Sensational-Adelaide.com

Wayno wrote:Go back just 8 years and I bet very few in this forum, myself included, would have envisaged the Smart Phone renaissance. Did you know the iPhone was first released in July 2007! How many of us now feel lost if we accidentally go out leaving our phone at home?!? Arrrgghh. But it's not about phones - the world has gone mobile.

Did you study IT in school at all? If you did and didn't see this coming then you must have had a very average teacher. We often had discussions on this sort of stuff in our IT classes. The world going mobile, and billions of people having a device, a computer in your pocket basically, that has a main function as a mobile phone but is capable of doing so much more and that would continue to become more powerful and we dependent on them, was something often talked about.
Smart phones have been around longer then the iPhone from 2007.

rev wrote:Smart phones have been around longer then the iPhone from 2007.

Thanks for the correction.

You get my point though - right?

rev wrote:Did you study IT in school at all? .......Smart phones have been around longer then the iPhone from 2007.

I studied English, and I never learned what "longer then" meant

rev wrote:Smart phones have been around longer then the iPhone from 2007.

Yes, "smart phones" existed before the iPhone, but let's be honest, smart phones as we regard them today started with the iPhone.

Nathan wrote: Yes, "smart phones" existed before the iPhone, but let's be honest, smart phones as we regard them today started with the iPhone.

You mean a single large screen with no physical keypad with a simplified interface?
Nokia, Blackberry and Palm etc are the beginning of the smart phone.

Many knew exactly where we were going with tech, and many know now whats next but perhaps the general public are slow to realize where we are heading.
What most business do realize is that right now adsl2 is not the product they require to function efficiently. It is not fast enough and not reliable enough.

bits wrote:

Nathan wrote: Yes, "smart phones" existed before the iPhone, but let's be honest, smart phones as we regard them today started with the iPhone.

You mean a single large screen with no physical keypad with a simplified interface?
Nokia, Blackberry and Palm etc are the beginning of the smart phone.

Many knew exactly where we were going with tech, and many know now whats next but perhaps the general public are slow to realize where we are heading.
What most business do realize is that right now adsl2 is not the product they require to function efficiently. It is not fast enough and not reliable enough.

oh no you've questioned apple products

here come the fanbois

With another Federal election imminent, this Delimiter article renews focus on the NBN.
An election issue?

"A whole mess of garbage" - "Turnbull's mongrel NBN" - huge spray in Parliament by Greens Senator, Ludlam.

"Instead of futureproofing the country with an end-to-end fibre network we would use a bit of copper, a bit of HFC, some satellites, some wireless towers—we would have this mongrel network big parts of which would be obsolete on the day they are built and will need to be torn up and replaced with the kind of end-to-end fibre network that this parliament legislated for,” said Ludlam.

Ludlam also addressed the vexed isssue of privatization of the NBN.....

Delimiter:
https://delimiter.com.au/2016/02/25/a-w ... bulls-nbn/

I turned off when he said future proof.

that is a term for idiots.

Waewick wrote:I turned off when he said future proof.

that is a term for idiots.

Fibre is future proof. it sends information via light

GoodSmackUp wrote:

Waewick wrote:I turned off when he said future proof.

that is a term for idiots.

Fibre is future proof. it sends information via light

How do you know a better way isn't invented next year.

Waewick wrote:

GoodSmackUp wrote:

Waewick wrote:I turned off when he said future proof.

that is a term for idiots.

Fibre is future proof. it sends information via light

How do you know a better way isn't invented next year.

Because physics. Because Heisenberg. Unless the quantum mechanic paradigm is overturned next year, there is nothing faster than light.

Normally I'd agree with you on the uselessness of the term "future proof" but this is one case where the term applies. And at the VERY least one fiber network is a much better performing system than a load of loosely cobbled together bits of old worn out copper and cable networks which need more work remediating.

monotonehell wrote:

Waewick wrote:

GoodSmackUp wrote:

Fibre is future proof. it sends information via light

How do you know a better way isn't invented next year.

Because physics. Because Heisenberg. Unless the quantum mechanic paradigm is overturned next year, there is nothing faster than light.

Normally I'd agree with you on the uselessness of the term "future proof" but this is one case where the term applies. And at the VERY least one fiber network is a much better performing system than a load of loosely cobbled together bits of old worn out copper and cable networks which need more work remediating.

so you are conclusively ruling out any further development in data transmission in the period that humanity exists.

Don't get me wrong, I agree with having an NBN, I just hate that statment and pollies like him who use their fringe element to be an annoyance rather than useful.

Waewick wrote: so you are conclusively ruling out any further development in data transmission in the period that humanity exists.

Don't get me wrong, I agree with having an NBN, I just hate that statment and pollies like him who use their fringe element to be an annoyance rather than useful.

I don't want to wait around until scientists discover how to bend space and time just so we can speed up data transmission

GoodSmackUp wrote:

Waewick wrote: so you are conclusively ruling out any further development in data transmission in the period that humanity exists.

Don't get me wrong, I agree with having an NBN, I just hate that statment and pollies like him who use their fringe element to be an annoyance rather than useful.

I don't want to wait around until scientists discover how to bend space and time just so we can speed up data transmission

c'mon, where is your sense of adventure.

I want a full bionic body already.

(sorry, my last comment was tounge in cheek, I wasn't intending on being completely irritating.

Waewick wrote:so you are conclusively ruling out any further development in data transmission in the period that humanity exists.

Well there's some interesting developments in teleporting subatomic particles. But seriously, in the context of whether we should install fibre for photons to travel down or stick with copper for electrons, the science is well and truly settled. -- That's the point.

Waewick wrote:Don't get me wrong, I agree with having an NBN, I just hate that statment and pollies like him who use their fringe element to be an annoyance rather than useful.

There's a chasm of difference between "being an annoyance" and calling out wasteful bullshit. Ludlam continually has a good grasp of the science and evidence behind things and often sheds light into some very dark corners. The whole NBN fiasco (probably starting sometime during the last Labor government, possibly even as far back as Howard and the Telstra float) is well worthy of a deep investigation into who benefitted from a whole range of legislation -- because it certainly was not the Australian electorate.

Everything to do with telecommunications in the past few decades has set up anti-competitive private monopolies. The Labor's NBN vision was going to move toward a level playing field and a proper telecommunications marketplace, but Abbott, Turnbull et al have corrupted it back into an unworkable mess that will cost the taxpayer dearly for no return AND will strengthen the Telstra monopoly.