What is Broadband for ?

Discussion in 'NZ Computing' started by Frank Williams, Jun 21, 2011.

  1. Frank Williams, Jun 21, 2011
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. Frank Williams

    JohnO Guest

    JohnO, Jun 21, 2011
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. On Mon, 20 Jun 2011 20:59:16 -0700 (PDT), JohnO <>
    wrote:

    >On Jun 21, 3:34 pm, Frank Williams <> wrote:
    >> Report: Cable exec says 1Gbps Internet is only good for piracy
    >>
    >> http://www.neowin.net/news/report-cable-exec-says-1gbps-internet-is-o...

    >
    >Rather closed minded to future opportunities, and reminiscent of the
    >'640k ought to be enough for anyone' misattribution.



    The person, who thought 640 K was enough for everyone, also wrote that
    one day computers would be able to factor PRIME numbers.


    Patrick
     
    Patrick FitzGerald, Jun 21, 2011
    #3
  4. Frank Williams

    Zulu Kilo Guest

    "Frank Williams" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    >
    > Report: Cable exec says 1Gbps Internet is only good for piracy
    >
    > http://www.neowin.net/news/report-cable-exec-says-1gbps-internet-is-only-good-for-piracy



    Of course he is wrong, but is it not true to say that faster internet will
    make it practically impossible to stop piracy? ...not that they've been
    having much success anyway. But with super fast internet I expect
    anonymizing networks would become more viable thus making detection very
    difficult.


    Weihana.
     
    Zulu Kilo, Jun 21, 2011
    #4
  5. In article <itpcv5$ign$>, "Zulu Kilo" <> wrote:
    >"Frank Williams" <> wrote in message
    >news:...
    >> Report: Cable exec says 1Gbps Internet is only good for piracy

    > http://www.neowin.net/news/report-cable-exec-says-1gbps-internet-is-only-good-
    >for-piracy


    >Of course he is wrong, but is it not true to say that faster internet will
    >make it practically impossible to stop piracy? ...not that they've been
    >having much success anyway. But with super fast internet I expect
    >anonymizing networks would become more viable thus making detection very
    >difficult.


    Well, given the music and movie guys are just making up the numbers when the
    talk about "piracy" and how much there is, I reckon there's no chance of
    stopping ... whatever it is (?) now. So nothing much changes ?

    Remember also ... someone once said (IIRC) - there would only be a world
    market for 6 computers ? ... then there's ... 256 k is enough memory ? :)

    Seems to me that people in the business seem to know less about what is
    likely than the rest of us. :)



    ..
     
    Bruce Sinclair, Jun 22, 2011
    #5
  6. Frank Williams

    Richard Guest

    On 21/06/2011 3:59 p.m., JohnO wrote:
    > On Jun 21, 3:34 pm, Frank Williams<> wrote:
    >> Report: Cable exec says 1Gbps Internet is only good for piracy
    >>
    >> http://www.neowin.net/news/report-cable-exec-says-1gbps-internet-is-o...

    >
    > Rather closed minded to future opportunities, and reminiscent of the
    > '640k ought to be enough for anyone' misattribution.


    That saying constantly gets misquoted. It was in relation to the 640k
    out of the available 1 meg address space, not a total limit on available ram
     
    Richard, Jun 22, 2011
    #6
  7. Frank Williams

    AD. Guest

    On Jun 22, 11:02 am,
    (Bruce Sinclair) wrote:
    > Remember also ... someone once said (IIRC) -  there would only be a world
    > market for 6 computers ? ... then there's ... 256 k is enough memory ? :)
    >
    > Seems to me that people in the business seem to know less about what is
    > likely than the rest of us. :)


    Nah, it's just that these famous quotes often are taken totally out of
    context with regard to the timeframes or specific things they were
    talking about, or they never said it or were misquoted etc and
    eventually take on a life of their own.

    eg the IBM "market for 5 computers" one:
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_J._Watson#Famous_misquote

    --
    Cheers
    Anton
     
    AD., Jun 22, 2011
    #7
  8. In article <>, "AD." <> wrote:
    >On Jun 22, 11:02=A0am,
    >(Bruce Sinclair) wrote:
    >> Remember also ... someone once said (IIRC) - =A0there would only be a wor=

    >ld
    >> market for 6 computers ? ... then there's ... 256 k is enough memory ? :)
    >>
    >> Seems to me that people in the business seem to know less about what is
    >> likely than the rest of us. :)

    >
    >Nah, it's just that these famous quotes often are taken totally out of
    >context with regard to the timeframes or specific things they were
    >talking about, or they never said it or were misquoted etc and
    >eventually take on a life of their own.
    >
    >eg the IBM "market for 5 computers" one:
    >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_J._Watson#Famous_misquote


    :)

    Even if these examples are wrong, where is the evidence that IT guys are any
    better at reading the tea leaves or the cards on the future of computing ?
    I've seen very few reliable predicters (and the one that did seem reliable's
    name now escapes me :) ).
     
    Bruce Sinclair, Jun 23, 2011
    #8
  9. Frank Williams

    ~misfit~ Guest

    Somewhere on teh intarwebs Bruce Sinclair wrote:
    > In article
    > <>,
    > "AD." <> wrote:
    >> On Jun 22, 11:02=A0am,
    >> (Bruce Sinclair)
    >> wrote:
    >>> Remember also ... someone once said (IIRC) - =A0there would only be
    >>> a wor=

    >> ld
    >>> market for 6 computers ? ... then there's ... 256 k is enough
    >>> memory ? :)
    >>>
    >>> Seems to me that people in the business seem to know less about
    >>> what is likely than the rest of us. :)

    >>
    >> Nah, it's just that these famous quotes often are taken totally out
    >> of context with regard to the timeframes or specific things they were
    >> talking about, or they never said it or were misquoted etc and
    >> eventually take on a life of their own.
    >>
    >> eg the IBM "market for 5 computers" one:
    >> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_J._Watson#Famous_misquote

    >
    > :)
    >
    > Even if these examples are wrong, where is the evidence that IT guys
    > are any
    > better at reading the tea leaves or the cards on the future of
    > computing ?
    > I've seen very few reliable predicters (and the one that did seem
    > reliable's
    > name now escapes me :) ).


    Moore's Law?
    --
    Shaun.

    "He who fights with monsters might take care lest he thereby become a
    monster. And if you gaze for long into an abyss, the abyss gazes also
    into you." Friedrich Wilhelm Nietzsche
     
    ~misfit~, Jun 23, 2011
    #9
  10. Frank Williams

    AD. Guest

    On Jun 23, 11:32 am,
    (Bruce Sinclair) wrote:
    > Even if these examples are wrong, where is the evidence that IT guys are any
    > better at reading the tea leaves or the cards on the future of computing ?
    > I've seen very few reliable predicters (and the one that did seem reliable's
    > name now escapes me :) ).


    They probably are better than non IT people, but 'better' probably
    just means 20% success rate rather than 15% success rate :)

    Then again most of the CEO type stuff is very short sighted and only
    focussed on what they can sell in the next couple of years.

    Anyway, changing the topic slightly...

    This prediction stuff does remind me of reading a few early Wired mags
    back around 1993/1994 (I think) that had lots of articles by
    breathless 'futurists' about what things would be like 10-20yrs out.

    And from vague memory they weren't too bad. Sure specific timings and
    implementations can be wrong but a lot of the general ideas were
    pretty good eg things like:

    * Internet connectivity would be fast, pervasive and mobile
    * The mainstream public (not just geeks) would be online and using it
    to socialise, publish stuff and work etc
    * People could work anywhere, companies could be 'virtual' without
    offices.
    * Huge amounts of commerce would happen online
    * Traditional telco services would either die or shift to the internet
    * The network would become more important than the computer - eg your
    data and applications would shift onto the network.
    * Computing power would be able to be bought like power or water.

    It's easy to look back from here and say "well duh!" and it all seems
    relatively ordinary now. But back when all you had was a 14.4k modem
    (if you were lucky) and the internet was tiny and just starting to
    shift away from relying on unix shell accounts and text only protocols
    it seemed far less certain that most of that stuff was going to be
    more than just wishful thinking.

    When the futuristic prediction finally happens it always seems far
    more ordinary and anticlimactic than your imagination had run away
    with. eg 20 yrs ago you hear a prediction that one day in the future
    wars will be fought using robots and you think of something like
    Mechwarrior or Terminator rather than pilotless drone attacks.

    Or your hear about large virtual worlds inhabited by avatars and bots
    and you think of William Gibson novels and virtual reality rather than
    World of Warcraft or Second Life.

    Hmmm, I should see if there are still any of those old magazines
    stashed away somewhere. They're probably next to that old 1987/88 Dick
    Smith catalog I had where a 110MB disk drive cost $11,000 (ouch).

    --
    Cheers
    Anton
     
    AD., Jun 23, 2011
    #10
  11. In article <itu3gl$jos$>, "~misfit~" <> wrote:
    >Somewhere on teh intarwebs Bruce Sinclair wrote:

    (snip)

    >> ... where is the evidence that IT guys
    >> are any
    >> better at reading the tea leaves or the cards on the future of
    >> computing ?
    >> I've seen very few reliable predicters (and the one that did seem
    >> reliable's
    >> name now escapes me :) ).

    >
    >Moore's Law?


    Nope ... and there's some indication that that's failing too IIRC. Logical
    really. :)

    I recall the most reliable predictor of technological advances generally was
    an american professor of ... something ... from ... somewhere. I know, not
    helpful ( :) ), but his prediction rates for 5 years seems remarkably
    accurate, particularly given how bad most others are. I remember he gave
    himself an 8 or 9/10 score when he was reviewing his previous predictions.
     
    Bruce Sinclair, Jun 27, 2011
    #11
  12. In article <>, "AD." <> wrote:
    >On Jun 23, 11:32=A0am,
    >(Bruce Sinclair) wrote:

    (good stuff snipped)

    >Hmmm, I should see if there are still any of those old magazines
    >stashed away somewhere. They're probably next to that old 1987/88 Dick
    >Smith catalog I had where a 110MB disk drive cost $11,000 (ouch).


    heh heh :)
    Apple II+. extra 16 k of memory ~ $350 :)
    Our library tossed out a bunch of teccy magazines a few years ago - they
    were great fun - particularly the ads. :)
    I still have a few of the old computer mags too.
     
    Bruce Sinclair, Jun 27, 2011
    #12
  13. Frank Williams

    Roger_Nickel Guest

    On Sun, 26 Jun 2011 23:14:16 +0000, Bruce Sinclair wrote:

    > In article <itu3gl$jos$>, "~misfit~"
    > <> wrote:
    >>Somewhere on teh intarwebs Bruce Sinclair wrote:

    > (snip)
    >
    >>> ... where is the evidence that IT guys are any
    >>> better at reading the tea leaves or the cards on the future of
    >>> computing ?
    >>> I've seen very few reliable predicters (and the one that did seem
    >>> reliable's
    >>> name now escapes me :) ).

    >>
    >>Moore's Law?

    >
    > Nope ... and there's some indication that that's failing too IIRC.
    > Logical really. :)
    >
    > I recall the most reliable predictor of technological advances generally
    > was an american professor of ... something ... from ... somewhere. I
    > know, not helpful ( :) ), but his prediction rates for 5 years seems
    > remarkably accurate, particularly given how bad most others are. I
    > remember he gave himself an 8 or 9/10 score when he was reviewing his
    > previous predictions.


    "The future is already here--it just isn't widely distributed yet."
    William Gibson (I think)
     
    Roger_Nickel, Jun 28, 2011
    #13
  14. Frank Williams

    tussock Guest

    Frank Williams wrote:

    > Report: Cable exec says 1Gbps Internet is only good for piracy
    >
    > http://www.neowin.net/news/report-cable-exec-says-1gbps-internet-is-only-

    good-for-piracy

    Australia discovered years ago that fast internet makes the internet
    faster. Putting end users on lower speeds than max makes more work for the
    backbone; all the caches, all the DNS servers, all the routers, everything.
    It's more expensive to run the internet more slowly, for any level of data
    transmission.

    1Gbps is therefore good for making everyone's internet connection work
    smoother and more reliably at a lower cost. As always, the content providers
    will soon find more data to send you, and the HD manufacturers will sell you
    something to keep it all on. Thus is the last of the cheap oil spent.

    --
    tussock
     
    tussock, Jul 3, 2011
    #14
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. Silverstrand

    Review: D-Link DGL-4100 Broadband Gigabit Router

    Silverstrand, Jun 27, 2005, in forum: Front Page News
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    2,994
    Silverstrand
    Jun 27, 2005
  2. jo

    sharing cable broadband

    jo, Jul 11, 2004, in forum: Wireless Networking
    Replies:
    4
    Views:
    1,744
  3. David Gartrell

    Connecting a laptop to broadband

    David Gartrell, Nov 28, 2004, in forum: Wireless Networking
    Replies:
    4
    Views:
    11,635
    Mike Bernstein
    Nov 28, 2004
  4. Bill
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    739
    Nobody
    May 28, 2008
  5. Giuen
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    1,066
    Giuen
    Sep 12, 2008
Loading...

Share This Page