Aspies For Freedom

Difficult to understand that article.

I'm after all abit green to such things.

Well, basically it says that there is a net of roads that needs to be expanded, because more and more people are starting to drive big fat long trucks. The prognosis is either having traffic jams soon and/or to start raising a road charge.

I just thought the same about the internet yesterday night as I proceeded to watch all new episodes of my favorite TV shows on my computer, and wondered for how long this will keep working and imagined all the new satellites and wires through oceans, new servers and switches this will take.

See, there you have it

People are always screaming about the "internet aprocalypse". Last year, it was "storm worm!". A few years before that it was "soBig!". A few years before that it was "y2k!!!"

These are significant problems, but what people oftentimes forget is that the internet is a human system--so therefore we make the rules about how it works. It's not something like global warming, where it's incredibly difficult to find solutions that work.

Kinda figured.

It's right here  http://www.cybermeme.net/end.html

Hmm, presumably that's the same AT&T that adamantly refuses to route traffic through competitors' networks and have done nothing to improve their landline infrastructure beyond the major population centers in over twenty years.

Although if a connection slows down enough to the end user it will look the same as if something crashed(due to programs timing out)

Bandwidth is the amount of data that can be sent on a single link. Now, it's quite silly to say that every single link on the internet will end up saturated to breaking point in just 2 years time from now. Very silly indeed.

every link doesn't have to be saturated--if people in your coffee shop(for wifi) or neighborhood(for cable) are consuming most of the local bandwidth, you can't transfer much data. It doesn't matter what things are like upstream.

That's not "the end of the internet", that's "localised bandwidth resources being exhausted". 'tis something that's been happening pretty much since day one.

Collisions don't occur on all networks, you're using the wrong terminology.

A collision in fact doesn't even occur outside your local LAN segment within that collision zone - i.e if you have a hub instead of a switch. Collisions occur on ethernet links when you have a shared medium which 2 machines try to transmit on at once. Most of the internet backbone is fiber with only 1 interface on each end of the line that queues and multiplexes the packets. The issue is one of congestion, and it's resolved by adding more links or applying liberal QoS.

Ironically, if the "net neutrality" fools get their way, they won't save the internet, they'll end up dooming it to more and more congestion by eliminating legal QoS.

EC2, S3, SimpleDB, SQS
Amazon web services are kinda sexy, I used them with an old job and they have a somewhat funny API but tis a very sexy set of services.

Who can realistically afford to host their own servers on their own premises?
I have 1 server at home for personal experiments and to host my personal website, anything else is hosted in a professional data centre and I can't imagine ever investing in building my own data centre, seems a pointless expense.

With cloud computing in general: EC2 is amazingly handy for applications that need to scale up fast in a short timeframe. If you want to setup a huge cluster suddenly but only need it for a couple of hours, why spend the money on actually renting 1000s of servers seperately? S3 is quite handy too, but other than that i've not played much with the other amazon services.