So it's really the phone companies spending their own (pooled) money to upgrade their networks (which is how it should be).
Which is then passed on to everyone as a connection fee. Sorry but I'm happy to pay less for a moderate amount of bandwidth (10-20Mb is more than enough), than more for a 100Mb+ which I'll never use (I know I'll never use it because I have a 1Gb link available at work that I don't use any differently than my home connection)
The analogy is horribly broken to absurdity with only basic common sense.
Only if you can't read.
The GP was referring to doing the load at the Data Centre, and merely transmitting the display to your house (ie Remote Desktop/Citrix or similar). 3Mbps is the bandwidth of Hi-def raw video, but most of these technologies can do it for far less with compression (25-50kbps from memory).
So for any argument saying I need X bandwidth to move all my shit to my house and back, the solution is don't move it. keep it in the datacantre and only move the display information.
Individually. If I lived alone I would definitely get by with less.
Yeah and if I lived alone I wouldn't have to share a bathroom, but that's life, and I don't expect the government to legislate a bathroom for every man women and child in the country, just because I don't like sharing.
The government is there to provide a safety net, a minimum standard of services. If you can't stream the Kardashians while your boyfriend stream Bieber videos, then get a better job and move out. Don't expect the government to fund this.
I'm confused. This statement makes absolutely no sense when referring to our horrendously corrupt government.
I'm not sure when "horrendously" fits on the Standard Institute for Units of Measure. But assuming you are American, it's not as horrendous as you might think:
Suddenly the vast majority do not find 10Mb fast enough. If you're below the age of 40, you probably want at least 30Mb unless you're single and hit the clubs every night.
Citation?
I worked in Fashion not long along. Thousands of cool, teens and twenty-somethings who only cared about online retail, Facebook, Instagram, Twitter and Blogs.
I also have teenage children and despite me owning several PCs and laptops with good cable Internet, they are content with using their phones for everything (average 3Mbps or less).
The only people I come across who think they need 30Mb or more are nerds who see their home Internet speed as a pissing contest. Even among my IT co-workers, none can justify that need other than downloading tons of torrents they never use.
20Mbps is fine for most people.
Sure I could. I shuttle around AMI images, and do checkouts against large Subversion repos with 11+GB of data in them. I can easily saturate a 1Gb connection.
But that's neither here nor there.
Um yes it is, because I have devs doing the similar things, but they don't shuttle such large data to their home and back, they keep it in the Data Centres.
It is exactly here and there, because in the context is what is a minimum standard for Joe average Internet user. Even if you were one of the 1% that needs 1Gbps you have to accept you are an edge case, not the norm.
The thing is nobody really knows what sorts of applications we can come up with that benefit from ubiquitous, high bandwidth availability.
We have a good idea because people write apps for high speed 1/10Gbps LANs.
If the network speed were crazy high enough, you could run as if you had completely dynamic RAM online for loads that suddenly require it (that would require an approximately 100Gbps connection
Why can't you gust do it in the data centre and stream the results back to your terminal?
Just making everything bigger seems a really dumb way to solve a problem. It's why the US auto industry got it's lunch eaten by everyone else. Bigger is not always the answer.
If you can hardly see anyone to your left, and the only people you see speaking on the right are far-right, you should seriously consider that you might not be in the middle.
According to Political Compass I'm very slightly right leaning middle of the road. But when I hear the US political arguments I come across as a left wing looney.
The only conclusion is that the US is so far right now that even the middle seems left.
So sure -- if you're just browsing/., you probably don't need anything higher than 25Mbps. But saying that's all anyone needs discounts the probability that with more bandwidth, new types of applications and usage scenarios can open up.
Could you give us some examples? Outside extreme cases, the highest bandwidth apps only require 3-4Mpbs (and this has nothing to with any Internet standards, we run high def Apps on our 1Gb LAN and we still have nothing requiring more than 5Mbps.
So no, even if you had 1Gbps you couldn't use it if you tried.
It is not about today's network applications, but tomorrow's.
Crap. I had 10Mb Internet 20 years ago, and still only need 10Mb today. Tomorrow's apps are Facebook, Netflix and Youtube, all of which work fine with a 10Mb connection.
Capitalism should be pure and not fettered by evil and incompetent gumment interference.
We've had examples of that model already and they failed. Walk into any jungle and see how long you last. It's pure, unfettered capitalism at it's finest. Death awaits you at any instant.
This is why we have government, regulations, taxes and subsidies etc, because they work out better for most people than the jungle model you seem to love (but refuse to live in)
but don't pretend that suddenly the definition of broadband has changed and thus overnight
Broadband has always been a marketing term that means 'quicker than the cheap stuff'. When I was at Uni back in the early 90's, Broadband meant 128k(ISDN). When ADSL came out in the late 90's it slowly changed to 256k then 512k. Nowadays it seems to mean at least 4-10Mbps, and based on my experience (as a former network engineer) it should now mean 10-20Mbps, as this is the standard that will keep *most* people functional on the internet throughout a wide range of use cases
You got put in jail when you were innocent and you want to defend the justice system?!?
Yes because it does work most of the time. I find that people who knock "the system" have never experience life outside of it (hint, it gets a LOT worse)
Which is what I think a lot of people who accused me of committing a felony really want.
No-one accused you of committing a felony, but from your own words you sound like you aided a felony offence, by not reporting a criminal act to the police.
I think the message others and myself are trying to get across is that justice to work, we all need to participate, regardless of what you company HR dept thinks.
.
Why don't you turn me in? I'll be more than happy to talk to police. I didn't do anything wrong by following hospital policies.
Well that's really for a court to decide. I can't imagine that you would be a target, however your statement would probably be useful if a prosecutor wanted to go after someone in charge at the hospital.
Yet the guy that was fired is still free to roam and fund more child rape. I hope you sleep well knowing that's ok because as long as an HR policy was followed, everything is alright...
Slashdot Mirror
So it's really the phone companies spending their own (pooled) money to upgrade their networks (which is how it should be).
Which is then passed on to everyone as a connection fee. Sorry but I'm happy to pay less for a moderate amount of bandwidth (10-20Mb is more than enough), than more for a 100Mb+ which I'll never use (I know I'll never use it because I have a 1Gb link available at work that I don't use any differently than my home connection)
2008 5% of people had MySpace accounts
2015 47% of people had MySpace accounts (no, no-one did)
1988 2% of cars could do 300km/h
1997 58% of cars could do 300km/h (no they couldn't)
2012 3% of people own boats.
2018 45% of people will own boats?
This isn't about the government giving away or funding anything (mostly). It's about making that level of service available at all.
So how do you achieve that without spending money?
The analogy is horribly broken to absurdity with only basic common sense.
Only if you can't read.
The GP was referring to doing the load at the Data Centre, and merely transmitting the display to your house (ie Remote Desktop/Citrix or similar). 3Mbps is the bandwidth of Hi-def raw video, but most of these technologies can do it for far less with compression (25-50kbps from memory).
So for any argument saying I need X bandwidth to move all my shit to my house and back, the solution is don't move it. keep it in the datacantre and only move the display information.
Individually. If I lived alone I would definitely get by with less.
Yeah and if I lived alone I wouldn't have to share a bathroom, but that's life, and I don't expect the government to legislate a bathroom for every man women and child in the country, just because I don't like sharing.
The government is there to provide a safety net, a minimum standard of services. If you can't stream the Kardashians while your boyfriend stream Bieber videos, then get a better job and move out. Don't expect the government to fund this.
I'm confused. This statement makes absolutely no sense when referring to our horrendously corrupt government.
I'm not sure when "horrendously" fits on the Standard Institute for Units of Measure. But assuming you are American, it's not as horrendous as you might think:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
Suddenly the vast majority do not find 10Mb fast enough. If you're below the age of 40, you probably want at least 30Mb unless you're single and hit the clubs every night.
Citation? I worked in Fashion not long along. Thousands of cool, teens and twenty-somethings who only cared about online retail, Facebook, Instagram, Twitter and Blogs.
I also have teenage children and despite me owning several PCs and laptops with good cable Internet, they are content with using their phones for everything (average 3Mbps or less).
The only people I come across who think they need 30Mb or more are nerds who see their home Internet speed as a pissing contest. Even among my IT co-workers, none can justify that need other than downloading tons of torrents they never use.
20Mbps is fine for most people.
But generally this top 1% shows what the next 50% will be doing 5 years from now.
Got any examples?
I just thought of a few and none of them worked
No justice system at all would be worse, but there are so many ways it could be improved.
I'm sure there are, but moaning in here isn't one of them.
Which one do you support?
Sure I could. I shuttle around AMI images, and do checkouts against large Subversion repos with 11+GB of data in them. I can easily saturate a 1Gb connection.
But that's neither here nor there.
Um yes it is, because I have devs doing the similar things, but they don't shuttle such large data to their home and back, they keep it in the Data Centres. It is exactly here and there, because in the context is what is a minimum standard for Joe average Internet user. Even if you were one of the 1% that needs 1Gbps you have to accept you are an edge case, not the norm.
The thing is nobody really knows what sorts of applications we can come up with that benefit from ubiquitous, high bandwidth availability.
We have a good idea because people write apps for high speed 1/10Gbps LANs.
If the network speed were crazy high enough, you could run as if you had completely dynamic RAM online for loads that suddenly require it (that would require an approximately 100Gbps connection
Why can't you gust do it in the data centre and stream the results back to your terminal?
Just making everything bigger seems a really dumb way to solve a problem. It's why the US auto industry got it's lunch eaten by everyone else. Bigger is not always the answer.
If you can hardly see anyone to your left, and the only people you see speaking on the right are far-right, you should seriously consider that you might not be in the middle.
According to Political Compass I'm very slightly right leaning middle of the road. But when I hear the US political arguments I come across as a left wing looney.
The only conclusion is that the US is so far right now that even the middle seems left.
So sure -- if you're just browsing /., you probably don't need anything higher than 25Mbps. But saying that's all anyone needs discounts the probability that with more bandwidth, new types of applications and usage scenarios can open up.
Could you give us some examples? Outside extreme cases, the highest bandwidth apps only require 3-4Mpbs (and this has nothing to with any Internet standards, we run high def Apps on our 1Gb LAN and we still have nothing requiring more than 5Mbps.
So no, even if you had 1Gbps you couldn't use it if you tried.
It is not about today's network applications, but tomorrow's.
Crap. I had 10Mb Internet 20 years ago, and still only need 10Mb today. Tomorrow's apps are Facebook, Netflix and Youtube, all of which work fine with a 10Mb connection.
Capitalism should be pure and not fettered by evil and incompetent gumment interference.
We've had examples of that model already and they failed. Walk into any jungle and see how long you last. It's pure, unfettered capitalism at it's finest. Death awaits you at any instant.
This is why we have government, regulations, taxes and subsidies etc, because they work out better for most people than the jungle model you seem to love (but refuse to live in)
-1 for the one of the most reasonable posts in this thread?
Only in extreme cases, which by definition are the edge cases and therefore not typical of any standard that needs to be legislated by govt.
Don't know why this got modded down. It is pretty much spot on.
Not sure, but if history is any indicator, it will likely include the further restriction of my freedoms for my own good.
If history is any indicator, then whatever ends up being passed will actually be for your own good (Despite whatever you believe otherwise).
but don't pretend that suddenly the definition of broadband has changed and thus overnight
Broadband has always been a marketing term that means 'quicker than the cheap stuff'. When I was at Uni back in the early 90's, Broadband meant 128k(ISDN). When ADSL came out in the late 90's it slowly changed to 256k then 512k. Nowadays it seems to mean at least 4-10Mbps, and based on my experience (as a former network engineer) it should now mean 10-20Mbps, as this is the standard that will keep *most* people functional on the internet throughout a wide range of use cases
True, but this is less than 1% of the population, so shouldn't really be a legislate standard.
You got put in jail when you were innocent and you want to defend the justice system?!?
Yes because it does work most of the time. I find that people who knock "the system" have never experience life outside of it (hint, it gets a LOT worse)
Which is what I think a lot of people who accused me of committing a felony really want.
No-one accused you of committing a felony, but from your own words you sound like you aided a felony offence, by not reporting a criminal act to the police.
I think the message others and myself are trying to get across is that justice to work, we all need to participate, regardless of what you company HR dept thinks. .
Wow. Just wow. Can Slashdot get any lower?
Why don't you turn me in? I'll be more than happy to talk to police. I didn't do anything wrong by following hospital policies.
Well that's really for a court to decide. I can't imagine that you would be a target, however your statement would probably be useful if a prosecutor wanted to go after someone in charge at the hospital.
Yet the guy that was fired is still free to roam and fund more child rape. I hope you sleep well knowing that's ok because as long as an HR policy was followed, everything is alright...