> By 2010, we could expect more bits per second of internet traffic than there are atoms in the universe.
This statement is so wonderfully wrong (off by some 55 orders of magnitude) that I wonder if you were actually trying to demonstrate the effect of people swallowing any outrageous claim. In fact, around 10 people posted comments without challenging you.
You can see it even without a calculator: if you double every 100 days you will get a little more than a factor of 10 in a year. From 1995 until today you have 7 years in which you say that the internet traffic should have increased from 1x10^9 bps to 5x10^16 bits, an increase of 5x10^7. (You did that part right, BTW).
From today until 2010 you will then increase by another app. 5x10^8 which will take you to about 2.5x10^25 bps. That's about the number of atoms in half a bottle of whisky. Of course, many people do regard that as their Universe.
It would in fact take another 50 years (to about 2060) to get to 1x10^80 bps.
One answer is: Use Qt and KDElibs. They are pretty full-featured. I just got started on kdevelop, the KDE IDE. It's really nice, though I have to admit that I don't have much experience with other IDE's. One thing that is really nice about it is that it will automatically set you up with automake and autoconf to produce a configure file, so your code should be *very* portable. I don't know if you can use this for developing proprietary software. For Qt you would need to buy a license unless your code is free. I don't know about kdelibs. Thomas
Richard Dawkins (in "The Blind Watchmaker") was quite explicit about people who suppose that, just because they can't think of an explanation, then there can't *be* an explanation. The rattle of rattle snakes is easy to explain: it's a feature, not a bug. Rattle snakes swallow their prey whole so they don't hunt cows or humans. But if some big animal like you or me comes stomping along the snake risks being trampled to death. Sure, it can bite, but that won't help if it has already been trodden on, and it would only mean big panicking feet all over the place. Better far to rattle a bit and make sure no one gets hurt. I'm pretty sure that if a rattle snake sees a mouse it will *not* rattle. It's almost more difficult to explain why more snake species haven't evolved this (though the broad neck of the cobra might be a similar warning signal).
Slashdot Mirror
> By 2010, we could expect more bits per second of internet traffic than there are atoms in the universe.
This statement is so wonderfully wrong (off by some 55 orders of magnitude) that I wonder if you were actually trying to demonstrate the effect of people swallowing any outrageous claim. In fact, around 10 people posted comments without challenging you.
You can see it even without a calculator: if you double every 100 days you will get a little more than a factor of 10 in a year. From 1995 until today you have 7 years in which you say that the internet traffic should have increased from 1x10^9 bps to 5x10^16 bits, an increase of 5x10^7. (You did that part right, BTW).
From today until 2010 you will then increase by another app. 5x10^8 which will take you to about 2.5x10^25 bps. That's about the number of atoms in half a bottle of whisky. Of course, many people do regard that as their Universe.
It would in fact take another 50 years (to about 2060) to get to 1x10^80 bps.
One answer is: Use Qt and KDElibs. They are pretty full-featured. I just got started on kdevelop, the KDE IDE. It's really nice, though I have to admit that I don't have much experience with other IDE's. One thing that is really nice about it is that it will automatically set you up with automake and autoconf to produce a configure file, so your code should be *very* portable. I don't know if you can use this for developing proprietary software. For Qt you would need to buy a license unless your code is free. I don't know about kdelibs. Thomas
Richard Dawkins (in "The Blind Watchmaker") was quite explicit about people who suppose that, just because they can't think of an explanation, then there can't *be* an explanation. The rattle of rattle snakes is easy to explain: it's a feature, not a bug. Rattle snakes swallow their prey whole so they don't hunt cows or humans. But if some big animal like you or me comes stomping along the snake risks being trampled to death. Sure, it can bite, but that won't help if it has already been trodden on, and it would only mean big panicking feet all over the place. Better far to rattle a bit and make sure no one gets hurt. I'm pretty sure that if a rattle snake sees a mouse it will *not* rattle. It's almost more difficult to explain why more snake species haven't evolved this (though the broad neck of the cobra might be a similar warning signal).