FlashLadyBug.com

Okay, I wasn’t going to say anything about this earlier, until I found a pair of links that just don’t make any sense to me at all. Both articles in question are from Telegraph’s website, and the “main link” on each article links to the other one.

The first article I found says that a superfast internet may replace the World Wide Web. When I first read it, I was like “woah,” what advance, new breakthrough have they come up with now? Especially when an article says “The invention could signal the end of the dreaded ‘frozen screen’, when computers seize up after being asked to process too much information.”

Wow. That would be great. Then I read the next paragraph.

“The latest spin-off from Cern, the particle physics centre that created the internet, the grid could also provide the power needed to send sophisticated images; allow instant online gaming with hundreds of thousands of players; and offer high-definition video telephony for the price of a local call.” Sounds good to me. So whats the catch? They still haven’t said HOW. But what does Cern and a particle accelarator have to do with commercial internet? So I kept reading.

“The power of the grid will be unlocked this summer with the switching on of the Large Hadron Collider (LHC), a new particle accelerator designed to investigate how the universe began.

The grid will be turned on at the same time to store the information it generates, after scientists at Cern, based near Geneva, realised the internet would not have the capacity to capture such huge volumes of data. ”

And then it hit me. There’s no “new” internet. The folks at Cern simply realized, that like the original internet, and the early waves of DSL, that sometimes you’ve got too much information to push across a system that just can’t handle it. These guys didn’t do anything special.

“The grid has been built with fibre optic cables and modern routing centres, meaning there are no outdated components to slow the deluge of data, unlike the internet.”

All they did was build a network out of all-new components. It’s basically a giant LAN, just spread across a few countries, with dedicaed fiber optic lines. The only thing stopping us from doing that this very second is the billions and billions of dollars that it would cost to put in all new routers, servers, and fiber optic lines down every street in every city in the country.

Now, this Cern network so far is only going to give universities access - so that they can have a portal to access the massive amounts of data that the Large Hadron Collider generates while it smasher atoms, parts of atoms, and hopefully not large chunks of itself together. NOT EVERYONE WILL HAVE ACESS to this network.

Now I come to the link right under the byline for this article. And what does it say?
“Web could collapse as video demand soars.”

Uhhh. . . .no duh. We’re CONSTANTLY calling more and more information over the internet.
The second paragraph of this article says :

“Experts warn that unless billions of pounds is spent on upgrading the web’s infrastructure, it could slow down or even collapse. An internet meltdown would have a disastrous impact on the economy.”

Is it just me, or do the authors of these articles need to stop, take a deep breath, and read each others work?
They’re really just saying the same stupid thing.

The internet is a crowded place. The demand for it is starting to exceed what we can supply. We’re running DSL over copper lines designed to carry phone calls, not youtube, IM, and email. Unless we either curb internet use, or greatly expand capacity, we’re up a creek without a paddle. Its no wonder the folks at Cern had to build their own super-fast network : ours stinks! What no one seems to take into account either, however, is that if we ALL got on Cerns network, even it would probably get bogged down. Even out newer technology has its limits. If you give people the chance to dowload more, they will. Its like giving someone washing their car with a bucket filled from the kitchen sink a garden hose. If they’ve got the hose, they’ll use it, even if the bucket worked just fine.
Its like this pair of articles managed to touch upon two issues : What we have is reaching its limits, and we could have something much faster. This pair of articles completely fails, however, to provide any information on anything in between.

The scary thing is that the internet could be close to collapse. Granted, this article is from across the Atlantic, but the internet is a global thing. Even here in the US we face problems. How many articles have you read about bandwidth throttling and capping by Comcast? As we spread DSL to rural areas of the country, the rest of us will take on the burden of added internet traffic.

I guess I want to say that the guy who wrote the first article was moronic in its claims. We’re nowhere near getting a super highspeed replacement for the internet. The example cited is purpose-built for a project thats all ready cost oodles and oodles of money, and they can afford to spend another oodle on heir network. As for the rest of us. . .The cost would be unbelieveable. New servers. New routers. New switches. New fiber optic lines - on every street. Will it happen? Probably. We’ll at least get a lot closer to it. Is it about to happen anytime soon? No way.

Just a humorous Happy Holidays from FLB!

I’m not going to list reasons why you should wear your seatbelt.
I’m simply going to show you what happens when you DON’T wear your seatbelt.

If you’d like to have an impression of your face on the steering wheel at 30mph, thats up to you.

And, if you must have them :

In 2005, 43,443 people were killed in the estimated 6,159,000
police-reported motor vehicle traffic crashes, 2,699,000 people were
injured, and 4,304,000 crashes involved property damage only.

It is estimated that seatbelts saved 15,632 lives in 2005.

(NHTSA)

Seventy-three percent of the passenger vehicle occupants who were in a
fatal crash in 2002 and were restrained survived; of those who were not
restrained, only 43 percent survived. [NHTSA, Traffic Safety Facts
2002, October 2003]

In fatal crashes, 73 percent of all
vehicle occupants who were totally ejected were killed. Only 1 percent
of restrained occupants were ejected. Safety belts are effective in
preventing total ejections. [NHTSA, Traffic Safety Facts 2002 -
Overview, July 2003]

In 2000, safety belts prevented nearly 11,900 fatalities and 325,000
serious injuries, saving $50 billion in medical care, lost
productivity, and other injury-related costs. [NHTSA, Economic Impact
of Crashes, May 2002]
In the year 2000, the total economic cost of
motor vehicle crashes in the United States was $230.6 billion. This
represents an amount equal to 2.3 percent of the gross domestic
product, or $820 for every person living in the United States. [NHTSA,
Economic Impact of Crashes, May 2002]

The lifetime economic cost to society for each fatality is over
$977,000. Over 80 percent of this amount is attributable to lost
workplace and household productivity. [NHTSA, Economic Impact of
Crashes, May 2002]

[Ed. comment - Even if YOU wear your seatbelt, and your buddy DOESN’T]

Overall, those not directly involved in crashes pay for nearly
three-quarters of all crashcosts, primarily through insurance premiums,
taxes and travel delay. In 2000 these costs, borne by society rather
than by crash victims, totaled over $170 billion. [NHTSA,Economic
Impact of Crashes, May 2002]

Stats from THIS page.

Here’s just a small celebratory note about the blog…we’re page rank 5 now!
There was a PR update a few days back and we got moved up in the rankings
So, thanks to all the readers out there, we hope to continue providing you guys with random tidbits of news.
G’day

Please bear with us while we redo the site from the bottom up. The blog may have drastically different layouts and colors for the next few days as we get the kinks out

Although not exactly a computer tech post, I think this is at least just as important, if not more so
Besides, a computer is only as good as the commands and programs that the end users tries to run on it.

“New research conducted by brain researcher Avi Karni of the University
of Haifa in Israel explores the possibility that naps help lock in
sometimes fleeting long-term memories. A 90-minute daytime snooze might
help the most, the study finds.

“We still don’t know the exact mechanism of the memory process that
occurs during sleep, but the results of this research suggest the
possibility that it is possible to speed up memory consolidation,”
Karni said. “In the future, we may be able to do it artificially.”"

Read more about these promising developments, and what you can currently do to help improve your memory, and feel better and more awake, here :
http://www.livescience.com/health/080107-90-minute-nap.html

^ at the title.
Hopes to become more active on this blog, as indicated before, and also because…my firefox window has faaaar too many tabs waiting to be blogged.
Cya next year

As we have returned from our hiatus, our layout shall be changed. This current one may be the one we choose, but whichever one we decide on will still need much revisions. Some of our pages may not work, our RSS icons have disappeared. Please excuse us as we prepare for our final exams :P. Afterwards, you can expect a lot more activity on the site.

On a slightly random note…
Ad from Microsoft:
Does your computer randomly play Fur Elise or It’s a Small, Small World? Don’t worry! It’s not a bug. This is a design feature! If this occurs, please place your computer in the fridge as it is overheating, fan is not working, or your power supply is on the fritz. While it is cooling, check out the help pages!
Your Computer is Playing Classical Music Randomly

Flashladybug has now officially undergone sabbatical and will be returning at a future date after all of its authors figure out what is going on with their lives. Our apologies for not further allowing you to waste time reading random technology or news articles.