Whenever someone brings up the fact that we really, really should have switched to primarily nuclear derived energy decades ago, someone else says that nobody can build a nuke plant because the insurance agencies are incapable of covering it - apparently, nobody has the cash reserves to clean up another Chernobyl.
Maybe we're getting to the point where nobody can build a new oil well because the the insurance agencies won't cover it. After all, nobody has the cash reserves to clean up another Deepwater Horizon.
We simply have too many people living in low population density areas. In all areas for public transportation to be convenient enough for people to use, there must be many stops. However, each stop cost money, and in low population density areas it may not be possible to recoup the costs if you have many stops, so they have fewer if there is a public transportation system in place at all. That explains a fair bit of the lack of good public transit in the US.
Oh come on, that's bullshit. Vast swathes of the east and west coasts are just as densely populated as anywhere in Europe, and yet the public transportation still sucks. People try to use that same argument for telecommunications, and it doesn't work there either.
Face it, when it comes to any public service we fucking suck because the rich people in this country have realized that they can vote for less taxes far more efficiently than the poor people can vote for more services.
If the Attorney General's tweet was tasteless, what does that say about the fact that he'd just signed an order commanding agents of the state to kill a human being? People are okay with executions as long as they don't have to hear about them.
I've been boning up on my car knowledge, mainly because I don't like the idea of being so dependent on other experts just to take care of my car, and just as a fun thing to do. I'm amazed at the markups on some of the simplest procedures (changing spark plugs and wires on virtually any car takes 30 min and $50, compared to prices like $200 at a garage). I don't claim to have the expertise of somebody with a certificate in auto repair, but I could easily see that if I kept at it and invested a fair amount of time I could probably rebuild an engine. That's just how it works - if you're smart and you spend your time learning something, you'll become fairly good at it.
Wait - are you really saying "because easy things are easy, hard things should be easy too"? The hard part isn't rebuilding a mass-produced engine; the hard part is building the first engine, and the building the assembly line that pumps them out. The hard part isn't replacing a spark plug; the hard part is designing a spark plug in the first place.
The thing is, human technology is fundamentally human. I can take a look at any computer and tear it apart in about half an hour, because computers are designed by humans with the purpose of humans being able to service them. Spark plugs are designed to be changed; engines are designed to be rebuilt. Those aren't hard tasks, they're just tasks that take some time, some domain knowledge and a good idea of human nature.
Understanding the climate or biology or physics or really anything about the natural world, none of which were created by humans or with humans in mind, is a far more difficult task. You really do need to spend several years working with understanding as your full-time job in order to come to grips with these thing; in fact, just catching up with the current state of knowledge usually takes a year or two.
Aside from the obvious target that our government makes by its size, the Gov. of N. Korea essentially holds its populous in slavery and actively seeks to develop nuclear weapons and promotes subversion, same as Iran.
Those monsters! Nobody should be forced to use subversion; git is the way of the future.
Actually the problem people have is with the arrogance and egotism of people who have pieces of paper. Simply because I don't have a piece of paper, doesn't mean I don't have a clue on how to plot my own weather maps and provide valid meteorological data to other sources. I can do both. But I've got no paper, but I have been studying weather since I was a kid. So 22 years give or take.
Congratulations, if that's true then you're one in a million. The other nine hundred, ninety-nine thousand, nine hundred and ninety-nine people who claim to be experts in a field without a degree are actually morons greatly enjoying the Dunning-Kruger effect.
This is why academics frequently discount the opinions of people without degrees; those opinions are frequently worth discounting.
Further, you don't even seem to know what a PhD entails. You don't spend just four years getting one; that's only if you stop with an undergraduate degree. If you add up the amount of time a person spends getting a PhD (including the undergraduate degree and postdoctoral positions (and a successful postdoc is basically required to get anyone to take your piece of paper seriously)), it ends up being anywhere from ten to twenty years.
Yes, you've spent the last 22 years studying the weather. Was it your full-time job, or was it just something you did weekends and evenings? Did you spend at least four hours a day reading papers from climatology journals that whole time? Did you basically blow six years of your life apprenticing yourself to someone who had made a career out of studying weather? Have you ever systematically gathered data of any sort? Did you then write up a report on it and published it anywhere? (bonus points if it was a peer-reviewed journal) Have you contributed to the advancement of science in any way?
Hell, how do you know that these scientists haven't been studying the weather since they were children? You're assuming that they aren't as passionate about it as you, but they were willing to literally throw away a decade of their lives just so they can study this one thing. They were willing to put their money (as in, lost potential earnings) where their mouths were; why is it that you're not willing to do the same thing? It's not like these programs are hard to get into, no matter what your age; my wife, who is a PhD student, has a classmate in her eighties.
This is why the anti-elitist sentiment (as it applies to academia) in the United States is so baffling. These "elites" have given their lives over to studying a topic, and you think that just because you've been "studying" the topic since you were a kid you're as qualified as they are.
Micromanagement is a moral destroyer and encourages rank and file employees to be mindless automatons.
A typo, but an apt one. You clearly meant "morale", as in "how employees feel about work"; however, by leaving off that last letter, you turned it into "moral" as in "the ethical capacity of the managers".
Micromanagement is absolute power, and it corrupts absolutely.
Your point does not contradict my point. Before that earthquake, we did not know that the potential tectonic energy in the area had built up to the point where it could cause a 6.0 earthquake. If we somehow figured out how to reliably make that determination, then predicting earthquakes would be a lot easier.
However, we did know that there were some smaller, ~4.0 earthquakes in the area. This meant that 1. there was tectonic energy in the area and 2. it was being released slowly. From that data, we had no way of knowing that we were dealing with a sealed pressure cooker; it looked to all appearances like a bubbling pot. The most likely result was that there would not be a single large earthquake; the most likely result was that there would continue to be smaller earthquakes, until most of the pent up energy was released.
No, it's not. It's actually an indication that a big earthquake is less likely. Consider this grossly oversimplified model: earthquakes happen because there's potential energy between two chunks of rock; one chunk of rock wants to move North, the other chunk wants to move South, but they're stuck on each other. The pressure between the two keeps on growing and growing until something breaks, and you get an earthquake. If you have lots of small earthquakes, that means that the potential energy between the two chunks of rock is being depleted; this lower potential means that things are less likely to snap in the first place, and if they do ever snap the total energy released (in other words, the magnitude of the earthquake) will be lower.
It's like the difference between boiling water in a pot with a lid versus boiling water in a sealed pressure cooker; the pot with the lid will bubble and burp and move around a little, but the pressure cooker will eventually explode if you're not careful.
Other than the fact of upgradability/expandability, I wouldn't mind that.
Haven't you been paying attention to Apple's mobile products? Size and battery life trump everything, up to and including expandability and serviceability. If they can compress the MacBook by ten millimeters with a motherboard-integrated Flash drive, they're going to do it. Hell, if you open up a MacBook, the CD drive takes up the most space - followed by the hard drive; until Apple pulls an Apple (circa 1999) and removes the CD like they removed the floppy, the hard drive is the best target for space savings.
Absolutely nothing, because nobody has ever successfully used the Windows Help system in the history of the universe. It is a slow, worthless, unhelpful piece of shit whose only saving grace is that you never actually see it.
If you follow MY ideas to the ultimate conclusion, then you'd have a working economy that could not be destroyed by state money manipulation and you'd have no wars that are funded by states that only benefit the largest players while destroying lives of people and nations.
I kind of doubt that; what you're advocating will create a gigantic power vacuum where the government used to be, and you're proposing that it will just stay that way without anyone stepping in and filling it. Sorry, but nature abhors a vacuum. What you're proposing will end up as a sort of neo-feudalism, as the most powerful companies or co-operatives take power for themselves.
I am not an anarchist, I am not interested in Somalia. I believe states have one real purpose: justice system, a court system and a punishment system to punish transgressions, such as harm done to individuals and to public property and environment.
Funny, because you're espousing ideals that are basically anarchistic. You should be interested in Somalia, because it's basically the direction you're saying we should go - a feudalistic society controlled by a bunch of warlords whose power is economic and military, not hereditary. How will the states fulfill your one purpose, if they have no power? How can the mouse censure the lion when the latter befouls the river?
In my world no company would get any public funding at all. There would be no income tax at all. There would be sales tax, which means that consumption is not encouraged, but production is and that is the real wealth, not fiat money.
No company would get public funding? How would the hundreds of thousands of small businesses that exist today have gotten off the ground, if not for government-subsidized small business loans? Will company-forming be something only rich people do in your world? Or would all small companies be beholden to large companies? After all, if there's no public funding for any company, the only way a small company can get started is through venture capital, and we all know how that turns out.
And then you want things to work at cross-purposes. Consumption is discouraged, but production is encouraged? Who will buy the stuff that gets produced? Production is not real wealth; "wealth" comes from settling imbalances between what people want and what people have. That's the basic theory of all market systems; Russian communism tried to do this by saying "This shoe company will make ten thousand shoes; these ten thousand people will buy them". Modern capitalism tries to do this by saying "Here's money, use it to buy whatever shoes you want". You're doing this by saying "Hey everybody, make a bunch of shoes; but we're going to tax the purchase of shoes and nothing else, so nobody will buy them".
In my world states would not have money to run wars of opportunity. In my world businesses could not own governments because governments would have very limited function: justice and punishment, which is much easier to control than all of the stuff governments do now.
States would not have the money to run wars of opportunity, it's true; however, corporations who are beholden to none but their CEOs (see? Neo-feudalism) will have standing armies. Businesses would not own governments because businesses only want to own things of value; the governments you are hypothesizing would be worthless.
In my world there would be no regulations against business, but in my world any business or individual hurting other individuals or public property (environment) would be punished severely both materially and criminally.
How do mice punish lions? That is the fundamental flaw in your reasoning; you are advocating neo-feudalism controlled only by a powerless government. If you try to ride a bull with a harness made of cotton candy, you're going to get your ass trampled.
Exactly - the problem isn't creating an AI physician, the problem is creating an AI physician that you can't lie to blatantly. It would be trivial to create a little program that's little more than an enhanced version of those 20 question balls and runs a differential diagnosis engine; something like that would cover 90% of all diseases after a few rounds. It could show you little pictures like "do your bumps look more like this or more like this?", or any number enhancements. It would probably work incredibly well with honest, impartial patients.
The problem is, it has no way of knowing if you're lying. If you say "yes, when I press hard on this point on my belly it hurts when I let go", the thing has no way of knowing if you pressed on the right place or if it actually hurt. If there's a doctor doing that to you, they'll have a pretty good idea if it hurt.
Really, the best this thing can do is either say "you should see a doctor" or "you should take two acetaminophen and ask me again tomorrow"
I simply want to sit down, turn it on, hit play, and be playing. Standardized hardware is awesome for this ability to always be great hardware for the software I purchased.
Me too. That's why I play PC games. I don't want to spend ten minutes waiting for some bullshit to load; when I hit "Play", I want to go from zero to game in less than a minute. Flotilla, for instance, runs as soon as I say go; I can be halfway through an adventure, blowing things up in space Homeworld-style before Grand Theft Auto IV gets around to showing me a menu.
The modern university system guarantees that everyone gets a double major in that subject, with potentially a minor in "basic calculus hasn't changed in the last decade!" or "Kant's been dead for over 200 years!".
That must be nice, but it's not reality where I am. I'm at a university that ranks as about #40 in most science/math/engineering rankings, and the only thing I get waived is tuition. I have to pay ~$750 in fees per year. I get about $1500/mo after tax from my stipend, and I have to pay for 100% of my rent, food, and textbooks out of that.
Umm, that's exactly what the GP said. You pay $750/year in fees, that's half a month's salary. Beyond that you're getting $1500/mo, which is a reasonable deal; my wife only gets ~$1300, and she's a grad student in one of the most expensive areas in the USA. Around here, you can get a shared room in an apartment for $600-$700/mo, which leaves you with something on the order of $900-$800/mo to spend however you want. Unless you're eating out every night or have a super expensive car or have previous debt or something, you should be totally able to live within that budget - which means that after grad school, you'll have spent $0 out of pocket on grad school. The GP's point is that they pay you well enough that you shouldn't have to dip into savings.
Seriously, if you find yourself spending more than you earn, you should really look at what you're doing with your finances.
That doesn't even make sense to me, especially in the context of a Blackberry. The default security settings are to wipe after ten bad passwords; no matter how easy your password is, there's no way someone's going to guess it in ten tries (unless they shoulder surf when you're entering it in, but long and complicated passwords won't help there either).
Seriously, just set it to "minimum 4 characters, wipe after 10 bad passwords" and you're as safe as Blackberries get.
If you have never stood at the wrong end of a gun, it's near impossible to imagine being there for days, weeks, or even months.
Can you point out which gun the Iraqi insurgents have that can threaten a helicopter? As far as I can tell, the shit they're armed with has a snowball's chance in hell of even hitting a helicopter like that, much less doing actual damage to it.
Those guys were in a (comparatively) low-stress situation. There was no one actually shooting at them, there might have been some fighting but it was not in the immediate area. And yet they chose to unload their guns at people. That is murder, pure and simple.
What if I want to use tons of bandwidth and pay for it? I want to stream MythTV to my smartphone; I want to keep my phone continually synchronized with my fileserver at home (including any pictures or videos I take), even if I'm in another state; I want to be able to listen to any of the hundreds of gigabytes of music available to me, be they on YouTube, the Internet, or my fileserver at home no matter where I am; I want to connect a Bluetooth webcam to my phone and stream everything that happens to me to a remote server.
I'm willing to pay for that; why aren't they willing to offer the bandwidth to do it? It'll be expensive, but there's bound to be some people for whom price doesn't matter, and it's not like a real unlimited plan is going to take up extra space on their shelves. Why not offer a real unlimited plan, at its actual price?
* The Orange Box engine was split into two separate engines during an engine update earlier this year. One version is used by HL2: Episode 2 and Portal, the other by Team Fortress 2, Day of Defeat: Source, and Counter-Strike: Source Beta.
That's an interesting split - one is optimized for online coherency, and the other for offline experience maybe?
Slashdot Mirror
That sounds wonderful.
Whenever someone brings up the fact that we really, really should have switched to primarily nuclear derived energy decades ago, someone else says that nobody can build a nuke plant because the insurance agencies are incapable of covering it - apparently, nobody has the cash reserves to clean up another Chernobyl.
Maybe we're getting to the point where nobody can build a new oil well because the the insurance agencies won't cover it. After all, nobody has the cash reserves to clean up another Deepwater Horizon.
Oh come on, that's bullshit. Vast swathes of the east and west coasts are just as densely populated as anywhere in Europe, and yet the public transportation still sucks. People try to use that same argument for telecommunications, and it doesn't work there either.
Face it, when it comes to any public service we fucking suck because the rich people in this country have realized that they can vote for less taxes far more efficiently than the poor people can vote for more services.
This already happened, but fortunately they are distributed uniformly throughout the universe.
If the Attorney General's tweet was tasteless, what does that say about the fact that he'd just signed an order commanding agents of the state to kill a human being? People are okay with executions as long as they don't have to hear about them.
Wait - are you really saying "because easy things are easy, hard things should be easy too"? The hard part isn't rebuilding a mass-produced engine; the hard part is building the first engine, and the building the assembly line that pumps them out. The hard part isn't replacing a spark plug; the hard part is designing a spark plug in the first place.
The thing is, human technology is fundamentally human. I can take a look at any computer and tear it apart in about half an hour, because computers are designed by humans with the purpose of humans being able to service them. Spark plugs are designed to be changed; engines are designed to be rebuilt. Those aren't hard tasks, they're just tasks that take some time, some domain knowledge and a good idea of human nature.
Understanding the climate or biology or physics or really anything about the natural world, none of which were created by humans or with humans in mind, is a far more difficult task. You really do need to spend several years working with understanding as your full-time job in order to come to grips with these thing; in fact, just catching up with the current state of knowledge usually takes a year or two.
Those monsters! Nobody should be forced to use subversion; git is the way of the future.
Congratulations, if that's true then you're one in a million. The other nine hundred, ninety-nine thousand, nine hundred and ninety-nine people who claim to be experts in a field without a degree are actually morons greatly enjoying the Dunning-Kruger effect.
This is why academics frequently discount the opinions of people without degrees; those opinions are frequently worth discounting.
Further, you don't even seem to know what a PhD entails. You don't spend just four years getting one; that's only if you stop with an undergraduate degree. If you add up the amount of time a person spends getting a PhD (including the undergraduate degree and postdoctoral positions (and a successful postdoc is basically required to get anyone to take your piece of paper seriously)), it ends up being anywhere from ten to twenty years.
Yes, you've spent the last 22 years studying the weather. Was it your full-time job, or was it just something you did weekends and evenings? Did you spend at least four hours a day reading papers from climatology journals that whole time? Did you basically blow six years of your life apprenticing yourself to someone who had made a career out of studying weather? Have you ever systematically gathered data of any sort? Did you then write up a report on it and published it anywhere? (bonus points if it was a peer-reviewed journal) Have you contributed to the advancement of science in any way?
Hell, how do you know that these scientists haven't been studying the weather since they were children? You're assuming that they aren't as passionate about it as you, but they were willing to literally throw away a decade of their lives just so they can study this one thing. They were willing to put their money (as in, lost potential earnings) where their mouths were; why is it that you're not willing to do the same thing? It's not like these programs are hard to get into, no matter what your age; my wife, who is a PhD student, has a classmate in her eighties.
This is why the anti-elitist sentiment (as it applies to academia) in the United States is so baffling. These "elites" have given their lives over to studying a topic, and you think that just because you've been "studying" the topic since you were a kid you're as qualified as they are.
A typo, but an apt one. You clearly meant "morale", as in "how employees feel about work"; however, by leaving off that last letter, you turned it into "moral" as in "the ethical capacity of the managers".
Micromanagement is absolute power, and it corrupts absolutely.
Why would anyone buy a toaster when they have an oven?
Sometimes you just want a device that does one thing, and does it well.
Your point does not contradict my point. Before that earthquake, we did not know that the potential tectonic energy in the area had built up to the point where it could cause a 6.0 earthquake. If we somehow figured out how to reliably make that determination, then predicting earthquakes would be a lot easier.
However, we did know that there were some smaller, ~4.0 earthquakes in the area. This meant that 1. there was tectonic energy in the area and 2. it was being released slowly. From that data, we had no way of knowing that we were dealing with a sealed pressure cooker; it looked to all appearances like a bubbling pot. The most likely result was that there would not be a single large earthquake; the most likely result was that there would continue to be smaller earthquakes, until most of the pent up energy was released.
Unfortunately, this was a less likely scenario.
No, it's not. It's actually an indication that a big earthquake is less likely. Consider this grossly oversimplified model: earthquakes happen because there's potential energy between two chunks of rock; one chunk of rock wants to move North, the other chunk wants to move South, but they're stuck on each other. The pressure between the two keeps on growing and growing until something breaks, and you get an earthquake. If you have lots of small earthquakes, that means that the potential energy between the two chunks of rock is being depleted; this lower potential means that things are less likely to snap in the first place, and if they do ever snap the total energy released (in other words, the magnitude of the earthquake) will be lower.
It's like the difference between boiling water in a pot with a lid versus boiling water in a sealed pressure cooker; the pot with the lid will bubble and burp and move around a little, but the pressure cooker will eventually explode if you're not careful.
Nowhere, really - IT just keeps on falling, and falling, and falling.
Haven't you been paying attention to Apple's mobile products? Size and battery life trump everything, up to and including expandability and serviceability. If they can compress the MacBook by ten millimeters with a motherboard-integrated Flash drive, they're going to do it. Hell, if you open up a MacBook, the CD drive takes up the most space - followed by the hard drive; until Apple pulls an Apple (circa 1999) and removes the CD like they removed the floppy, the hard drive is the best target for space savings.
Absolutely nothing, because nobody has ever successfully used the Windows Help system in the history of the universe. It is a slow, worthless, unhelpful piece of shit whose only saving grace is that you never actually see it.
I bet you this will be standard on MacBook Pros within the next five years.
I kind of doubt that; what you're advocating will create a gigantic power vacuum where the government used to be, and you're proposing that it will just stay that way without anyone stepping in and filling it. Sorry, but nature abhors a vacuum. What you're proposing will end up as a sort of neo-feudalism, as the most powerful companies or co-operatives take power for themselves.
Funny, because you're espousing ideals that are basically anarchistic. You should be interested in Somalia, because it's basically the direction you're saying we should go - a feudalistic society controlled by a bunch of warlords whose power is economic and military, not hereditary. How will the states fulfill your one purpose, if they have no power? How can the mouse censure the lion when the latter befouls the river?
No company would get public funding? How would the hundreds of thousands of small businesses that exist today have gotten off the ground, if not for government-subsidized small business loans? Will company-forming be something only rich people do in your world? Or would all small companies be beholden to large companies? After all, if there's no public funding for any company, the only way a small company can get started is through venture capital, and we all know how that turns out.
And then you want things to work at cross-purposes. Consumption is discouraged, but production is encouraged? Who will buy the stuff that gets produced? Production is not real wealth; "wealth" comes from settling imbalances between what people want and what people have. That's the basic theory of all market systems; Russian communism tried to do this by saying "This shoe company will make ten thousand shoes; these ten thousand people will buy them". Modern capitalism tries to do this by saying "Here's money, use it to buy whatever shoes you want". You're doing this by saying "Hey everybody, make a bunch of shoes; but we're going to tax the purchase of shoes and nothing else, so nobody will buy them".
States would not have the money to run wars of opportunity, it's true; however, corporations who are beholden to none but their CEOs (see? Neo-feudalism) will have standing armies. Businesses would not own governments because businesses only want to own things of value; the governments you are hypothesizing would be worthless.
How do mice punish lions? That is the fundamental flaw in your reasoning; you are advocating neo-feudalism controlled only by a powerless government. If you try to ride a bull with a harness made of cotton candy, you're going to get your ass trampled.
Gasp! You mean he's actually engaging in diplomacy without weapons? The horror! The horror!
Exactly - the problem isn't creating an AI physician, the problem is creating an AI physician that you can't lie to blatantly. It would be trivial to create a little program that's little more than an enhanced version of those 20 question balls and runs a differential diagnosis engine; something like that would cover 90% of all diseases after a few rounds. It could show you little pictures like "do your bumps look more like this or more like this?", or any number enhancements. It would probably work incredibly well with honest, impartial patients.
The problem is, it has no way of knowing if you're lying. If you say "yes, when I press hard on this point on my belly it hurts when I let go", the thing has no way of knowing if you pressed on the right place or if it actually hurt. If there's a doctor doing that to you, they'll have a pretty good idea if it hurt.
Really, the best this thing can do is either say "you should see a doctor" or "you should take two acetaminophen and ask me again tomorrow"
Me too. That's why I play PC games. I don't want to spend ten minutes waiting for some bullshit to load; when I hit "Play", I want to go from zero to game in less than a minute. Flotilla, for instance, runs as soon as I say go; I can be halfway through an adventure, blowing things up in space Homeworld-style before Grand Theft Auto IV gets around to showing me a menu.
The modern university system guarantees that everyone gets a double major in that subject, with potentially a minor in "basic calculus hasn't changed in the last decade!" or "Kant's been dead for over 200 years!".
Umm, that's exactly what the GP said. You pay $750/year in fees, that's half a month's salary. Beyond that you're getting $1500/mo, which is a reasonable deal; my wife only gets ~$1300, and she's a grad student in one of the most expensive areas in the USA. Around here, you can get a shared room in an apartment for $600-$700/mo, which leaves you with something on the order of $900-$800/mo to spend however you want. Unless you're eating out every night or have a super expensive car or have previous debt or something, you should be totally able to live within that budget - which means that after grad school, you'll have spent $0 out of pocket on grad school. The GP's point is that they pay you well enough that you shouldn't have to dip into savings.
Seriously, if you find yourself spending more than you earn, you should really look at what you're doing with your finances.
That doesn't even make sense to me, especially in the context of a Blackberry. The default security settings are to wipe after ten bad passwords; no matter how easy your password is, there's no way someone's going to guess it in ten tries (unless they shoulder surf when you're entering it in, but long and complicated passwords won't help there either).
Seriously, just set it to "minimum 4 characters, wipe after 10 bad passwords" and you're as safe as Blackberries get.
Can you point out which gun the Iraqi insurgents have that can threaten a helicopter? As far as I can tell, the shit they're armed with has a snowball's chance in hell of even hitting a helicopter like that, much less doing actual damage to it.
Those guys were in a (comparatively) low-stress situation. There was no one actually shooting at them, there might have been some fighting but it was not in the immediate area. And yet they chose to unload their guns at people. That is murder, pure and simple.
What if I want to use tons of bandwidth and pay for it? I want to stream MythTV to my smartphone; I want to keep my phone continually synchronized with my fileserver at home (including any pictures or videos I take), even if I'm in another state; I want to be able to listen to any of the hundreds of gigabytes of music available to me, be they on YouTube, the Internet, or my fileserver at home no matter where I am; I want to connect a Bluetooth webcam to my phone and stream everything that happens to me to a remote server.
I'm willing to pay for that; why aren't they willing to offer the bandwidth to do it? It'll be expensive, but there's bound to be some people for whom price doesn't matter, and it's not like a real unlimited plan is going to take up extra space on their shelves. Why not offer a real unlimited plan, at its actual price?
That's an interesting split - one is optimized for online coherency, and the other for offline experience maybe?