Return Styles: Pseud0ch, Terminal, Valhalla, NES, Geocities, Blue Moon.

Pages: 1-

ZOMG teh Internet DOOMSDAY is near!!!

Name: Anonymous 2007-06-17 7:13 ID:mIlouASx

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/click_online/6756899.stm

I don't understand, why can't they just lay more cables? It is expensive, I know, but if they could do it in the 90s, they can do it now.

Name: Anonymous 2007-06-17 7:51 ID:oVLX6qH9

It's BBC. Who the fuck believes them when it comes to technology?

Name: Anonymous 2007-06-17 13:03 ID:HgO91MKe

if they shutdown myspace, xanga, msn and a few other choice websites we could save it

LETS SAVE THE INTERNET GUYS

Name: Anonymous 2007-06-17 15:41 ID:Heaven

Down with gaia! It's a waste of a perfectly good Internet.

Name: Anonymous 2007-06-17 18:50 ID:kpoj/mBe

It's called "Let's scrape every fucking buck we can out of an old system and not put any more $$$ into it for over 10 years. No one will notice"

Question is why the fuck WE should pay for it?! What I haven't been paying for internet already?! Fuck this, I'm going back to BBS' and starting CHANNET since UseNet is full of fucking lamers...

Name: Anonymous 2007-06-18 17:09 ID:9G01ZYEX

The Internet is not going to "die".

Thats the kind of mindless propaganda bullshit that pisses me off. There are millions of web based corporations and companies, ISPs, networking firms etc etc, and I can't help but assume that they won't let the single largest source of revenue in the world "die".

Seriously, if anyone REALLY thinks this will happen, they shouldn't be allowed near the 'net in the first place.

Name: Anonymous 2007-06-19 4:21 ID:cFW7GlJi

Can someone tell me what the hell is going on about this "Death of the Internet" thing?

I've been hearing it everywhere but I don't get why the internet would die.

Name: Anonymous 2007-06-19 5:36 ID:sKVMF56Q

>>7

Copper wires cant support the amount of data that optical fibre sends to them, routers cant process as much information as they receive, the infrastructure of backbones and branches can be destroyed by natural disasters.

You name it, the Internet will die from it. I'm surprised no one has mentioned computer cancer.

Name: Anonymous 2007-06-19 6:38 ID:BBcYIBQh

>>8
You know it. But even fiber optic won't be enough in the long run. Lazers!!

CHARGIN...

Name: Anonymous 2007-06-19 9:55 ID:tgjWRayw

not this bullshit again.

btw. shoop da whoop

Name: Anonymous 2007-06-21 2:57 ID:aJcpP2lB

If I say "Death of the Internet", I actually mean "Death of Pirating Shit". Now is it fine? =/

Name: Anonymous 2007-06-21 6:40 ID:U5HznxBE

>>11
Bwhahahahahahaha!

Name: Anonymous 2007-06-21 18:58 ID:RgRRbuKA

o shi- without internets i am doomed

Name: Anonymous 2007-06-21 23:28 ID:mEATyHtD

The cost of badnwidth might increase, we'll have to use it less, and sites will be forced to streamline to reduce download size more, but I don't think it's the end. Maybe it'll be the end of the internet as something popular, but that just means less Myspace losers to deal with. Maybe less spam too.

Name: Anonymous 2007-06-22 5:00 ID:3TnnhlfW

MEGAGIGS

Name: Anonymous 2007-06-23 14:19 ID:SE3cdWye

relax , light a cigar and imagine all the wow kids suiciding

Name: Anonymous 2007-06-24 19:40 ID:7kPI89AT

That...would be kind of awesome.

we could all pretend its 1986 again.

Name: Anonymous 2007-06-24 21:10 ID:UPl0DOcG

>>17
Who's pretending?

Name: Anonymous 2007-06-28 4:48 ID:6A1yL8AB

The end is always nere fuck tard, it's just always late and very very lazy

Name: Anonymous 2007-06-28 8:48 ID:piUFzxTL

Worse yet, it is getting nearer.

Name: Anonymous 2007-06-28 13:27 ID:1ri8ERTX

Why is nobody discussing wireless?  Can't we just beam the internet around the world, like we do with TV?  Then the physical restrictions of fiber-optics and copper aren't an issue.

Name: Anonymous 2007-06-28 13:55 ID:piUFzxTL

>>21
It is done but is still too expensive for mass use.  Yes, the receivers are getting cheaper, but if this hits big we will need many more satellites to keep up with the demand.

Name: readabook 2007-06-28 23:30 ID:KSqIYVY9

wireless? like out the TV? because it need to be 2-way mainly.  imagine 1-way internet! you would have to watch so much porn you went dry before even seeing a roflcat!

Name: Anonymous 2007-06-30 9:29 ID:o9drkWWV

the internet is a series of boobs

Name: Anonymous 2007-06-30 22:37 ID:iTqvZp9G

>>21
the problem is that there is no universal, inexpensive, and _reliable_ method of distributing wireless signal over many miles, much less creating a wan out of it. reliability is incredibly necessary in an application like that and currently wireless signals cannot bring that sort of stability. achieving that stability, while certainly possible, is understandably a difficult task.

Name: Anonymous 2007-07-02 22:53 ID:Vv97Szr+

they hit a problem with city wireless, which is that it gets blocked by buildings, so it works in your garden but in your house, no signal. plus it works by having a transmitter every 100 yards.
Other problem is that, although there are kind of ways round it (ultrawideband), its like everyone in a cell is sharing the same wire, so if your neighbour is torrenting porn, your porntube connection fucks up.

Name: Anonymous 2007-07-02 22:55 ID:Vv97Szr+

the internet wont collapse, all the gear at either end of the fibre gets upgraded every year, and we'll have fibre to home soon

Name: Anonymous 2007-07-08 11:11 ID:j0auC8Y7

i wouldnt worry about this too much, the BBC arent the most reliable source for technical information anyways. as and when this really does become a problem a solution will already be underway.

Name: Anonymous 2007-07-15 23:28 ID:wupEAeMu

Who will profit from this?

And by how much?

Name: Anonymous 2007-07-16 19:54 ID:ZyUYD1Qs

maybe when 801.11n officially comes out this may be more feasable since it doesn't operate in the 2.4GHz range.

Don't change these.
Name: Email:
Entire Thread Thread List