(*sarcasm*) No. Everything must be internet enabled! We are in the age of the Internet of Things. You probably don't even use "apps," do you? I bet you compile your own code, too. You are a Luddite. Get off my lawn! (*sarcasm*)
Yes. I understand this would also optimize zero emissions technology, I just don't think that's the way the world works. I think we would just say, "Oh good, now we can burn a little less coal." i.e.: I think this would just make us boil the frog a little more slowly. We need to work on getting rid of the coal in this country, not make that technology more feasible and attractive.
It will not address getting off of fossil technologies. It actually might backfire and prolong the use of carbon emitting tech, just making the endgame a little longer. Not even terribly much longer in the time scale of climate change, now that I think about it. "Boil that frog" slower, that's the solution. That is what will come of it, given the way the debate is currently being framed.
For $$X that we don't have in the next 20 years the way the economy is going. To help compensate for immature technologies like solar. Oops. Context also matters. Well, at least we know how to do wind at this point.
It seems to me that theorists should stop suggesting these "great ideas" to the public. It makes them sound judgmentally unreliable. At this point in the issue, that makes some people not trust them as to whether "climate change" even exists. We should whisper about ideas like this, as something that might occur in the distant future, when perhaps the world economy isn't on the brink.
Have you looked at the national debt? Have you looked at the state of social services in the US? Have you seen our crumbling infrastructure? How in the hell can we justify retrofitting our electric grid like that? Why don't we just start generating electricity without carbon emissions by using modern nuclear power? Today. Let me guess, gotta "save the planet;" let's stifle that debate point with a little Armageddon.
This is why some folks think "climate change" isn't real. Because there's no reality in the discussion of policy solutions, only a long series of variations on a machine gun volley to the foot, to loosen a noose of our own making.
This just seems myopic to me. This would just prolong carbon emissions, which just add up. We need to get off of carbon emitting technologies, not make them transmit more efficiently. That should be the priority, if only because we're going to run out of fossils.
I think most Slashdotters have a parochial view of what "broadband" should entail, compared to far denser, far smaller, industrialized nations. We definitely pay too much in America, which makes the idea of "subsidizing" ISPs feel a little cynical to many people here.
But I agree in essence. This is a "checks and balances" situation, executive vs legislative, not a Luddite pull on the hand brake as it is characterized. I think the FCC was too aggressive for rural considerations.
What this country needs to do is split "minimum internet access speed" (I won't misuse "broadband") into regional strategies. Like a minimum guaranteed rate on a frame relay. (Do those still exist?) I'd say 4 regions as a starter.
Class 1 - urban region, easy to wire up; Class 2 - rural dense (vs rural sparse) more difficult, different challenges; Class 3 - rural sparse, probably yet different challenges; Class 4 - screw you, get a satellite dish, you "exceedingly long peninsula."
Then we need different build-out strategies for each region. Get that? Not one strategy for the entire country like apples are oranges, and monkeys are orangutans. A little common sense regarding the different needs of the different regions, instead of this (R) rural, (D) urban, schizophrenic policy. I think 4Mbps/2Mbps up would be "adequate" for a Class 3 infrastructure region. More minimum speed for the higher classes. This is what would be fair, and I think the senators are trying to roll out subsidies to rural areas in particular, so that's why they want to check the higher standard of the FCC policy.
(PS: I say 4Mbps/2Mbps, because I think up should, for the sake of these minimums, be pegged at half of down. If I have 25 down, I should have 12-13 up, not 3, which ludicrously assumes no one in the country is a content creator.)
Broadband means "using a wide band of frequencies" for communication. In practice, no one gives a shit about frequencies used in the raw physical layer, net IP data bandwidth is all that matters. And even if people did care, most of the advances in data bandwidth are not actually just using "larger bands", they are using the existing bands more efficiently. DWDM, 256-QAM, VDSL, etc. As the technology gets better, OBVIOUSLY the standards for average bandwidth to the home will change...
Yeah, and "hacker" means "likes to play innovatively with hardware and software, generally without manuals," but in reality "broadband" is misused all the time to mean "fast," and that's what it means here, I think. Thanks for the pedagogy, though. You are at least accurate. You sure you're not new here?;)
I don't think most people are close enough to the CO to get 4Mbps in a lot of rural areas. More like you could expect 768Kbps down/768Kbps up SDSL.
25Mbps seems a distinctly "urban" standard, and absolutely pie-in-the-sky for a rural standard. To me, at least.
You're dealing with building off the rail line and pipeline fiber for rural areas, currently, if I'm not mistaken. Honestly, IMHO, the federal government should be doing a massive public infrastructure project running limited fiber trunk lines across rural America, and leaving the "last mile" (which can be more like 20 miles in rural) to the ISPs. Either that or subsidize satellite. We need a real infrastructure plan to solve that problem (good luck getting that from Congress! We can't even maintain our bridges and highways.)
All systems can be gamed. That's why you need to reform them frequently. By that I mean, change the rules as a matter of course every 20 years or so.
Urban vs rural policy is something this country should definitely look into. Something along the lines of "infrastructure districts," slicing up cities into large megalopolis districts, because it's easier to wire a city, and rural into smaller district regions, because it costs more, and giving each appropriate amounts of money for infrastructure. The difference in size of districts might mean that you can give the *same* amount of money to each district. But honestly we should think outside the box and allocate *different* funds by different standards of say, "Class 1, Class 2, and Class 3 districts." Class 1 would be urban. Class 2 would be (comparative to sparse rural) dense rural. Class 3 could be sparse rural. (Additionally, Class 4 could be "pay for a satellite dish," AKA the "fuck it" districts. We could even give satellite service buyers a tax break on it to incentivize).
Differing fund allocation policy would allow for sensibly fewer districts, too, making it easier to administrate.
Frankly, it's high time the Republicans started having to cater to the cities, and vice-versa for the Democrats and rural constituencies. I'm getting sick and tired of half the country getting screwed on the federal level with each shift in power.
Wow. I mean I honestly don't know what to say about that completely self-centered, entitled attitude. Nobody should be on dial-up any longer. Nobody. The "real" Internet should not be an urban privilege. It's like saying that electricity should have been wired to only high population areas. It's like saying that telephone service shouldn't have been built out. If you're plum dab in the middle of nowhere then, sure, you should naturally pay for satellite, but we have a long-standing tradition of building out infrastructure to rural areas in this country. They are part of this country too, and it's a distinctly American burden that we can overcome.
DSL is probably the best bet to change that, but you still have to run fiber to the CO, which is a *lot* of build-out in its own right. (I don't know what those white boxes with the backup generators and CO equipment in them are called, I'm not a telcom guy, but we'd need to build a lot of those.) We should be using the rail lines and pipelines as fiber conduits. I know at least now-defunct Williams ran a lot of fiber in pipelines. So some of the infrastructure is already there, but likely dark and awaiting subsidies for last mile build-out.
When have you seen inflation at 625%? Is the "byte inflation" at 625%? This is a 625% increase of the standard for downloads.
Also, I think there's a good deal of rural vs urban going on here, and the Republicans usually better represent the rural constituency, many of whom would probably give their right arm to see 4Mbps down. 25Mbps should be easy when you're in the city close to the CO or fiber, but in rural areas, broadband is broadband in comparison to the horrors of dial-up. All you've got is copper. Fiber ain't coming anytime soon, excepting along the rail lines. Too much money.
Shouldn't the subsidies be used for rural build-out? Wasn't that the point? I think the Republicans are just looking at it from a rural mindset.
Which is a good argument for differing rural and urban standards, and differing subsidy policy, but the FCC didn't consider this. They just came down with a cookie-cutter solution which assumed "urban" build-out everywhere. I don't think the GP is flamebait at all.
For the life of me, I can't see why this was modded down as "Flamebait." It's a completely valid argument. The lawmakers are, in fact, against the raising of the standards by an executive body, the FCC, not "changing the definition of broadband." The FCC has changed the definition, and this is a legislative check to an arbitrary executive policy, not a strong hand on the brake by a bunch of myopic clods. That's what the summary seems to imply, that they're Luddites. I think it's very biased.
Now that argument may not be sufficient in the minds of people who evangelize for at least 100Mbps down, or the laughably overpriced for underserviced nature of American broadband vs the rest of the industrialized world, but it doesn't make it any less valid.
IMHO, it's _upload_ speeds that should absolutely be better than 1Mbps. I get 10-12Mbps up, and I still have to spend quite a bit of time uploading content to the web, or attaching PDFs to email. Let's shoot for half the download speed at least, eh? (i.e.: 4Mbps down, then 2Mbps up. 25 down, then 12 up, etc.)
Well then, like moderate Muslims, you should public condemn the outliers in your "community.";)
Where are the "moderate" millenials!?;););)
(Note to self, generational identity is only pushed by Baby Boomers, who for some reason think year of birth is an indicator of personality traits. Even in their case, they're horribly wrong about the diversity of a generation of people. They've been naming generations since "Generation-X," and it still means nothing.)
Yup. "State of the art" keeps moving forward in malware. It may well outpace security research. That's the reality. Who's next? Who can best address this issue? Do we need to fundamentally redesign computer systems with a security first mindset, and how long will that last against tomorrow's threats?
I don't know who started the cyberwar, but I do know that the West is fully committed to perpetrating it, especially the US. Even against our own people. This was bound to come round and bite us in the ass. You reap what you sow.
Another pathetic attempt to override political sensibility with claims of "I know better." People who don't think climate change is a big deal are now somehow deficient. People who deal with and process global warming *politically* are "deniers" and out of touch with reality. What utterly hysterical nonsense will we hear next from our self-proclaimed, much wiser overlords? When will anyone realize that to get something done on a global scale, you need to build a *consensus* with humanity, not look down your nose at them.
Politics is the way global change gets done, not the crude demands of the cognoscenti. For example, Barack Obama got something (very little, in fact, but something) done with China. That's the way it happens. I wish the self-proclaimed cognoscenti would stop making themselves look like they lack the sensibilities of an average, petulant teenager. It's getting annoying.
Climate change "deniers" is a misnomer. Everyone with a lick of sense knows we're in a rising temperature period. We're coming out of an ice age. We all know the climate changes, and may change for the warmer. Remember this next time you use a politically calculated term that doesn't describe most of the people involved.
Slashdot Mirror
(*sarcasm*) No. Everything must be internet enabled! We are in the age of the Internet of Things. You probably don't even use "apps," do you? I bet you compile your own code, too. You are a Luddite. Get off my lawn! (*sarcasm*)
Yes. I understand this would also optimize zero emissions technology, I just don't think that's the way the world works. I think we would just say, "Oh good, now we can burn a little less coal." i.e.: I think this would just make us boil the frog a little more slowly. We need to work on getting rid of the coal in this country, not make that technology more feasible and attractive.
It will not address getting off of fossil technologies. It actually might backfire and prolong the use of carbon emitting tech, just making the endgame a little longer. Not even terribly much longer in the time scale of climate change, now that I think about it. "Boil that frog" slower, that's the solution. That is what will come of it, given the way the debate is currently being framed.
For $$X that we don't have in the next 20 years the way the economy is going. To help compensate for immature technologies like solar. Oops. Context also matters. Well, at least we know how to do wind at this point.
It seems to me that theorists should stop suggesting these "great ideas" to the public. It makes them sound judgmentally unreliable. At this point in the issue, that makes some people not trust them as to whether "climate change" even exists. We should whisper about ideas like this, as something that might occur in the distant future, when perhaps the world economy isn't on the brink.
Have you looked at the national debt? Have you looked at the state of social services in the US? Have you seen our crumbling infrastructure? How in the hell can we justify retrofitting our electric grid like that? Why don't we just start generating electricity without carbon emissions by using modern nuclear power? Today. Let me guess, gotta "save the planet;" let's stifle that debate point with a little Armageddon.
This is why some folks think "climate change" isn't real. Because there's no reality in the discussion of policy solutions, only a long series of variations on a machine gun volley to the foot, to loosen a noose of our own making.
This just seems myopic to me. This would just prolong carbon emissions, which just add up. We need to get off of carbon emitting technologies, not make them transmit more efficiently. That should be the priority, if only because we're going to run out of fossils.
I think most Slashdotters have a parochial view of what "broadband" should entail, compared to far denser, far smaller, industrialized nations. We definitely pay too much in America, which makes the idea of "subsidizing" ISPs feel a little cynical to many people here.
But I agree in essence. This is a "checks and balances" situation, executive vs legislative, not a Luddite pull on the hand brake as it is characterized. I think the FCC was too aggressive for rural considerations.
What this country needs to do is split "minimum internet access speed" (I won't misuse "broadband") into regional strategies. Like a minimum guaranteed rate on a frame relay. (Do those still exist?) I'd say 4 regions as a starter.
Class 1 - urban region, easy to wire up; Class 2 - rural dense (vs rural sparse) more difficult, different challenges; Class 3 - rural sparse, probably yet different challenges; Class 4 - screw you, get a satellite dish, you "exceedingly long peninsula."
Then we need different build-out strategies for each region. Get that? Not one strategy for the entire country like apples are oranges, and monkeys are orangutans. A little common sense regarding the different needs of the different regions, instead of this (R) rural, (D) urban, schizophrenic policy. I think 4Mbps/2Mbps up would be "adequate" for a Class 3 infrastructure region. More minimum speed for the higher classes. This is what would be fair, and I think the senators are trying to roll out subsidies to rural areas in particular, so that's why they want to check the higher standard of the FCC policy.
(PS: I say 4Mbps/2Mbps, because I think up should, for the sake of these minimums, be pegged at half of down. If I have 25 down, I should have 12-13 up, not 3, which ludicrously assumes no one in the country is a content creator.)
Broadband means "using a wide band of frequencies" for communication. In practice, no one gives a shit about frequencies used in the raw physical layer, net IP data bandwidth is all that matters. And even if people did care, most of the advances in data bandwidth are not actually just using "larger bands", they are using the existing bands more efficiently. DWDM, 256-QAM, VDSL, etc. As the technology gets better, OBVIOUSLY the standards for average bandwidth to the home will change...
Yeah, and "hacker" means "likes to play innovatively with hardware and software, generally without manuals," but in reality "broadband" is misused all the time to mean "fast," and that's what it means here, I think. Thanks for the pedagogy, though. You are at least accurate. You sure you're not new here? ;)
I don't think most people are close enough to the CO to get 4Mbps in a lot of rural areas. More like you could expect 768Kbps down/768Kbps up SDSL.
25Mbps seems a distinctly "urban" standard, and absolutely pie-in-the-sky for a rural standard. To me, at least.
You're dealing with building off the rail line and pipeline fiber for rural areas, currently, if I'm not mistaken. Honestly, IMHO, the federal government should be doing a massive public infrastructure project running limited fiber trunk lines across rural America, and leaving the "last mile" (which can be more like 20 miles in rural) to the ISPs. Either that or subsidize satellite. We need a real infrastructure plan to solve that problem (good luck getting that from Congress! We can't even maintain our bridges and highways.)
All systems can be gamed. That's why you need to reform them frequently. By that I mean, change the rules as a matter of course every 20 years or so.
Urban vs rural policy is something this country should definitely look into. Something along the lines of "infrastructure districts," slicing up cities into large megalopolis districts, because it's easier to wire a city, and rural into smaller district regions, because it costs more, and giving each appropriate amounts of money for infrastructure. The difference in size of districts might mean that you can give the *same* amount of money to each district. But honestly we should think outside the box and allocate *different* funds by different standards of say, "Class 1, Class 2, and Class 3 districts." Class 1 would be urban. Class 2 would be (comparative to sparse rural) dense rural. Class 3 could be sparse rural. (Additionally, Class 4 could be "pay for a satellite dish," AKA the "fuck it" districts. We could even give satellite service buyers a tax break on it to incentivize).
Differing fund allocation policy would allow for sensibly fewer districts, too, making it easier to administrate.
Frankly, it's high time the Republicans started having to cater to the cities, and vice-versa for the Democrats and rural constituencies. I'm getting sick and tired of half the country getting screwed on the federal level with each shift in power.
Again, what is up with this -1 "disagree" crap. It looks like it's all "overrated" mods too, as there's no description (and no accountability).
AC is being brusque, but why does he need to be shut up like that?
Don't forget the 1GB Iomega Jaz. That set the standard for "unreliable." ;)
Wow. I mean I honestly don't know what to say about that completely self-centered, entitled attitude. Nobody should be on dial-up any longer. Nobody. The "real" Internet should not be an urban privilege. It's like saying that electricity should have been wired to only high population areas. It's like saying that telephone service shouldn't have been built out. If you're plum dab in the middle of nowhere then, sure, you should naturally pay for satellite, but we have a long-standing tradition of building out infrastructure to rural areas in this country. They are part of this country too, and it's a distinctly American burden that we can overcome.
DSL is probably the best bet to change that, but you still have to run fiber to the CO, which is a *lot* of build-out in its own right. (I don't know what those white boxes with the backup generators and CO equipment in them are called, I'm not a telcom guy, but we'd need to build a lot of those.) We should be using the rail lines and pipelines as fiber conduits. I know at least now-defunct Williams ran a lot of fiber in pipelines. So some of the infrastructure is already there, but likely dark and awaiting subsidies for last mile build-out.
When have you seen inflation at 625%? Is the "byte inflation" at 625%? This is a 625% increase of the standard for downloads.
Also, I think there's a good deal of rural vs urban going on here, and the Republicans usually better represent the rural constituency, many of whom would probably give their right arm to see 4Mbps down. 25Mbps should be easy when you're in the city close to the CO or fiber, but in rural areas, broadband is broadband in comparison to the horrors of dial-up. All you've got is copper. Fiber ain't coming anytime soon, excepting along the rail lines. Too much money.
Shouldn't the subsidies be used for rural build-out? Wasn't that the point? I think the Republicans are just looking at it from a rural mindset.
Which is a good argument for differing rural and urban standards, and differing subsidy policy, but the FCC didn't consider this. They just came down with a cookie-cutter solution which assumed "urban" build-out everywhere. I don't think the GP is flamebait at all.
For the life of me, I can't see why this was modded down as "Flamebait." It's a completely valid argument. The lawmakers are, in fact, against the raising of the standards by an executive body, the FCC, not "changing the definition of broadband." The FCC has changed the definition, and this is a legislative check to an arbitrary executive policy, not a strong hand on the brake by a bunch of myopic clods. That's what the summary seems to imply, that they're Luddites. I think it's very biased.
Now that argument may not be sufficient in the minds of people who evangelize for at least 100Mbps down, or the laughably overpriced for underserviced nature of American broadband vs the rest of the industrialized world, but it doesn't make it any less valid.
IMHO, it's _upload_ speeds that should absolutely be better than 1Mbps. I get 10-12Mbps up, and I still have to spend quite a bit of time uploading content to the web, or attaching PDFs to email. Let's shoot for half the download speed at least, eh? (i.e.: 4Mbps down, then 2Mbps up. 25 down, then 12 up, etc.)
Heil bloody Hitler, in fact.
DUCK Season!!!
WABBIT Season!!!
Elmer season?
Alternately:
Dark web = "shit that doesn't resolve in DNS"
Open web = "shit that does resolve"
I don't think I want this happening to DNS either.
Well then, like moderate Muslims, you should public condemn the outliers in your "community." ;)
Where are the "moderate" millenials!? ;) ;) ;)
(Note to self, generational identity is only pushed by Baby Boomers, who for some reason think year of birth is an indicator of personality traits. Even in their case, they're horribly wrong about the diversity of a generation of people. They've been naming generations since "Generation-X," and it still means nothing.)
Mitsubishi Lancer. You can still get one with only two led displays (radio/dash) and no Bluetooth, I think.
Many other entry level cars probably lack such features. God help you if you want an SUV, though.
These stories will stop when they stop getting 200+ comments. Don't feed the trolls.
"Curses! Foiled again!" says the NSA. Why in the heck aren't they doing this research again? Oh, because security is only for the strong.
(Sorry for the slightly off-topic post guys, but it really riles me up that people aren't doing their jobs)
Yup. "State of the art" keeps moving forward in malware. It may well outpace security research. That's the reality. Who's next? Who can best address this issue? Do we need to fundamentally redesign computer systems with a security first mindset, and how long will that last against tomorrow's threats?
I don't know who started the cyberwar, but I do know that the West is fully committed to perpetrating it, especially the US. Even against our own people. This was bound to come round and bite us in the ass. You reap what you sow.
Another pathetic attempt to override political sensibility with claims of "I know better." People who don't think climate change is a big deal are now somehow deficient. People who deal with and process global warming *politically* are "deniers" and out of touch with reality. What utterly hysterical nonsense will we hear next from our self-proclaimed, much wiser overlords? When will anyone realize that to get something done on a global scale, you need to build a *consensus* with humanity, not look down your nose at them.
Politics is the way global change gets done, not the crude demands of the cognoscenti. For example, Barack Obama got something (very little, in fact, but something) done with China. That's the way it happens. I wish the self-proclaimed cognoscenti would stop making themselves look like they lack the sensibilities of an average, petulant teenager. It's getting annoying.
Climate change "deniers" is a misnomer. Everyone with a lick of sense knows we're in a rising temperature period. We're coming out of an ice age. We all know the climate changes, and may change for the warmer. Remember this next time you use a politically calculated term that doesn't describe most of the people involved.
Support nuclear power. That'll fix carbon emissions by a lot.