- Status
Kami3k
Distinguished
- Jan 17, 2008
- 575
- 0
- 18,930
[citation][nom]Pyroflea[/nom]No... the Mayan calendar ends in 2012, hence the outrageous amounts of conspiracies surrounding that year.[/citation]
Hope you are joking, because if you are not, you so wrong. The Mayan calendar DOES NOT END in 2012. A long calendar count might end, but not the entire calendar. It continued far beyond 2012.
Hope you are joking, because if you are not, you so wrong. The Mayan calendar DOES NOT END in 2012. A long calendar count might end, but not the entire calendar. It continued far beyond 2012.
Just pile more servers. I'm sure that as technology progresses, these servers can handle more and more load even if the Internet is expanding at an exponential rate. That's why these super computing clusters exist in the first place.
Businesses are so intertwined with the Internet that if there's a slight disconnections, businesses can potentially lose billions. So I'm sure that for all people, it is best to keep it afloat.
Businesses are so intertwined with the Internet that if there's a slight disconnections, businesses can potentially lose billions. So I'm sure that for all people, it is best to keep it afloat.
Jackalope73
Distinguished
- Feb 20, 2006
- 12
- 0
- 18,560
What no one here is taking into account is that once African pirates get the internet they are going to steal all of our bandwidth. Somali pirates will hold FaceBook for randsom and civilization will crumble. It will be anarchy. "Human sacrifice, dogs and cats living together... mass hysteria!" My advice go to a gun show and buy your favorite weapons from your favorite game and stock pile ammo. Once the net goes down it is going to be a real bad scene man! Not like it is going to happen anyway. I would be more worried about the gamma ray burst from the galactic center toasting us during alignment. I'm just saying if you need something to look forward to.
Hehe, comparing the internet to a bridge that's about to crack is like making it look like a series of pipes 
) ... don't clog it please!
) ... don't clog it please!
favoritetort
Distinguished
- Sep 21, 2007
- 1
- 0
- 18,510
It's a "tragedy of the commons" problem. Building a bigger lane won't fundamentally solve it. Paying for traffic rather than bandwith or paying for higher traffic caps might be a good idea. Then, when people are willing to pay for more bandwith, invest. Ofcourse at somepoint technology might again overreach demand. At which point traffic will again become virtually free.
Glorian
Distinguished
- Nov 10, 2008
- 89
- 0
- 18,580
This is some ploy by Timewarner to give reason to their stupid cap, i bet they are hell bent on it and will come up with anything to make people believe capping will solve this problem.
Let me get this straight, so the internet won't be able to support so many of us, so you will cap us to relieve the "backbone" of some stress, but at the same time you are gonna offer us 50Mb connection?!
Let me get this straight, so the internet won't be able to support so many of us, so you will cap us to relieve the "backbone" of some stress, but at the same time you are gonna offer us 50Mb connection?!
thsee isp's are turning into little whinning momma's boys trying to take more of our money and throwing out lots of false information just like this dumb idea.yeah right the net will die in 2012 just like the mayans foretold...........
all computers will reboot and then smoke.
all computers will reboot and then smoke.
So the internet bridge is falling apart......well thats what they get for giving us all semi-trucks to drive.
Why don't cable companies stop upping the bandwidth and learn to maintain the amount of traffic they have with the current speeds.
Think about it, as we get faster and faster speeds we are going to do more and more. Although i think faster internet would be an amazing thing i'm very happy with my 10-20mb from comcast.
Not to long ago 3mb was super fast, now we are talking about 100mb.
Why don't cable companies stop upping the bandwidth and learn to maintain the amount of traffic they have with the current speeds.
Think about it, as we get faster and faster speeds we are going to do more and more. Although i think faster internet would be an amazing thing i'm very happy with my 10-20mb from comcast.
Not to long ago 3mb was super fast, now we are talking about 100mb.
Even biblical prophecy points out that the generation that sees the re- creation of Israel as a nation (established in may 14th 1948), they will see the coming of the christ; followed by 3,5 years of so called 'peace' and then 3,5 years disaster, after which the end of the world will be which we know now.
So say those Israelites are tough people, where born around 1930, and live to be 82 years of age, we'll see a time like 2012 as a year of the worlds ending as it is now.
but that aside, fiberoptics are growing everywhere! Major and rich countries already have created fiberoptic lines as backbone for the internet. USA with it's large surface area of land, and old cities (like New York where steampipes are still running underground) are a little behind.
Though most traffic takes place in cities.
So when they lay fiberoptics in cities already, I doubt that 2012 will be 'the end' of the internet.
Especially now that intel is creating better server processors, supporting faster and more Ram and diskspace.
There already are a lot of 'black networks' around in cities; media servers sharing downloaded media over wifi, which is disconnected from the internet.
I'm sure we reached nearly the end but still can go a long way before the internet collapses.
Perhaps in the future with the increase of data and online computers/ip addresses internet will slow down somewhat (like to 3 or 1Mbit lines in peak hours).
A lot of internet traffic can still be done after 11PM and before 7AM
So say those Israelites are tough people, where born around 1930, and live to be 82 years of age, we'll see a time like 2012 as a year of the worlds ending as it is now.
but that aside, fiberoptics are growing everywhere! Major and rich countries already have created fiberoptic lines as backbone for the internet. USA with it's large surface area of land, and old cities (like New York where steampipes are still running underground) are a little behind.
Though most traffic takes place in cities.
So when they lay fiberoptics in cities already, I doubt that 2012 will be 'the end' of the internet.
Especially now that intel is creating better server processors, supporting faster and more Ram and diskspace.
There already are a lot of 'black networks' around in cities; media servers sharing downloaded media over wifi, which is disconnected from the internet.
I'm sure we reached nearly the end but still can go a long way before the internet collapses.
Perhaps in the future with the increase of data and online computers/ip addresses internet will slow down somewhat (like to 3 or 1Mbit lines in peak hours).
A lot of internet traffic can still be done after 11PM and before 7AM
mdillenbeck
Distinguished
- Jun 11, 2008
- 283
- 0
- 18,930
While I agree the 2012 prediction may be a bit off, I also believe most of the posters here are being ostriches and "putting their heads in the sand".
I hear a belief in the "invisible hand" of the free markets, that for-profit companies will think of long-term investments before short-term profits, and that maintenance is a trivial or negligible cost consideration under the control of the ISPs.
Combine this with the past views I have heard - that it isn't the amount of data used but the speed which that data transfers that is important, and that consumption of data services should be based on the flow rate and not total amount used. (So a person leaving their flow on 24/7 should pay the same as someone who "turns on the flow" once a day for 1 hour).
First off, infrastructure maintenance is expensive. It does not matter if you are talking about water pipes, power lines, telcomm lines, roadways, or bridges - it takes a LOT of money to maintain and upgrade these systems. Whether commercial or governmental, people always complain about being over-charged (in the price of goods or taxes), so maintenance becomes a cost-benefit equation.
Please, stop being naive and thinking that consumers are willing to pay a fair price and that companies are thinking long term. Already on Tom's, where people know that ISPs buy data in terms of amount of data and NOT flow, feel that they should not be charged based on flow and NOT amount of data and see no problem in this. Also, look into private companies and how well they maintain infrastructure - they're in it for profit. You know, minimize expenditures and maximize income. If you want to see how well business thinks long term, look at all the companies getting bail out money right now and ask if they thought about the future or the profits of the present.
So, these guys are getting chastised because they pegged down a specific date that coincides with a lot of whacky predictions of the end of the world. Myself, I can only think the audience of Tom's is increasingly what I would put in as the "selfish consumers" category - basically people as bad as the companies, not looking to pay a fair price but get something for as cheap as possible while choosing to ignore the potential consequences of their decision. Then again, maybe you are all just humanists instead, and really believe the companies are going to look after you....
I hear a belief in the "invisible hand" of the free markets, that for-profit companies will think of long-term investments before short-term profits, and that maintenance is a trivial or negligible cost consideration under the control of the ISPs.
Combine this with the past views I have heard - that it isn't the amount of data used but the speed which that data transfers that is important, and that consumption of data services should be based on the flow rate and not total amount used. (So a person leaving their flow on 24/7 should pay the same as someone who "turns on the flow" once a day for 1 hour).
First off, infrastructure maintenance is expensive. It does not matter if you are talking about water pipes, power lines, telcomm lines, roadways, or bridges - it takes a LOT of money to maintain and upgrade these systems. Whether commercial or governmental, people always complain about being over-charged (in the price of goods or taxes), so maintenance becomes a cost-benefit equation.
Please, stop being naive and thinking that consumers are willing to pay a fair price and that companies are thinking long term. Already on Tom's, where people know that ISPs buy data in terms of amount of data and NOT flow, feel that they should not be charged based on flow and NOT amount of data and see no problem in this. Also, look into private companies and how well they maintain infrastructure - they're in it for profit. You know, minimize expenditures and maximize income. If you want to see how well business thinks long term, look at all the companies getting bail out money right now and ask if they thought about the future or the profits of the present.
So, these guys are getting chastised because they pegged down a specific date that coincides with a lot of whacky predictions of the end of the world. Myself, I can only think the audience of Tom's is increasingly what I would put in as the "selfish consumers" category - basically people as bad as the companies, not looking to pay a fair price but get something for as cheap as possible while choosing to ignore the potential consequences of their decision. Then again, maybe you are all just humanists instead, and really believe the companies are going to look after you....
lancelot123
Distinguished
- May 12, 2008
- 44
- 0
- 18,580
The internet is a bridge - and its metallurgical strength is money.
U.S. Congress just proved it is willing to fork over BILLIONS when their DOD F-35 JSF project was hacked by China. Me personally, if I was Obama's CTO or CIO, I would personally hire the world's most profound, elusive, cutting-edge, Front-Page-of-Wired-Magazine hackers out there. Pay them ridiculous amounts of money to write some of the most complex, Unix-code, prime-number-based, mutating algorithm software security and let that be the stage for the new foundation of the Web.
Of course, the US Military would annex this technology first and foremost ... but then again, that's how this all started. I don't mind.
U.S. Congress just proved it is willing to fork over BILLIONS when their DOD F-35 JSF project was hacked by China. Me personally, if I was Obama's CTO or CIO, I would personally hire the world's most profound, elusive, cutting-edge, Front-Page-of-Wired-Magazine hackers out there. Pay them ridiculous amounts of money to write some of the most complex, Unix-code, prime-number-based, mutating algorithm software security and let that be the stage for the new foundation of the Web.
Of course, the US Military would annex this technology first and foremost ... but then again, that's how this all started. I don't mind.
- Status
Similar threads
TRENDING THREADS
-
-
Question Old text messages not showing up on new android phone
- Started by Weathered95
- Replies: 48
-
-
Question I need a divorce, a phone divorce, an android divorce- Started by mike the car guy
- Replies: 3
-
-
-
Question Asus Tuff Fx507 not recognizing new WD_Black 4tb ssd in secondary m2 slot- Started by BelgradianSalsa
- Replies: 10
Facebook
Twitter