It should be cheaper. It opens the door for manufacturers to provide a laptop without a power supply, and opens a 3rd party market for separate power bricks at competitive prices.
I can fully saturate my bandwith with file sharing
The point is that you don't need to download more data than your brain can process. The eyes are highest bandwidth sense you have, so that's why I'm talking about video.
VR games will still be dominated by the video channel.
I'm okay with starting the stream download, and waiting for a minute to start watching it. That's comparable to picking out a DVD, putting it in the player, and waiting for it to start. However, it would be nice if it were faster, in case I don't like this particular show/movie and want to skip or switch to something else.
And, no, I don't think the government should subsidize this, nor do I think it is necessary. As we speak, my ISP is already working on upgrading their ADSL network to VDSL, and bringing fiber speeds to the neighbourhood, and they are not the first to do that.
I don't think we need gigabit speeds, like Vint Cerf says, at least not right now. A steady increase in bandwidth would be good though. Problems that are caused by a lack of bandwidth should be fixed by increasing it, and not by 'solutions' such as capping it.
Back in the 20MB drive days, media was ASCII by necessity. There just wasn't any room to store any useful amount of pictures, let alone moving ones.
And I didn't mean that nobody ever fills up a hard drive, rather that for more and more people the size of storage and bandwidth has become less of an issue.
Video bandwidth higher than Blu-Ray is still possible, but the benefits are getting smaller all the time. The jump from VHS to HD is bigger than the jump from HD to the best our eyes can see.
Which leads to "we will find ways of saturating the connection anyway" with other media or other things.
I don't agree. My bandwidth usage in the last couple of years has not kept up with the speed increases that my ISP has provided with free upgrades. Of course, some people are more demanding wrt video resolution, but at some point in time, they'll be happy too. Most of the day, my connection isn't anywhere near saturation (only when downloading large packages, and then only for a short time).
Let's say the kids just went to bed, and I want to watch a movie. In that case, I don't want to wait 30 minutes. I want to pick something out, and watch it right away. That only leaves streaming, or really fast downloads.
Streaming requires a guaranteed bandwidth for a long time. Fast downloading obviously requires a much higher bandwidth, but it doesn't have to be of constant quality, which may be easier to provide.
There's no reason you'd have to wait until it's all done. After one second you can start watching the first part of the movie. The only thing you can't do the first 15 seconds is fast-forward past the point where it's downloading.
So ? Video isn't necessarily broadcast. Except for live events, most people would prefer to watch video on demand, with the ability to pause it, and fast forward/rewind.
1. Data will always expand to fill drives no matter what size.
Not true. 20 years ago, a $1000 hard drive was frustratingly small (20MB), and would fill up very quickly. Nowadays, I can get a $100 hard drive, and not worry about filling it up until it's worn out. And why would you want to store porn on your hard drive, when you can download it as fast as you can watch it ?
Same is true for throughput. On my first dial-up I had to wait a few minutes for a picture. Now I can watch videos in real time, without saturating my connection. For most things, that's good enough. Recently, I even changed my subscription plan to a lower bandwidth version that was cheaper.
I guess the tricky part is to make sure you hit the incoming shell with yours. They are both small, and traveling extremely fast, while you suffer from inaccurate sensors, atmospheric interference, changing delays, and imperfect control. By firing a laser at the speed of light, you can simplify a couple of things.
Translation is not just about words and sequences of words. If you've ever seen a subtitled comedy show in another language, you know what I mean. Often language contains cultural references, well known in the country of one language, but unknown in the other language. Trying to translate a joke referring to such cultural reference into another language (while keeping it funny) will just fail if you try to do it literally. Even human translators have a hard time doing a good job in those cases. Often the best solution is to replace the joke with a completely different joke. I'd like to see you do that without very good AI.
The predictions of a coming ice age in the 70's were a myth. It was understood that the cooling phase at the time was due to increased aerosols blocking sunlight, and that warming due to CO2 would eventually overcome that.
The goal is minimize production of CO2, not to stop using petrol. If we tax petrol to the point that coal-based electricity is cheaper, we're still producing CO2. By taxing CO2, you get everything at the same time, at the correct ratios. It even becomes possible to invest in technology to extract CO2 from coal fired plants, for example.
Slashdot Mirror
It should be cheaper. It opens the door for manufacturers to provide a laptop without a power supply, and opens a 3rd party market for separate power bricks at competitive prices.
The point is that you don't need to download more data than your brain can process. The eyes are highest bandwidth sense you have, so that's why I'm talking about video.
VR games will still be dominated by the video channel.
I'm okay with starting the stream download, and waiting for a minute to start watching it. That's comparable to picking out a DVD, putting it in the player, and waiting for it to start. However, it would be nice if it were faster, in case I don't like this particular show/movie and want to skip or switch to something else.
And, no, I don't think the government should subsidize this, nor do I think it is necessary. As we speak, my ISP is already working on upgrading their ADSL network to VDSL, and bringing fiber speeds to the neighbourhood, and they are not the first to do that.
I don't think we need gigabit speeds, like Vint Cerf says, at least not right now. A steady increase in bandwidth would be good though. Problems that are caused by a lack of bandwidth should be fixed by increasing it, and not by 'solutions' such as capping it.
Back in the 20MB drive days, media was ASCII by necessity. There just wasn't any room to store any useful amount of pictures, let alone moving ones.
And I didn't mean that nobody ever fills up a hard drive, rather that for more and more people the size of storage and bandwidth has become less of an issue.
Video bandwidth higher than Blu-Ray is still possible, but the benefits are getting smaller all the time. The jump from VHS to HD is bigger than the jump from HD to the best our eyes can see.
I don't agree. My bandwidth usage in the last couple of years has not kept up with the speed increases that my ISP has provided with free upgrades. Of course, some people are more demanding wrt video resolution, but at some point in time, they'll be happy too. Most of the day, my connection isn't anywhere near saturation (only when downloading large packages, and then only for a short time).
Let's say the kids just went to bed, and I want to watch a movie. In that case, I don't want to wait 30 minutes. I want to pick something out, and watch it right away. That only leaves streaming, or really fast downloads.
Streaming requires a guaranteed bandwidth for a long time. Fast downloading obviously requires a much higher bandwidth, but it doesn't have to be of constant quality, which may be easier to provide.
There's no reason you'd have to wait until it's all done. After one second you can start watching the first part of the movie. The only thing you can't do the first 15 seconds is fast-forward past the point where it's downloading.
So ? Video isn't necessarily broadcast. Except for live events, most people would prefer to watch video on demand, with the ability to pause it, and fast forward/rewind.
Not true. 20 years ago, a $1000 hard drive was frustratingly small (20MB), and would fill up very quickly. Nowadays, I can get a $100 hard drive, and not worry about filling it up until it's worn out. And why would you want to store porn on your hard drive, when you can download it as fast as you can watch it ?
Same is true for throughput. On my first dial-up I had to wait a few minutes for a picture. Now I can watch videos in real time, without saturating my connection. For most things, that's good enough. Recently, I even changed my subscription plan to a lower bandwidth version that was cheaper.
Something like that already exists:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MPEG_transport_stream
No different video codec is required, just a stream protocol around an existing one.
Because traffic keeps growing, even if you remove the excessive "bandwidth hogs".
Satellite bandwidth is much more expensive than fiber if you're not receiving broadcast streams.
What is going to happen when I quickly zap through a few dozen channels ?
For video manipulation, it can still take a unpleasantly long time.
In the Matrix, the weather predicts you!
I guess the tricky part is to make sure you hit the incoming shell with yours. They are both small, and traveling extremely fast, while you suffer from inaccurate sensors, atmospheric interference, changing delays, and imperfect control. By firing a laser at the speed of light, you can simplify a couple of things.
Translation is not just about words and sequences of words. If you've ever seen a subtitled comedy show in another language, you know what I mean. Often language contains cultural references, well known in the country of one language, but unknown in the other language. Trying to translate a joke referring to such cultural reference into another language (while keeping it funny) will just fail if you try to do it literally. Even human translators have a hard time doing a good job in those cases. Often the best solution is to replace the joke with a completely different joke. I'd like to see you do that without very good AI.
What has Strong AI to do with countable reals ??
Performance. If the mappings are the same, you can copy large amounts of binary data without having to process individual bits.
Why ? There is already a standard header file for those types, and it works well enough.
Except when the C code uses C++ keywords. Words like new, this and delete are common enough that there are plenty of C programs using them.
Another good reason to use a C compiler to compile C code is that the compiler is much simpler, and most likely has fewer bugs.
Not if the bitfields are volatile, which is common for hardware registers.
Bitfields are not as flexible when you want to change several different bits (belonging to different fields) in a word using a single write.
The predictions of a coming ice age in the 70's were a myth. It was understood that the cooling phase at the time was due to increased aerosols blocking sunlight, and that warming due to CO2 would eventually overcome that.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EU_AtHkB4Ms
This alone is already blatant nonsense. Educate yourself.
http://tamino.wordpress.com/2011/06/19/volcanic-co2/#more-3906
Also, if volcanoes were so significant, how come the CO2 graph is rising so gradually every year, instead of showing big steps after each eruption ?
http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/webdata/ccgg/trends/co2_data_mlo.png
This is even more obvious in a longer timeframe:
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/warming/art/graph4.gif
Does the 20th century have a huge volcanic activity compared to all the half-million years before that ?
The goal is minimize production of CO2, not to stop using petrol. If we tax petrol to the point that coal-based electricity is cheaper, we're still producing CO2. By taxing CO2, you get everything at the same time, at the correct ratios. It even becomes possible to invest in technology to extract CO2 from coal fired plants, for example.