But listening to the recording by bouncing light off its surface and receiving the reflections is a lot like viewing the real Mona Lisa by bouncing ambient light off its surface and receiving the reflections in your eyeballs. It's your brain's fault that you can't see sound or smell colors or hear scents.
But bouncing light off the Mona Lisa doesn't require digital signal processing it just occurs. Playing the record with the original stylus also doesn't require any DSP. Bouncing light off of it does require DSP to convert it to sound that you can hear.
This sort of thing happens in education. Software producers know they need to plan for future users so they give it to the kids who they hope will buy it. Some coworkers of mine at an advertising agency said their professor called Quark (makers of QuarkXpress) asking for educational discounts for 30+ licenses and were told there was no discount. At the time the license cost was something like $1200 per seat. So they called Adobe and asked for educational discounts on InDesign, new at the time, and Adobe just gave them everything they wanted at no cost.
Worked in their favor too. When those kids hit the working world they only knew InDesign and their employers were forced to switch. We did. And never looked back.
"Then Adobe hit the market in 1999 with a program called InDesign (now used by Inc.). In 2003, Adobe launched its Creative Suite, which rolled in products such as Photoshop and Illustrator with InDesign. Quark couldn't come close. Its U.S. market share tumbled from 95 percent to just 25 percent."
If you want to sell your product give it to the educators.
And yet all of those kids coming out of college knowing linux hasn't forced companies to switch to it. The reason that your example worked was because companies were not entrenched in QuarkXpress or InDesign at the time and therefore the kids coming out set the standard, not the companies. Apple tried the same approach with education - giving steep discounts to schools and universities on their equipment, but that didn't change the business market, at least not much. Why, because for all practical purposes, companies where the difference in price between a Mac and PC or QuarkXpress or InDesign, aren't big enough to influence the market. Now, a fortune 500 company making that decision is a different story and they will look at more than just the initial cash outlay.
Ahh, if only a kickback was what you appear to think it is. A kickback would be if the person making the decision was personally paid $250k.
This is actually a discount or incentive, and part of doing business.
While I agree with your kickback definition, more or less, a discount or incentive implies a price reduction. Microsoft paid the university cash so the university could pay outside consultants and contractors to work on the conversion. Might not be a kickback, but it sure seems to smell.
No, it's not since they weren't paying them to use it. It was a completely commonplace discount given to a big customer. Universities negotiate such discounts all the fucking time. The summary and article are FUD.
According to the article, the university is receiving $250,000 in funds to cover consulting services for the conversion from Lotus Notes. So, it is only a bribe if you are paid to actually use it, but not if your are paid to make it so you can use it? I agree if Microsoft actually discounted the price of Office 365, that this is normal and happens all the time. However, if the university actually received funds as part of the transaction, then how is that not a bribe unless the only contractors involved are Microsoft employees and they aren't charging for the conversion.
RTFA. The summary is an outright fabrication. (of course, so is the title of the article in question).
Actually, the summary just quotes the introduction to the article. And, in the article, it states that the university is receiving funds from Microsoft to cover consulting and conversion costs.
The 250k is not a payment, it's a discount. They'll still have to pay, just less.
Actually, the 250K is a payment. The actual article states that it is to be used to pay for consulting services,etc. Sounds like if Microsoft is making funds available, that it isn't a discount, but a payment.
OpenOffice is good, but it's not a full replacement for modern versions of Office. If all you're doing is authoring memos and papers (by yourself) it will suffice, though.
What's with the random dig at Nebraska, though? The state has plenty of social conservatives and plenty of liberals (see: Omaha) -- there's no reason to slam a pretty respectable university over your stereotype.
Then again, outside of law offices, most of what MS Office is used for is memos and papers, particularly on a college campus. I don't really see allowing multiple edits on a term paper as a useful thing. Most universities actually frown on such an activity.
As for slamming Nebraska, any of the remaining Big 12 conference members would probably question using "Nebraska" and "respectable university" in the same sentence, but leaving the Big 12 was all about money and evidently so is choosing Microsoft's new offerings. But I'm sure the Corn Huskers got the best solution Microsoft's money could buy.
The title says that "Scientists Play World's Oldest Commercial Recording." But actually, that's not true. From the summary: 123-year-old recording—etched into a warped metal cylinder and brought back to life after decades of silence by a three-dimensional (3D) optical scanning technique
Playing an optical scan of the worlds oldest commercial recording is not the same as playing the recording itself, any more than viewing a scan of the Mona Lisa is the same as viewing the real Mona Lisa, no matter how faithfully reproduced.
Now, if they had resurrected a recorder/player device that actually "played" the cylinder, that would be different.
These things have been around for decades, fuck knows why this is suddenly news.
Probably because the original came out before many/.rs were born and somebody just re-discovered it. Next week, there will probably be a post about this crazy idea on how to etch our own circuit boards.
Actually, they cannot, at least without violating the individual's right.
Sure they can. If they take away the right that they granted the people, then it is gone. It no longer exists. There is no evidence for absolute rights, as far as I know.
When inalienable rights (or absolute to use your term) are basic things such as the right to life or self determination, the state cannot take them away. The state can however violate them, which has the same effect. China only allowing male children and killing female is not taking away any rights. It is violating female children's right to life. That is why they are called human rights violations. Because the state cannot remove them, but only violate them.
However, most nations have agreed on certain basic or inalienable rights.
But they're not inalienable. They can be taken away by those same nations.
Actually, they cannot, at least without violating the individual's right. Rights are not a matter of law or reason, but instead philosophy. From those philosophical rights come those things that we routinely call rights, and they are, but they are not inalienable or basic human rights. Instead they are rights granted by the state.
The most basic right is the right to life. If the state (or anyone else for that matter) takes it away from you, then that right is violated. It is not up to the state to grant you right to life, it is yours by being human. All other rights are based on this right. You have the right to self-determination, too. That does not mean you won't suffer the consequences of choices you make. It does mean, however, that the state violates your right when it determines for you what class you will belong to.
Even in the United States, the so called right to bear arms stems from the right to life and bearing arms is a way to protect that right. Not only do you have the right to life, you have the right to protect that life. It is important to note, however, that by life, it truly means that - life, not a "way of life." Again, in the US, the right of free speech is because you have a basic inalienable right to self determination and to secure that right, you have to be able to express your ideas. Of course, even in the US, there are consequences to that expression, but that does not negate the right. In oppressive countries, not only do they restrict that right, but very often by exercising it, you have your right to self-determination and life restricted, too.
Just because the state punishes one for exercising basic inalienable human rights, does not mean that the state takes them away. The fact that the individual is punished or killed is a violation of their rights, not a negation of them.
While there are some exceptions, for the common good (such as not yelling "fire" in a crowded theater)
And whether the "common good" is actually "good" or not can be debated. There are people who disagree with that ban.
That isn't another imposing their right on you, but a consequence of an action taken by you.
I'd say that it's both.
In reality, that right exists with or without the constitution.
How so? What sort of authority dictates that? The right to free speech is merely your right to speak and not be arrested or punished by the government for the speech. They're the ones (as well as the people) who decides to give people that right, as far as I know.
If you want to go down that approach than all rights are granted by the state or an external deity. However, most nations have agreed on certain basic or inalienable rights. They have "agreed" to, not granted them, as the state cannot grant what is inalienable. In the United States, for instance, it is not the will of the people that says what a right is, nor the will of the legislature. Throughout its history, the people have willed one thing and the courts upheld something else. So, there must be something outside the will of the people that determines what is a right. The people have periodically amended the constitution, but that can only be done if such amendment does not impinge on some other right outlined there (for instance a new amendment cannot restrict, say the freedom of speech).
There are very few basic human or inalienable rights. There are many privileges granted by the state, but those are not rights. We just take them as such.
You're always limiting the rights of other people, including their right to live, by asserting your rights. The problem is where to draw the line.
For a country based on certain inalienable rights, Americans sure don't understand the concept very well. While there are some exceptions, for the common good (such as not yelling "fire" in a crowded theater) If someone is able to limit your right by asserting theirs, then you didn't have a right in the first place. The reason they are called inalienable or basic human rights is because they cannot be reduced by others (without violating said right).
So, in the United States, there is a current trend to ban smoking in public places. Why? Because all people have a right to breathe clean air (as clean as it may or may not be). Smokers on the other hand complain about their right to smoke, but there is no such right. I guess one could try and argue that smoking is a form of expression and therefore falls under the first amendment, but I doubt that would be successful.
Some rights are granted solely by the state and can indeed be forfeited by the individual, like if you are convicted of a felony, your right to vote is forfeit. That isn't another imposing their right on you, but a consequence of an action taken by you. However state granted rights are not the same as basic or inalienable rights. In the United States, the constitution grants the right to free speech. In reality, that right exists with or without the constitution. If it didn't, then the founders would not have had the "right" to declare independence. The constitution doesn't create the right, but codifies it, instead. That is an inalienable basic right. The right to vote is not the same type of right. The State dictates who may or may not vote and how it is to be done. The actual right, however, is for self determination and is exemplified by the notion to vote for one's political leaders. Not all societies allow voting for their leaders or at least not in the same way as the US, but all peoples are entitled to the right of self determination.
You mention a vampire and hunger in your post, although a bad example as the situation is impossible. However, use the example of the individual who needs an expensive medicine or they will die. They are poor and can't afford it. That does not give them the "right" to break into the pharmacy and steal it (thus impinging on the right of the pharmacist to his/her property). There may be a moral question involved, but that does not make it a "right."
People would be better served if they understood what is actually a right, and what their actual rights were. It would clear up a lot of the rhetoric in political campaigns and in general public discourse.
If you want CS but not the general requirements needed for a Bachelor of Science, then look at a tech school or a 2 year associates degree. However, you should be aware that you will probably spend most of your "career" as a programmer. Your co-workers that do have a B.S. will be offered promotions ahead of you.
Many seem to think that things like english, philosophy, science, etc. are a waste of time, but those are the subjects that let you communicate with those outside your specific field. They are what make you a well rounded adult instead of just a guy who can program. Don't get me wrong, there is nothing wrong an associates degree or a tech school, however, in the long run, you will go further in life with a B.S. as it will open many more doors for you.
Should the emphasis be on providing a few people, in select metropolitan areas, unbelievable bandwidth or should it be on providing reasonable bandwidth for the rest of the country?
The focus should be on providing everyone unbelievable bandwidth. To do that, you start with a demonstration project in one area that shows that you can do it, and that motivates incumbent ISPs to work on doing it elsewhere before you get around to doing it there and take their captive markets away from them.
Unfortunately that approach doesn't work with infrastructure. The government had to get involved to electrify rural America and many rural parts of the company don't even have DSL. Given pass history it is highly unlikely that the ISPs will push this technology out to such places, especially if they haven't push even outdated current technology.
Of course, most parts of the country have 1.5mbs or less for their internet connection. Should the emphasis be on providing a few people, in select metropolitan areas, unbelievable bandwidth or should it be on providing reasonable bandwidth for the rest of the country?
How about providing unbelievable bandwidth to everyone in the country? We might even manage to obtain the envy of the world, even from places like Japan and Sweden.
I think that would be fantastic, but it doesn't answer how is it going to be paid for?
Let's say the kids just went to bed, and I want to watch a movie. In that case, I don't want to wait 30 minutes. I want to pick something out, and watch it right away. That only leaves streaming, or really fast downloads.
Streaming requires a guaranteed bandwidth for a long time. Fast downloading obviously requires a much higher bandwidth, but it doesn't have to be of constant quality, which may be easier to provide.
Are you saying that the government should subsidize your inability to plan ahead for what you want to watch on TV? I understand your argument, but since this proposal is very high dollar it will most likely be born by taxpayers. An alternative that many do now, is to start the stream download and wait 10 minutes before you start watching that way, the lag get absorbed by what is already there.
So ? Video isn't necessarily broadcast. Except for live events, most people would prefer to watch video on demand, with the ability to pause it, and fast forward/rewind.
I agree, but then why is the high bandwidth being proposed needed? If your intent is to download it and watch it later, then what difference does it make if it is a 15 second burst or a 30minute download? If the main purpose of this proposal is to making so video can be watched, as the given example talks about, it seems like a quite expensive proposition simply to replace DVRs.
In most places, the fiber is already there. If you've got a cable modem, theres fiber fairly close to your home.
Long haul connections just get upgraded equipment on the ends. We don't need more fiber for more bandwidth, thats why we laid fiber, its theoretical limit is defined by the laws of physics and light, which means as long as we can keep upgrading our endpoint routers, we can keep getting more bandwidth out of existing fiber. We've got a few years before we hit the limits of what we can push down fibre, probably far more than we're going to push processors to handle the bandwidth.
Most places do not have fiber to the house or business, unless you are talking about large metropolitan areas and cities of 250,000 or more. However, that leaves a large portion of the country out of the equation. Heck, many parts of the country still do not have adequate cell phone coverage and that doesn't require a wire to every house/business. Even with the Kansas City proposal in the original article, that doesn't pick up the outlying suburbs.
Turn the argument around... how much is a 1.5M ADSL line really worth today. What is a 100M link worth to a household? What are the differences in fixed cost per subscriber to maintain the infrastructure?
The capital investment may be significant, but that is how the industry has evolved; you just need to amortize it over an appropriate time period and the economics make sense. DSL doesn't have a 5-year lifespan remaining, which is why ATT and Verizon are putting in FTTH.
And yet, DSL is the only option available to the majority of people in the country. Not everybody has access to mediacom or cable internet. Just about everyone now has access to DSL. High speed internet is only available in large metropolitan areas. Even modest size cities don't have access to truly high speed internet. Rolling out high speed internet to small cities and rural areas would be equivalent to when they had to roll out electricity in the early part of the 20th century. Nobody will build the infrastructure without government help because the ROI is to small. So the question remains, who is going to pay for it?
I think what you are missing is the timeliness of the data. If you stream then any temporary slowdown, pauses or retransmissions due to packet loss, have a detrimental effect on the viewing/listening. Bulk downloads do not suffer this. Also, it can help even out bandwidth utilisation as you do not have the 'problem' of some periods when lots of people are streaming and other periods when the 'pipes' are comparatively empty.
What they need is something like disk striping on RAID drives, but for streaming video. If there were built in checksums embedded in the stream than maybe dropped packets could reconstructed without having to retransmit. Of course that would require a different video codec and make the data file larger, but if the goal is to stream video and the problem is lagtime, then it could actually improve the situation. Just a thought.
Slashdot Mirror
But listening to the recording by bouncing light off its surface and receiving the reflections is a lot like viewing the real Mona Lisa by bouncing ambient light off its surface and receiving the reflections in your eyeballs. It's your brain's fault that you can't see sound or smell colors or hear scents.
But bouncing light off the Mona Lisa doesn't require digital signal processing it just occurs. Playing the record with the original stylus also doesn't require any DSP. Bouncing light off of it does require DSP to convert it to sound that you can hear.
This sort of thing happens in education. Software producers know they need to plan for future users so they give it to the kids who they hope will buy it. Some coworkers of mine at an advertising agency said their professor called Quark (makers of QuarkXpress) asking for educational discounts for 30+ licenses and were told there was no discount. At the time the license cost was something like $1200 per seat. So they called Adobe and asked for educational discounts on InDesign, new at the time, and Adobe just gave them everything they wanted at no cost.
Worked in their favor too. When those kids hit the working world they only knew InDesign and their employers were forced to switch. We did. And never looked back.
"Then Adobe hit the market in 1999 with a program called InDesign (now used by Inc.). In 2003, Adobe launched its Creative Suite, which rolled in products such as Photoshop and Illustrator with InDesign. Quark couldn't come close. Its U.S. market share tumbled from 95 percent to just 25 percent ."
http://www.inc.com/magazine/20100401/can-quark-turn-the-corner.html
If you want to sell your product give it to the educators.
And yet all of those kids coming out of college knowing linux hasn't forced companies to switch to it. The reason that your example worked was because companies were not entrenched in QuarkXpress or InDesign at the time and therefore the kids coming out set the standard, not the companies. Apple tried the same approach with education - giving steep discounts to schools and universities on their equipment, but that didn't change the business market, at least not much. Why, because for all practical purposes, companies where the difference in price between a Mac and PC or QuarkXpress or InDesign, aren't big enough to influence the market. Now, a fortune 500 company making that decision is a different story and they will look at more than just the initial cash outlay.
Ahh, if only a kickback was what you appear to think it is. A kickback would be if the person making the decision was personally paid $250k.
This is actually a discount or incentive, and part of doing business.
While I agree with your kickback definition, more or less, a discount or incentive implies a price reduction. Microsoft paid the university cash so the university could pay outside consultants and contractors to work on the conversion. Might not be a kickback, but it sure seems to smell.
No, it's not since they weren't paying them to use it. It was a completely commonplace discount given to a big customer. Universities negotiate such discounts all the fucking time. The summary and article are FUD.
According to the article, the university is receiving $250,000 in funds to cover consulting services for the conversion from Lotus Notes. So, it is only a bribe if you are paid to actually use it, but not if your are paid to make it so you can use it? I agree if Microsoft actually discounted the price of Office 365, that this is normal and happens all the time. However, if the university actually received funds as part of the transaction, then how is that not a bribe unless the only contractors involved are Microsoft employees and they aren't charging for the conversion.
Yeah, just like that stupid anti-competitive Apple has been doing with steep student discounts on their products since 1984!
Microsoft is getting a clue and going after their future market, just like Apple has always done.
Ummm, the student discount on a Mac is like $50 or $100 depending on what model. That doesn't sound very steep.
RTFA. The summary is an outright fabrication. (of course, so is the title of the article in question).
Actually, the summary just quotes the introduction to the article. And, in the article, it states that the university is receiving funds from Microsoft to cover consulting and conversion costs.
The 250k is not a payment, it's a discount. They'll still have to pay, just less.
Actually, the 250K is a payment. The actual article states that it is to be used to pay for consulting services,etc. Sounds like if Microsoft is making funds available, that it isn't a discount, but a payment.
The 250k is not a payment, it's a discount. They'll still have to pay, just less.
Why when Microsoft does this with a university it is a discount, but when they do it in a foreign country it is called a bribe?
OpenOffice is good, but it's not a full replacement for modern versions of Office. If all you're doing is authoring memos and papers (by yourself) it will suffice, though.
What's with the random dig at Nebraska, though? The state has plenty of social conservatives and plenty of liberals (see: Omaha) -- there's no reason to slam a pretty respectable university over your stereotype.
Then again, outside of law offices, most of what MS Office is used for is memos and papers, particularly on a college campus. I don't really see allowing multiple edits on a term paper as a useful thing. Most universities actually frown on such an activity.
As for slamming Nebraska, any of the remaining Big 12 conference members would probably question using "Nebraska" and "respectable university" in the same sentence, but leaving the Big 12 was all about money and evidently so is choosing Microsoft's new offerings. But I'm sure the Corn Huskers got the best solution Microsoft's money could buy.
The title says that "Scientists Play World's Oldest Commercial Recording." But actually, that's not true. From the summary: 123-year-old recording—etched into a warped metal cylinder and brought back to life after decades of silence by a three-dimensional (3D) optical scanning technique
Playing an optical scan of the worlds oldest commercial recording is not the same as playing the recording itself, any more than viewing a scan of the Mona Lisa is the same as viewing the real Mona Lisa, no matter how faithfully reproduced.
Now, if they had resurrected a recorder/player device that actually "played" the cylinder, that would be different.
...the future crusty old bastards are already drinking the Kool-Aid.
Of course the same youngins who think the silver pen is a new invention probably won't understand the Kool-Aid reference.
These things have been around for decades, fuck knows why this is suddenly news.
Probably because the original came out before many /.rs were born and somebody just re-discovered it. Next week, there will probably be a post about this crazy idea on how to etch our own circuit boards.
Actually, they cannot, at least without violating the individual's right.
Sure they can. If they take away the right that they granted the people, then it is gone. It no longer exists. There is no evidence for absolute rights, as far as I know.
When inalienable rights (or absolute to use your term) are basic things such as the right to life or self determination, the state cannot take them away. The state can however violate them, which has the same effect. China only allowing male children and killing female is not taking away any rights. It is violating female children's right to life. That is why they are called human rights violations. Because the state cannot remove them, but only violate them.
However, most nations have agreed on certain basic or inalienable rights.
But they're not inalienable. They can be taken away by those same nations.
Actually, they cannot, at least without violating the individual's right. Rights are not a matter of law or reason, but instead philosophy. From those philosophical rights come those things that we routinely call rights, and they are, but they are not inalienable or basic human rights. Instead they are rights granted by the state.
The most basic right is the right to life. If the state (or anyone else for that matter) takes it away from you, then that right is violated. It is not up to the state to grant you right to life, it is yours by being human. All other rights are based on this right. You have the right to self-determination, too. That does not mean you won't suffer the consequences of choices you make. It does mean, however, that the state violates your right when it determines for you what class you will belong to.
Even in the United States, the so called right to bear arms stems from the right to life and bearing arms is a way to protect that right. Not only do you have the right to life, you have the right to protect that life. It is important to note, however, that by life, it truly means that - life, not a "way of life." Again, in the US, the right of free speech is because you have a basic inalienable right to self determination and to secure that right, you have to be able to express your ideas. Of course, even in the US, there are consequences to that expression, but that does not negate the right. In oppressive countries, not only do they restrict that right, but very often by exercising it, you have your right to self-determination and life restricted, too.
Just because the state punishes one for exercising basic inalienable human rights, does not mean that the state takes them away. The fact that the individual is punished or killed is a violation of their rights, not a negation of them.
While there are some exceptions, for the common good (such as not yelling "fire" in a crowded theater)
And whether the "common good" is actually "good" or not can be debated. There are people who disagree with that ban.
That isn't another imposing their right on you, but a consequence of an action taken by you.
I'd say that it's both.
In reality, that right exists with or without the constitution.
How so? What sort of authority dictates that? The right to free speech is merely your right to speak and not be arrested or punished by the government for the speech. They're the ones (as well as the people) who decides to give people that right, as far as I know.
If you want to go down that approach than all rights are granted by the state or an external deity. However, most nations have agreed on certain basic or inalienable rights. They have "agreed" to, not granted them, as the state cannot grant what is inalienable. In the United States, for instance, it is not the will of the people that says what a right is, nor the will of the legislature. Throughout its history, the people have willed one thing and the courts upheld something else. So, there must be something outside the will of the people that determines what is a right. The people have periodically amended the constitution, but that can only be done if such amendment does not impinge on some other right outlined there (for instance a new amendment cannot restrict, say the freedom of speech).
There are very few basic human or inalienable rights. There are many privileges granted by the state, but those are not rights. We just take them as such.
You're always limiting the rights of other people, including their right to live, by asserting your rights. The problem is where to draw the line.
For a country based on certain inalienable rights, Americans sure don't understand the concept very well. While there are some exceptions, for the common good (such as not yelling "fire" in a crowded theater) If someone is able to limit your right by asserting theirs, then you didn't have a right in the first place. The reason they are called inalienable or basic human rights is because they cannot be reduced by others (without violating said right).
So, in the United States, there is a current trend to ban smoking in public places. Why? Because all people have a right to breathe clean air (as clean as it may or may not be). Smokers on the other hand complain about their right to smoke, but there is no such right. I guess one could try and argue that smoking is a form of expression and therefore falls under the first amendment, but I doubt that would be successful.
Some rights are granted solely by the state and can indeed be forfeited by the individual, like if you are convicted of a felony, your right to vote is forfeit. That isn't another imposing their right on you, but a consequence of an action taken by you. However state granted rights are not the same as basic or inalienable rights. In the United States, the constitution grants the right to free speech. In reality, that right exists with or without the constitution. If it didn't, then the founders would not have had the "right" to declare independence. The constitution doesn't create the right, but codifies it, instead. That is an inalienable basic right. The right to vote is not the same type of right. The State dictates who may or may not vote and how it is to be done. The actual right, however, is for self determination and is exemplified by the notion to vote for one's political leaders. Not all societies allow voting for their leaders or at least not in the same way as the US, but all peoples are entitled to the right of self determination.
You mention a vampire and hunger in your post, although a bad example as the situation is impossible. However, use the example of the individual who needs an expensive medicine or they will die. They are poor and can't afford it. That does not give them the "right" to break into the pharmacy and steal it (thus impinging on the right of the pharmacist to his/her property). There may be a moral question involved, but that does not make it a "right."
People would be better served if they understood what is actually a right, and what their actual rights were. It would clear up a lot of the rhetoric in political campaigns and in general public discourse.
If you want CS but not the general requirements needed for a Bachelor of Science, then look at a tech school or a 2 year associates degree. However, you should be aware that you will probably spend most of your "career" as a programmer. Your co-workers that do have a B.S. will be offered promotions ahead of you.
Many seem to think that things like english, philosophy, science, etc. are a waste of time, but those are the subjects that let you communicate with those outside your specific field. They are what make you a well rounded adult instead of just a guy who can program. Don't get me wrong, there is nothing wrong an associates degree or a tech school, however, in the long run, you will go further in life with a B.S. as it will open many more doors for you.
The focus should be on providing everyone unbelievable bandwidth. To do that, you start with a demonstration project in one area that shows that you can do it, and that motivates incumbent ISPs to work on doing it elsewhere before you get around to doing it there and take their captive markets away from them.
Unfortunately that approach doesn't work with infrastructure. The government had to get involved to electrify rural America and many rural parts of the company don't even have DSL. Given pass history it is highly unlikely that the ISPs will push this technology out to such places, especially if they haven't push even outdated current technology.
How about providing unbelievable bandwidth to everyone in the country? We might even manage to obtain the envy of the world, even from places like Japan and Sweden.
I think that would be fantastic, but it doesn't answer how is it going to be paid for?
Let's say the kids just went to bed, and I want to watch a movie. In that case, I don't want to wait 30 minutes. I want to pick something out, and watch it right away. That only leaves streaming, or really fast downloads.
Streaming requires a guaranteed bandwidth for a long time. Fast downloading obviously requires a much higher bandwidth, but it doesn't have to be of constant quality, which may be easier to provide.
Are you saying that the government should subsidize your inability to plan ahead for what you want to watch on TV? I understand your argument, but since this proposal is very high dollar it will most likely be born by taxpayers. An alternative that many do now, is to start the stream download and wait 10 minutes before you start watching that way, the lag get absorbed by what is already there.
So ? Video isn't necessarily broadcast. Except for live events, most people would prefer to watch video on demand, with the ability to pause it, and fast forward/rewind.
I agree, but then why is the high bandwidth being proposed needed? If your intent is to download it and watch it later, then what difference does it make if it is a 15 second burst or a 30minute download? If the main purpose of this proposal is to making so video can be watched, as the given example talks about, it seems like a quite expensive proposition simply to replace DVRs.
In most places, the fiber is already there. If you've got a cable modem, theres fiber fairly close to your home.
Long haul connections just get upgraded equipment on the ends. We don't need more fiber for more bandwidth, thats why we laid fiber, its theoretical limit is defined by the laws of physics and light, which means as long as we can keep upgrading our endpoint routers, we can keep getting more bandwidth out of existing fiber. We've got a few years before we hit the limits of what we can push down fibre, probably far more than we're going to push processors to handle the bandwidth.
Most places do not have fiber to the house or business, unless you are talking about large metropolitan areas and cities of 250,000 or more. However, that leaves a large portion of the country out of the equation. Heck, many parts of the country still do not have adequate cell phone coverage and that doesn't require a wire to every house/business. Even with the Kansas City proposal in the original article, that doesn't pick up the outlying suburbs.
Turn the argument around... how much is a 1.5M ADSL line really worth today. What is a 100M link worth to a household? What are the differences in fixed cost per subscriber to maintain the infrastructure?
The capital investment may be significant, but that is how the industry has evolved; you just need to amortize it over an appropriate time period and the economics make sense. DSL doesn't have a 5-year lifespan remaining, which is why ATT and Verizon are putting in FTTH.
And yet, DSL is the only option available to the majority of people in the country. Not everybody has access to mediacom or cable internet. Just about everyone now has access to DSL. High speed internet is only available in large metropolitan areas. Even modest size cities don't have access to truly high speed internet. Rolling out high speed internet to small cities and rural areas would be equivalent to when they had to roll out electricity in the early part of the 20th century. Nobody will build the infrastructure without government help because the ROI is to small. So the question remains, who is going to pay for it?
Satellite bandwidth is much more expensive than fiber if you're not receiving broadcast streams.
But the example given was to receive video.
I think what you are missing is the timeliness of the data. If you stream then any temporary slowdown, pauses or retransmissions due to packet loss, have a detrimental effect on the viewing/listening. Bulk downloads do not suffer this. Also, it can help even out bandwidth utilisation as you do not have the 'problem' of some periods when lots of people are streaming and other periods when the 'pipes' are comparatively empty.
What they need is something like disk striping on RAID drives, but for streaming video. If there were built in checksums embedded in the stream than maybe dropped packets could reconstructed without having to retransmit. Of course that would require a different video codec and make the data file larger, but if the goal is to stream video and the problem is lagtime, then it could actually improve the situation. Just a thought.