Oh and by the way, PBS president Paula Kerger brings in somewhere north of $600,000 per year annually. He personally was one of those lobbying for the government to put the brakes on Aereo. He also regularly lobbies for more government funding to PBS. That's just to give you an idea of what you defended when you said with regard to this lawsuit, and I quote: "Take PBS out of the equation."
I hear people rail all day about CEO pay being too much, while these same people often believe that PBS deserves taxpayer funds. That company, believe it or not, is plenty profitable on its own, and indeed receives payment from affiliates every time they air shows like Nova. While the affiliates may or may not make a sizable profit (some do, some don't - some neither profit nor lose, such as AZ affiliate KAET which is funded and run by ASU for example) any donations to those affiliates line the pockets of those behind PBS.
Sure these educational programs are nice, don't get me wrong, but their motives behind suing to block Aereo don't simply come from the goodness of their hearts; there's definitely a profit motive.
You're tacitly equating the organization that gave us Reading Rainbow, The News Hour, and Nova with the organization that gave us Xenu? Seriously?
No, I'm just giving you an example of why a not for profit doesn't mean there's no profit involved. That isn't used as a means of equating or even comparing the two organizations whatsoever, it's just better describing what exactly not for profit means.
Or to be more precise, the broadcaster can insist on "must carry" but when they do so, they're forbidden from demanding compensation. They could go without either if they choose, or they could completely (at their option) forbid anybody from retransmitting anything. When they do permit or demand retransmission, they're also allowed to dictate to the cable operator where when and how they're allowed to transmit to.
PBS doesn't do it for the sole reason that the law forbids non-commercial entities from seeking retransmission fees. Don't think for a second that they wouldn't if they could. Remember, PBS is one of the organizations that launched the original lawsuit against Aereo. They make a ton of money from the sales of their DVDs, and it was their opinion that Aereo was reducing the value of these sales by allowing users to make DVR recordings of them at a very low cost (otherwise your typical DVR costs a lot more than that $8 a month, in addition to to the cost of the DVR itself where applicable.)
PBS isn't at all the "needy" organization it is frequently made out to be. They make QUITE a hefty sum of money even without donations. Being a non-profit organization doesn't say much about how much money those behind it actually make. Just look at Scientology for example.
I don't think that is it. I think it's probably more to the effect of the candidate that is more popular/liked and/or has more popular views is probably going to receive more funding anyways (because they inherently possess more active supporters,) and they would have won even without that funding. The reason Morse lost had nothing to do with spending (obviously, because his camp WAY outspent the opposition,) but rather he supported a position that was very unpopular in his district, yet many out of district and indeed out of state interests were bankrolling his campaign. Those out of state interests cannot vote; hence he lost.
I've found that Windows under Parallels is extremely stable
This isn't really a parallels thing...ever since about 8 years ago, AMD and later Intel added hardware virtualization support into their CPUs. The virtualization software doesn't do much other than maybe emulate e.g. a sound card, a nic, etc, because most of that work is done by the processor nowadays (notice how virtual machines were slow as hell before then.)
I have two complaints about Parallels. First, they don't support fooling the OS in to perceiving different video cards so you can run old games under it
If you want to run games in a VM, you'll want a CPU that supports direct IO passthrough. Intel calls theirs VT-d, I forget what AMD calls theirs. What it does is create a virtual instance of your hardware that the guest OS can interact with as if it were bare metal, only it isn't. This allows you to install your native video card driver in the VM. You can run OpenCL or CUDA apps in your VM, or if you were feeling really geeky you could run a direct3d game in your VM and an opengl game in your bare metal OS at the same time. Your GPU of course has to support this as well; IIRC (you'll want to double check) nearly all Radeon HD 6xxx and later cards to, however for nvidia only certain quadro cards support it as they consider it to be only a professional feature.
Now if you're talking about simulating really old hardware (e.g. 3dfx cards) you'll require an emulator of some sort, which is well beyond the scope of what a virtual machine would ever do. But should you find one (I think a few exist) there's nothing stopping you from installing that inside of the VM.
False dichotomy. The computers can be sorted into useful and not before shipment.
Well...no. Remember this is the LAST STOP. Even if it is useful when it arrives, it doesn't stay useful forever. And once it stops being useful, then where does it go?
I somehow doubt most corporations would like the idea of being forced to replace their entire infrastructure every two years. That would get very expensive very fast.
This actually sounds more like Keynesian theory of breaking windows to build economies (a direct violation of the classic "broken window fallacy".) For a modern example of what you just espoused, look at the Cash for Clunkers program. The environmentalists didn't care for it because it didn't further their goals, and used cars around this time (the market that primarily serves the poor) went way up in price because the supply of used cars was forcibly reduced during this period.
The so called "capitalists" were actually opposed to the program entirely. Democrats seemed to like it though, and apparently so did NADA (the group trying to force Tesla to sell only through dealers.)
How is that a capitalism problem? Capitalism puts emphasis on the private sector, not the government. Furthermore, I don't think this is even something advocated by any private entities. All of the lobbying behind this is environmentalist groups (which actually tend to lean socialist and/or communist) who think that they're doing the planet a favor by preventing used electronics from going to countries that are often the last stop in the useful life of goods (when they "recycle" them, they send to scrap the valuable raw materials, and just trash or burn the rest.)
In this case, you have to decide what is worse: Preventing all technology exports to these countries (which guarantees that they'll remain in third world status forever) or allowing about 20% of these goods to end up being discarded on the ground.
This problem is cultural in nature rather than cost related in nature. For example, in countries like Liberia it is actually common for people to defecate in public and just leave it there (they don't even bury it,) and often eat in the same place (breaking the old "don't shit where you eat" rule.) This creates a health AND environmental hazard that really has nothing to do with technology or politics, rather it's just really bad decisions made by the people over there.
Depriving them of technology will NOT solve this problem.
Yeah because it would make so much sense for us to allow Japan to wipe out half of our fleet in one stroke, particularly at a time where steel (the material used to rebuild it) was a pretty scarce resource. Their war machine was numerically and technically superior to ours.
We were in no position to fight them, even if we had that fleet fully intact. While Japan was able to physically reach us for bombardment, we were technically unable to reach Japan; and in fact we weren't even practically able to do it until WAY later in the war. When we sent bombers out there in the earlier days of the war, they literally could not return; it was a one way trip.
We only narrowly won the battle of midway, namely because one of the Japanese scout pilots had a non-functional radio, so their planes didn't scramble and were sitting ducks when our Navy struck. Otherwise they would have handily outnumbered us in that battle. It is considered the turning point because in this battle we severely crippled their Navy, but it was only by sheer luck.
And finally, we had no nuclear bombs at this point. The Manhattan project didn't even exist when Japan attacked in any form at all. Not even a proposal had been made.
Conspiracy my ass; Japan simply struck on their own volition.
In my experience, most of the good IT jobs come from design, implementation, and troubleshooting the infrastructure that somebody else already coded. You don't need a CS degree for this, nor do you need to be a math whiz.
The increased incidences of respiratory diseases due to air pollution. Medical care is expensive in the US, and things that harm public health should at the very least help pay for it.
If that is the case, then taxing gasoline probably isn't going to do you any favors. Older cars? Maybe, but not newer ones. In fact, there was a lab test on an otherwise "dirty" Ford truck, and the lab actually found that it was so clean burning that it actually cleaned up the hydrocarbons from the air around it while it was running. Its CO emissions are also about the same as the ambient air outside.
I think what he might be actually referring to is lately there's been this growing conspiracy theory that the US wanted Japan to bomb Pearl Harbor for basically no reason other than that we could one day drop nuclear bombs on them, and Japan was otherwise only interested in peace the whole time.
Few of anybody (even those who don't subscribe to these theories) actually realize just how militaristic Japan actually was...I mean they even made the Nazi's look like good guys in comparison (not only did they have their own form of concentration camps and racial superiority complex, but they also had rape camps and would starve and torture POWs.) Furthermore, while Germany was mostly about having its military do these things, for the Japanese, EVERYBODY was part of the effort, even going so far as to ordering their own citizens to commit mass suicide rather than permit military occupation of any towns.
I don't think that was a money thing, rather it was an oversight of risk management. Hindsight is always 20/20.
(Besides, where does this "blame the victim" attitude always come from? It's ridiculous. This is equal to saying that wearing scantily clad clothing means a woman deserves to get raped.)
I'll answer in a way that (non-deliberately) should be acceptable to the PC police: They just aren't interested in this particular field. This is along the lines of lamenting that not enough men are interested in nursing. Nobody really does lament it, yet it's true. I'm not sure why myself, because you can make a decent living as a nurse with relatively little investment, but I will say that I myself just happen to not be interested (I like what I'm doing now more.)
Black people also, for cultural reasons, prefer different things. Look at the number of black people into rap music compared to the number of black people into country music.
I think that does qualify for "not being motivated or qualified" much in the same way I'm neither motivated nor qualified to be a nurse. There are few in those numbers at least partly (though I'd say more like mainly) who ever apply to begin with. Of course, I could say I want this $60,000 a year nursing job without any training or education in the area at all, and you're short on your male quota, so hire me now, kthx. I'd be summarily rejected.
Funny thing is I got down-modded...I figured that pointing out that any entity performing a criminal investigation upon itself is a pretty clear cut conflict of interest.
And oh...a response from the Woz himself! I actually had a professor who says he worked with you for a while around the time that the Apple III was in development. Also says he wrote the very first commercially sold word processor (or something like that) for Apple hardware. Perhaps the most knowledgeable teacher I've ever had to boot. I can't say I'm a regular Apple customer myself, but I've seen your work and my hat's off to you sir.
Remember this IS the government we're talking about here. They aren't accountable to anybody but themselves. Notice how the IRS sent these computers to its own criminal investigations unit? Yeah...
Ah yes, I remember my first laptop. My first one was a Dell Inspiron 8000. Weighed about 9 pounds, and had a nice birth control feature when you used it in the manner that the word laptop implies. Bought it sometime back in 2001 during my Army days for somewhere north of $2,000, and that was after a military discount.
Some three years ago, I bought an HP DV5 something or other, weighs about half as much, runs much faster, much cooler, lasts longer on its battery, and cost about $400. This doesn't even take into account that in the past year intel chips have dramatically increased their energy efficiency; such a system I don't own yet. But alas, none of these have the birth control feature, so clearly we're on a race to the bottom.
(By the way, you badly misquoted that in your signature. Really, Ben Franklin (who likely didn't actually say that, it turns out) wouldn't have written such horribly broken English.)
Perhaps. So I'll tell you what, instead of going off of my memory I'll simply play a trump card that renders your entire argument moot. I'm not sure what in the hell would possess you to think that 19 billion could ever come close to rebuilding the entire global internet infrastructure, but I'll tell you this: It costs some 5 times that amount minimum each year just to keep ISPs running, forget about rebuilding it from scratch, and forget about the non-ISP infrastructure (which by far does not make up the whole internet.) The US ISP figure alone is already well known and proven to cost more than your figure every year, at any rate.
Think about this for a second: How much less infrastructure would we need if we wouldn't spend 90% of SMTP traffic on spam and half of HTTP traffic on advertisement and tracking?
Probably very little, if any at all. Given your existing belief that 19 billion could rebuild the internet (or even rebuild it multiple times as you ambiguously implied,) I don't believe you can even fathom what you're talking about here. Believe it or not, SMTP and web traffic is gzip compressed. Yes, you read that right, it is quite literally the same algorithm as the gzip binary found in a *nix environment. Gzip compresses that kind of traffic especially well (here's a technical exercise for you: run wireshark and analyze your web traffic as you send and receive it across the wire.) Another algorithm called deflate is also commonly used. Not only that, but it only makes up a very tiny portion of the overall internet traffic.
In fact, web traffic alone makes up perhaps 16% of the global internet's bandwidth usage. SMTP traffic is so small that it actually makes up for less than a single percent.
As for your advertising? These come in the form of cookies that typically sit in the range of tens to hundreds of bytes. That is a very tiny portion of web traffic.
I'm not sure what kind of communist revolution you're trying to inspire here, but these notions about the internet having no commercial dependence, or that advertising is hogging the pipes and possibly ruining the internet (quite the opposite in fact) are heavily heavily flawed.
Thank you, and perhaps consider paying cuba, north korea, or venezuela a visit before you start that revolution, I'm sure they'll give you some handy tips on how to properly build propaganda, because what you're doing isn't working.
Slashdot Mirror
Oh and by the way, PBS president Paula Kerger brings in somewhere north of $600,000 per year annually. He personally was one of those lobbying for the government to put the brakes on Aereo. He also regularly lobbies for more government funding to PBS. That's just to give you an idea of what you defended when you said with regard to this lawsuit, and I quote: "Take PBS out of the equation."
I hear people rail all day about CEO pay being too much, while these same people often believe that PBS deserves taxpayer funds. That company, believe it or not, is plenty profitable on its own, and indeed receives payment from affiliates every time they air shows like Nova. While the affiliates may or may not make a sizable profit (some do, some don't - some neither profit nor lose, such as AZ affiliate KAET which is funded and run by ASU for example) any donations to those affiliates line the pockets of those behind PBS.
Sure these educational programs are nice, don't get me wrong, but their motives behind suing to block Aereo don't simply come from the goodness of their hearts; there's definitely a profit motive.
You're tacitly equating the organization that gave us Reading Rainbow, The News Hour, and Nova with the organization that gave us Xenu? Seriously?
No, I'm just giving you an example of why a not for profit doesn't mean there's no profit involved. That isn't used as a means of equating or even comparing the two organizations whatsoever, it's just better describing what exactly not for profit means.
Or to be more precise, the broadcaster can insist on "must carry" but when they do so, they're forbidden from demanding compensation. They could go without either if they choose, or they could completely (at their option) forbid anybody from retransmitting anything. When they do permit or demand retransmission, they're also allowed to dictate to the cable operator where when and how they're allowed to transmit to.
PBS doesn't do it for the sole reason that the law forbids non-commercial entities from seeking retransmission fees. Don't think for a second that they wouldn't if they could. Remember, PBS is one of the organizations that launched the original lawsuit against Aereo. They make a ton of money from the sales of their DVDs, and it was their opinion that Aereo was reducing the value of these sales by allowing users to make DVR recordings of them at a very low cost (otherwise your typical DVR costs a lot more than that $8 a month, in addition to to the cost of the DVR itself where applicable.)
PBS isn't at all the "needy" organization it is frequently made out to be. They make QUITE a hefty sum of money even without donations. Being a non-profit organization doesn't say much about how much money those behind it actually make. Just look at Scientology for example.
I don't think that is it. I think it's probably more to the effect of the candidate that is more popular/liked and/or has more popular views is probably going to receive more funding anyways (because they inherently possess more active supporters,) and they would have won even without that funding. The reason Morse lost had nothing to do with spending (obviously, because his camp WAY outspent the opposition,) but rather he supported a position that was very unpopular in his district, yet many out of district and indeed out of state interests were bankrolling his campaign. Those out of state interests cannot vote; hence he lost.
For me in the type of games described in the last sentence, it was DownLoadable Crack.
I've found that Windows under Parallels is extremely stable
This isn't really a parallels thing...ever since about 8 years ago, AMD and later Intel added hardware virtualization support into their CPUs. The virtualization software doesn't do much other than maybe emulate e.g. a sound card, a nic, etc, because most of that work is done by the processor nowadays (notice how virtual machines were slow as hell before then.)
I have two complaints about Parallels. First, they don't support fooling the OS in to perceiving different video cards so you can run old games under it
If you want to run games in a VM, you'll want a CPU that supports direct IO passthrough. Intel calls theirs VT-d, I forget what AMD calls theirs. What it does is create a virtual instance of your hardware that the guest OS can interact with as if it were bare metal, only it isn't. This allows you to install your native video card driver in the VM. You can run OpenCL or CUDA apps in your VM, or if you were feeling really geeky you could run a direct3d game in your VM and an opengl game in your bare metal OS at the same time. Your GPU of course has to support this as well; IIRC (you'll want to double check) nearly all Radeon HD 6xxx and later cards to, however for nvidia only certain quadro cards support it as they consider it to be only a professional feature.
Now if you're talking about simulating really old hardware (e.g. 3dfx cards) you'll require an emulator of some sort, which is well beyond the scope of what a virtual machine would ever do. But should you find one (I think a few exist) there's nothing stopping you from installing that inside of the VM.
What about the case with John Morse in Colorado? His camp spent 11 times the amount that the opposition did, and lost anyways.
False dichotomy. The computers can be sorted into useful and not before shipment.
Well...no. Remember this is the LAST STOP. Even if it is useful when it arrives, it doesn't stay useful forever. And once it stops being useful, then where does it go?
I somehow doubt most corporations would like the idea of being forced to replace their entire infrastructure every two years. That would get very expensive very fast.
This actually sounds more like Keynesian theory of breaking windows to build economies (a direct violation of the classic "broken window fallacy".) For a modern example of what you just espoused, look at the Cash for Clunkers program. The environmentalists didn't care for it because it didn't further their goals, and used cars around this time (the market that primarily serves the poor) went way up in price because the supply of used cars was forcibly reduced during this period.
The so called "capitalists" were actually opposed to the program entirely. Democrats seemed to like it though, and apparently so did NADA (the group trying to force Tesla to sell only through dealers.)
http://www.politico.com/story/...
Or Jenny McCarthy could tour your country and talk about the folly of vaccination. That actually does change a lot of minds in a lot of countries.
How is that a capitalism problem? Capitalism puts emphasis on the private sector, not the government. Furthermore, I don't think this is even something advocated by any private entities. All of the lobbying behind this is environmentalist groups (which actually tend to lean socialist and/or communist) who think that they're doing the planet a favor by preventing used electronics from going to countries that are often the last stop in the useful life of goods (when they "recycle" them, they send to scrap the valuable raw materials, and just trash or burn the rest.)
In this case, you have to decide what is worse: Preventing all technology exports to these countries (which guarantees that they'll remain in third world status forever) or allowing about 20% of these goods to end up being discarded on the ground.
This problem is cultural in nature rather than cost related in nature. For example, in countries like Liberia it is actually common for people to defecate in public and just leave it there (they don't even bury it,) and often eat in the same place (breaking the old "don't shit where you eat" rule.) This creates a health AND environmental hazard that really has nothing to do with technology or politics, rather it's just really bad decisions made by the people over there.
Depriving them of technology will NOT solve this problem.
This is not a conspiracy theory.
Yeah because it would make so much sense for us to allow Japan to wipe out half of our fleet in one stroke, particularly at a time where steel (the material used to rebuild it) was a pretty scarce resource. Their war machine was numerically and technically superior to ours.
We were in no position to fight them, even if we had that fleet fully intact. While Japan was able to physically reach us for bombardment, we were technically unable to reach Japan; and in fact we weren't even practically able to do it until WAY later in the war. When we sent bombers out there in the earlier days of the war, they literally could not return; it was a one way trip.
We only narrowly won the battle of midway, namely because one of the Japanese scout pilots had a non-functional radio, so their planes didn't scramble and were sitting ducks when our Navy struck. Otherwise they would have handily outnumbered us in that battle. It is considered the turning point because in this battle we severely crippled their Navy, but it was only by sheer luck.
And finally, we had no nuclear bombs at this point. The Manhattan project didn't even exist when Japan attacked in any form at all. Not even a proposal had been made.
Conspiracy my ass; Japan simply struck on their own volition.
In my experience, most of the good IT jobs come from design, implementation, and troubleshooting the infrastructure that somebody else already coded. You don't need a CS degree for this, nor do you need to be a math whiz.
The increased incidences of respiratory diseases due to air pollution. Medical care is expensive in the US, and things that harm public health should at the very least help pay for it.
If that is the case, then taxing gasoline probably isn't going to do you any favors. Older cars? Maybe, but not newer ones. In fact, there was a lab test on an otherwise "dirty" Ford truck, and the lab actually found that it was so clean burning that it actually cleaned up the hydrocarbons from the air around it while it was running. Its CO emissions are also about the same as the ambient air outside.
http://www.carscoops.com/2011/...
Also if you rev the engine inside of a closed garage in a suicide attempt, it probably wouldn't even work.
What you claim doesn't appear to be true. It seems Fox had this tidbit covered around the same time as the rest.
http://www.foxbusiness.com/gov...
Notice that story is even 12 days older than this one:
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/06...
I think what he might be actually referring to is lately there's been this growing conspiracy theory that the US wanted Japan to bomb Pearl Harbor for basically no reason other than that we could one day drop nuclear bombs on them, and Japan was otherwise only interested in peace the whole time.
Few of anybody (even those who don't subscribe to these theories) actually realize just how militaristic Japan actually was...I mean they even made the Nazi's look like good guys in comparison (not only did they have their own form of concentration camps and racial superiority complex, but they also had rape camps and would starve and torture POWs.) Furthermore, while Germany was mostly about having its military do these things, for the Japanese, EVERYBODY was part of the effort, even going so far as to ordering their own citizens to commit mass suicide rather than permit military occupation of any towns.
I don't think that was a money thing, rather it was an oversight of risk management. Hindsight is always 20/20.
(Besides, where does this "blame the victim" attitude always come from? It's ridiculous. This is equal to saying that wearing scantily clad clothing means a woman deserves to get raped.)
I'll answer in a way that (non-deliberately) should be acceptable to the PC police: They just aren't interested in this particular field. This is along the lines of lamenting that not enough men are interested in nursing. Nobody really does lament it, yet it's true. I'm not sure why myself, because you can make a decent living as a nurse with relatively little investment, but I will say that I myself just happen to not be interested (I like what I'm doing now more.)
Black people also, for cultural reasons, prefer different things. Look at the number of black people into rap music compared to the number of black people into country music.
I think that does qualify for "not being motivated or qualified" much in the same way I'm neither motivated nor qualified to be a nurse. There are few in those numbers at least partly (though I'd say more like mainly) who ever apply to begin with. Of course, I could say I want this $60,000 a year nursing job without any training or education in the area at all, and you're short on your male quota, so hire me now, kthx. I'd be summarily rejected.
Funny thing is I got down-modded...I figured that pointing out that any entity performing a criminal investigation upon itself is a pretty clear cut conflict of interest.
And oh...a response from the Woz himself! I actually had a professor who says he worked with you for a while around the time that the Apple III was in development. Also says he wrote the very first commercially sold word processor (or something like that) for Apple hardware. Perhaps the most knowledgeable teacher I've ever had to boot. I can't say I'm a regular Apple customer myself, but I've seen your work and my hat's off to you sir.
Remember this IS the government we're talking about here. They aren't accountable to anybody but themselves. Notice how the IRS sent these computers to its own criminal investigations unit? Yeah...
Didn't mean to insult with the signature bit BTW, just letting you know so you can fix it.
Ah yes, I remember my first laptop. My first one was a Dell Inspiron 8000. Weighed about 9 pounds, and had a nice birth control feature when you used it in the manner that the word laptop implies. Bought it sometime back in 2001 during my Army days for somewhere north of $2,000, and that was after a military discount.
Some three years ago, I bought an HP DV5 something or other, weighs about half as much, runs much faster, much cooler, lasts longer on its battery, and cost about $400. This doesn't even take into account that in the past year intel chips have dramatically increased their energy efficiency; such a system I don't own yet. But alas, none of these have the birth control feature, so clearly we're on a race to the bottom.
(By the way, you badly misquoted that in your signature. Really, Ben Franklin (who likely didn't actually say that, it turns out) wouldn't have written such horribly broken English.)
Sorry, substitute the word advertising for tracking. Banners of course use a bit more, but not much compared to the overall content of most web pages.
I think you mis-remember.
Perhaps. So I'll tell you what, instead of going off of my memory I'll simply play a trump card that renders your entire argument moot. I'm not sure what in the hell would possess you to think that 19 billion could ever come close to rebuilding the entire global internet infrastructure, but I'll tell you this: It costs some 5 times that amount minimum each year just to keep ISPs running, forget about rebuilding it from scratch, and forget about the non-ISP infrastructure (which by far does not make up the whole internet.) The US ISP figure alone is already well known and proven to cost more than your figure every year, at any rate.
www.forbes.com/sites/quora/2012/03/14/how-much-does-the-internet-cost-to-run/
Think about this for a second: How much less infrastructure would we need if we wouldn't spend 90% of SMTP traffic on spam and half of HTTP traffic on advertisement and tracking?
Probably very little, if any at all. Given your existing belief that 19 billion could rebuild the internet (or even rebuild it multiple times as you ambiguously implied,) I don't believe you can even fathom what you're talking about here. Believe it or not, SMTP and web traffic is gzip compressed. Yes, you read that right, it is quite literally the same algorithm as the gzip binary found in a *nix environment. Gzip compresses that kind of traffic especially well (here's a technical exercise for you: run wireshark and analyze your web traffic as you send and receive it across the wire.) Another algorithm called deflate is also commonly used. Not only that, but it only makes up a very tiny portion of the overall internet traffic.
In fact, web traffic alone makes up perhaps 16% of the global internet's bandwidth usage. SMTP traffic is so small that it actually makes up for less than a single percent.
https://www.sandvine.com/downl...
As for your advertising? These come in the form of cookies that typically sit in the range of tens to hundreds of bytes. That is a very tiny portion of web traffic.
I'm not sure what kind of communist revolution you're trying to inspire here, but these notions about the internet having no commercial dependence, or that advertising is hogging the pipes and possibly ruining the internet (quite the opposite in fact) are heavily heavily flawed.
Thank you, and perhaps consider paying cuba, north korea, or venezuela a visit before you start that revolution, I'm sure they'll give you some handy tips on how to properly build propaganda, because what you're doing isn't working.