POV-Ray : Newsgroups : povray.off-topic : Google Fiber Server Time
29 Jul 2024 10:22:58 EDT (-0400)
  Google Fiber (Message 16 to 25 of 55)  
<<< Previous 10 Messages Goto Latest 10 Messages Next 10 Messages >>>
From: clipka
Subject: Re: Google Fiber
Date: 2 Aug 2012 16:12:45
Message: <501adf3d$1@news.povray.org>
Am 02.08.2012 21:59, schrieb Orchid Win7 v1:

>>>> Wanna play
>>>> the latest nextgen HD game?  No need to buy the latest and most
>>>> expensive
>>>> console or GPU, or download any executable, just click away and
>>>> start playing
>>>> right away on you inexpensive android device.
>>>
>>> How the heck would that work?
>>
>> they send you video frames and you send them command inputs.
>> Continuously.
>
> I severely doubt that even a gigabit link would have sufficiently low
> latency for this to be feasible.
>
> (Hell, I have a 100 mbit *LAN* and VNC is still laggy as hell...)

On a typical point-to-point link between a gamer's computer and the 
internet provider, the data transfer rate has absolutely, positively 
/nothing/ to do with latency. (Typical LANs with plenty of nodes are a 
totally different story due to packet collisions.)


Post a reply to this message

From: Le Forgeron
Subject: Re: Google Fiber
Date: 2 Aug 2012 16:34:01
Message: <501ae439$1@news.povray.org>
Le 02/08/2012 21:59, Orchid Win7 v1 nous fit lire :

> (Hell, I have a 100 mbit *LAN* and VNC is still laggy as hell...)

VNC is an insult to any network. X11 had some clue, but VNC really lost
everything. Worst than VNC, I guess, would be running VM via VNC...

Also, default client for VNC do not have compression (tsclient nor
vinagre).

First speedup: on remote, change background for a plain colour (no fancy
pictures). Next reduce to 256 colours on the client. Or Thousands.


Post a reply to this message

From: Jim Henderson
Subject: Re: Google Fiber
Date: 2 Aug 2012 17:07:02
Message: <501aebf6$1@news.povray.org>
On Thu, 02 Aug 2012 19:34:59 +0100, Orchid Win7 v1 wrote:

>>> Interesting. I wonder if wages are comparably higher...
>>
>> I found this:
>>
>> http://blog.thesalarycalculator.co.uk/paye/tax/comparison-of-uk-and-
usa-
>> take-home/
> 
> I made this:
> 
> http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=average+income+Kansas
> 
> On current exchange rates, that looks like considerably more money than
> I will ever earn.

Well, you keep self-selecting out of positions that might get you a 
decent salary by not applying for them.  We've had that discussion before.

>>> Just looked it up. £145/year for a TV license. (That's around
>>> £12/month.) If you use Freeview, this is the only recurring cost.
>>
>> Yeah, I knew it was about £145 (£145.50 IIRC).  But you don't get 600+
>> channels of garbage, either. ;)
>>
>> But comparatively speaking, you get off pretty cheaply.
> 
> Heh. I can still remember when I was a teenager people telling me that
> "in America, you can buy a CD for just £5!" (That's 3x cheaper than the
> UK.) I always wondered whether there was actually a shred of truth to
> such an outlandish claim...

You *could* look at amazon.com and see that it is in fact true.  In fact, 
some are even cheaper than that.  Then you wouldn't have to wonder if it 
was true.  You'd know.

Of course at that price, you're generally not talking about the 
soundtrack to a recently-released film.

Jim


Post a reply to this message

From: Jim Henderson
Subject: Re: Google Fiber
Date: 2 Aug 2012 17:10:45
Message: <501aecd5@news.povray.org>
On Thu, 02 Aug 2012 15:39:42 -0400, Warp wrote:

> Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:
>> Our 3 Mbps DSL is $49.95/month.  In the US, ISP charges tend to be a
>> bit more expensive.
> 
> I wonder why. Here in Finland internet connections tend to be laughably
> cheap. For example I have a 10/2 Mbps connection that costs me 5 euros
> per month.

Haven't you heard?  The free market solves all problems.  Competition 
drives prices down, and deregulation is key to the success of the free 
market.

At least, that's the mantra here.  And since we're in the United States 
of America, it *must* be true, because we're the GREATEST NATION IN THE 
UNIVERSE!!!@!@!@@!@!@!@

We have better healthcare, better 'net connectivity, better teeth, and 
better food, and our students are #1 in the world at everything.  USA! 
USA! USA! USA!

Just ask anyone who lives here.

(sorry if my sarcasm wasn't coming through ;) I get tired of hearing 
"we're #1" when we're NOT - but the constant declarations of our 
superiority in everything mean that we don't actually take the time to 
improve things like infrastructure, health care, etc.)

> (Ok, it's a bit more complicated than that, but it's still laughably
> cheap. You see, there's an internet connection by default in all the
> flats of this housing cooperative, which is part of the rent(*), and by
> default 1/1 Mbps, as part of a deal with the ISP. Increasing it to 10/2
> Mbps costs just 5 euros per month more.)
> 
> 
> (*) Well not "rent" per se. I think the closest term I can find with
> google is "condominium payment" or "condo fee". But this same housing
> cooperative has rental housing with the same deal.

It'd be what is referred to here as an 'association fee' (as in a 
homeowner's association).

Jim


Post a reply to this message

From: Francois Labreque
Subject: Re: Google Fiber
Date: 2 Aug 2012 17:12:04
Message: <501aed24@news.povray.org>
Le 2012-08-02 10:24, Invisible a écrit :
> On 02/08/2012 02:49 PM, Le_Forgeron wrote:
>> Le 02/08/2012 12:23, Invisible a écrit :
>>
>>> Internet access is different though. You can't just suddenly say "ah,
>>> sod it, let's just increase the speed 500x". It requires completely
>>> replacing the entire infrastructure of the Internet - a presumably
>>> impossible task. So... is this really real?
>>
>> you only have to change the access part.
>> The Internet is already on fiber, excepted for the access part.
>
> Oh, well, sure. Apart from THE LARGEST AND MOST EXPENSIVE PART OF THE
> NETWORK, it's already fiber. No problem. :-)
>
>> Main issue: coverage is low. A study from March 2012 showed that only
>> 10% of home were connectable today, with 80% of them by the cable
>> operator: i.e. only 2% of the normal country is reachable so far with a
>> real fiber.
>
> The technology to access the Internet at gigabits per second already
> exists. The problem is that it will cost a fortune to dig up the entire
> country to lay hundreds of thousands of miles of fiber. Which is why
> nobody is doing this. (Or at least, not very fast.)


Nobody except everyone.  There were guys from the telephone company in 
my backyard a few weeks ago installing fibre optic cables on the 
telephost posts.  The tv cable has been fibre optics from the get go, 
when the neighborhood was built 6 years ago.

A few yearsa go, the carriers only installe dit when some cities would 
require "fibre to the home" for any new development, but now customers 
are asking for it, so they have no choice, or irsk losing those 
customers to the competition.

>
> This is what makes Google Fiber so surprising. They're not promising 3x
> more speed. They aren't offering 5x more. It even 10x more like BT
> Infinity just did to my house. (Did I mention my mother /works for/ BT?)
> They're talking about 200x more speed. That's epic, right there.
>

Yeah, moving from cat 3 copper wies to fibre optics will do that!

> It mirrors what happened with Gmail. Within weeks of Gmail going live,
> suddenly every other provider massively increased the storage they were
> offering. But that was because they had the capacity all along, they
> were just trying to charge lots of money for it. Today, any webmail
> service offering only 2MB of storage would be laughed out of the
> building. Google actually forced an entire market to change. Over night.
>
> Internet access is a little different. All Hotmail had to do was
> /literally/ press a button and everybody got a 500x storage limit
> increase. You can't do that with bandwidth.
>

Sure they can.  They've been offering HDTV signals over wire for the 
past 5 years, this means the infrastructure is there to support that 
bandwith.

The same thing happened 20 years ago when cable providers decided to 
become internet providers since they already had enough bandwidth to 
send 60 to 80 tv channels to every home... using one for data signals 
was not a problem at all.

This forced the phone companies to massively upgrade their networks to 
support faster and faster aDSL services.


-- 
/*Francois Labreque*/#local a=x+y;#local b=x+a;#local c=a+b;#macro P(F//
/*    flabreque    */L)polygon{5,F,F+z,L+z,L,F pigment{rgb 9}}#end union
/*        @        */{P(0,a)P(a,b)P(b,c)P(2*a,2*b)P(2*b,b+c)P(b+c,<2,3>)
/*   gmail.com     */}camera{orthographic location<6,1.25,-6>look_at a }


Post a reply to this message

From: Francois Labreque
Subject: Re: Google Fiber
Date: 2 Aug 2012 17:14:24
Message: <501aedb0$1@news.povray.org>
Le 2012-08-02 14:34, Orchid Win7 v1 a écrit :
>
> Heh. I can still remember when I was a teenager people telling me that
> "in America, you can buy a CD for just £5!" (That's 3x cheaper than the
> UK.) I always wondered whether there was actually a shred of truth to
> such an outlandish claim...

In the bargain bin next to the cashier, yeah.  CDs are usually around 
15$ USD.

-- 
/*Francois Labreque*/#local a=x+y;#local b=x+a;#local c=a+b;#macro P(F//
/*    flabreque    */L)polygon{5,F,F+z,L+z,L,F pigment{rgb 9}}#end union
/*        @        */{P(0,a)P(a,b)P(b,c)P(2*a,2*b)P(2*b,b+c)P(b+c,<2,3>)
/*   gmail.com     */}camera{orthographic location<6,1.25,-6>look_at a }


Post a reply to this message

From: Warp
Subject: Re: Google Fiber
Date: 2 Aug 2012 17:32:22
Message: <501af1e5@news.povray.org>
Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:
> > (*) Well not "rent" per se. I think the closest term I can find with
> > google is "condominium payment" or "condo fee". But this same housing
> > cooperative has rental housing with the same deal.

> It'd be what is referred to here as an 'association fee' (as in a 
> homeowner's association).

I don't rent this apartment, but neither am I a homehowner per se (iow.
I don't *own* this apartment either). It's a form in-between those two.
The montly fee is cheaper than rent for a typical apartment of the same
size in the same area, and I have more rights to the apartment than I would
if it was a rental (eg. I could make modifications and renovations that
would not be allowed in a rented apartment), but it's not ownership per se.

I'm not sure what the English term for this is.

(If I actually owned this apartment, but had to share the building's common
services with all the other tenants, and thus pay a fee for the maintenance,
I think the term is "condominium". This is almost like that, except that
I don't really fully own the apartment. However, it's not the same as rental
either.)

-- 
                                                          - Warp


Post a reply to this message

From: Jim Henderson
Subject: Re: Google Fiber
Date: 2 Aug 2012 17:39:39
Message: <501af39b$1@news.povray.org>
On Thu, 02 Aug 2012 17:32:22 -0400, Warp wrote:

> Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:
>> > (*) Well not "rent" per se. I think the closest term I can find with
>> > google is "condominium payment" or "condo fee". But this same housing
>> > cooperative has rental housing with the same deal.
> 
>> It'd be what is referred to here as an 'association fee' (as in a
>> homeowner's association).
> 
> I don't rent this apartment, but neither am I a homehowner per se (iow.
> I don't *own* this apartment either). It's a form in-between those two.
> The montly fee is cheaper than rent for a typical apartment of the same
> size in the same area, and I have more rights to the apartment than I
> would if it was a rental (eg. I could make modifications and renovations
> that would not be allowed in a rented apartment), but it's not ownership
> per se.
> 
> I'm not sure what the English term for this is.

OIC, I'm not sure either.  Could you basically walk away from it if you 
wanted to?

> (If I actually owned this apartment, but had to share the building's
> common services with all the other tenants, and thus pay a fee for the
> maintenance,
> I think the term is "condominium". This is almost like that, except that
> I don't really fully own the apartment. However, it's not the same as
> rental either.)

A condominium is a type of dwelling, not a use arrangement.  Condos tend 
to have the "association fees" I mentioned before to cover things like 
care for common areas on the property and whatnot, but the condo itself 
has a separate payment made either to a landlord (as a rental) or a 
mortgage company (as a purchase).

What's the word in Finnish that describes it?

Jim


Post a reply to this message

From: Francois Labreque
Subject: Re: Google Fiber
Date: 2 Aug 2012 20:57:49
Message: <501b220d$1@news.povray.org>

> Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:
>>> (*) Well not "rent" per se. I think the closest term I can find with
>>> google is "condominium payment" or "condo fee". But this same housing
>>> cooperative has rental housing with the same deal.
>
>> It'd be what is referred to here as an 'association fee' (as in a
>> homeowner's association).
>
> I don't rent this apartment, but neither am I a homehowner per se (iow.
> I don't *own* this apartment either). It's a form in-between those two.
> The montly fee is cheaper than rent for a typical apartment of the same
> size in the same area, and I have more rights to the apartment than I would
> if it was a rental (eg. I could make modifications and renovations that
> would not be allowed in a rented apartment), but it's not ownership per se.
>
> I'm not sure what the English term for this is.
>

In my area, they call it a co-op.

> (If I actually owned this apartment, but had to share the building's common
> services with all the other tenants, and thus pay a fee for the maintenance,
> I think the term is "condominium". This is almost like that, except that
> I don't really fully own the apartment. However, it's not the same as rental
> either.)
>


-- 
/*Francois Labreque*/#local a=x+y;#local b=x+a;#local c=a+b;#macro P(F//
/*    flabreque    */L)polygon{5,F,F+z,L+z,L,F pigment{rgb 9}}#end union
/*        @        */{P(0,a)P(a,b)P(b,c)P(2*a,2*b)P(2*b,b+c)P(b+c,<2,3>)
/*   gmail.com     */}camera{orthographic location<6,1.25,-6>look_at a }


Post a reply to this message

From: Jim Henderson
Subject: Re: Google Fiber
Date: 2 Aug 2012 22:05:06
Message: <501b31d2@news.povray.org>
On Thu, 02 Aug 2012 20:58:06 -0400, Francois Labreque wrote:

> In my area, they call it a co-op.

Ah, that's probably the right term for it. :)

Jim


Post a reply to this message

<<< Previous 10 Messages Goto Latest 10 Messages Next 10 Messages >>>

Copyright 2003-2023 Persistence of Vision Raytracer Pty. Ltd.