There... fixed that for you...

I imagine it is similar in the US... If he were in Canada, the next step for the successful welder would be to start recruiting tradesmen from India or China.

1. 1. advertise for higher skilled jobs at below local labour rates for a month or two
2. 2. claim an inability to hire in a few months, bring in the temporary foreign workers (TFW)
3. 3. Profit!!

http://www.hrsdc.gc.ca/eng/jobs/foreign_workers/higher_skilled/trades/index.shtml

While I think the advice to go into trades is fine (there is likely more demand right now.) what Bloomberg says about no foreign competition is likely b.s. I don't know how long it will take, but there are donut shops and gardening centres here with TFW's. There is no low skill job that is not routinely farmed out already. Trades are not immune either:

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/story/2012/12/07/bc-chinese-miners-new-documents.html

I do not believe you because the pricing would be prohibitive, and getting your own wavelength is the same as getting your own fibre. I am not talking about a switch on the arial pole, just a passive optical coupler. You still have a dedicated path all the way to the end point in the googe data centre. There are 37 standard frequencies in ITU DWDM ( see here: http://www.telecomengineering.com/downloads/DWDM%20ITU%20Table%20-%20100%20GHz.pdf ) using 100 GHz spacing. My calculation showed sharing of 20 wavelengths on a common cable. Using 20 frequencies is very conservative. They might not be doing things this way, but the point was that estimates of 3K$ per household in suburban areas are just wacko. using current tech with retail pricing allows you to get a lot cheaper. If they do it this way (and why would they not?) then they do not have to be subsidizing much at all, and their investment pays back within a few years.

yup! +1 Like, mod parent up... etc...

Google says they are deploying to a fiberhood, for every 250 to 1000 households, and various wikis say that 2.59 people per household in North America, and 560 people per sq. km. in KC... so 1000 households is likely (1000*2.59)/560 which is around 4 sq. km, which, if we assume a CO in the middle means each homeowner needs about 2 km. of fibre.

Lets see, at retail (newegg), I can buy two SFPs for 40$ each. and lets say about $0.80 a meter for optical cable (based on retail price for a 50m patch cable from infinite cable), so thats $1600. Except that you dont need your own fibre, all you need is a wavelength, so google could be just splicing cables together for say 20 households at a time, and you need only about 50m of your own fibre. so that works out to $40 of cable for you uplink to the pole, where there is an optical coupler (say 200$), plus perhaps 5% of the 1600$, so $80 or so... they can adjust using more cable to use fewer couplers... etc...

Then they need to cost out the uplink from the CO. 2x 10 GSFPs say $500 ea. + 20km. of fibre $16000... and one the uplink they need an aggregation switch, say 24 ports / 1000$, which would mean... 42$ for the switch... aww heck lets double it for the uplink of the aggregation switch say 100$ in the CO... so the total is say $17100

say 17K$ for the uplink / 500 households... 34$ per household for the uplink. OK so perhaps that is a little weak as an uplink, but use multiple wavelengths over the same fibre, and you would still need a lot to get to even 100$ per uplink.

So using retail prices, and Googles deployment plans and publically available retail pricing and demographics, the price per link is about 80$ for the SFPs, 40$ for the patch cable to the coupler, 200$ for an optical coupler, $80 for the fibre to the CO, 100$ for the uplink... we are at 500$ for most of the parts of the uplink... now sure.. you can add in the on premises equipment, and get to maybe 1000$ that way... OK, so they charge 300$ for installation, so there is 700$ to recoup... they are charging a 70$/month for the service... so 10 months. pay back.

So I left out labour costs... they might double the payback period, but the business case still looks damn easy. I think your numbers are either phone company motivated, or a decade or two old. either way, they are complete b.s

sources for the pricing:

http://www.newegg.ca/Product/ProductList.aspx?Submit=ENE&DEPA=0&Order=BESTMATCH&N=-1&isNodeId=1&Description=SFP%2B&x=-975&y=-112

http://www.infinitecables.com/fiber-optic-cable-singlemode8.3.html

http://search.newport.com/?q=*&x2=sku&q2=F-CPL-S18150

zenzen% python3
Python 3.2.3 (default, Oct 19 2012, 20:10:41)
[GCC 4.6.3] on linux2
Type "help", "copyright", "credits" or "license" for more information.
>>> from math import *
>>> pi
3.141592653589793
>>> sin(pi/2)
1.0
>>>
an hour with pygame would probably give you a graphing module.

where I work we have real phones in the worst sense. Voice Mail is a distinct system, with limited storage, and not properly synchronized so the timing is always a little off. I've tried traditional headsets but they always seem to be cordless, and on 400$ devices they always seem to have issues with their batteries and charging (even though they sit for 16 hours a day on a charger.) I hate the old stuff.

I have a headset for the computer anyways. I want my voice mails in my email anyways. The headset is very comfortable, cabled to the computer for reliability, rather than having battery issues like a smartphone, it can follow me, when I VPN. I can re-direct to a smart phone if needed. Forget the phone, just let me use standard SIP applications to connect to a bridge. (I'm on Linux... but the employer is windows oriented, so I can see this turning into 'thou shalt use myfavorite windows app' through simple bloody-minded thoughtlessness.) for conference calling, I have speakers, just need a decent mic on the desk.

I'm sorry you took one course in population genetics and decided your understanding was infallible on that basis, but your interpretation is still wrong. Look at this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetic_drift

• Genetic drift versus natural selection
  The law of large numbers predicts little change over time due to genetic drift when the population is large. When the reproductive population is small, however, the effects of sampling error can alter the allele frequencies significantly. Genetic drift is therefore considered to be a consequential mechanism of evolutionary change primarily within small, isolated populations.[23]

As the human population is large, genetic drift's effects are negligible, and a wider variety in the gene pool being present because of decreased selective pressure is NOT evolution proceeding at a higher rate, as is claimed by the fine article.

You're just wrong bucko... from: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modern_evolutionary_synthesis: here is large excerpt of the summary of the modern synthesis:

1. The modern synthesis bridged the gap between experimental geneticists and naturalists, and between paleontologists. It states that:[3][4][5]
2. All evolutionary phenomena can be explained in a way consistent with known genetic mechanisms and the observational evidence of naturalists.
3. Evolution is gradual: small genetic changes regulated by natural selection accumulate over long periods. Discontinuities amongst species (or other taxa) are explained as originating gradually through geographical separation and extinction (not saltation).[clarification needed]
4. Natural selection is by far the main mechanism of change; even slight advantages are important when continued. The object of selection is the phenotype in its surrounding environment.
5. The role of genetic drift is equivocal. Though strongly supported initially by Dobzhansky, it was downgraded later as results from ecological genetics were obtained.
6. Thinking in terms of populations, rather than individuals, is primary: the genetic diversity existing in natural populations is a key factor in evolution. The strength of natural selection in the wild is greater than previously expected; the effect of ecological factors such as niche occupation and the significance of barriers to gene flow are all important.

Evolution, even with the modern synthesis, is requires both the generation of variations, and a force of selection. The role of genetic drift is equivocal That means it isn't demonstrated to be important, or people are arguing about it. It certainly does not mean that it can drive evolution.

I call it natural selection, and I call the first post on this thread absolutely correct. It says that a wider variety of mutations being present in a gene pool is not evolution. The original article is fundamentally incorrect in equating evolution with a higher frequency of mutations, and doubly incorrect in giving that increased frequency as an indication of the speed at which evolution is proceeding. The truth is that evolution is slowing down, because the selective pressures have dropped, and transportation available to modern humans has meant that the degree of isolation has decreased. It is likely to preclude allopatric speciation for humans.

The increased variability within the species is perhaps a good thing in terms of providing a more varied gene pool for future evolution, and improving our resistance to diseases, but not at all an indicator that the current species is evolving any new traits, or approaching a point where speciation is likely.

The reason why groups form does not make it something other than natural selection. Some of Darwin's original examples for natural selection were Galapagos finches, classic allopatric speciation. For someone to say that that is not natural selection is just 100% incorrect.

the great-grandfather started this thread by saying that the accumulation of mutations by itself, without any form of natural selection, is evolution. My point is: That's wrong. Selection is essential.

Unfortunately, it isn't one random walk, it is an ensemble of billions of random walks. It is more like Monte Carlo simulation, if there isn't an advantage to a particular set, you will just get a broader distribution around the same centre. You then posit people forming like groupings, and diverging because they have babies together. Sexual selection is very much part of natural selection.

You didn't read the article. It's not IP level least cost routing, it is Voice traffic carriers picking the "cheapest" (in terms of the complicated inter-phone company charging rules.)

I call B.S. on that definition. The probability of random mutations accumulating in a population to the point of creating a significant change in allele frequencies without a selective force of some kind approaches 0. Sure, random mutations occur, but they can just as easily occur in the opposite direction barring some sort of "slope" to genetic drift... If there is such a slope, then it is a selective force, though perhaps not classic natural selection. Evolution does indeed require a selective force, which traditionally has been natural selection. If you are going to say there are other selective forces, that's fine, but pure generation of mutations (genetic drift) without selection will not bring about a statistically important number of significant changes in frequency, and thus is not evolution. It is just mutational/evolutionary noise.