Have you ever stopped to think that people like some fucking freedoms. I don't really feel like going where politicians let me, when the politicians let me, after an anal probe and piss test. Cars provide freedom and that is what America is supposed to be about.
The second we are dependent on the government(see public transport) is the second America is dead. We are getting closer every day and it's sad. You can talk about the economics of it all day and you are probably right... economically I am guessing it beats out the car/plane system by a long shot. Who cares? I want to be able to get places fast and on my schedule. We are advanced enough at this point we don't have to make everything the most efficient... we can have some freedoms and fun FFS.
Your points about industry using trains makes no sense... are you saying we should be treated like raw materials and cattle. Shipped and offloaded like a resource that the government uses to make tax revenue? You have fun, I'm going to keep driving my car, thanks.
Of course it isn't a last mile solution but you have to have SOMETHING for the last mile. You can't just run a giant fiber pipe into the middle of a city and tell everyone they have to access it from that point because there is no last mile infrastructure. Other countries already have this in the form of non-bullet trains, affordable and timely taxis, buses, etc. America is built on cars and planes. I'm not saying it's not possible to switch, I am saying it is a bigger project than just building a train. It is a reorganization of society... people don't like that so not only do you have financial hurdles you also have social/political hurdles. Good luck!!
You are right. Lets build a bullet train to Detroit. Seriously, even though there are 'big cities' you have to look beyond the idea mode and look at what the system would look like if built. How are millions of passengers going to get to hotel or housing? A new massive taxi fleet charging more than the train ticket to get you home/to a hotel? A new bus system? In America we are not compact enough for this. It's basically the last mile problem but for transport. Bullet trains don't have 50 stops all over a metro area.
The populations and systems needed to support this are hardly developed. New hotels would need to be built closer to the drop points to reduce last mile destination problems. At least Cali has put a good estimate on it because the cost is way more than just building a train. I am guessing private investments into supporting activities around the train will come close to equal the trains cost but these investments will only happen in areas of predictable success.
NY to Chi-Town would probably work... but start looking further than that for practical connections and it looks a bit more risky and at $5 billion it's not like you can just try it out and hope it works you better be damn certain that nearly everyone is going to ride the thing.
Please note I was responding to 'any state can have this if cali does'. I predict that maybe 5 states could pull it off right now without redoing the states whole transport structure. The future is a different beast but I only see cities expanding further from their centers right now making this even harder to implement.
Wait, WHAT? Cali has way more money/ability to get money than most states. Not to mention they have more of a 'need' for this type of transport. Most other states probably wouldn't have the numbers of people to justify building it. Imagine a state in the midwest asking for 5 billion so that the tiny train riding population can ride in style. Ya right. So if by any state you mean New York and surrounding area then yes. The population density throughout the US is not really set up for a bullet train system because even if you did connect major cities, you would need cars and buses to get people to their spread out homes.
A company is a group of people. Those people determine how the company is run. A company reflects its people not the other way around. A company's existence is dependent upon people joining it an performing functions. The people that perform those functions choose to do it in a certain manner. Trying to say that the 'company' socializes people into doing things is absurd. People social each other and then they create a company based off that socialization. A company can only survive in its current form as long as the people allow it. If the fictional "companies" determined the socialization we wouldn't have the changes in corporate structure and governance that are always occurring.
The common thread here is people and not companies, sorry. You can't build a castle out of mud.
Not to detract from your point but isn't that exactly what ANY large group of organized people tries to do? It is human nature. Its why sports are popular. Everyone wants to be the best or be a part of something that is the best.
Corps are not evil though. If it were for corporations you wouldn't have any of the things you use daily to make your life easier and better. Look around and think about the things that you have personally made without any help from a corporation. The only thing I can think of is a garden or something, and even then you probably bought the seeds from a company. The progress that has been seen by limiting peoples liability to a reasonable level is amazing. No one would start businesses if they could lose their whole life. No one would invest in businesses if you could go after their whole fortune when it fails. The risk involved in creating the next Microsoft or Oracle is huge and without protections no one will do it. Everyone would be super conservative with their resources and only share them with their close friends and family. This would even further ingrain class bounds and exaggerate the problems you think you would be solving because its no longer safe to give a 22 year old a bunch of money and say 'go for it'.
Corporations are made of and run by PEOPLE. People like you and me. They are not entities that are parasites because in reality they don't exist. The only thing that exists are pieces of paper and documents that say they do and all you want to do is burn that paper. It doesn't change anything except possibly fucking up the whole system that makes people with great ideas and products able to deliver them to the public.
Because if a corporation wasn't considered a person then we would have to rewrite nearly every law that deal with how to handle situations to reflect corporations. A corporation isn't anything, it is an imaginative organization of resources. So if you remove the corporate person idea then no one would be responsible for something going wrong. How are you going to bring legal proceedings against a corporation if the only legal shred of their existence, besides their name, is removed. Its easy to say 'oh lets replace it with something else' until you think of the logistics of it. How will the company own property? The common law system that we are based on is so old that fixing it to deal with corporations as something other than persons would take forever and then it would end up being about the same anyway. Rather than rewriting all laws we have been making exceptions for corps... but until every exception is thought of and rewritten we are stuck with small issues.
The short: Reorganizing a whole society to deal with tiny issues that can be resolved independently is plain dumb.
Just in case you wanted confirmation: You are exactly right, it is 100% the same effect just using different compounds. Cool to think about until you realize that it is exactly like hail and that the rock rain melts just like hail and... well it is just rock hail.
Then what is the issue. The system either has AV software and it stops the attackers, or it doesn't and they get in. Regardless it is not affecting a paying users system.
Everyone can blab on about herd immunity etc but this seems like denying a stolen car a repair under warranty. Systems are going to be used for attacks, it might as well be the pirates systems and not mine. Security these days is more about running faster than your peers, not outrunning the hackers. Microsoft doing this will put paying customers closer to the front of the race. And I am not a microsoft fanboy so don't write some bs about that.
What will everyone want next? Metadata updates for your stolen music from the record companies? As much as I hate some things about companies, you have to draw a line somewhere.
I agree with the car analogy but what does that have to do with malpractice suits? That is another issue with the medical system: sense of entitlement. Why does every average person believe they should get the attention of ten nurses, a doctor, millions of dollars of equipment, etc just because they are a citizen. I am sorry but if you want this type of care you should have to save for it, forgo other expenses, like nice cars, or work more/harder and make provide more for society.
Bluntly: Why should an expertly trained team of doctors and nurses using expensive facilities be used to cure the cancer of a crack addict McDonald's employee?
If everyone were to have this care everyone would have to be a doctor or nurse and we would all be caring for each other while we were weren't sick and never get to enjoy a day of our lives. Health care is a service or product just like everything else. If you want it you should have to pay for it, just like everything else. If you want more or better health care you should buy a less expensive house or car so you can afford it.
You may say a society should protect its citizens. I agree, we should protect our productive, intelligent, high value generating citizens from paying for a bum to get multimillion dollar procedures. Not everyone provides equal value to a society so why should everyone be treated equally?
Anyway... you just spurred a large rant from me, not really directed at you. But that 1% number is bullshit. Malpractice costs are high enough to keep doctors from starting their own practices in many cases. Maybe 1% of the heath care budget is allotted to AWARDS from malpractice lawsuits, but its cost is more far reaching than that. Fighting a legal battle that the doctor wins still costs tons of money and would not factor into that at all, not to mention thousands of other activities that revolve around the business that lawyers have created around malpractice suits.
So this explains the healthcare/insurance problem. Step 1: Idiot jurors award malpractice patient tons of money unjustly. Step 2: Lawyer takes most of it. Step 3: Doctors 'malpractice' insurance becomes nearly unaffordable. Step 4: Medical prices increase. Step 5: Medical insurance price increases. Step 6: Lawyers (politicians) say we need to stop run away spending in healthcare industry.
6+ months from now:
Step 7: The plan to fix everything doesn't involve killing all the scumbag lawyers and politicians so it doesn't work.
Who caused the problem: Idiot people. Who benefits: Lawyers. Who get's screwed: Everyone. Why we allow this system to continue: The lawyers are in charge of changing it.
This bring up the general point that I have been stating forever: More hours and/or more money doesn't mean better education. Just today I had a friend who wanted to study all night for a test I have tomorrow. I spent an hour reading the material correctly and walked out of our little study session. She is still studying right now and will be until the wee hours in the morning and I am positive I will do better on the test because I was studying correctly and not wasting time "studying" (mindless note-card making, quizzing without ever attempting to put the information in your head, general motions that they can later use to tell people they studied, etc). Not only are these terrible techniques, this person is going to be tired and stressed when they are taking the test which are both statistically proven to reduce test scores. Then the self feedback hits, "next time I will spend 10 hours in a row so I can get a better score than the 7 hours I spent last time". Going into a study session knowing you are going to be studying miserably for 10 hours dooms you from the start. You pay less attention to what you are doing the whole time. Essentially Obama is planning on forcing everyone to do what this girl is doing tonight rather than taking my approach: actually learning and not just going through motions.
We also need to change the way our society views educated people. Right now they are almost treated as scum, despite being paid well. It still sickens me that kids view a peer more favorably if they are dumber than them, creating a situation that socially reinforces bad learning habits. It has become socially acceptable to perform activities that generally demonstrate a lack of caring for knowledge. My roommates skip classes just to sit around and do nothing, yet they brag about it and this is in college where we are paying good money for the classes. Asian's have the opposite belief system and good grades are a point of pride.
One of the keys to learning I have found is not trying to pack too much in at once, which is exactly the opposite of Obama's plan. Teachers tell you to start studying for tests weeks in advance because your brain can only learn so much new material in a given time yet this plan calls for every day to OVERFILL young minds with information. It's wasting time on everyone's part and could possibly be a reason for kids wanting to drop out, not wanting to attend classes, and doing poorly. We may be spending too much time a day and not enough attention is being paid to that time. Imagine if we had a system where once you passed a test that demonstrated you knew what you were supposed to, you were done, you could leave or go to recess or something. This may not be a practical example but it still demonstrates the point that kid's are capable of learning much more in much less time and possibly using less money if we use some of the things the parent talked about.
Imagine how focused kids would be to quickly and efficiently learn so they can do what they want rather than wasting everyone's time with the current bullshit we have now.
See my other post in reply to Chris. Some of us have large numbers of devices all over and not just confined to the drop point. So it's not so absurd to want WiFi on all devices. I have 15 devices connected to my WiFi and none wired due to the location of the cable drop.
Then again... why would a case have WiFi... anyway that's not the point.
I know this may not be the case for everyone but in my case I would have to wire at minimum five rooms. Three bedrooms, a living room, and a room that is frequently used with laptops. This still leaves my kitchen unwired and I can see potential for use of internet there. Not even considering that I have five devices in my room with wireless capabilities that I would have to deal with, so it's not just one or two cables. The cable alone would easily top the cost of a wireless router not to mention the time, effort, switch/s and cost of trying to hide the wiring.
In my situation I would be running a wired network bigger than some small businesses but instead I have a wireless network that covers about 15 devices in my house that can be managed easily, quickly and at an extremely low cost. Oh and some devices ONLY can use wireless. Since not all of them are transmitting at once there is no problem with speed or reliability and the biggest issue I have had is bouncing the router one a month or so.
Sure it would be better if everything was wired, but I don't have money flowing out the ears to spend on the same end result I am already getting; internet all over my house.
Maybe we have different definitions of expensive, I find it to be a relative term, i.e. the benefit I get vs the cost. I see the benefits but they are not great enough to get me to spend anything.
You are assuming that because I am calling cloud computing the same thing as the client server model that I think the term cloud computing is worthless. Despite already saying the opposite you continue to assume this fact. I agree 100% that cloud computing better describes a specific use of the client server model.
You also fail to realize that I am defending the OP's analogy because it is perfect. Just as we name different types of lenses different things like glasses, telescopes, etc. They are all fundamentally lenses, just different applications of them. Just like cloud computing is fundamentally the client server model but named differently to describe it in certain situations despite it being fundamentally the same.
Basically I am saying a lens is to glasses as the client server model is to cloud computing.
To make it even more relevant: A lens is to a time lens as the client server model is to cloud computing.
P.S. You constantly are bringing up things like 'why don't we call cloud computing networking or TCP/IP' The reason why is that networking doesn't process data and store data etc. It doesn't perform all the fundamental tasks that the client server model does yet the client server model can perform all tasks the cloud model does.
The client server model is not a communications model, it is all of the models you described above for cloud computing. You are looking at the cloud from the point of view that the 'marketers' want you to.
The 'cloud' consists of many servers that store your information, process your information, and deliver it to you when you need it over a network. This supports lower powered client hardware, centrally stored data, changes to code can be deployed to the server, etc. I can go on all day with properties of 'cloud computing'.
The client server model consists of many servers that store your information, process your information, and deliver it to you when you need it over a network. This supports lower powered client hardware, centrally stored data, changes to code can be deployed to the server, etc. Wait what... same thing?
The client server model is a business model, a management model, a deployment model, it was just never marketed or viewed that way even though it inherently was. It's one of those things that someone realized that applying a term to better describe it would be a great marketing idea, and it is a great marketing idea. Clearly no one thinks of the client/server model as a way of doing business despite the fact that it is.
Wait, you don't say you are using the cloud when you play XBox? I don't really get your point here. I never said that using the phrase cloud computing is bad, I was stating it is not a new concept and that it is the client server model. Call it what you want but the analogy we are talking about stands (and it's not even mine so I am going way out of my way to defend it)
Clearly you live in a wired house. For those of us that don't have a wired house WiFi is the cheapest solution since you only have to buy one device to deliver WiFi to all the wireless devices in your house such as Wii, XBox, Laptops, iPods, PCs, etc. Wiring up a house to have the same effect is expensive and then you are still tethered.
Cloud computing is just client server model on a larger scale with new technologies to make it possible. They are exactly the same conceptually, the only difference is the specific technologies being used to complete the goal. Oh and one is a marketing buzzword used to generate interest while the other is a 'technical' description of a system.
The only reason cloud computing is considered new is because of the scale it is being done on, the markets being targeted, and the technologies being used. So it may be "new" in that sense, but it is still 100% client server model at its core which is indeed old. Just like lenses are old but are being used in something new. Perfect analogy really. If you do indeed think they are vastly different, please explain how the concept of cloud computing does not mirror the concept of client/server model.
Currencies have relative values and minus a slight markup to cover the currency conversion the games are priced about the same. The game companies are not going to eat currency conversion costs, so you can get hit twice on this, once for the buffer, then again for a conversion disadvantage. You can also get a currency advantage, though you will probably never come out better than the US prices.
I just looked up Call of Duty Modern Warfare 2, which has a US price of $60 and I found it in the low 70's Aussie dollars for a good price but some places were higher than $100. The direct conversion says it should be about $69. So the key may be shopping around. Either way, retail already has tiny margins, currency conversions can make a retailer sell at a loss just by the smallest swing, thus you have to pay a higher price because the swings do happen, and some days you are buying it at the same price as US, other days you are getting screwed. They are not just hiking the game cost, they are hedging for currency swings. I guess I am just trying to say that it's not a direct price increase just for the sake of more profits. It costs them more to do business there and they pass that cost on.
Yes, it is the same distance but at 10X or 100X the speed of current Ethernet. If this stuff is really at consumer level pricing then imagine how cheap it would be for a business to insert this stuff in a data center or workplace. I guess there could be latency issues or something but I still don't see why this couldn't be used to move large amounts of data around a data center or office LAN.
Is this just cheap components for Fiber? 100 meters is pretty far, I am guessing that this could have networking uses beyond ripping media to external drives.
Slashdot Mirror
Have you ever stopped to think that people like some fucking freedoms. I don't really feel like going where politicians let me, when the politicians let me, after an anal probe and piss test. Cars provide freedom and that is what America is supposed to be about.
The second we are dependent on the government(see public transport) is the second America is dead. We are getting closer every day and it's sad. You can talk about the economics of it all day and you are probably right... economically I am guessing it beats out the car/plane system by a long shot. Who cares? I want to be able to get places fast and on my schedule. We are advanced enough at this point we don't have to make everything the most efficient... we can have some freedoms and fun FFS.
Your points about industry using trains makes no sense... are you saying we should be treated like raw materials and cattle. Shipped and offloaded like a resource that the government uses to make tax revenue? You have fun, I'm going to keep driving my car, thanks.
Of course it isn't a last mile solution but you have to have SOMETHING for the last mile. You can't just run a giant fiber pipe into the middle of a city and tell everyone they have to access it from that point because there is no last mile infrastructure. Other countries already have this in the form of non-bullet trains, affordable and timely taxis, buses, etc. America is built on cars and planes. I'm not saying it's not possible to switch, I am saying it is a bigger project than just building a train. It is a reorganization of society... people don't like that so not only do you have financial hurdles you also have social/political hurdles. Good luck!!
You are right. Lets build a bullet train to Detroit. Seriously, even though there are 'big cities' you have to look beyond the idea mode and look at what the system would look like if built. How are millions of passengers going to get to hotel or housing? A new massive taxi fleet charging more than the train ticket to get you home/to a hotel? A new bus system? In America we are not compact enough for this. It's basically the last mile problem but for transport. Bullet trains don't have 50 stops all over a metro area.
The populations and systems needed to support this are hardly developed. New hotels would need to be built closer to the drop points to reduce last mile destination problems. At least Cali has put a good estimate on it because the cost is way more than just building a train. I am guessing private investments into supporting activities around the train will come close to equal the trains cost but these investments will only happen in areas of predictable success.
NY to Chi-Town would probably work... but start looking further than that for practical connections and it looks a bit more risky and at $5 billion it's not like you can just try it out and hope it works you better be damn certain that nearly everyone is going to ride the thing.
Please note I was responding to 'any state can have this if cali does'. I predict that maybe 5 states could pull it off right now without redoing the states whole transport structure. The future is a different beast but I only see cities expanding further from their centers right now making this even harder to implement.
Wait, WHAT? Cali has way more money/ability to get money than most states. Not to mention they have more of a 'need' for this type of transport. Most other states probably wouldn't have the numbers of people to justify building it. Imagine a state in the midwest asking for 5 billion so that the tiny train riding population can ride in style. Ya right. So if by any state you mean New York and surrounding area then yes. The population density throughout the US is not really set up for a bullet train system because even if you did connect major cities, you would need cars and buses to get people to their spread out homes.
A company is a group of people. Those people determine how the company is run. A company reflects its people not the other way around. A company's existence is dependent upon people joining it an performing functions. The people that perform those functions choose to do it in a certain manner. Trying to say that the 'company' socializes people into doing things is absurd. People social each other and then they create a company based off that socialization. A company can only survive in its current form as long as the people allow it. If the fictional "companies" determined the socialization we wouldn't have the changes in corporate structure and governance that are always occurring.
The common thread here is people and not companies, sorry. You can't build a castle out of mud.
Not to detract from your point but isn't that exactly what ANY large group of organized people tries to do? It is human nature. Its why sports are popular. Everyone wants to be the best or be a part of something that is the best.
Corps are not evil though. If it were for corporations you wouldn't have any of the things you use daily to make your life easier and better. Look around and think about the things that you have personally made without any help from a corporation. The only thing I can think of is a garden or something, and even then you probably bought the seeds from a company. The progress that has been seen by limiting peoples liability to a reasonable level is amazing. No one would start businesses if they could lose their whole life. No one would invest in businesses if you could go after their whole fortune when it fails. The risk involved in creating the next Microsoft or Oracle is huge and without protections no one will do it. Everyone would be super conservative with their resources and only share them with their close friends and family. This would even further ingrain class bounds and exaggerate the problems you think you would be solving because its no longer safe to give a 22 year old a bunch of money and say 'go for it'.
Corporations are made of and run by PEOPLE. People like you and me. They are not entities that are parasites because in reality they don't exist. The only thing that exists are pieces of paper and documents that say they do and all you want to do is burn that paper. It doesn't change anything except possibly fucking up the whole system that makes people with great ideas and products able to deliver them to the public.
Because if a corporation wasn't considered a person then we would have to rewrite nearly every law that deal with how to handle situations to reflect corporations. A corporation isn't anything, it is an imaginative organization of resources. So if you remove the corporate person idea then no one would be responsible for something going wrong. How are you going to bring legal proceedings against a corporation if the only legal shred of their existence, besides their name, is removed. Its easy to say 'oh lets replace it with something else' until you think of the logistics of it. How will the company own property? The common law system that we are based on is so old that fixing it to deal with corporations as something other than persons would take forever and then it would end up being about the same anyway. Rather than rewriting all laws we have been making exceptions for corps... but until every exception is thought of and rewritten we are stuck with small issues.
The short:
Reorganizing a whole society to deal with tiny issues that can be resolved independently is plain dumb.
Just in case you wanted confirmation: You are exactly right, it is 100% the same effect just using different compounds. Cool to think about until you realize that it is exactly like hail and that the rock rain melts just like hail and ... well it is just rock hail.
Haha, I read that yesterday or something. Good points.
Then what is the issue. The system either has AV software and it stops the attackers, or it doesn't and they get in. Regardless it is not affecting a paying users system.
Everyone can blab on about herd immunity etc but this seems like denying a stolen car a repair under warranty. Systems are going to be used for attacks, it might as well be the pirates systems and not mine. Security these days is more about running faster than your peers, not outrunning the hackers. Microsoft doing this will put paying customers closer to the front of the race. And I am not a microsoft fanboy so don't write some bs about that.
What will everyone want next? Metadata updates for your stolen music from the record companies? As much as I hate some things about companies, you have to draw a line somewhere.
Provide links and you just made the lesson plan.
I agree with the car analogy but what does that have to do with malpractice suits? That is another issue with the medical system: sense of entitlement. Why does every average person believe they should get the attention of ten nurses, a doctor, millions of dollars of equipment, etc just because they are a citizen. I am sorry but if you want this type of care you should have to save for it, forgo other expenses, like nice cars, or work more/harder and make provide more for society.
Bluntly: Why should an expertly trained team of doctors and nurses using expensive facilities be used to cure the cancer of a crack addict McDonald's employee?
If everyone were to have this care everyone would have to be a doctor or nurse and we would all be caring for each other while we were weren't sick and never get to enjoy a day of our lives. Health care is a service or product just like everything else. If you want it you should have to pay for it, just like everything else. If you want more or better health care you should buy a less expensive house or car so you can afford it.
You may say a society should protect its citizens. I agree, we should protect our productive, intelligent, high value generating citizens from paying for a bum to get multimillion dollar procedures. Not everyone provides equal value to a society so why should everyone be treated equally?
Anyway... you just spurred a large rant from me, not really directed at you. But that 1% number is bullshit. Malpractice costs are high enough to keep doctors from starting their own practices in many cases. Maybe 1% of the heath care budget is allotted to AWARDS from malpractice lawsuits, but its cost is more far reaching than that. Fighting a legal battle that the doctor wins still costs tons of money and would not factor into that at all, not to mention thousands of other activities that revolve around the business that lawyers have created around malpractice suits.
So this explains the healthcare/insurance problem.
Step 1: Idiot jurors award malpractice patient tons of money unjustly.
Step 2: Lawyer takes most of it.
Step 3: Doctors 'malpractice' insurance becomes nearly unaffordable.
Step 4: Medical prices increase.
Step 5: Medical insurance price increases.
Step 6: Lawyers (politicians) say we need to stop run away spending in healthcare industry.
6+ months from now:
Step 7: The plan to fix everything doesn't involve killing all the scumbag lawyers and politicians so it doesn't work.
Who caused the problem: Idiot people. Who benefits: Lawyers. Who get's screwed: Everyone. Why we allow this system to continue: The lawyers are in charge of changing it.
This bring up the general point that I have been stating forever: More hours and/or more money doesn't mean better education. Just today I had a friend who wanted to study all night for a test I have tomorrow. I spent an hour reading the material correctly and walked out of our little study session. She is still studying right now and will be until the wee hours in the morning and I am positive I will do better on the test because I was studying correctly and not wasting time "studying" (mindless note-card making, quizzing without ever attempting to put the information in your head, general motions that they can later use to tell people they studied, etc). Not only are these terrible techniques, this person is going to be tired and stressed when they are taking the test which are both statistically proven to reduce test scores. Then the self feedback hits, "next time I will spend 10 hours in a row so I can get a better score than the 7 hours I spent last time". Going into a study session knowing you are going to be studying miserably for 10 hours dooms you from the start. You pay less attention to what you are doing the whole time. Essentially Obama is planning on forcing everyone to do what this girl is doing tonight rather than taking my approach: actually learning and not just going through motions.
We also need to change the way our society views educated people. Right now they are almost treated as scum, despite being paid well. It still sickens me that kids view a peer more favorably if they are dumber than them, creating a situation that socially reinforces bad learning habits. It has become socially acceptable to perform activities that generally demonstrate a lack of caring for knowledge. My roommates skip classes just to sit around and do nothing, yet they brag about it and this is in college where we are paying good money for the classes. Asian's have the opposite belief system and good grades are a point of pride.
One of the keys to learning I have found is not trying to pack too much in at once, which is exactly the opposite of Obama's plan. Teachers tell you to start studying for tests weeks in advance because your brain can only learn so much new material in a given time yet this plan calls for every day to OVERFILL young minds with information. It's wasting time on everyone's part and could possibly be a reason for kids wanting to drop out, not wanting to attend classes, and doing poorly. We may be spending too much time a day and not enough attention is being paid to that time. Imagine if we had a system where once you passed a test that demonstrated you knew what you were supposed to, you were done, you could leave or go to recess or something. This may not be a practical example but it still demonstrates the point that kid's are capable of learning much more in much less time and possibly using less money if we use some of the things the parent talked about.
Imagine how focused kids would be to quickly and efficiently learn so they can do what they want rather than wasting everyone's time with the current bullshit we have now.
This should be insightful because I have seen it done.
See my other post in reply to Chris. Some of us have large numbers of devices all over and not just confined to the drop point. So it's not so absurd to want WiFi on all devices. I have 15 devices connected to my WiFi and none wired due to the location of the cable drop.
Then again... why would a case have WiFi... anyway that's not the point.
I know this may not be the case for everyone but in my case I would have to wire at minimum five rooms. Three bedrooms, a living room, and a room that is frequently used with laptops. This still leaves my kitchen unwired and I can see potential for use of internet there. Not even considering that I have five devices in my room with wireless capabilities that I would have to deal with, so it's not just one or two cables. The cable alone would easily top the cost of a wireless router not to mention the time, effort, switch/s and cost of trying to hide the wiring.
In my situation I would be running a wired network bigger than some small businesses but instead I have a wireless network that covers about 15 devices in my house that can be managed easily, quickly and at an extremely low cost. Oh and some devices ONLY can use wireless. Since not all of them are transmitting at once there is no problem with speed or reliability and the biggest issue I have had is bouncing the router one a month or so.
Sure it would be better if everything was wired, but I don't have money flowing out the ears to spend on the same end result I am already getting; internet all over my house.
Maybe we have different definitions of expensive, I find it to be a relative term, i.e. the benefit I get vs the cost. I see the benefits but they are not great enough to get me to spend anything.
You are assuming that because I am calling cloud computing the same thing as the client server model that I think the term cloud computing is worthless. Despite already saying the opposite you continue to assume this fact. I agree 100% that cloud computing better describes a specific use of the client server model.
You also fail to realize that I am defending the OP's analogy because it is perfect. Just as we name different types of lenses different things like glasses, telescopes, etc. They are all fundamentally lenses, just different applications of them. Just like cloud computing is fundamentally the client server model but named differently to describe it in certain situations despite it being fundamentally the same.
Basically I am saying a lens is to glasses as the client server model is to cloud computing.
To make it even more relevant: A lens is to a time lens as the client server model is to cloud computing.
P.S. You constantly are bringing up things like 'why don't we call cloud computing networking or TCP/IP' The reason why is that networking doesn't process data and store data etc. It doesn't perform all the fundamental tasks that the client server model does yet the client server model can perform all tasks the cloud model does.
The client server model is not a communications model, it is all of the models you described above for cloud computing. You are looking at the cloud from the point of view that the 'marketers' want you to.
The 'cloud' consists of many servers that store your information, process your information, and deliver it to you when you need it over a network. This supports lower powered client hardware, centrally stored data, changes to code can be deployed to the server, etc. I can go on all day with properties of 'cloud computing'.
The client server model consists of many servers that store your information, process your information, and deliver it to you when you need it over a network. This supports lower powered client hardware, centrally stored data, changes to code can be deployed to the server, etc. Wait what... same thing?
The client server model is a business model, a management model, a deployment model, it was just never marketed or viewed that way even though it inherently was. It's one of those things that someone realized that applying a term to better describe it would be a great marketing idea, and it is a great marketing idea. Clearly no one thinks of the client/server model as a way of doing business despite the fact that it is.
Wait, you don't say you are using the cloud when you play XBox? I don't really get your point here. I never said that using the phrase cloud computing is bad, I was stating it is not a new concept and that it is the client server model. Call it what you want but the analogy we are talking about stands (and it's not even mine so I am going way out of my way to defend it)
Clearly you live in a wired house. For those of us that don't have a wired house WiFi is the cheapest solution since you only have to buy one device to deliver WiFi to all the wireless devices in your house such as Wii, XBox, Laptops, iPods, PCs, etc. Wiring up a house to have the same effect is expensive and then you are still tethered.
I hope you are joking.
Cloud computing is just client server model on a larger scale with new technologies to make it possible. They are exactly the same conceptually, the only difference is the specific technologies being used to complete the goal. Oh and one is a marketing buzzword used to generate interest while the other is a 'technical' description of a system.
The only reason cloud computing is considered new is because of the scale it is being done on, the markets being targeted, and the technologies being used. So it may be "new" in that sense, but it is still 100% client server model at its core which is indeed old. Just like lenses are old but are being used in something new. Perfect analogy really. If you do indeed think they are vastly different, please explain how the concept of cloud computing does not mirror the concept of client/server model.
Currencies have relative values and minus a slight markup to cover the currency conversion the games are priced about the same. The game companies are not going to eat currency conversion costs, so you can get hit twice on this, once for the buffer, then again for a conversion disadvantage. You can also get a currency advantage, though you will probably never come out better than the US prices.
I just looked up Call of Duty Modern Warfare 2, which has a US price of $60 and I found it in the low 70's Aussie dollars for a good price but some places were higher than $100. The direct conversion says it should be about $69. So the key may be shopping around. Either way, retail already has tiny margins, currency conversions can make a retailer sell at a loss just by the smallest swing, thus you have to pay a higher price because the swings do happen, and some days you are buying it at the same price as US, other days you are getting screwed. They are not just hiking the game cost, they are hedging for currency swings. I guess I am just trying to say that it's not a direct price increase just for the sake of more profits. It costs them more to do business there and they pass that cost on.
Yes, it is the same distance but at 10X or 100X the speed of current Ethernet. If this stuff is really at consumer level pricing then imagine how cheap it would be for a business to insert this stuff in a data center or workplace. I guess there could be latency issues or something but I still don't see why this couldn't be used to move large amounts of data around a data center or office LAN.
Is this just cheap components for Fiber? 100 meters is pretty far, I am guessing that this could have networking uses beyond ripping media to external drives.