrealistic for any design to predict the future a century out. Everyone expects upgrades on that timeline.
Cable plants are data networks by accident, not by design. They were designed as one-way distribution systems -- whatever predictions they made have worked out well for the designed use considering that only backhaul and encoding upgrades have been necessary to transition from analog NTSC to digital hidef with data added on without altering end-user physical connectivity.
A municipal fiber network is a data network by design, not by adaption or transformation from something not baked into its design. Will it need to be upgraded in whole or in part over its life? Obviously. But it seems unclear to me what would cause 1 gig drops to homes to suddenly seem obsolete given what we know about how people use networks now and for the next 10-20 years.
Given its design purpose and structure, upgrades should be manageable, not the kind of wholesale rip-and-replace needed to go from ancient technologies (POTS) or adapted technologies like coax which weren't designed to be data networks.
There's no arguing that 1 gig Ethernet is only marginally adequate in the data center, but 10 gig pricing is still ridiculous for anything but very large data storage and niche adoption for uplinks or storage-specific uses. I doubt anybody has considered it for general purpose rollouts at $300/port or more (not including cabling restrictions).
For a lot of smaller organizations only running 2k IOPS, iSCSI @ 1 gig is still pretty usable and likely to stay that way until enterprise ports are much cheaper.
But the point was that gigabit Ethernet is still used and useful even where its limitations are seen in bandwidth-intensive applications, so for consumer WAN access, arguing that gigabit Ethernet needs to be ripped out and wholesale replaced in 10 years is ludicrous when it's hard to advocate any kind of consumer consumption that would exceed 100 megabit, and that includes thinking of multiple 4k streams and concurrent data access.
Plus any kind of municipal fiber is going to have structured buildout with upgrades and modularity baked into the design, not tacked on afterwards like POTS or coax cable. The stress on the network isn't going to be the drops to houses but aggregation points, but these will have that kind of upgradability built into the design.
Wasn't there some professor who had mostly perfected a fuel cell based on some kind of aluminum cycle?
Gigabit ethernet is still a mainstay in business environments, used for everything from desktop connectivity to SANs with little motivation to adopt 10 gig ethernet or fiber channel except in larger organizations for specific applications and usually only storage networks. It's been like this for nearly 10 years and unless the price of 10 gig drops substantially I think 1 gig will seem pretty adequate for most connectivity for some time to come.
I would imagine that for consumer WAN use, gigabit fiber would have a lifespan of 20 years easily. Netflix streams 4k at about 16 Mbps, gigabit would support many simultaneous streams.
I think the upgrade factor would happen from the neighborhood-level distribution systems as the oversubscription there would be felt first since the majority of consumers (not geeks torrenting everything and doing continuous online backups of TBs of data) wouldn't use more than about 25 Mbps at peak.
But even those upgrades could be handled with some kind of consumption-based pricing, which I think would be inevitable.
And while previous technologies adopted for Internet use quickly proved inadequate (copper pairs, coax, etc) they weren't designed for two way data and none were installed with any kind of modularity or easy upgrades. A structured fiber network would be much easier to upgrade piecemeal where it was needed (eg, adding backhaul in denser areas) or even individual house drops for early adopters.
I actually RTFA and was shocked with the police comment about releasing data because "..people would use it to make a point."
Shocked is probably the wrong word to use, because at this point I expect it, but it was surprising that the police would be so public about their desire to not release data because people would use to redress their grievances with them.
Or Beta.
The school zone thing is totally open to interpretation.
The road to a friend's house passes one of those elementary school-public park agglomerations, with about a half-dozen baseball fields. He tells me the cops love to pull people over on Sundays when there's a single game at a ball field 2-300 yards from the road and school.
Why? Children present. Sign says "School Zone: 25 mph when children present". Doesn't mean school in session, school kids coming/going, etc, it means any damn minor around.
The police everywhere seem to be given to a general trend of militarization. Assault rifles, military-style clothing and accessories, armored vehicles, intelligence gathering operations, air power (helicopters, drones, etc).
They no longer resemble the "beat cop" who managed to keep order with a whistle and a truncheon in a uniform with shiny brass buttons. They resemble a military assault force.
I wonder how many wanted an iPhone but ended up buying an Android because it's cheaper?
I've noticed that a lot of people want X (often for specific reasons) but decide to buy Y because it's cheaper, even thought it doesn't meet their criteria like X does and then are disappointed because it doesn't do what they want.
Maybe I'm just bad with my money, but it seems like there's a lot of people out there for whom the "deal" is at least as important as the functionality/thing they are buying, yet often they make the "deal" the priority and end up with an unsatisfying purchase that seems to cost them more money than just spending what they needed to get the right thing the first time.
I think there's some kind of expression about the unhappiness with poor quality lingering long after the joy of a good deal.
It's one of the top offenders for sure.
The only thing I can think of is that it's a marketing-driven kind of change, a desire to hide how Windows actually works for cosmetic/PR reasons, as if throwing a facade on it turned it into MacOS somehow. Eliminate anything that resembles or implies "DOS" or some kind of DOS origins.
What's frustrating about it is that all they've really done is cosmetic (at best) -- it doesn't actually change how anything *works*. It's made the entire system less transparent and more difficult to use.
What's worse is that what Microsoft used to be sort of good at was providing a usable GUI for a lot of system functions that, say, Linux required command line interfaces for. With the transition to Powershell, in a lot of ways they have abandoned what they were good at -- leaving a facade GUI that doesn't do anything and replacing it with a so-so scripting environment.
Maybe it's an improvement in some ways, but it strikes me as making the system just all that less transparent.
Microsoft has been on a long-term trend in the name of ease of use of burying everything behind complicated and convoluted UIs since at least Vista, although the default XP UI was also in on it a little.
Little things, like changing your computer's IP address seem to require more and more clicks, dialog boxes and window changes to accomplish the same tasks as before. More and more settings seem to default to "idiot light' mode where basic information is deliberately turned off or hidden.
This might be tolerable for a "home" edition of something designed to get grandma on the internet with a minimum of long distance phone calls to her grandkids, but it's absolutely maddening for "professional" editions and simply uncalled for in "server" editions.
I just cannot fathom what group or individual decided that Server 2012 needed the same UI as the most basic desktop OS. I don't mind the concept of Metro and the execution seems OK on a Surface Pro provided you stay in Metro mode, but there should be a switch or something that just completely disabled Metro mode for server OSes (and should be the default) and it should be switchable for desktop OSes.
Further, the desktop UI needs an "expert" mode where some of the "wizards" are disabled (can't I just have my network connections without the network and sharing center) and more details and technical information are presented to the end users without being filtered/turned off.
I think it would be great for the EFF and the ACLU to sponsor it. It would immediately cause problems for someone to get ham-handed about it.
I'm surprised there hasn't been a Kickstarter setup to re-implement TrueCrypt from the ground up.
What would be the dollar cost to hire a team of developers to do it?