I hear real servers can go from tens of minutes down to tens of seconds because of the number of devices that need to be registered. Parallel initialization and loading, it helps.

Sounds like a great way to get rid of the Flu or Cold.

It's not just "spend time", "gamer" also implies a certain amount of obsession. "Casual gamer" covers the gamut, but just "gamer" is between Casual and Hardcore. I would bet that most people, who others consider to be gamers, would also add that just spending time does not make one a gamer, but also the amount of zealously one has while playing their games.

I think marketing just sullied the word "gamer" by including people who play casual mobile games. Playing candy crush on a bus does not a gamer make. A "gamer" is someone who lives and breaths gaming, not "someone who plays games". The whole point of the term was to distinguish them from the normal populace of people who play games. If someone is playing candy crush something like 4+ hours while at home while the rest of their family feels neglected, then I think they could earn that title. But the other main point is that it's a life style, and not a briefly lived fad.

Groceries are not taxed, may want to use another example.

Most people get cancer after they've reproduced, so there is virtually no evolutionary pressure.

Blocking ads and privacy filters are a self fulling prophecy when it comes to ad quality. If you don't let yourself get tracked, your ads are going to suck. The ads I typically see are quite useful, but I don't have the money to purchase the items. Kind of nice to know when NewEgg has a 24 hour deal on Seasonic power supplies or Amazon has a deal on an HP managed switch I've been eyeing up. When I use privacy filters, I get all kinds of really crappy non-targeted ads.

To me this means that on average, companies are making about $230/person/year in ad revenue. This means the ad companies are paying out a minimum of $230, not including increased bandwidth costs, management overhead, and other costs involved with supplying ads. So as a whole, the entire economy will save money than $230/person/year, meaning more money to be used where it should be.

I was told by once of my professors that about 50% of the cost of enterprise grade software is marketing. This means the software could be 50% cheaper if they weren't trying to shove it down my throat. At the same time, without marketing, I may not have known about the software.

Let me know how your IT can remote in from home without having an Internet connection at some point. Remoting in is nearly a requirement of all information systems.

Netflix's Beast box full of SSDs that can handle 50k customers streaming HD have a peak load of 150watts and takes up 2Us. 20gb of bandwidth for the cost of $20 of electricity per month is not a bad deal. Maybe the ISP would be more happy paying $40k/month of dedicated bandwidth from Level 3.

Per unit of distance, fiber is much cheaper than copper. 144 strands of fiber in a single cable for about 1/4 the cost of a single coax. Not sure about RJ11. Anyway, fiber itself only makes up about 1% of the total cost of a full fiber ISP. Trenching the fiber from the CO to the house is only about 30%-40% of the cost. All of the computer equipment in the CO and the homes is about 10% of the cost.

If you were starting a new ISP with absolutely no infrastructure, fiber is drastically cheaper for initial capital cost and about 20% cheaper for the ongoing costs. The only place copper wins out is that it's quicker to upgrade existing copper infrastructure, but it is NOT cheaper. Not by a long shot. Comcast paid about 8x more per customer to upgrade from DOCSIS2 to 100mb DOCSIS3 than Google fiber paid to create a whole new 1gb fiber network from scratch. On average, Google Fiber is paying about $700 per customer to get fiber to the house, but not install it; About double the price to install it. Comcast paid almost $10k per customer to go from 2 to 3.

But to get those speeds, they need to install a lawn wart, which costs more than just installing fiber. $200 of equipment can send 1gb/1gb over 80km of fiber. But instead we talk about $10k of equipment to send 500mb over 100m of copper. It's faster to deploy and a more familiar tech, but it's slower and more expensive.

Cell phones, microwave ovens, satellites, computers, huge leaps in aeroengineering. The list goes on. NASA has single handily spurned nearly all technology that we currently use. Prior to NASA, there was almost no demand for the research required for our current tech.

All tech started as a "Waste of money". An amusing physical phenomena with no practical application until it became reliable and cheap enough for an engineer to make something useful with it.

Money represents time and our current society has excess beyond belief. Anything that someone does that isn't farming is excess time. Money is not an issue. You want to talk about feeding the poor? It's not a money issue. The poor don't need to be fed by others, they need be educated and given a safe and healthy environment. Sending them food actually create more problems than it solves. Corruption forms around the influx of food donations and exacerbates issues.

What people once thought to be wasted money in tech that no one will ever use is now the backbone of EVERYTHING.

In our current point in history, we have a lot of excess time. We should be spending it exploring new tech and getting off this fleeting planet. It won't be habitable forever. We're due for another mass extinction, we best get moving, not getting chained down worrying about starving children in civil war torn areas.

Computer per watt, AMD is lacking. When you're limited by power, you can get almost 2x the compute from Intel. Even in the ideal situations, AMD is almost only faster than Intel for compute loads with little sharing that resemble parallel work similar to GPU loads.