Sorry if I'm being dumb here, but I fail to see how bandwidth is an infinite resource. If the current links can get saturated, it seems that it is finite.
the only solution is to maintain and build up the links whenever the current link gets saturated. Like the agreement the company has with its customers implies it will do.
That's my point - the current agreement is unrealistic, since it requires the company to constantly increase their capacity to accommodate growing demand at a fixed cost. And fixed cost models do not work.
I find this whole argument ridiculous.
Isn't the simple, effective solution to simply charge customers based on the amount of data they consume?
I mean, if I want to use Netflix, shouldn't I pay for the bandwidth required to use the service? Why should that cost be shared by my neighbor, who only uses the internet to check his email and the news?
Charge consumers per byte of data they send/receive. Yes, it sucks if you are a bandwidth hog, but its really the only fair solution.
I mean, there's a reason other utilities, such as electricity, water, or waste disposal don't give unlimited plans. It's just not a reasonable way of doing things. You should pay for what you are in fact consuming, rather than subsidizing the consumption of your neighbor who has a hundred torrents going all night, every night.
I agree, it sucks but it's really the only fair solution. It might stifle growth of some services which consume lots of data, but it would also have major benefits, for examples companies would be motivated to reduce the amount of bandwidth their services provide.
Am I crazy or is the simple solution to all this to charge consumers based on what they consume?
I know we all love unlimited broadband internet, but it was really only feasible for that short period when the fiber had just been laid and there was more than enough bandwidth to go around. Now that everyone is taking advantage of services that hog bandwidth, that's no longer the case.
It seems only rational to go to pricing models that charge per Mb or Gb. Yes, we all would hate it. Yes, with the current market it would be virtually impossible for an ISP to switch to such a model, since all of the competition is offering unlimited fixed price access. But once unlimited access prices begin to start going up (to reflect the actual cost of the bandwidth being used), it may actually become feasible.
I know we all like unlimited access, but it's really only a good model for those using a disproportionate amount.
True deregulation wouldn't allow anyone to manipulate power supplies and prices, that would have been left to the market.
That's precisely false.
True deregulation allows EVERYONE to manipulate the supply and prices of the power they generate. That's the definition of deregulation; they can do whatever they want.
I realize you're claiming that a free market tends to prevent such manipulations, because if one vendor artificially inflates their prices, consumers will simply buy from someone else, forcing them out of business.
Unfortunately, what you, and most free-market-invisible-hand preachers don't seem to understand that only works if there are
1.Many Suppliers
2.The ability to switch between vendors without significant cost
3. The time and ability for consumers to make rational purchasing decisions
If any of the above are violated, "free market" principles do not apply, and do not work. That's the case for health care, roads, sewage, water, and it's also the case for power.
Perhaps our grid could be modified to accommodate a free market system (as they've tried to do with telecommunications)... but for the moment claiming that the free market could regulate itself is simply ludicrous.
Seriously, this is happening more and more. Can't someone check the submissions so they go to the source and not some person's brief summary of it in their blog?
the presence of heavy particulate pollution is highly correlated with desert areas
Somewhat, yes, but the North and South American deserts don't seem to have the same issue. Unfortunately data for Western and Southern Australia isn't provided, so we can't use that for comparison.
Yeah, I agree it's a little odd. I'm sure African industry is basically completely unregulated, but still, I didn't think they had enough of a base to cause that much pollution.
The only thing going against the desert theory is that the North American deserts (i.e. Utah, Arizona and Nevada) aren't red. Australia would be a great candidate to compare to as well, but apparently (conspicuously?) the data from Western and Southern Australia (Great Victoria) wasn't available.
Well if that's the case, then the upside is that no matter what we do to our own species and planet, at least we succeeded in seeding life on a new planet.
Panspermia, or actually, exogenesis ftw!
Actually, I suppose this would be "homogenesis". Sweet!
I actually made a plugin once that did exactly that... it made all the text onscreen asterisks (or just random garbled text), and only showed you the actual text when you highlighted it.
Of course, I could never find a use for it besides installing it on friends' computers when they weren't looking...
Eh, this is way sneakier, and could be far more effective, since you could modify/hide anything from the user.
It would be pretty difficult to determine which pixels are the URL bar on the GPU though. Unless of course all this GPU acceleration they're putting in browsers now allows you to somehow read the coordinates directly.
Slashdot Mirror
the only solution is to maintain and build up the links whenever the current link gets saturated. Like the agreement the company has with its customers implies it will do.
That's my point - the current agreement is unrealistic, since it requires the company to constantly increase their capacity to accommodate growing demand at a fixed cost. And fixed cost models do not work.
I find this whole argument ridiculous. Isn't the simple, effective solution to simply charge customers based on the amount of data they consume?
I mean, if I want to use Netflix, shouldn't I pay for the bandwidth required to use the service? Why should that cost be shared by my neighbor, who only uses the internet to check his email and the news?
Charge consumers per byte of data they send/receive. Yes, it sucks if you are a bandwidth hog, but its really the only fair solution.
I mean, there's a reason other utilities, such as electricity, water, or waste disposal don't give unlimited plans. It's just not a reasonable way of doing things. You should pay for what you are in fact consuming, rather than subsidizing the consumption of your neighbor who has a hundred torrents going all night, every night.
I agree, it sucks but it's really the only fair solution. It might stifle growth of some services which consume lots of data, but it would also have major benefits, for examples companies would be motivated to reduce the amount of bandwidth their services provide.
I know we all love unlimited broadband internet, but it was really only feasible for that short period when the fiber had just been laid and there was more than enough bandwidth to go around. Now that everyone is taking advantage of services that hog bandwidth, that's no longer the case.
It seems only rational to go to pricing models that charge per Mb or Gb. Yes, we all would hate it. Yes, with the current market it would be virtually impossible for an ISP to switch to such a model, since all of the competition is offering unlimited fixed price access. But once unlimited access prices begin to start going up (to reflect the actual cost of the bandwidth being used), it may actually become feasible.
I know we all like unlimited access, but it's really only a good model for those using a disproportionate amount.
True deregulation wouldn't allow anyone to manipulate power supplies and prices, that would have been left to the market.
That's precisely false.
True deregulation allows EVERYONE to manipulate the supply and prices of the power they generate. That's the definition of deregulation; they can do whatever they want.
I realize you're claiming that a free market tends to prevent such manipulations, because if one vendor artificially inflates their prices, consumers will simply buy from someone else, forcing them out of business.
Unfortunately, what you, and most free-market-invisible-hand preachers don't seem to understand that only works if there are
1.Many Suppliers
2.The ability to switch between vendors without significant cost
3. The time and ability for consumers to make rational purchasing decisions
If any of the above are violated, "free market" principles do not apply, and do not work. That's the case for health care, roads, sewage, water, and it's also the case for power.
Perhaps our grid could be modified to accommodate a free market system (as they've tried to do with telecommunications)... but for the moment claiming that the free market could regulate itself is simply ludicrous.
Seriously, this is happening more and more. Can't someone check the submissions so they go to the source and not some person's brief summary of it in their blog?
I'm merely pointing out that it is akin to air for us. Can't have life without it.
I like that.... but why stop at air?
Death is akin to sex; can't have life without it.
More at 11"
I mean, nobody like the French
Yeah, capitalization can be very important.
On that note, you have just been added to a government watchlist. You're not supposed to wonder these things out loud!
the presence of heavy particulate pollution is highly correlated with desert areas
Somewhat, yes, but the North and South American deserts don't seem to have the same issue. Unfortunately data for Western and Southern Australia isn't provided, so we can't use that for comparison.
The only thing going against the desert theory is that the North American deserts (i.e. Utah, Arizona and Nevada) aren't red. Australia would be a great candidate to compare to as well, but apparently (conspicuously?) the data from Western and Southern Australia (Great Victoria) wasn't available.
but that isn't where the highest levels are.
I accept your knowledge of geography, but I question your claim concerning the state of 2.5 micrometer particulate pollution over the Gobi Desert.
And on a side note, how come Slashdot submitters link to a summary, and not the Original NASA source?
They're talking about PM2.5 - the really small particles, which apparently China doesn't classify as pollution (they're not listed on that site).
Apparently the really fine particles can be the worst for you, since your body has a hard time filtering them out.
Yeah, I might have just picked up some terrible karma. Ah, the things we do to ourselves in order to get +5: Funny...
I modify a noun or verb to make it almost certainly not funny and insert it at the end.
I stopped eating meat and dairy and this problem went away.
Gooood for yooouuuuuu! Do you enjoy the smell of your farts now as well?
Panspermia, or actually, exogenesis ftw!
Actually, I suppose this would be "homogenesis". Sweet!
Not sure how it would work but I hear they're thinking about putting parachutes on Segways now.
Fixed!
Let me look around... This was back in Uni, but I may have it on one of my old archive externals at home.
Yeah, I suppose. I could make this happen today if I knew how to dump the screen buffer contents to a readable array in device global memory in CUDA.
Of course, I could never find a use for it besides installing it on friends' computers when they weren't looking...
Maybe, but people have so many addons and toolbars it would be a pretty rough guess.
It would be pretty difficult to determine which pixels are the URL bar on the GPU though. Unless of course all this GPU acceleration they're putting in browsers now allows you to somehow read the coordinates directly.