I don't understand a word of what you just wrote. Kansas City is getting Fiber. If you meant places LIKE KC, then I think the problem is trying to identify what makes a good location. It has to be a place where the effect will be seen, but with enough capital available to actually get it installed. It was rough here in KC getting people to understand why they even wanted it, much less that its a good thing and Google's not trying to just take your money. Then there's the idiots who decried if because 1Gb/s is stupid since only KC will have it.
The biggest problem faced in KC is the lack of understanding of basic electronics and infrastructure. I think Austin is a good choice. There's a better technological grasp while still being a city that such a project will be widely noticed.
That's a BS post. I'm in the heart of the KC roll out and Google has lowered the bar at least once on neighborhoods getting in. They base interest by the percentage of the population of the fiberhood that enrolls for the $10 deposit. This is true "vote with your dollar" work here. It's really about how much the community is willing to go out and spread the word and get their neighbors on board.
I've heard this question raised before. No, not about Google Fiber, about Dial-up vs DSL and DSL vs Cable. Every time we come to an increase in the abilities of technology, many people ask the exact same question. The answer is yes, it is totally worth it. Think of all the things you can do today that you take for granted that you couldn't do or wouldn't have had the patience to do with previous technologies. Oddly enough, this isn't a question that's exclusive to the tech community. I heard the same thing about a local highway when they raised the speed limit.
You can also leave here. It's okay. We won't mind. Some of us are not so naive as to believe that our position as a country is inherently given to us by the sheer desire to be a country. People have died and will continue to die in the name of the freedoms and liberties you so easily take for granted. I for one had no problem serving my country and I realized at a very young age that there will always be people who will take advantage of the circumstances around me.
Respect those who fought so that you could grudgingly be a citizen. Honor those who died for your ability to even write this post.
I agree with you. There is something to be said about the here and now destination travel afforded by air travel, but there is just as much credibility in the idea of enjoying the journey that can be found in train travel. Obviously if you need to be there now, take a plane. Otherwise a train should not be discounted. That said, last time I looked in to Amtrak services, a couple of months ago, it would cost my wife more to take a train than a plane, which seems ridiculous to me.
I know, I was over dramatizing the stupidity of anyone who wouldn't take into account personal data on their phone, which is very often left in public.
It is people like you and comments like this that actually decrease the safety of children in this country. The overbearing belief that a device or a style can be linked to people who would commit a crime and that you can somehow use this to identify attackers is believed by way to many. Even a statement like this made in jest provides the wrong fodder to the wrong people.
Also, please show us where the idea that this device can be used any easier to spy on "the innocent" than can any spycam or camera phone on the market today. Troll arguments like the one you made make me wish more and more that AC comments weren't allowed.
Hmm, his own bio on his page says "Stephen Fry once referred to him as a "cynical, ignorant [expletive]." Also from his Twitter feed, "/. is paying me and The Kernel is no longer trading." when asked if he should be publishing his articles on The Kernel. BTW, The Kernel is no longer trading because it's no longer a company. So in area of character, I'd say this one is definitely not neutral or unbiased.
As to his article, I can see why other publications like The Guardian considered The Kernel a gossip mag. There is not evidence or foundation in Milo's article. Only the ravings of a man who has shown himself to be firmly against all things big tech. I wouldn't do so far as to affiliate him with MS, I'm sure he hates them too. I will say that, while many people, readers and critics, have spoken of his aptitude with the english language, I found his article to be riddled with hyperbole ("company no one trusts" some of us have no quarrel with Google) and out-right ignorance (Glass is unofficially called Goggles? No.)
As his article appears to have been built to stimulate heated arguments with no enlightenment to be found in it's many words, I will say that he has at least succeeded in this, as I can not find anything else this article succeeds at or any other reason for it's existence. Also, I wouldn't call Milo a "tech journalist" anymore than I'd call a/. commenter a writer.
Yeah it is a strawman argument. What's your point? It was meant to be. Considering that the term "evil" is whole based on perspective a strawman seems justified to further illustrate my point, that's why I used it. There is not "logical" definition for evil as there is not definition on where "evil" begins and ends. Without defined parameters one can only attempt to define an act based on the other acts categorized with it. Since slaughtering kittens is generally seen as evil I can only conclude that terminating Reader is the same as killing kittens.
I trust you'll note that there are no fallacies in this argument, I checked. However, your rebuttal has a few. Your Black-and-White fallacy that just because Google has "stopped being such a bold defender of the open internet, and open source software" is used to put Google in as " falling in line with general tech-corporate Americana" when in reality that argument paints the situation as one or the other and not simply a business looking at being able to keep good projects open and focus on other projects by terminating some projects. Also, your "appeal-to-authority" fallacy in your statement "Just a couple days ago, a story on slashdot opened with the phrase '...a post-don't be evil google...'" shows that you believe a non-edited public created content system like/. is an authority on subjects such as this, when these are really just people opinions. I can confidently assure you that there is no scientific fact behind the idea that Google is evil or being evil.
Lastly, just because people put their time into creating things around something Google gave them doesn't make maintaining that service a requirement for Google and doesn't make the actions of Google or any company or their actions inherently evil for no longer supporting it.
But how do we define "perfect" materials? And his illustration was with no frame weight and a small child as a payload, not as a commercially viable payload.
I believe the point was that you are using your on knowledge of today's materials to establish a forecast on what is possible in the future. In this is where we find err, since there are likely technologies in the future that could quite possibly create the means for a system like this to work.
So just to be clear, closing down a free to use system like Reader is the same as slaughtering kittens or or forcing people to pay for a new OS just because they upgraded their motherboard, right? I mean Reader didn't cost you anything. I miss iGoogle but I didn't think it was evil when they shut it down. The tech community gets their feather ruffled when a new version of windows comes out or when someone compares iPhones and Androids, I doubt very much that something like Reader is going to have a truly noticeable shock. Google projects come and go. It's sad that the tech community you speak of only notices some of the least useful ones (and by useful I mean there are many other things that fill the roll as good of better.)
Why don't you show us a promise that isn't worthless. Realistically any promise, or word of honor, pledge, etc. that does not have a legal signed contract is technically worthless. Doesn't make your word any less weighty.
Just because a trial is overturned does not make the law void. Just because you feel the innate need to try to call BS on a post you don't want to take the time to understand because you don't like the information in the post, doesn't mean I'm out of line in pointing out solid evidence that the point is in fact valid. Note here what while I'm attempting to have, and fully open to, an adult, logical debate, you're only argument has been "Nuh, Uh prove it," and name calling. Neither of which are logical arguments anywhere except with the possible exception of congress and elementary schools.
Slashdot Mirror
I don't understand a word of what you just wrote. Kansas City is getting Fiber. If you meant places LIKE KC, then I think the problem is trying to identify what makes a good location. It has to be a place where the effect will be seen, but with enough capital available to actually get it installed. It was rough here in KC getting people to understand why they even wanted it, much less that its a good thing and Google's not trying to just take your money. Then there's the idiots who decried if because 1Gb/s is stupid since only KC will have it. The biggest problem faced in KC is the lack of understanding of basic electronics and infrastructure. I think Austin is a good choice. There's a better technological grasp while still being a city that such a project will be widely noticed.
That's a BS post. I'm in the heart of the KC roll out and Google has lowered the bar at least once on neighborhoods getting in. They base interest by the percentage of the population of the fiberhood that enrolls for the $10 deposit. This is true "vote with your dollar" work here. It's really about how much the community is willing to go out and spread the word and get their neighbors on board.
I've heard this question raised before. No, not about Google Fiber, about Dial-up vs DSL and DSL vs Cable. Every time we come to an increase in the abilities of technology, many people ask the exact same question. The answer is yes, it is totally worth it. Think of all the things you can do today that you take for granted that you couldn't do or wouldn't have had the patience to do with previous technologies. Oddly enough, this isn't a question that's exclusive to the tech community. I heard the same thing about a local highway when they raised the speed limit.
Now where did I leave my mod points!
It's that point where "Please don't! Stop!" becomes "Please, don't stop!"
What is that line about how only the sane know they're insane?
You can also leave here. It's okay. We won't mind. Some of us are not so naive as to believe that our position as a country is inherently given to us by the sheer desire to be a country. People have died and will continue to die in the name of the freedoms and liberties you so easily take for granted. I for one had no problem serving my country and I realized at a very young age that there will always be people who will take advantage of the circumstances around me.
Respect those who fought so that you could grudgingly be a citizen. Honor those who died for your ability to even write this post.
Yes please, inform us of literally anyone in the world who held a genius level intelligence and didn't have something wrong.
they aren't flying huge behemoths...
I guess that would depend on the passenger manifest. ;)
I agree with you. There is something to be said about the here and now destination travel afforded by air travel, but there is just as much credibility in the idea of enjoying the journey that can be found in train travel. Obviously if you need to be there now, take a plane. Otherwise a train should not be discounted. That said, last time I looked in to Amtrak services, a couple of months ago, it would cost my wife more to take a train than a plane, which seems ridiculous to me.
Also, I like trains.
I know, I was over dramatizing the stupidity of anyone who wouldn't take into account personal data on their phone, which is very often left in public.
" .. googleglass aka 'pedocam' "
It is people like you and comments like this that actually decrease the safety of children in this country. The overbearing belief that a device or a style can be linked to people who would commit a crime and that you can somehow use this to identify attackers is believed by way to many. Even a statement like this made in jest provides the wrong fodder to the wrong people.
Also, please show us where the idea that this device can be used any easier to spy on "the innocent" than can any spycam or camera phone on the market today. Troll arguments like the one you made make me wish more and more that AC comments weren't allowed.
I store all my tax returns on my SD card in my phone. /s
Oh Google puts things on YouTube! And here I thought it was just the idiots who had dumber friends doing that! Thanks for clarifying this for me!
I'd argue that the only downside to most things is the people who use them, therefore people are always the downside.
So then you know nothing and presume to much. There's not an ounce of fact or evidence in your statements, just supposition and hyperbole.
Hmm, his own bio on his page says "Stephen Fry once referred to him as a "cynical, ignorant [expletive]." Also from his Twitter feed, " /. is paying me and The Kernel is no longer trading." when asked if he should be publishing his articles on The Kernel. BTW, The Kernel is no longer trading because it's no longer a company. So in area of character, I'd say this one is definitely not neutral or unbiased.
/. commenter a writer.
As to his article, I can see why other publications like The Guardian considered The Kernel a gossip mag. There is not evidence or foundation in Milo's article. Only the ravings of a man who has shown himself to be firmly against all things big tech. I wouldn't do so far as to affiliate him with MS, I'm sure he hates them too. I will say that, while many people, readers and critics, have spoken of his aptitude with the english language, I found his article to be riddled with hyperbole ("company no one trusts" some of us have no quarrel with Google) and out-right ignorance (Glass is unofficially called Goggles? No.)
As his article appears to have been built to stimulate heated arguments with no enlightenment to be found in it's many words, I will say that he has at least succeeded in this, as I can not find anything else this article succeeds at or any other reason for it's existence. Also, I wouldn't call Milo a "tech journalist" anymore than I'd call a
Did you read the article? Never mind, You've already shown you don't read articles.
Yeah it is a strawman argument. What's your point? It was meant to be. Considering that the term "evil" is whole based on perspective a strawman seems justified to further illustrate my point, that's why I used it. There is not "logical" definition for evil as there is not definition on where "evil" begins and ends. Without defined parameters one can only attempt to define an act based on the other acts categorized with it. Since slaughtering kittens is generally seen as evil I can only conclude that terminating Reader is the same as killing kittens.
/. is an authority on subjects such as this, when these are really just people opinions. I can confidently assure you that there is no scientific fact behind the idea that Google is evil or being evil.
Lastly, just because people put their time into creating things around something Google gave them doesn't make maintaining that service a requirement for Google and doesn't make the actions of Google or any company or their actions inherently evil for no longer supporting it.
I trust you'll note that there are no fallacies in this argument, I checked. However, your rebuttal has a few. Your Black-and-White fallacy that just because Google has "stopped being such a bold defender of the open internet, and open source software" is used to put Google in as " falling in line with general tech-corporate Americana" when in reality that argument paints the situation as one or the other and not simply a business looking at being able to keep good projects open and focus on other projects by terminating some projects. Also, your "appeal-to-authority" fallacy in your statement "Just a couple days ago, a story on slashdot opened with the phrase '...a post-don't be evil google...'" shows that you believe a non-edited public created content system like
Apparently not.
But how do we define "perfect" materials? And his illustration was with no frame weight and a small child as a payload, not as a commercially viable payload.
I believe the point was that you are using your on knowledge of today's materials to establish a forecast on what is possible in the future. In this is where we find err, since there are likely technologies in the future that could quite possibly create the means for a system like this to work.
So just to be clear, closing down a free to use system like Reader is the same as slaughtering kittens or or forcing people to pay for a new OS just because they upgraded their motherboard, right? I mean Reader didn't cost you anything. I miss iGoogle but I didn't think it was evil when they shut it down. The tech community gets their feather ruffled when a new version of windows comes out or when someone compares iPhones and Androids, I doubt very much that something like Reader is going to have a truly noticeable shock. Google projects come and go. It's sad that the tech community you speak of only notices some of the least useful ones (and by useful I mean there are many other things that fill the roll as good of better.)
Why don't you show us a promise that isn't worthless. Realistically any promise, or word of honor, pledge, etc. that does not have a legal signed contract is technically worthless. Doesn't make your word any less weighty.
Just because a trial is overturned does not make the law void. Just because you feel the innate need to try to call BS on a post you don't want to take the time to understand because you don't like the information in the post, doesn't mean I'm out of line in pointing out solid evidence that the point is in fact valid. Note here what while I'm attempting to have, and fully open to, an adult, logical debate, you're only argument has been "Nuh, Uh prove it," and name calling. Neither of which are logical arguments anywhere except with the possible exception of congress and elementary schools.