I know I sound like a pessimist about this, but I don't think wireless is a viable solution, either. In my area, the only real wireless available is Verizon Wireless' NationalAccess network, a 1XRTT based connection. According to Verizon's web-site, it averages 40-60 kbps with bursts to 144. I've tried this and my tests were typically 30-50 kbps with frequent drop outs and disconnections. My dialup connection averages 40 and has less problems.
Verizon does offer a 'broadband' solution (300-500 kbps with bursts up to 2Mbps) but it's only available in D.C. and San Diego right now (like they need it).
So, to reiterate, rural areas will NOT be getting broadband, wired or not (unless it's mandated by some gov't entity).
I don't think you're seeing the entire picture. I live in a rural area and we are nowhere near getting broadband (DSL or cable). The way it was explained to me is that the problem is not how far you are from the CO, but how you are served. I don't know all the correct terminology (help me out here phone nerds), but you are getting service from a remote that is not populated with asymetric-data-friendly equipment, then you aren't getting DSL. Period. So it wouldn't matter if DSL could go 100 miles, people like me still won't get it because the equipment isn't in the remote.
Ah, but you say, all they have to do is upgrade the equipment. You're right, but BellSouth has determined that it is more financially feasible to put in DSL equipment in the CO (where the bulk of the customers directly connect) than to reengineer a remote for the 10 or so customers who would purchase DSL. And they have told me that. Repeatedly.
Same way for cable. The one cable company that services my area will not put in lines because there are only 4 houses on my road and 2 of them wouldn't get it.
So, no, rural areas will NOT get broadband.
Re:here, have this -1 cursed post...
on
D&D Is 30
·
· Score: 1
1. Duplicates are a thing of the past
2. Editors will stop rejecting relevant stories that aren't theoretical (ie overheated Teflon causes flu-like symptoms for 2 days)
3. Spelling errors will become a thing of the past on the front page
4. Trolls will be stopped
5. Reviews about books written over a year ago won't appear on the frontpage
You missed one:
6. Duplicates are a thing of the past
I bought into the 'usability' rhetoric when he published his book a couple of years ago. That book has a lot of good information applicable to web design. But he doesn't follow his own advice. For example, he makes the statement in his book that people cannot read long expanses of text on a computer screen because it induces eyestrain in most people (note I said 'most' -/. readers are an exception). And he states that in a few years, once advances in monitor technologies are evidenced in the consumer market (OLED?), this problem will go away. But that is all you see on his site today: Huge tracts of text. Eyestrain? Hell, I need an aspirin just thinking about that site.
To top it all off, take a look at the useit.com link in the upper left hand corner of the page: It doesn't conform to the standard blue hypertext link color. Horrors!
He is so adament about the use of 'standards' to make a site usable, it makes his site UNusable.
A couple of years ago, I saw a reader's letter in a pretty popular web design mag state the design of his site as having the interest of a 'dry stick.'
Have you ever returned something in this manner? Are the vendors really 'afraid' of the Commerce Commission? Or is it more like the a version of the Better Business Bureau - an agency that keeps lists of 'bad' businesses that other consumers had problems with so maybe you shouldn't deal with them...
That's what pushed NASA and the Soviet program in the first place, and there is nothing wrong with using increased defense spending to fund technology. It's what drove pretty much every advancement in aviation, ships, cargo handling, communications, materials science, and aerodynamics in the last 100 years.
Increased defense spending? I thought it was porn...
Where are the hot anime chicks with the flaming hair-dos and swords? Huh? What about the some bad ass spaceships and mechs? What about VAMPIRES, HUH? NOT ONE FUCKING VAMPIRE!
And to top it off, there is no obligitory $OBJECT blowing up in a slow motion 6 frame sequence...
I for one like the 2D isometric view as in [insert almost any Blizzard game here], Ultima Online[original client], Crusader (anyone remember that one?) and the like.
I think it looks much better graphically. For example, as in the city of Lut Gholein in Diablo II (anyone know if that is available for a background image?). 2D games also do not seem to 'skip' frames (sorry, I don't know the technical term).
I also play 3D games, though not too many 'twitch' type games. Even though I like Neverwinter Nights a LOT, I notice that I play it in a... wait for it... iso point of view.
So why 3D? Is it easier (ha ha) to code for than a similar 2D offering? Is it better visually? Perhaps not now, but maybe later? Will DirectX 9 help with that? What about for Linux?. Are there so many 3D shooters out there that the players are more involved in the gameplay rather than the scenery? Or, are we all just victims of technology for technologies' sake?
Slashdot Mirror
An old programmer once told me his version of the software development triangle:
Good | Fast | Cheap
Pick any two
I know I sound like a pessimist about this, but I don't think wireless is a viable solution, either. In my area, the only real wireless available is Verizon Wireless' NationalAccess network, a 1XRTT based connection. According to Verizon's web-site, it averages 40-60 kbps with bursts to 144. I've tried this and my tests were typically 30-50 kbps with frequent drop outs and disconnections. My dialup connection averages 40 and has less problems.
Verizon does offer a 'broadband' solution (300-500 kbps with bursts up to 2Mbps) but it's only available in D.C. and San Diego right now (like they need it).
So, to reiterate, rural areas will NOT be getting broadband, wired or not (unless it's mandated by some gov't entity).
Here is the Apollo 15 launch in Real Video and MPEG
Enjoy!
Maybe they should bring in Bob and Bob for some "restructuring..."
I don't think you're seeing the entire picture. I live in a rural area and we are nowhere near getting broadband (DSL or cable). The way it was explained to me is that the problem is not how far you are from the CO, but how you are served. I don't know all the correct terminology (help me out here phone nerds), but you are getting service from a remote that is not populated with asymetric-data-friendly equipment, then you aren't getting DSL. Period. So it wouldn't matter if DSL could go 100 miles, people like me still won't get it because the equipment isn't in the remote.
Ah, but you say, all they have to do is upgrade the equipment. You're right, but BellSouth has determined that it is more financially feasible to put in DSL equipment in the CO (where the bulk of the customers directly connect) than to reengineer a remote for the 10 or so customers who would purchase DSL. And they have told me that. Repeatedly.
Same way for cable. The one cable company that services my area will not put in lines because there are only 4 houses on my road and 2 of them wouldn't get it.
So, no, rural areas will NOT get broadband.
HA! Rolled a 20 and saved vs. troll!
6. Duplicates are a thing of the past
Not many since we'll never see the source...
Not that I'd want to look at it anyway...
Or, alternately...
whips out PocketPC with wireless connectivity, heads to john
Yeah, maybe they can assimilate Jenna Jamison...
I bought into the 'usability' rhetoric when he published his book a couple of years ago. That book has a lot of good information applicable to web design. But he doesn't follow his own advice. For example, he makes the statement in his book that people cannot read long expanses of text on a computer screen because it induces eyestrain in most people (note I said 'most' - /. readers are an exception). And he states that in a few years, once advances in monitor technologies are evidenced in the consumer market (OLED?), this problem will go away. But that is all you see on his site today: Huge tracts of text. Eyestrain? Hell, I need an aspirin just thinking about that site.
To top it all off, take a look at the useit.com link in the upper left hand corner of the page: It doesn't conform to the standard blue hypertext link color. Horrors!
He is so adament about the use of 'standards' to make a site usable, it makes his site UNusable.
A couple of years ago, I saw a reader's letter in a pretty popular web design mag state the design of his site as having the interest of a 'dry stick.'
I tend to agree.
"CPUs are Forever" is not conducive to Moore's Law.
Sammy Sosa is 7th on the all-time list of career strikouts; and 2nd among active players.
Read about it here.
I'd say XML is analogous to that: perhaps right behind C# among active "players?"
No, no, no. They've just changed their name. It's now called 'Applesoft.'
Reminds me of the quote by Henry Kissinger: "Even paranoids have enemies."
ANOTHER reason to use Mozilla!
Have you ever returned something in this manner? Are the vendors really 'afraid' of the Commerce Commission? Or is it more like the a version of the Better Business Bureau - an agency that keeps lists of 'bad' businesses that other consumers had problems with so maybe you shouldn't deal with them...
Nope. Not quite:
"IN SOVIET RUSSIA, betas download you!"
Sorry, couldn't resist...
Increased defense spending? I thought it was porn...
The funniest part is the byline (?) of the editorial:
"Benjamin J. Stein is a lawyer, economist, writer and actor, and host of the game show Win Ben Stein's Money."
Are you sure you weren't playing a Gumby character?
Just trying to be fair...
Click here
Buckminster Fuller's Dymaxion house is not completely underground but it does look cool...
//WARNING: Flash site
Dymaxion house
Where are the hot anime chicks with the flaming hair-dos and swords? Huh? What about the some bad ass spaceships and mechs? What about VAMPIRES, HUH? NOT ONE FUCKING VAMPIRE!
And to top it off, there is no obligitory $OBJECT blowing up in a slow motion 6 frame sequence...
Anime, my ass...
That begs the question: Is 3D really better?
I for one like the 2D isometric view as in [insert almost any Blizzard game here], Ultima Online[original client], Crusader (anyone remember that one?) and the like.
I think it looks much better graphically. For example, as in the city of Lut Gholein in Diablo II (anyone know if that is available for a background image?). 2D games also do not seem to 'skip' frames (sorry, I don't know the technical term).
I also play 3D games, though not too many 'twitch' type games. Even though I like Neverwinter Nights a LOT, I notice that I play it in a... wait for it... iso point of view.
So why 3D? Is it easier (ha ha) to code for than a similar 2D offering? Is it better visually? Perhaps not now, but maybe later? Will DirectX 9 help with that? What about for Linux?. Are there so many 3D shooters out there that the players are more involved in the gameplay rather than the scenery? Or, are we all just victims of technology for technologies' sake?
I'd be interested in others thoughts on this...