"Certainly my response was no "stupider" than your post, in which you apparently said you wanted something for nothing. "
Here's exactly what I said:
"I wish I could do a 2 meg down 1 meg up. I'd pay $80 a month for that RIGHT NOW."
I did not in fact say I wanted something for nothing. I pay $55 for 1.5M/256. For $80 they're offering 3M/384. In other words I said "I'd pay for a different balance." That's a far cry from 'something for nothing'. Oops, guess you lose there.
"Certainly my response was no "stupider" than your post..." -- Yep, it was. I just proved it. The moderators seem to agree, too.
"Ok, right. And I was really using world peace and my wanting a pony as a logical statement. It was a joke. Get over it." -- I'm not upset by it, I found it funny that you stooped to such a Pee Wee Herman level to try to make me look petty and selfish. Take your own advice, though: Get over it. Im right and you're wrong. I wouldn't normally take that attitude, but you just had to color up your 'point' with attacks on my character. You couldn't have just been simple and to the point. Of course, with a point as weak as the one you presented, I can see why you tried to overcompensate. It's not an insult, it's a joke, get over it.
"And how many users were on your node? How many now? Did you at any time think that the cable company was obligated, in any way, to give you anything but "high speed" service? Did they ever promise 2/1 up/down speeds for that price?" -- Yes. They advertised "Unlimited Bandwidth 24/7" and subsequent ads said "we give the full bandwidth availble under current conditions. They were competing with DSl which basically said "You get less bandwidth, but a guaranteed number." Yes, I have a right to bitch.
"Hey, man, I'm with you. Bandwidth ought to be cheaper. There's lots of extra supply these days." -- I appreciate you being more civil in this case. I think that the reason that bandwidth was 'unlimited' back in the early days was that they thought they'd get disgustingly rich when people suddenly started getting on broadband and paying lots of money. Well they're not, and the net's slowed since. The worst part is that I think 1.5 megs is plenty now. I ache for faster uploads so I pursue other interests on the web like starting a big Quake server or something. *Shrug*
Well, just to play Devil's Advocate, what about wireless?
I set up a 'media server' at home which is essentially a Windows 2000 box converted into a TiVo. It captures TV at 330kbits to Windows Media 8 format that PC's, PocketPC's, and Macs can support. Eventually I'll set up a wireless network so that I can roam around with the laptop and watch video straight off that machine.
Concievably, a PocketPC would be able to do it via 802.11 as well. Unfortunately, I need a titch more processing power. A 206mhz iPaq can handle the video at 15 FPS, but not at 30. When the XScale PocketPc's come out (if they haven't already), I should be able to do just that.
Okay, I won't be watching a movie/TV at a restaruant, but any computer in my apartment would be have video on demand. I'm about $200 away from getting that working right now.
Lol, I haven't seen a post that stupid in a while. Let's break down your agrument:
"Yeah, I bet most people would pay 1/6 as much as they should for goods and services if they could. Hell, I'd like a new 4WD Toyota Tundra, and I'd pay 5 grand for it THIS VERY SECOND." -- First we start with a totally unrelated metaphor...
"And while we're off in a never-never land where everyone gets what they want, I'd like a pony, too. And world peace. And for all the children of the world to be happy and healthy." --... followed by a childish attempt to use absurd logic to discredit me...
"Why don't you just get a T1? It's only US$674 a month [t1marketplace.com]. Or SDSL? It's only about US$400 per month [navpoint.com] if you're close enough to a CO." --...and finishes with a source of data contains an irrelevant piece of data.
The $400 a month price tag is actually for commercial internet service. That means the following:
- A block of static IP addresses - 24/7 on-site support - Guaranteed uptime - Redundancy - Dedicated line insuring you get the full bandwidth no matter when it is.
In the early days of @Home, the connections weren't capped. I was getting 4 meg down 1.5 meg up. That wasn't dedicated service, it just wasn't capped. So in theory if a bunch of people were uploading constantly, then we'd eat into each other's bandwidth. This is not acceptable on a $400/mo. plan, but it's just fine for cheap consumer level internet. Im saying I'd pay nearly double the price to remove the cap.
Let's also consider that the data sheet YOU showed me illustrates very clearly that DSL is considerably more expensive than cable. There's no way that cable modem service with that type of bandwidth would cost $400 a month. I used to have it for $50.
What you childishly said is that I want a an 85% discount on my internet connection. What I'm really saying is that I'll pay more for less restrictions. I suppose it's hard to see my side of this when your point of view is obstructed by your anus.
When I first got my cable modem, it was 4 meg down and 1.5 meg up for $50 a month. Unforunately @home went down. I think part of the limit is that the price to pipe data back and forth to the internet has gone up while AT&T tries to 'optimize profits'.
"They can only offer those speeds at those prices because there is an (inherently reasonable) assumption that normal users (the ones not running a server or perpetually streaming movies to their entire group of friends) will not be using the full bandwidth full tim..."
Yep, you're right. I thought about that. It seems like, though, you could pay for your share of that bandwidth. I don't know much about what it costs for AT&T to get that bandwidth to you, so $80 may not be alllll that reasonable. But I can't imagine the price being that far off.
It occured to me later that another problem might be that your upload could affect somebody else's. I don't have a solution to that. Im hoping it's as simple as "We throw more bandwidth at them and hope not too many people buy the full-time option." *Shrug*
"You make this sound like a bad thing. As long as it doesn't affect my current service, I like having the option of jumping up a notch in performance."
Yeah.. Damn them for allowing one to spend more money to get faster service! Heh. Dontch'a love the knee-jerk "When prices change it's bad" reaction?
Actually it happens when ANYTHING changes these days. My favorite is "There's a new version of Quicktime out, I'm going to start learning how to not need it right away!".:)
... What if the $80 a month charge means that they won't complain if you use bandwidth intensive stuff like P2P. If they'd put in the ToS "You can max out the connection 24/7 without fear of being disconnected or having ports blocked.", it may be worth $80 a month.
I already pay $55 a month now. If paying $80 would guarantee those clauses in my ToS for as long as I'm a subscriber, I'd probably go for it.
" I mean, wouldn't a Dreamcast plugged into the company network be a bit more suspicious than a computer?"
At a game company?
Actually though, at my company (not a game company) I could probably bring a Dreamcast in and get it on the network without anybody really noticing. If I disable the LED on it, I'm pretty sure most of the people here (even those that have a Dreamcast and play it) wouldn't consider looking to see if it was network connected or not.
There are advantages to keeping your desk cluttered like I do.;)
...2.5" CD-RW's that I bought at CompUSA. They hold about 180megs or so. One of my coworkers made a Redhat recovery CD thingy on a bunch of the CD-R versions of those disks.
Here's CompUSA.com's item # on them to those who are interested: http://www.compusa.com/products/product_info.asp?p roduct_code=288608
I haven't needed a floppy in ages. Windows 2000 seems to have mostly evolved away from it. Now all I needta be able to do is flash my Bios from a CD....
Slashdot Mirror
Heh probably.
On y2k, I was at a friend of mine's house. When midnight rolled around, the power went out.
Turns out, her brother ran to the fuse box and threw all the switches. So yes, y2k did cause a power outage.
"This is actually an excellent idea. Create a GE crop that contains a birth control enzyme."
Umm... isn't it a bad idea for a guy to take chick birth control?
Sorry, but my boobs are big enough.
"Certainly my response was no "stupider" than your post, in which you apparently said you wanted something for nothing. "
Here's exactly what I said:
"I wish I could do a 2 meg down 1 meg up. I'd pay $80 a month for that RIGHT NOW."
I did not in fact say I wanted something for nothing. I pay $55 for 1.5M/256. For $80 they're offering 3M/384. In other words I said "I'd pay for a different balance." That's a far cry from 'something for nothing'. Oops, guess you lose there.
"Certainly my response was no "stupider" than your post..." -- Yep, it was. I just proved it. The moderators seem to agree, too.
"Ok, right. And I was really using world peace and my wanting a pony as a logical statement. It was a joke. Get over it." -- I'm not upset by it, I found it funny that you stooped to such a Pee Wee Herman level to try to make me look petty and selfish. Take your own advice, though: Get over it. Im right and you're wrong. I wouldn't normally take that attitude, but you just had to color up your 'point' with attacks on my character. You couldn't have just been simple and to the point. Of course, with a point as weak as the one you presented, I can see why you tried to overcompensate. It's not an insult, it's a joke, get over it.
"And how many users were on your node? How many now? Did you at any time think that the cable company was obligated, in any way, to give you anything but "high speed" service? Did they ever promise 2/1 up/down speeds for that price?" -- Yes. They advertised "Unlimited Bandwidth 24/7" and subsequent ads said "we give the full bandwidth availble under current conditions. They were competing with DSl which basically said "You get less bandwidth, but a guaranteed number." Yes, I have a right to bitch.
"Hey, man, I'm with you. Bandwidth ought to be cheaper. There's lots of extra supply these days." -- I appreciate you being more civil in this case. I think that the reason that bandwidth was 'unlimited' back in the early days was that they thought they'd get disgustingly rich when people suddenly started getting on broadband and paying lots of money. Well they're not, and the net's slowed since. The worst part is that I think 1.5 megs is plenty now. I ache for faster uploads so I pursue other interests on the web like starting a big Quake server or something. *Shrug*
Cheers.
Well, just to play Devil's Advocate, what about wireless?
I set up a 'media server' at home which is essentially a Windows 2000 box converted into a TiVo. It captures TV at 330kbits to Windows Media 8 format that PC's, PocketPC's, and Macs can support. Eventually I'll set up a wireless network so that I can roam around with the laptop and watch video straight off that machine.
Concievably, a PocketPC would be able to do it via 802.11 as well. Unfortunately, I need a titch more processing power. A 206mhz iPaq can handle the video at 15 FPS, but not at 30. When the XScale PocketPc's come out (if they haven't already), I should be able to do just that.
Okay, I won't be watching a movie/TV at a restaruant, but any computer in my apartment would be have video on demand. I'm about $200 away from getting that working right now.
"If a DIVX movie is huge, seems like you can't fit very much on one small PDA..."
Point taken. But there was a time when you couldn't copy a CD onto a hard drive...
Lol, I haven't seen a post that stupid in a while. Let's break down your agrument:
... followed by a childish attempt to use absurd logic to discredit me ...
...and finishes with a source of data contains an irrelevant piece of data.
"Yeah, I bet most people would pay 1/6 as much as they should for goods and services if they could. Hell, I'd like a new 4WD Toyota Tundra, and I'd pay 5 grand for it THIS VERY SECOND." -- First we start with a totally unrelated metaphor...
"And while we're off in a never-never land where everyone gets what they want, I'd like a pony, too. And world peace. And for all the children of the world to be happy and healthy." --
"Why don't you just get a T1? It's only US$674 a month [t1marketplace.com]. Or SDSL? It's only about US$400 per month [navpoint.com] if you're close enough to a CO." --
The $400 a month price tag is actually for commercial internet service. That means the following:
- A block of static IP addresses
- 24/7 on-site support
- Guaranteed uptime
- Redundancy
- Dedicated line insuring you get the full bandwidth no matter when it is.
In the early days of @Home, the connections weren't capped. I was getting 4 meg down 1.5 meg up. That wasn't dedicated service, it just wasn't capped. So in theory if a bunch of people were uploading constantly, then we'd eat into each other's bandwidth. This is not acceptable on a $400/mo. plan, but it's just fine for cheap consumer level internet. Im saying I'd pay nearly double the price to remove the cap.
Let's also consider that the data sheet YOU showed me illustrates very clearly that DSL is considerably more expensive than cable. There's no way that cable modem service with that type of bandwidth would cost $400 a month. I used to have it for $50.
What you childishly said is that I want a an 85% discount on my internet connection. What I'm really saying is that I'll pay more for less restrictions. I suppose it's hard to see my side of this when your point of view is obstructed by your anus.
Heh that's cool. :)
When I first got my cable modem, it was 4 meg down and 1.5 meg up for $50 a month. Unforunately @home went down. I think part of the limit is that the price to pipe data back and forth to the internet has gone up while AT&T tries to 'optimize profits'.
I think they could do it tho.
"They can only offer those speeds at those prices because there is an (inherently reasonable) assumption that normal users (the ones not running a server or perpetually streaming movies to their entire group of friends) will not be using the full bandwidth full tim..."
Yep, you're right. I thought about that. It seems like, though, you could pay for your share of that bandwidth. I don't know much about what it costs for AT&T to get that bandwidth to you, so $80 may not be alllll that reasonable. But I can't imagine the price being that far off.
It occured to me later that another problem might be that your upload could affect somebody else's. I don't have a solution to that. Im hoping it's as simple as "We throw more bandwidth at them and hope not too many people buy the full-time option." *Shrug*
Interesting point though, thank you.
"You make this sound like a bad thing. As long as it doesn't affect my current service, I like having the option of jumping up a notch in performance."
:)
Yeah.. Damn them for allowing one to spend more money to get faster service! Heh. Dontch'a love the knee-jerk "When prices change it's bad" reaction?
Actually it happens when ANYTHING changes these days. My favorite is "There's a new version of Quicktime out, I'm going to start learning how to not need it right away!".
Oh c'mon, it's not that unreasonable. :-P
Didn't catch the part where I said that it'd be obscure enough that they wouldn't know to look for it, didja? :)
However, when they see a foreign device in the server room, that'll tip them off right away.
... What if the $80 a month charge means that they won't complain if you use bandwidth intensive stuff like P2P. If they'd put in the ToS "You can max out the connection 24/7 without fear of being disconnected or having ports blocked.", it may be worth $80 a month.
I already pay $55 a month now. If paying $80 would guarantee those clauses in my ToS for as long as I'm a subscriber, I'd probably go for it.
The 384 cap, though much better than it was, still leaves me aching.
I wish I could do a 2 meg down 1 meg up. I'd pay $80 a month for that RIGHT NOW.
"So you'd be hacking your own company and keeping the dreamcast on your own desk?"
Which would be stranger:
A seemingly inactive Dreamcast sitting on my desk or a Dreamcast sitting in the server room?
Hmmm?
" I mean, wouldn't a Dreamcast plugged into the company network be a bit more suspicious than a computer?"
;)
At a game company?
Actually though, at my company (not a game company) I could probably bring a Dreamcast in and get it on the network without anybody really noticing. If I disable the LED on it, I'm pretty sure most of the people here (even those that have a Dreamcast and play it) wouldn't consider looking to see if it was network connected or not.
There are advantages to keeping your desk cluttered like I do.
I thought the limit was that to reach .1 microns you had to use UV lithography instead of more traditional means.
"60 miles north of NYC is hardly upstate. You gotta be north of, or west of Albany to be upstate."
Wow, what a crushing blow to his comment.
Heh.
Great!! thanks man! :)
"Or Turn on your A/C from work because it's going to be a HOT afternoon. (Sure could use that today)."
Turning on AC's now? Wahtcha gonna do, send them Goatse?
Hmm I think I forgot the /innuendo tag.
Yeah I also run Lightwave and After Effects. Spare me any "Solve all your problems by switching to Linux!" crap.
Heh. A friend of mine useta say: "I have a 5.25 floppy.. and a 12 inch hard drive!"
Although half the surprise of this comment came from his 'proudly' owning a Packard Bell...
...2.5" CD-RW's that I bought at CompUSA. They hold about 180megs or so. One of my coworkers made a Redhat recovery CD thingy on a bunch of the CD-R versions of those disks.
p roduct_code=288608
Here's CompUSA.com's item # on them to those who are interested: http://www.compusa.com/products/product_info.asp?
I haven't needed a floppy in ages. Windows 2000 seems to have mostly evolved away from it. Now all I needta be able to do is flash my Bios from a CD....