Re: Famous clangers in the history of technology

[ALP = Arrogance, Lies & Pretence]

On 15/04/2013 1:36 AM, Gordon Levi wrote:
> Gordon Levi <gor...@address.invalid> wrote:
>
>> "ALP = Arrogance, Lies & Pretence" <bjfost...@yahoo.com.au> wrote:
>>
>>> On 14/04/2013 1:27 AM, Gordon Levi wrote:
>>>> "ALP = Arrogance, Lies & Pretence" <bjfost...@yahoo.com.au> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On 13/04/2013 1:53 PM, dma...@nomail.com.au wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Where is duh evidence that we need 25Mbps?
>>>>
>>>> Perhaps the answer lies in the fact that they chose Fox studios to
>>>> launch the plan. If Murdoch says we need 25Mbps why would anybody
>>>> argue?
>>>>
>>>
>>> Did you understand the question?
>
> I understood the words but it is a question without meaning. Can you
> justify the "need" for _any_ given WAN speed?
>

Pathetic. The Minister tells us that we have to have 100Mbps - in both
directions - not 25Mbps - and he is telling us that taxpayers need to
underwrite it by $37b (plus another $12b for incumbents plus ALP budget
blowouts).

It is reasonable to ask the minister - or you, as you purport to
represent his view - *why* we supposedly need 100Mbps.

If you cannot answer that question then nothing you say on the subject
is of any interest whatsoever.


--
Julia Gillard...
"I don't want the mining industry to hire a single foreign worker if
there is an Australian who can do the job"
(PS: Who issues the visas????????????????????)

"Wayne Swan was explicitly asked to rule out a further increase in the
debt limit above the current limit of $300 billion. He steadfastly refused".
http://liberal.org.au/latest-news/2013/03/13/swan-refuses-rule-out-increase-debt-limit-above-300-billion

Swan...
"The course of action I'm talking about today really comes very much, I
guess, to the core of my values and the values of the Labor Party"

Paul Howes...
"Labor has an obligation to stop extremists who threaten our democracy"

How much new law is there every year?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lePrBUHihKI

Tony Abbott...
"You do not save the environment by killing the economy"

"It's not about popularity, it's about gaining respect, and she hasn't
got it yet"
(Australian of the Year, 2013)

[Gordon Levi]

"ALP = Arrogance, Lies & Pretence" <bjfost...@yahoo.com.au> wrote:

>On 15/04/2013 1:36 AM, Gordon Levi wrote:
>> Gordon Levi <gor...@address.invalid> wrote:
>>
>>> "ALP = Arrogance, Lies & Pretence" <bjfost...@yahoo.com.au> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 14/04/2013 1:27 AM, Gordon Levi wrote:
>>>>> "ALP = Arrogance, Lies & Pretence" <bjfost...@yahoo.com.au> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 13/04/2013 1:53 PM, dma...@nomail.com.au wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Where is duh evidence that we need 25Mbps?
>>>>>
>>>>> Perhaps the answer lies in the fact that they chose Fox studios to
>>>>> launch the plan. If Murdoch says we need 25Mbps why would anybody
>>>>> argue?
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Did you understand the question?
>>
>> I understood the words but it is a question without meaning. Can you
>> justify the "need" for _any_ given WAN speed?
>>
>
>Pathetic. The Minister tells us that we have to have 100Mbps - in both
>directions - not 25Mbps - and he is telling us that taxpayers need to
>underwrite it by $37b (plus another $12b for incumbents plus ALP budget
>blowouts).
>
>It is reasonable to ask the minister - or you, as you purport to
>represent his view - *why* we supposedly need 100Mbps.
>
>If you cannot answer that question then nothing you say on the subject
>is of any interest whatsoever.

I have repeatedly written on the topic explaining why we were getting
FTTH and why I think we will use very high broadband speeds. Since you
seem unable to tell us why we need _any_ particular broadband speed
asking why we need precisely 100Mbps or 25Mbps are particularly stupid
questions. If you can explain why we need one speed I can use your
reasons to explain why we need something faster.

[ALP = Arrogance, Lies & Pretence]

You haven't written anything coherent on the subject which justifies the
need for 100Mbps. We all know that Conroy set that arbitrary level to
rule out known copper options at the time.

If you have any logical, researched reason why we need anything greater
than (say) 25Mbps, post a summary and the source.

I don't want to see any extrapolations, please. We have heard enough
shit from 'global warming' theorists and dot-com bubblists. Hundreds of
years ago it was tulip bubbles. You people are always the same.

[Gordon Levi]

Rubbish. Due to Telstra's intransigence copper was not an acceptable
option at the time and 100Mbps was the emerging standard for broadband
worldwide. Despite the lack of "need" Telstra has introduced it for
many of their HFC customers in Australia.

>
>If you have any logical, researched reason why we need anything greater
>than (say) 25Mbps, post a summary and the source.

You started this thread by asking "Where is duh evidence that we need
25Mbps?". Now it appears that you think that we might. Do we? Why? Do
we need the (up to) 40Mbps download offered by Telstra's 4G network?
They think we will use it or they wouldn't be spending their money to
install it. I have 100/2 and I enjoy the result but I don't claim to
"need" it.

>
>I don't want to see any extrapolations, please. We have heard enough
>shit from 'global warming' theorists and dot-com bubblists. Hundreds of
>years ago it was tulip bubbles. You people are always the same.

If you can't explain why we need 10Mbps or 5Mbps or even 1Mbps how can
you hope to understand why we will use 100Mbps?

[ALP = Arrogance, Lies & Pretence]

On 16/04/2013 7:08 PM, Gordon Levi wrote:
> "ALP = Arrogance, Lies & Pretence" <bjfost...@yahoo.com.au> wrote:
>

...

>>>
>>
>> You haven't written anything coherent on the subject which justifies the
>> need for 100Mbps. We all know that Conroy set that arbitrary level to
>> rule out known copper options at the time.
>
> Rubbish. Due to Telstra's intransigence copper was not an acceptable
> option at the time and 100Mbps was the emerging standard for broadband
> worldwide. Despite the lack of "need" Telstra has introduced it for
> many of their HFC customers in Australia.

"Telstra's intransigence"?

Is that what you call it when a company is told that no matter what it
invests, it will become a scheduled/price-controlled service? Even if it
makes a loss.

You're an idiot. The communications sector has only one problem - too
much government.

>>
>> If you have any logical, researched reason why we need anything greater
>> than (say) 25Mbps, post a summary and the source.
>
> You started this thread by asking "Where is duh evidence that we need
> 25Mbps?". Now it appears that you think that we might.

Did you pull that out of your bum?

> Do we? Why? Do
> we need the (up to) 40Mbps download offered by Telstra's 4G network?

I have my opinion, but it is not the point. The point is *what* is the
justification for expending massive sums of taxpayers money on *any*
arbitrary bandwidth?

You were asked to justify 25Mbps. You failed. Then you were asked to
justify "anything greater than (say) 25Mbps" and you failed. Not only
failed, but attempted to twist the question into a claim that I was
justifying 25Mbps.

I couldn't give a stuff whether you or Conroy wants to download porn -
just pay for it yourself.

> They think we will use it or they wouldn't be spending their money to
> install it. I have 100/2 and I enjoy the result but I don't claim to
> "need" it.

Telstra is a private company and as far as I am concerned, they can do
whatever they please with shareholders money - including mine - because
unlike the stupid monkeys that *you* vote for, Telstra *know* what they
are doing - and I choose whether or not to invest my money in them.

Your monkeys give me no choice. I have to accept a patently useless
solution which I will have to pay for now, but wait 10 years for - and I
have no guarantee that it will work.

If Tasmania is a guide. I will *never* see an NBN - but I will still
have to *pay* for it.

>>
>> I don't want to see any extrapolations, please. We have heard enough
>> shit from 'global warming' theorists and dot-com bubblists. Hundreds of
>> years ago it was tulip bubbles. You people are always the same.
>
> If you can't explain why we need 10Mbps or 5Mbps or even 1Mbps how can
> you hope to understand why we will use 100Mbps?
>

I couldn't give a fuck what *you* think I need. I will purchase what I
need from a sane, competent service provider who will make the right
decisions - or if they don't, I will choose another.

The problem with *your* service provider is that I get no choice and I
have to pay for a shit product for the next 50 years.

[Gordon Levi]

Please try to stay with a single coherent thread rather than frothing
at the mouth because you don't like the way the NBN is (not) being
delivered. What bandwidth do _you_ need and why? If you can answer
that question I can explain why 100/40 will be used. If you cannot
answer that question how can you ask me to justify a very high speed
comms network? You couldn't understand _any_ answer.

[ALP = Arrogance, Lies & Pretence]

I asked first.

I also made it clear that my particular needs were none of your
business, or Conroy's. I will choose whatever I need from a service
provider *when* I need it.

If you cannot answer the question, how do you justify spending $37b of
*my money*?

> If you can answer
> that question I can explain why 100/40 will be used. If you cannot
> answer that question how can you ask me to justify a very high speed
> comms network? You couldn't understand _any_ answer.
>

You're an idiot.

[Gordon Levi]

In general, it's not possible to explain very high speed broadband to
someone who doesn't use broadband. I understand your desire for
secrecy about your own use of the WAN so tell us what speed you think
the community needs and how they will use it.

>I will choose whatever I need from a service
>provider *when* I need it.

Of course. Nobody is going to deprive you of a choice of speeds or
services.

>
>If you cannot answer the question, how do you justify spending $37b of
>*my money*?

If you insist on making this a general whinge about NBN Co I should
remind you that it is not _your_ money. It is _our_ money. We elected
a government to decide how to spend, or in this case invest, it.

[ALP = Arrogance, Lies & Pretence]

Don't be absurd.

I *do* use high speed broadband. I do *not* accept that 90% of
Australians want or need it.

Evidently they don't because the NBN is struggling to get 20% takeup.

> I understand your desire for
> secrecy about your own use of the WAN so tell us what speed you think
> the community needs and how they will use it.

A sample of one is unrepresentative. It has nothing to do with secrecy.

If I drive a Porsche it doesn't mean that I am willing to fund one for
everyone else.

Your habit of putting words in other people's mouths and twisting what
they say is tiresome.

>
>> I will choose whatever I need from a service
>> provider *when* I need it.
>
> Of course. Nobody is going to deprive you of a choice of speeds or
> services.
>>
>> If you cannot answer the question, how do you justify spending $37b of
>> *my money*?
>
> If you insist on making this a general whinge about NBN Co I should
> remind you that it is not _your_ money. It is _our_ money. We elected
> a government to decide how to spend, or in this case invest, it.
>

Bullshit. We (collectively) elected a government that said it would
spend $8.7b on an NBN. It, or rather he, then declared that none of the
bids were 'value for money' and proceeded to announce a $43b NBN.

[Gordon Levi]

Can you _please_ stick to one topic for a couple of posts in a thread.
We were discussing the "need" to supply a specified bandwidth to the
community in general. I agree that the entire 90% of the community
with access to 100/40 broadband won't buy it and many of them will not
buy any.

>
>Evidently they don't because the NBN is struggling to get 20% takeup.
>
>
>> I understand your desire for
>> secrecy about your own use of the WAN so tell us what speed you think
>> the community needs and how they will use it.
>
>A sample of one is unrepresentative. It has nothing to do with secrecy.
>
>If I drive a Porsche it doesn't mean that I am willing to fund one for
>everyone else.
>
>Your habit of putting words in other people's mouths and twisting what
>they say is tiresome.

I'm sorry. I withdrew my question about your broadband needs and
substituted one about your assessment of community needs. Please
answer it.

>
>>
>>> I will choose whatever I need from a service
>>> provider *when* I need it.
>>
>> Of course. Nobody is going to deprive you of a choice of speeds or
>> services.
>>>
>>> If you cannot answer the question, how do you justify spending $37b of
>>> *my money*?
>>
>> If you insist on making this a general whinge about NBN Co I should
>> remind you that it is not _your_ money. It is _our_ money. We elected
>> a government to decide how to spend, or in this case invest, it.
>>
>
>Bullshit. We (collectively) elected a government that said it would
>spend $8.7b on an NBN. It, or rather he, then declared that none of the
>bids were 'value for money' and proceeded to announce a $43b NBN.

I can't resist reminding you that we re-elected the government that
made the FTTH decision despite the much cheaper policy from the LNP.
The LNP now appears to believe we need 25 Mbps. However, back to the
point. Do _you_ think that we need the ubiquitous 12/1 that Rudd
promised?

Finally, if you don't care what speed should be offered to the
community at large just say so. It is a perfectly reasonable stance to
state that private enterprise should offer whatever they feel like to
whatever sections of the community they believe can afford it.
However, if that is your position, it is silly to ask me why we "need"
100 Mbps. They already provide it to me.

[ALP = Arrogance, Lies & Pretence]

You were required to explain why the community needed 25Mbps.

You placed a precondition on the explanation with:

"In general, it's not possible to explain very high speed broadband to
someone who doesn't use broadband".

This is after posting...

"What bandwidth do _you_ need and why?"

Then after it is pointed out to you that a sample of one is
unrepresentative, you repeat:
"Please try to stay with a single coherent thread ..."

After all your little journeys into irrelevance, you still haven't
answered the question:

<quote>

If you have any logical, researched reason why we need anything greater
than (say) 25Mbps, post a summary and the source.

</quote>

> We were discussing the "need" to supply a specified bandwidth to the
> community in general. I agree that the entire 90% of the community
> with access to 100/40 broadband won't buy it and many of them will not
> buy any.

The business plan assumes 90%. So you're saying that the business plan
will fail.

>>
>> Evidently they don't because the NBN is struggling to get 20% takeup.
>>
>>
>>> I understand your desire for
>>> secrecy about your own use of the WAN so tell us what speed you think
>>> the community needs and how they will use it.
>>
>> A sample of one is unrepresentative. It has nothing to do with secrecy.
>>
>> If I drive a Porsche it doesn't mean that I am willing to fund one for
>> everyone else.
>>
>> Your habit of putting words in other people's mouths and twisting what
>> they say is tiresome.
>
> I'm sorry. I withdrew my question about your broadband needs and
> substituted one about your assessment of community needs. Please
> answer it.

Are you thick?

This is *your* question:

<quote>

If you have any logical, researched reason why we need anything greater
than (say) 25Mbps, post a summary and the source.

</quote>

>>
>>>
>>>> I will choose whatever I need from a service
>>>> provider *when* I need it.
>>>
>>> Of course. Nobody is going to deprive you of a choice of speeds or
>>> services.
>>>>
>>>> If you cannot answer the question, how do you justify spending $37b of
>>>> *my money*?
>>>
>>> If you insist on making this a general whinge about NBN Co I should
>>> remind you that it is not _your_ money. It is _our_ money. We elected
>>> a government to decide how to spend, or in this case invest, it.
>>>
>>
>> Bullshit. We (collectively) elected a government that said it would
>> spend $8.7b on an NBN. It, or rather he, then declared that none of the
>> bids were 'value for money' and proceeded to announce a $43b NBN.
>
> I can't resist reminding you that we re-elected the government that
> made the FTTH decision despite the much cheaper policy from the LNP.
> The LNP now appears to believe we need 25 Mbps. However, back to the
> point. Do _you_ think that we need the ubiquitous 12/1 that Rudd
> promised?

The LNP does "believe" in any particular bandwidth. They have simply
taken a shit business plan and with very little effort, halved the cost
and the timeframe. Given Labor's record of implementation, you can
change "halved" to "quartered".

>
> Finally, if you don't care what speed should be offered to the
> community at large just say so.

Are you a moron?

You are attempting to justify the NBN, you need to justify the claim
that we need 100Mbps or 25Mbps or whatever it is you fancy today.

I care very much what bandwidth is offered to the community. Under the
ALP, the way the rollout is going, the answer is "none".

So you promise a ridiculous number without justification and then you
can't deliver. If your party had any credibility they would apologise
for wasting our time and resign.

> It is a perfectly reasonable stance to
> state that private enterprise should offer whatever they feel like to
> whatever sections of the community they believe can afford it.
> However, if that is your position, it is silly to ask me why we "need"
> 100 Mbps. They already provide it to me.
>

You're an idiot. If you or they cannot justify the $37b expenditure then
you should not be supporting it.

[Addinall]

This is why I gave up talking to the idiot that is Levi. Completely out
of his comfort zone like most lefty commentators, when asked a valid
question, bluster, wave your arms around, change the subject to ANY other
subject, filibuster.

I *NEED* 1Mbps.

1. As an IT developer of some 32 years, my C programs tend to only run
into 50KB or so, so 1Mbps is over the top for these projects, and my
updates to customer's web pages are even smaller at around 15KB so again,
1Mbps is just fine. About six times a year I upload a completed project
up onto a server. As a complete project is around 50MB in a tar.gz
or .zip file, 1 Mbps get the project uploaded/downloaded in a reasonable
time. So I would say that 1 Mbps would be my working comfort zone.
Synchronous. I could live with less speed. I just find something else
to do whilst the upload happened.

2. Education. Currently doing a course out of Princeton. Algorthms
Part II by Bob Sedgewick. The University streams lectures at 1 Mbps. By
the time they arrive in Australia, they are coming in over the pond at
about 800 Kbps. So for my on-going education, if I choose remote
learning, I *NEED* a 1 Mbps link. Latest pass certificate from Michigan
University get_certificate.pdf 368 kB.

3. General use. NNTP takes much less than 1 Mbps, as does SMTP. Shrug
1 Mbps is just fine. Banking ditto. Transactions are generally VERY
small. Reading a newspaper. 1 Mbps is just fine. cssdesign1pdf.pdf

4. Fun. 6.waltz-in-a-by-carcassi.pdf - 68 KB., 2.ode-to-joy.pdf - 34
KB, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=beGVqQLWkOw - Well looking at my
network system monitor, YouTube is sending that to me at about 100 Kbps.
Farmville II - generally takes 1-24 hours to grow a crop and the network
transactions are tiny.

5. Tool delivery. CodeIgniter_2.1.3.zip - 2.3 MB. Wordpress 3.5.1 4.8
MB. No problems with 1 Mbps. eBooks. csswrong1pdf.pdf 18 MB,
cssdesign1pdf.pdf 28 MB, modern_perl_a4.pdf 1.9 MB, hands-on-nodejs.pdf
598 kB, nodebeginner.pdf 4.3 MB, Complete ABS Year Book 2006.pdf 29.5 MB
(that is a biggie, but 1 Mbps handles it fine), SEOTipsEbookv3.pdf 485
kB. So yes, 1 Mbps is pretty much my comfort zone for eBook downloads.


There it is. The internet supports my business delivery method(s),
supplies my development tools, supports my on-going distance education,
looks after my personal finances and the occasional eShopping, provides
me with entertainment in the form of guitar musing and a silly game.
Allows me to keep current with the national newspapers, allows me to swap
email with friends and clients all over the world. To accomplish ALL of
this from my one machine, I *NEED* 1Mbps/512kbps.

Now. Your turn. Why does 97% of the population in the country *NEED*
100Mbps internet connections? Given that about 18% of all Australians DO
NOT WANT AN INTERNET CONNECTION OF ANY KIND! If you and your peer Capt.
Underpants had bothered to look up the ABS Internet statistics reports,
you may have found that little marketing gem.

Idiot.
Mark Addinall.

[ALP = Arrogance, Lies & Pretence]

On 17/04/2013 1:13 PM, Addinall wrote:
> If you and your peer Capt.
> Underpants had bothered to look up the ABS Internet statistics reports,
> you may have found that little marketing gem.

Maybe he didn't want to pay the $250 for the CD.

[Gordon Levi]

"ALP = Arrogance, Lies & Pretence" <bjfost...@yahoo.com.au> wrote:

>You are attempting to justify the NBN, you need to justify the claim
>that we need 100Mbps or 25Mbps or whatever it is you fancy today.

This thread started because I asserted that asking why we need 25Mbps
is a question without meaning. I asked you what speed we did need. You
have amply demonstrated by your silence that you cannot justify _any_
particular speed.

>
>I care very much what bandwidth is offered to the community. Under the
>ALP, the way the rollout is going, the answer is "none".
>
>So you promise a ridiculous number without justification and then you
>can't deliver. If your party had any credibility they would apologise
>for wasting our time and resign.
>
>> It is a perfectly reasonable stance to
>> state that private enterprise should offer whatever they feel like to
>> whatever sections of the community they believe can afford it.
>> However, if that is your position, it is silly to ask me why we "need"
>> 100 Mbps. They already provide it to me.
>>
>
>You're an idiot. If you or they cannot justify the $37b expenditure then
>you should not be supporting it.

I have stated repeatedly that the $37b is being spent to honour a
promise of high speed broadband to all Australians and, subsequently,
to re-nationalise Telstra's copper network by replacing it with fibre.
The speeds offered are a consequence of a low end FTTH network and are
comparable to those offered with HFC and fibre networks in Australia
and around the world. They have nothing to do with a "need" for
100Mbps networks although I am sure that I am not the only user and
that there will be many others. Of course, a proportion of consumers
will take NBN's 12/1 plan or not use it at all. The concept of "need"
for something that almost all of the world's population lacks is
ridiculous.

[Gordon Levi]

Thanks MA. Unlike A.L. Phobia you have provided a basis for the
question. You have said you *NEED* 1/1 although, inexplicably, you
have concluded 1/.5. In order to get your upload speed you have to buy
something much faster than 1Mbps download. In Australia that's usually
30/1 although NBN Co offers 12/1. I think we can assume your projects
will become larger as you incorporate more visual content. You may
feel able to host your own web site so that you can experiment with
different server side code cheaply. That will persuade you to pay a
bit extra for 25/5. It would be foolish for the LNP to upgrade the
network and not provide it.

>
>Now. Your turn. Why does 97% of the population in the country *NEED*
>100Mbps internet connections?

How often do I have to repeat it? There is no way that 97% (sic) of
the population *NEEDS* 100Mbps now. They won't buy it either. The
government decided to install FTTH because Rudd promised ubiquitous
12/1 and to do so required re-nationalising fixed line comms. The LNP
has promised 25Mbps and a cheaper way of re-nationalising fixed line
comms if Telstra will cooperate. Bottom of the range FTTH comes with
100Mbps and bottom of the range FTTN comes with 25Mbps. Asking about
the "need" is meaningless since there is worldwide agreement on the
technology and the likely future demand.

> Given that about 18% of all Australians DO
>NOT WANT AN INTERNET CONNECTION OF ANY KIND! If you and your peer Capt.
>Underpants had bothered to look up the ABS Internet statistics reports,
>you may have found that little marketing gem.

On what basis would you like to select the premises that don't get an
NBN connection? Would it be a random one in five houses or would you
just omit a fifth of the suburbs on the basis of a SEIFA index?


>Idiot.

It is no coincidence that you and A.L. Phobia need to add abuse. It is
caused by a failure to recognise your own limitations. It even has a
name .............

[ALP = Arrogance, Lies & Pretence]

On 20/04/2013 12:28 AM, Gordon Levi wrote:
> "ALP = Arrogance, Lies & Pretence" <bjfost...@yahoo.com.au> wrote:
>
>> You are attempting to justify the NBN, you need to justify the claim
>> that we need 100Mbps or 25Mbps or whatever it is you fancy today.
>
> This thread started because I asserted that asking why we need 25Mbps
> is a question without meaning. I asked you what speed we did need. You
> have amply demonstrated by your silence that you cannot justify _any_
> particular speed.

You can't even cite immediate past history accurately. This thread
associated Abbott with the 'great clangers of history'. Please see the
thread title.

You attempted to extend that with a snide implication that it was a
Murdoch conspiracy.

The reality is that you, and the monkeys that you support are insisting
we need a bandwidth SUCH THAT we need fibre.

An RC should look into this. The ALP's headlong uncritical rush into
fibre is obscene. They were in such a hurry to implement *that* solution
and hand it to the CEO's ex-employer that they forgot about MDUs,
Greenfields suburbs, satellite and best practice wireless solutions. The
result is that *all* of these areas are disasters.

You can cite whatever bandwidth you like (they just started claiming
1Gbps) but they are so fucking inept that you won't get *any* bandwidth.

You should thank Tony Abbott for *any* bandwidth you can get - because
your lot are so stupid that they couldn't manage a fart in a perfume
factory.

>
>>
>> I care very much what bandwidth is offered to the community. Under the
>> ALP, the way the rollout is going, the answer is "none".
>>
>> So you promise a ridiculous number without justification and then you
>> can't deliver. If your party had any credibility they would apologise
>> for wasting our time and resign.
>>
>>> It is a perfectly reasonable stance to
>>> state that private enterprise should offer whatever they feel like to
>>> whatever sections of the community they believe can afford it.
>>> However, if that is your position, it is silly to ask me why we "need"
>>> 100 Mbps. They already provide it to me.
>>>
>>
>> You're an idiot. If you or they cannot justify the $37b expenditure then
>> you should not be supporting it.
>
> I have stated repeatedly that the $37b is being spent to honour a
> promise of high speed broadband to all Australians and, subsequently,
> to re-nationalise Telstra's copper network by replacing it with fibre.
> The speeds offered are a consequence of a low end FTTH network and are
> comparable to those offered with HFC and fibre networks in Australia
> and around the world. They have nothing to do with a "need" for
> 100Mbps networks although I am sure that I am not the only user and
> that there will be many others. Of course, a proportion of consumers
> will take NBN's 12/1 plan or not use it at all. The concept of "need"
> for something that almost all of the world's population lacks is
> ridiculous.
>

[ALP = Arrogance, Lies & Pretence]

On 20/04/2013 12:29 AM, Gordon Levi wrote:
> Addinall <addi...@NOSPAM.net> wrote:
>
>> On Wed, 17 Apr 2013 00:17:32 +1000, Gordon Levi wrote:
>>

...

>
>> Given that about 18% of all Australians DO
>> NOT WANT AN INTERNET CONNECTION OF ANY KIND! If you and your peer Capt.
>> Underpants had bothered to look up the ABS Internet statistics reports,
>> you may have found that little marketing gem.
>
> On what basis would you like to select the premises that don't get an
> NBN connection? Would it be a random one in five houses or would you
> just omit a fifth of the suburbs on the basis of a SEIFA index?
>

Any competent planner would omit one fifth of the population from the
segment.

>
>> Idiot.
>
> It is no coincidence that you and A.L. Phobia need to add abuse. It is
> caused by a failure to recognise your own limitations. It even has a
> name .............
>

What you see as abuse is merely descriptive. Myopia is inherently
self-limiting.

[Addinall]

Always a pleasure to help the 'special' kids.

> Unlike A.L. Phobia you have provided a basis for the
> question. You have said you *NEED* 1/1 although, inexplicably, you have
> concluded 1/.5.

No. Go back and have a grown-up read it to you. I *NEED* 1Mbps down to
continue my education. The Universities I attend stream lectures at that
speed. Upload speed I care little about. If it takes 10 minutes to
upload 3 months work, shrug. Time for a coffee, or if it is later in
the day a beer. Or perhaps wander around and water my plants. Or pick
up the guitar and do some scales. Or SHOCK HORROR, forgo those pleasant
moment and swap into another terminal and continue coding.

> In order to get your upload speed you have to buy
> something much faster than 1Mbps download. In Australia that's usually
> 30/1 although NBN Co offers 12/1. I think we can assume your projects
> will become larger as you incorporate more visual content.

You can assume anything you like. You are still wrong.

http://www.crosscitydjs.com.au

My latest project (external). That's about as noisy as I ever want to do.
45MB upload for the entire project.

Do the sums. 512Kbps works just fine. After the initial upload onto a
server the transactions are updates that measure in KB. And low KB.

My work, like most REAL software engineers is to provide systems that are
SMALLER and FASTER than the previous versions.

http://addinall.github.io/HTML5-Toolset

I do this stuff for a living. You just turn on your computer and think
it is all done by Magic. That was invented in 2004 by Mr. Underpants.

> You may feel
> able to host your own web site so that you can experiment with different
> server side code cheaply.

Why in God's name would I want to do that?! I have used the same
hosting company for 8 years, http://www.smallpond.com.au and they charge
me $100 a year to host all of my play sites, a deal of delelopment and I
get a comms pipe at 400Mbps. They do my backups, and it is hosted in
Texas. There is NO WAY in the world I am ever going to host my own
sites. Unless I turn into an ISP which I do not intend to do.

> That will persuade you to pay a bit extra for

Nope. I currently have 30/1.5 as that is the cheapest connection I can
get in my area. Works just fine, provided by Telstra.

> 25/5. It would be foolish for the LNP to upgrade the network and not
> provide it.

Why? Are 10,000s of budding software engineers wanting to upload code
that is larger than mine? I can't see it.

>>
>>Now. Your turn. Why does 97% of the population in the country *NEED*
>>100Mbps internet connections?
>
> How often do I have to repeat it? There is no way that 97% (sic) of the
> population *NEEDS* 100Mbps now. They won't buy it either.

Then why try to spend $100 BILLION to give it to everyone? Seems
fucking stupid to me.


> The government

Two blokes pissed on a plane.

> decided to install FTTH because Rudd promised ubiquitous 12/1 and to do
> so required re-nationalising fixed line comms. The LNP has promised
> 25Mbps and a cheaper way of re-nationalising fixed line comms if Telstra
> will cooperate. Bottom of the range FTTH comes with 100Mbps and bottom
> of the range FTTN comes with 25Mbps. Asking about the "need" is
> meaningless since there is worldwide agreement on the technology and the
> likely future demand.
>
>> Given that about 18% of all Australians DO
>>NOT WANT AN INTERNET CONNECTION OF ANY KIND! If you and your peer Capt.
>>Underpants had bothered to look up the ABS Internet statistics reports,
>>you may have found that little marketing gem.
>
> On what basis would you like to select the premises that don't get an
> NBN connection? Would it be a random one in five houses or would you
> just omit a fifth of the suburbs on the basis of a SEIFA index?

Blah Blah Blah....

I would select the black spots for upgrade at once, then come up with an
FTTN topology that could be run out to Rural and Remote Australia as a
priority.

>
>
>>Idiot.
>
> It is no coincidence that you and A.L. Phobia need to add abuse. It is
> caused by a failure to recognise your own limitations. It even has a
> name .............

Idiot.

Mark Addinall.

[HD]

"Addinall" <addi...@NOSPAM.net> wrote in message
news:516e2175$1...@dnews.tpgi.com.au...

Why do they *NEED* Television?

[Gordon Levi]

That was the aim in the 1960s when I started because that was the
hardware we had. It was also the aim for another 30 years because
smaller and faster was required to transfer applications from main
frames to minis and desktops. It has probably escaped your notice that
the limits for current applications, even on mobile phones, are not
imposed by storage or grunt. When I started my first shrink wrapped
software project it was painfully slow. A bit of optimisation and the
year it took to get it to market removed the problem because the 486
was released. The current critical requirements are a beautiful user
interface, a swift time to market and fancy new features for new
versions. Smaller and faster is for nerds.

>
> http://addinall.github.io/HTML5-Toolset
>
>I do this stuff for a living.

A living? It's free and you tell us that it doesn't work.

> You just turn on your computer and think
>it is all done by Magic. That was invented in 2004 by Mr. Underpants.

Most professional computer users consider that they have failed if
they have to restart a computer. My computers are either always on or
they turn themselves on when they need to do something.

>
>> You may feel
>> able to host your own web site so that you can experiment with different
>> server side code cheaply.
>
>Why in God's name would I want to do that?!

You are right. It was stupid of me to assume that you might want to
experiment with different server side technology to the ones you have
been using for the last 8 years. You probably don't even use the PHP
and MySQL that your current host provides.

> I have used the same
>hosting company for 8 years, http://www.smallpond.com.au and they charge
>me $100 a year to host all of my play sites, a deal of delelopment and I
>get a comms pipe at 400Mbps. They do my backups, and it is hosted in
>Texas. There is NO WAY in the world I am ever going to host my own
>sites. Unless I turn into an ISP which I do not intend to do.

[snip]

[Addinall]

Yeah sure thing. I believe you... Gordon Levi, Code Warrior. What a
joke. And yet you can repeat little gems like "Everything I knew about
IT would be obsolete in 5 years...". Only someone who has NEVER worked
in the industry and has NEVER written a line of code could come up with a
throwawy factoid as inane as that. It really just does go to prove that
like the rest of the ill-educated lefty trash in thhis newsgroup, you lie
to try and make a point. And you get all huffy when caught.

By your reckoning, no-one in the world uses COBOL. Nor VM/CMS. Or JCL
or JES. UNIX has dissapeared from the planet. TCP/IP is no-where to be
seen. The source for NNTP and FTP has been lost in time. Ada is dead,
SQL has been replaced. C, C++ and Java, all gone with the DoDo. Perl
has gone. PHP went years ago. SOLARIS, ORACLE, SYBASE, DB2, PostgreSQL
all fleeting memories of times long passed. No more TSO, TSO/ISPF,
CLISTs, RPG. HTML is only seen in the CERN museum from whence it came...

Those factoids might impress your stupid crowd of left wing trash, but we
humans just think you are very stupid indeed.

> It was also the aim for another 30 years because
> smaller and faster was required to transfer applications from main
> frames to minis and desktops.

'Transfer'? What fucking idiots did that?

> It has probably escaped your notice that
> the limits for current applications, even on mobile phones, are not
> imposed by storage or grunt.

Oh yes they are. Very much so. Again, you are just showing the world
you know less than fuck all about ITC.

> When I started my first shrink wrapped
> software project

And what was that pray tell?


> it was painfully slow.

I would think the problem might have been that YOU are painfully slow.

> A bit of optimisation and the
> year it took to get it to market removed the problem because the 486 was
> released.

Once more in English. What? The 486 machines became available in 1990.
UNIX had been running on the 286 and 386 for years before that. UCSD-P
System was running on the 8088 and 8086. So was MS-DOS, PC-DOS, DR-DOS,
CP/M and MP/M. Z80 before that. Not forgetting the 68000. It seems you
were a decade or more behind everyone else, if indeed you EVER did any
development, which I seriously doubt.

> The current critical requirements are a beautiful user
> interface, a swift time to market and fancy new features for new
> versions.

Wow! One of the great architects of our time. Between you and Cpt.
Underpants, no more "Scams stuck up your Portals" I bet!

> Smaller and faster is for nerds.

You had better go and point that out to the entire cross-platform
development community. Fucking idiot.

>>
>> http://addinall.github.io/HTML5-Toolset
>>
>>I do this stuff for a living.
>
> A living? It's free and you tell us that it doesn't work.

Do you think contributing to open source projects is somehow a BAD
thing? Jesus, you are taking the little red pills eh?

>
>> You just turn on your computer and think
>>it is all done by Magic. That was invented in 2004 by Mr. Underpants.
>
> Most professional computer users consider that they have failed if they
> have to restart a computer.

Another urban myth. You gleamed enough of this listening to the 'clever
chaps' in systems chat as you cleaned up the tea-room hey?

> My computers are either always on or they
> turn themselves on when they need to do something.

What a hero!

>>
>>> You may feel able to host your own web site so that you can experiment
>>> with different server side code cheaply.
>>
>>Why in God's name would I want to do that?!
>
> You are right. It was stupid of me to assume that you might want to
> experiment with different server side technology to the ones you have
> been using for the last 8 years. You probably don't even use the PHP and
> MySQL that your current host provides.

>> I have used the same
>>hosting company for 8 years, http://www.smallpond.com.au and they charge
>>me $100 a year to host all of my play sites, a deal of delelopment and I
>>get a comms pipe at 400Mbps. They do my backups, and it is hosted in
>>Texas. There is NO WAY in the world I am ever going to host my own
>>sites. Unless I turn into an ISP which I do not intend to do.

No you fucking retard, why would I want to host my own web sites? You
are getting mixed up. As a rank beginner you are probably unaware that
you don't need an internet connection to run one or more instances of web
servers. I have several running on localhost:various_ports, and
available on ,y 192.168 network for product development and testing. It
was STUPID of you to try and assume anything. You have never been
correct in the past. Why start now.

Face it Levi. You're a know-nothing pretender. Following the usual
lefty paradigm of inventing an alternate universe in which you are
slightly less useless.

Idiot.

Mark Addinall.

>
> [snip]

[Gordon Levi]

Addinall <addi...@NOSPAM.net> wrote:

>Yeah sure thing. I believe you... Gordon Levi, Code Warrior. What a
>joke. And yet you can repeat little gems like "Everything I knew about
>IT would be obsolete in 5 years...". Only someone who has NEVER worked
>in the industry and has NEVER written a line of code could come up with a
>throwawy factoid as inane as that. It really just does go to prove that
>like the rest of the ill-educated lefty trash in thhis newsgroup, you lie
>to try and make a point. And you get all huffy when caught.
>
>By your reckoning, no-one in the world uses COBOL. Nor VM/CMS. Or JCL
>or JES. UNIX has dissapeared from the planet. TCP/IP is no-where to be
>seen. The source for NNTP and FTP has been lost in time. Ada is dead,
>SQL has been replaced. C, C++ and Java, all gone with the DoDo. Perl
>has gone. PHP went years ago. SOLARIS, ORACLE, SYBASE, DB2, PostgreSQL
>all fleeting memories of times long passed. No more TSO, TSO/ISPF,
>CLISTs, RPG. HTML is only seen in the CERN museum from whence it came...

If you omit the protocols and if you do development rather than
maintenance you would not be able to ignore the changes in any of the
above for five years. After a five year absence you certainly could
not offer yourself in good conscience as a programmer or even as a
database administrator or web designer. I suspect you have already
been made aware of that.

>
>> When I started my first shrink wrapped
>> software project
>
>And what was that pray tell?

To my surprise, you can still buy it
<http://www.atac.com.au/insight.html>. I doubt if it works on anything
other than XP (or 9x!).

>
>
>> it was painfully slow.
>
>I would think the problem might have been that YOU are painfully slow.

Alas, the project manager would have agreed with you.

>
>> A bit of optimisation and the
>> year it took to get it to market removed the problem because the 486 was
>> released.
>
>Once more in English. What? The 486 machines became available in 1990.
>UNIX had been running on the 286 and 386 for years before that. UCSD-P
>System was running on the 8088 and 8086. So was MS-DOS, PC-DOS, DR-DOS,
>CP/M and MP/M. Z80 before that. Not forgetting the 68000. It seems you
>were a decade or more behind everyone else, if indeed you EVER did any
>development, which I seriously doubt.

All true but what has it got to do with my previous sentence? Is it
just another desperate attempt to post your total knowledge of
computing trivia? I did not earn my living from anything on a PC
before the 386 was released. I didn't have a computer at home that
could display a page of text before CP/M-68k was released unless you
count a Flexowriter.

>
>
>> The current critical requirements are a beautiful user
>> interface, a swift time to market and fancy new features for new
>> versions.
>
>Wow! One of the great architects of our time. Between you and Cpt.
>Underpants, no more "Scams stuck up your Portals" I bet!
>
>
>
>> Smaller and faster is for nerds.
>
>You had better go and point that out to the entire cross-platform
>development community. Fucking idiot.

Entire? Can you give some examples of small business applications that
are having trouble with storage or grunt?

>
>Do you think contributing to open source projects is somehow a BAD
>thing?

Of course not. Nor do I think your singing in the church choir is a
bad thing but it hardly qualifies you to claim that you sing for a
living.

>No you fucking retard, why would I want to host my own web sites? You
>are getting mixed up. As a rank beginner you are probably unaware that
>you don't need an internet connection to run one or more instances of web
>servers. I have several running on localhost:various_ports, and
>available on ,y 192.168 network for product development and testing. It
>was STUPID of you to try and assume anything. You have never been
>correct in the past. Why start now.

You are right about my assumptions. Fancy me thinking that because you
have published a few static, non-commercial web sites you might want
to publish something more ambitious. Stick to HTML and your current
host is fine.

>Face it Levi. You're a know-nothing pretender.

I _have_ faced it. You are the one who is unable to accept that your
contribution is, at best, workmanlike.

> Following the usual
>lefty paradigm of inventing an alternate universe in which you are
>slightly less useless.

You probably think that Richard Stallman's lefty paradigm makes him
"slightly less than useless". You think that your contribution matters
only because, like most conservatives, you have failed to appreciate
the changes that have occurred in the last twenty years. If you had a
realistic view of your talents compared to the giants of computing you
might be able to see that there are exciting prospects for a country
with ubiquitous 100/40 broadband. Instead, all you can do is throw
insults at me and list all the computing acronyms you know.
>
>Idiot. Mark Addinall.