Slashdot Mirror


The Mobile Internet You'll Be Using In 10 Years

mr sanjeev writes "After being plagued with project overruns and a scaling back of the final system, the US military's next-generation satellite communications network is another step closer to reality, with completion of the payload module for the third and final Advanced Extremely High Frequency (EHF) satellite ... If GPS and remote imaging (think Google Earth) have proven anything, it is that technology initially developed for military purposes, and extremely expensive for initial civil use, will eventually reach the point where it forms part of our daily lives without us ever being conscious of the massive investment to get to that point."

137 comments

  1. How's the speed? by Mad+Merlin · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Obviously I didn't read TFA, but does anyone know about the possible speeds on these wireless links? As it stands, wifi is still (in practice) a lot slower and less reliable than even 100 mbit ethernet. It'd be pretty interesting if this new technology could offer reliable gigabit ethernet speeds (or better!) and similar reliability over reasonably long distances (similar to current wifi). But, my instincts tell me that that's just a pipe dream.

    1. Re:How's the speed? by PunkOfLinux · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Really, any new technology is good - we will weed out the bad ideas, keep the good. Ideally, we will take the best from each and mix it together, producing a superior solution to anything else.

    2. Re:How's the speed? by davester666 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I realize how expensive this technology is every time I have to pay taxes.

      --
      Sleep your way to a whiter smile...date a dentist!
    3. Re:How's the speed? by vought · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Ten years, hunh?

      I remember reading about the imminent introduction of wildly fast new 3G cellular phone technology...in 1999. In fact, it scared a lot of investors off of other, faster microcellular wireless WANs under development.

    4. Re:How's the speed? by narcberry · · Score: 1

      Obviously I didn't read TFA

      Translated: FIRST POST!!!

      --
      Modding me -1 troll doesn't make me wrong.
    5. Re:How's the speed? by Sentry21 · · Score: 4, Informative

      More important, how's the latency? The RTT to a satellite in geosynchronous orbit is pretty high (especially considering that when requesting data, you have to double the RTT vs. streaming). The article doesn't seem to say if this is high-, low-, or medium-earth orbit.

      Low earth orbit can get you RTT to the satellite of ~13 milliseconds at 2000 km, adding ~26 ms to the average page load, whereas a geosynchronous orbit could take ~240 milliseconds, adding ~480ms to a page load - quite a difference. Of course, these are optimal times, assuming the satellite is directly overhead.

      That said, it does mention a constellation of three satellites, and there's no way that this could be practical with three satellites in a low- or even medium-earth orbit that I can see. Bandwidth is great, but latency is killer.

    6. Re:How's the speed? by gingerTabs · · Score: 3, Informative

      Move to Europe - we have a choice of carriers all across europe who can offer this :)

    7. Re:How's the speed? by MrNaz · · Score: 2, Insightful

      "without us ever being conscious of the massive investment to get to that point"

      I guarantee you that the countries that were used as an excuse to wage war are very conscious of it too.

      --
      I hate printers.
    8. Re:How's the speed? by cgenman · · Score: 3, Informative

      8.2 Mbps to 4k terminals.

      Advanced EHF is designed to provide 24 hour coverage from 65 North, to 65 South across the K and Ka sub bands, and when combined with the prototyped Extended Data Rate (XDR) terminals and systems, will offer up to 8.2 Mbps data rates for around 4,000 terminals in concurrent use per satellite footprint (whether that scales to 12,000 systems in concurrent use globally isn't clear from source material).

      Compared to current satellite rates, this is pretty good. Additionally, this allows them to bounce satellite signals quickly and reliably around the globe before having to incurr the atmosphere penalty.

      However, if you're looking for replacement for WiFi, a final 802.11N spec is only about 10 years off.

    9. Re:How's the speed? by plasmacutter · · Score: 0

      Really, any new technology is good - we will weed out the bad ideas, keep the good.

      all hail the big mouth bass!

      --
      VLC FOR MAC IS DYING! IF YOU DEVELOP, PLEASE SAVE IT!!
    10. Re:How's the speed? by houghi · · Score: 1

      How much difference would it make for me, as a European, when looking at e.g. the US based slashdot servers?

      --
      Don't fight for your country, if your country does not fight for you.
    11. Re:How's the speed? by PopeRatzo · · Score: 3, Insightful

      And if you think I'd move to shitty ass third world Europe for faster internet

      Apparently, you haven't been to Scandinavia or Ireland or even former Yugoslavia lately.

      If you think the US is going to be able to look down on "third-world" countries much longer, you haven't been reading the papers.

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
    12. Re:How's the speed? by c6gunner · · Score: 0

      Oh, well, if it's in the papers then it MUST be true! :p

    13. Re:How's the speed? by Knitebane · · Score: 1
      I guarantee you that the countries that were used as an excuse to wage war are very conscious of it too.

      Yes, most American's are quite well aware of what the War on Poverty has cost us.

      --
      "...history will look upon the act of depriving a whole nation of arms, as the blackest." --Ghandi
    14. Re:How's the speed? by ShieldW0lf · · Score: 0

      Yes, most American's are quite well aware of what the War on the Impoverished has cost us.

      There, fixed that for you...

      --
      -1 Uncomfortable Truth
    15. Re:How's the speed? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      MILSTAR and the follow on program AEHF are designed to provide secure, reliable, and protected communications. Bandwidth was not the main goal. Commercial geo satellites offer considerable more bandwidth, flexibility, and cost savings.

      MILSTAR is a relic of the Cold War and has many shortcomings. It was designed to maintain military and key leadership communications in a ballistic missile (nukes) exchange with Russia. When the Cold War ended the program had to âoereinventâ itself many times over to justify its existence and continued funding. The GAO has released many scathing reviews about MILSTAR and AEHF. It fails to meet its stated requirements and has enormous cost overruns. Us mere civilians would be wise to avoid this military technology :)

      http://www.gao.gov/archive/1999/ns99002.pdf
      http://archive.gao.gov/d4t4/130589.pdf
      http://archive.gao.gov/d32t10/146911.pdf

      In summary of the GAO report, MILSTAR & AEHF are a POS!

    16. Re:How's the speed? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Fixed that for you" has never, ever meant anything other than "Here's a strawman, and I'm going to shriek about how clever I am for setting it up! Oh God, thinking is hard!"

    17. Re:How's the speed? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Latency is very high with this system. It's naturally in a geosynchronous orbit (~22,000 mi out there?). There's that latency up, plus latency traversing crosslinks (AEHF will be crosslinked with MILSTAR, so possible multiple crosslinks), and then back down.

      Clearly not the best choice if you're planning on playing WoW. ;)

    18. Re:How's the speed? by JohnnyComeLately · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Yes, AEHF and the old MILSTAR are geo-syn which is a little over 22,000 miles out. You wouldn't use it for local comm. AEHF falls under the "specialized" communications and is meant to be anti-jam, survivable and secure. It allows new cypto keys (OTAR) to be sent, has spot beams so you can "ignore" the spoofing from the enemy nearby, and would be able to communicate through a nuclear "event" (survivable). This isn't to be used to just send an email to a buddy stateside. For anyone interested, there's 3 bands of military comm birds. Narrowband, which is UHF/UHF F/O, wideband, which is DSCS, and then "specialized", which is MILSTAR/AEHF. Each has it's own advantages and uses, in addition to the comm leased from foreign governemts and civilian comm birds.

    19. Re:How's the speed? by vought · · Score: 1

      "microcellular WAN" anyway? Fucking Wi-Max or some shit?

      If you're using 3G, you are using a microcellular WAN of sorts. Of course, it's not a peer-peer network, as previous high speed wireless data WANs have been.

      Your little 3G dongle was going to "revolutionize the industry in 2-3 years" back in 1999, and that is (along with the most horrible marketing team in history and an executive team that was no better) one of the reasons that networks like Metricom's Ricochet (technology made right here in the USA, for you xenophones out there too cowardly to post under your own ID) never took off in this country.

      The CellCos at the time were selling 3G as if it were literally just around the corner in 1999, while fast data networks like Ricochet were actually covering millions of people with 256kbps microcellular networks at the time. No one knew because the marketing sucked. And no big investors were going to bet with a company that was abut to get into competition with the deep-pocketed CellCos. "the cell companies are just going to come around with 3G in a couple of years and kill them".

      So, despite good Ricochet coverage in most major cities in 2001 and modems that got 8-12 hours on a charge while doing 200kbps down and 50-80kbps up, we now have dongles that are much faster, 3G "do it all" phones that are pretty fast...for about 3-4 hours of use. We also got a further-entrenched and consolidated telecommunications business in this country.

      Xenophobic prick.

    20. Re:How's the speed? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Any satellite orbiting above 9300mi (well below geosync) will incur 100ms+ latency assuming perfect conditions. In other words, we need mid earth orbiting satellites, and a lot of them since they will drift.

  2. I have a question by isBandGeek() · · Score: 3, Funny

    Did Al Gore invent this?

    1. Re:I have a question by MattGWU · · Score: 2, Funny

      I don't think so, Tim.

      --
      "These people look deep within my soul and assign me a number based on the order in which I joined" --Homer re:
    2. Re:I have a question by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Who is Tim?

    3. Re:I have a question by floatingrunner · · Score: 0

      no, but i think he invented ALGORithm.

    4. Re:I have a question by MrNaz · · Score: 2, Funny

      TIMMARHY!!!!!!

      Oh, you mean the other one?

      --
      I hate printers.
    5. Re:I have a question by MrNaz · · Score: 1

      No, you're thinking of AL GOREism.

      --
      I hate printers.
    6. Re:I have a question by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Don't be silly ... it was John McCain

    7. Re:I have a question by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Tim Taylor, the lead character of Home Improvement He was always saying stupid things, and his sidekick was always saying "I don't think so, Tim."

      It's an in-joke to a 90's American TV show, one that's long since been forgotten by most.

  3. Satellites=suck for communications by afidel · · Score: 4, Interesting

    It would be much better to use a small fleet of high altitude autonomous drones with communications gear on board. It would be cheaper to startup, cheaper to maintain, easier to upgrade, lower latency, etc. For certain applications satellites will still be needed, but we are at the edge of the next generation of low cost communications brought to us by continuously flying drones flying between 10 and 20 miles up.

    --
    There are 4 boxes to use in the defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, ammo. Use in that order. Starting now.
    1. Re:Satellites=suck for communications by snl2587 · · Score: 5, Funny

      It would be much better to use a small fleet of high altitude autonomous drones with communications gear on board.

      Or even better: giant balloons and a couple of routers. Plus a lot of cable.

    2. Re:Satellites=suck for communications by metalcoat · · Score: 3, Insightful

      That would bring about a few questions. How many would that require just to cover the entire United States? You state that it would be cheaper. How much do these autonomous drones cost a piece? What about the cost in terms of energy to keep charging and relaunching? What if they were to crash? With so many required to cover the entire US or Metropolitan areas surely some would come down and certainly harm someone. Just something to think about. I agree that this would make more sense, but before jumping on the bandwagon, think it out.

    3. Re:Satellites=suck for communications by afidel · · Score: 3, Insightful

      The idea behind autonomous high altitude drones is they stay up indefinitely (barring parts breaking) by using solar panels to produce and store enough energy to stay aloft. Today we have thousands of flights a day using much more massive aircraft, I don't think a few extra ultralight drones are a significant increase in the risk associated with aircraft.

      --
      There are 4 boxes to use in the defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, ammo. Use in that order. Starting now.
    4. Re:Satellites=suck for communications by TubeSteak · · Score: 1

      Or even better: giant balloons and a couple of routers. Plus a lot of cable.

      Yes, but it'll have to be mil spec cable.
      So really, we're back to Plan A, since it's cheaper to just loft a global network of communication satellites.

      --
      [Fuck Beta]
      o0t!
    5. Re:Satellites=suck for communications by Perf · · Score: 1

      It would be much better to use a small fleet of high altitude autonomous drones with communications gear on board.

      Or even better: giant balloons and a couple of routers. Plus a lot of cable.

      How about hippies in a tree?

    6. Re:Satellites=suck for communications by Chabil+Ha' · · Score: 2, Funny

      We are at the edge of the next generation of low cost communications brought to us by continuously flying drones flying between 10 and 20 miles up.

      Weather permitting, of course.

      --
      We're all hypocrites. We all have hidden parts, it's the contrast between them that make us more a hypocrite than others
    7. Re:Satellites=suck for communications by Dersaidin · · Score: 1

      Aircraft land and spend a lot of time in maintenance. If they stay up there indefinitely they wouldn't get all that attention. Balloons would have less moving parts, but they could still fail. So could the emergency parachute they'd have. Hey, they could double as a weapon!

    8. Re:Satellites=suck for communications by GordonCopestake · · Score: 0

      As this is a military project i'm sure the first thing they will say when you suggest balloons over satellites is that it's a lot harder to take down a satellite than it is to puncture a few balloons. Lots of people have access to 10-20 miles, but not many have access to 100-200 miles alititude - although thats changing.

    9. Re:Satellites=suck for communications by Vizzoor · · Score: 1

      I believe DARPA has a project for a plane that can stay in flight for several years without needing to land. You're probably just predicting the next phase of this plan.

    10. Re:Satellites=suck for communications by afidel · · Score: 1

      Twenty miles is pretty damn high. The Russians couldn't touch it until some of the later variants of the S-300 and even then effectiveness was limited. Sure against an advanced foe it would be an ineffective platform, but most of those enemies are capable of taking out low altitude satellites as you alluded to.

      --
      There are 4 boxes to use in the defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, ammo. Use in that order. Starting now.
    11. Re:Satellites=suck for communications by rho · · Score: 1

      You joke, but John Sidgmore used to yammer on about balloons all the time. It's not necessarily a crazy idea.

      --
      Potato chips are a by-yourself food.
  4. Drones by Hao+Wu · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Assuming the tech filters down, something like Google Maps could be done in real time. Companies will launch surveillance planes, blimps, or piggyback on cellular towers so that anyone can zero-in on your house.

    For a price, obviously, because my privacy is worth trading for their profits.

    --
    I suggest you read Slashdot
    1. Re:Drones by PunkOfLinux · · Score: 4, Funny

      Dude, anyone in a plane can 'zero-in' on your house. It's essentially being broadcast. It's not a breach of privacy if someone sees your house; now, if they see something that you have a reasonable expectation of, such as your wife sunbathing in the nude... that's different, and sexy. But it probably won't happen.

    2. Re:Drones by Koiu+Lpoi · · Score: 1

      such as your wife sunbathing in the nude... that's different, and sexy. But it probably won't happen.

      It definitely won't happen. He doesn't have a wife. He's on Slashdot.

    3. Re:Drones by freedom_india · · Score: 1

      It definitely won't happen. He doesn't have a wife. He's on Slashdot.

      Hey! That's not fair. I have a wife and am on slashdot. Which is to say i didn't get it for a long time now...

      --
      "Doing what i can, with what i have." ~ Burt Gummer
    4. Re:Drones by couchslug · · Score: 2, Funny

      "now, if they see something that you have a reasonable expectation of, such as your wife sunbathing in the nude... that's different, and sexy. "

      I defend my privacy by sunbathing nude.

      The last time a Black Helicopter came in visual range, it hauled ass away like it had spotted a flight of MiGs. They must have been overwhelmed by my "different, and sexy" tactic.

      --
      "This post is an artistic work of fiction and falsehood. Only a fool would take anything posted here as fact."
    5. Re:Drones by plasmacutter · · Score: 1

      Dude, anyone in a plane can 'zero-in' on your house. It's essentially being broadcast.

      I know, right?

      One of these days I need to stop painting "my house" on the roof.

      --
      VLC FOR MAC IS DYING! IF YOU DEVELOP, PLEASE SAVE IT!!
    6. Re:Drones by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      if they see something that you have a reasonable expectation of, such as your wife sunbathing in the nude... that's different, and sexy. But it probably won't happen.

      You obviously haven't seen my wife...

    7. Re:Drones by salalimo · · Score: 1

      if you are willing to sacrifice your children.. and as the post below says you need a wife first.. get them to skinny dip in ur pool.. then thats under-age porn and that can get the FBI to start invading their privacy

    8. Re:Drones by PunkOfLinux · · Score: 1

      wow... just wow... and you don't need a wife to have kids! Just ask my ex-girlfriend! That bitch has no problem getting pregnant from any guy, as long as she's not dating him...

  5. Huh? by Jane+Q.+Public · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Quote: "it forms part of our daily lives without us ever being conscious of the massive investment to get to that point."

    "Not conscious", my ass. Military investment makes up a very large part of our tax and trade burden, and many of us are conscious as hell of how much it costs. If the research did not eventually get into civilian hands, there would be hell to pay.

    I am not saying it's not worth it... just that unlike the OP, I pay attention.

    1. Re:Huh? by PunkOfLinux · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Uh... most people don't think, when they turn on their in-car nav systems, "Gee, I'm glad my tax dollars went to pay for this system!"

    2. Re:Huh? by Daniel+Dvorkin · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Uh... most people don't think, when they turn on their in-car nav systems, "Gee, I'm glad my tax dollars went to pay for this system!"

      True, but they should. A lot of the bitching about "wasteful government spending" would go away if people realized how much government programs (like this little thing called ARPANet that made a splash a few years ago ...) lead to dramatic improvements in their everyday lives.

      --
      The correlation between ignorance of statistics and using "correlation is not causation" as an argument is close to 1.
    3. Re:Huh? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ... many of us are conscious as hell of how much it costs. If the research did not eventually get into civilian hands, there would be hell to pay.

      Ah yes, the mighty "conscious as hell" constituency. Meanwhile, back in realityland, hell is long past due, and gee, no one gives a damn. Maybe everyone's been saving their outrage for when 'the research' somehow fails to reach those deserving civilian hands: on that dark day, ANARCHY!!!

    4. Re:Huh? by PopeRatzo · · Score: 1

      A lot of the bitching about "wasteful government spending" would go away if people realized how much government programs (like this little thing called ARPANet that made a splash a few years ago ...) lead to dramatic improvements in their everyday lives.

      Maybe people should realize that before they lead to "dramatic improvements in their everyday lives" that these military programs will lead to hundreds of thousands of dead people.

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
    5. Re:Huh? by mollymoo · · Score: 2, Interesting

      The fact that obscene levels of military spending sometimes produces results for the population as a whole doesn't make it good value. For example, how would the results of military spending compare to spending 80% of the military budget on higher education and academic research?

      --
      Chernobyl 'not a wildlife haven' - BBC News
    6. Re:Huh? by 0xygen · · Score: 1

      However, without any advancements, we'd still have hordes of barbarians, which also leads to hundreds of thousands of dead people.

      Without the tech, it's a much slower death too!

      Definitely worth bearing in mind how much of the industrialisation we see in the world is purely a result of the first two world wars.

    7. Re:Huh? by Daniel+Dvorkin · · Score: 1

      Honestly, I think it's a matter of the political realities, and what the money is going for. Communication and transportation (including aerospace) spending is a lot easier to sell politically when it's defense-related, but if it's done right everyone benefits: commercial aviation, the interstate highway system, satellite communications, the internet, and GPS are all fine examples of this sort of spinoff. On the other hand, medicine and basic science do indeed tend to work better on the civilian side. (Not always, at least in the former case: the origin of the modern emergency medical system lies in techniques developed for evacuating wounded soldiers from WW1 through Vietnam.) Speaking as a veteran, I'd rather that the US have a much smaller military and not do nearly so much sticking its nose in other people's business, but I also had a lot of opportunities to see how technology tested on the battlefield can improve people's lives at home once the shooting stops. Speaking as a grad student currently studying for a PhD on an NIH grant, I'm all in favor of funding for civilian research too. ;) Mainly I'm a utilitarian on this issue: what I care about is that the research gets done and the technology developed, and that matters much more to me than who's writing the checks.

      --
      The correlation between ignorance of statistics and using "correlation is not causation" as an argument is close to 1.
  6. It's tough by tftp · · Score: 3, Interesting

    I worked in ARRL "10 GHz and up" contest last weekend, at 10 and 24 GHz, and those frequencies are not for beginners. The dish has to be pointed precisely to the source, with error within a couple of degrees. If the satellites are not geostationary then tracking would be a major problem, and I think they are not geostationary due to the distance involved.

    Among other problems, microwave gear is very expensive, sensitive to abuse, and has low power output. Hams can deal with that, being happy with mere 100-200 mW at 10 GHz, but they don't mind chasing the signal as atmospheric conditions change during the day. It would be a lot of work to achieve a reliable link whenever you need it. Rain and fog are major problems in these bands. You basically have to throw power (and money) at the problem; if the military complains about "high cost" of these systems, they are surely not affordable yet to a common man. Considering that the economy just entered a tailspin, we may have bigger problems in coming years than fixing the mobile internet thing.

    1. Re:It's tough by Ihmhi · · Score: 3, Informative

      Satellite > Base Station > Your Mobile Device

      That's how I imagine it would work. Honestly, do you really think that there are going to be thousands upon thousands of direct connections to the satellites? They would probably have to be sent through switches anyway, so so long as the base station's dish doesn't get tampered with it would work just fine.

      10Ghz Space to Base Station, and a more stable protocol (Wireless N, 3G, etc.) to your mobile device.

    2. Re:It's tough by 0xygen · · Score: 1

      If that's how it is going to go, intuition seems to point towards the lowest cost per coverage still being fiber on the ground?

      I would have thought the satellite solution is aimed at providing coverage to areas where the density of people on the ground is too low for base stations to make sense, which is where (certainly in the UK) we have the most problems at the moment.

      We have a number of areas with no ADSL, and big mountains stopping the 2g/3g wireless networks where satellite could hopefully provide the remaining coverage.

    3. Re:It's tough by wrt · · Score: 0

      AEHF and its predecessor MILSTAR are both geosynchronous.

      Most of the military terminals have complex (expensive) antenna control systems to help with pointing, based on known ephemeris and position data. Even so, it is possible to acquire on a sidelobe.

      I would agree that this technology has a ways to come before a terminal is accessible to the consumer. Not to mention that AEHF/MILSTAR are both protected SATCOM systems, and thus have a lot of security features that are traded against bandwidth.

    4. Re:It's tough by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You're absolutely right. This system shares the same frequency band as MILSTAR and the terminals are VERY expensive.

      As for pointing the dish, you don't manually point an EHF antenna. You load very precise time (ideally GPS time) and up to date ephemeris data for the satellite. The terminal points the antenna for you and keeps it locked on to the sat. And they are geosyncronous, not geostationary, so they do move around in the sky a bit (varies a bit for each satellite).

      As for this being the internet of tomorrow... no not at all. The author either didn't have a clue what they were talking about (common in the EHF community). Or it's a press release designed to promote funding for these programs.

  7. The Mobile Internet I'll Be Using In 10 Years by JuzzFunky · · Score: 2, Funny

    Hope not, cos that'll mean I've somehow been drafted into the US Army and I'm not an American!!

    --
    Unexpect the expected!
    1. Re:The Mobile Internet I'll Be Using In 10 Years by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Then get off my internet you FOREIGNER!

    2. Re:The Mobile Internet I'll Be Using In 10 Years by Patrik_AKA_RedX · · Score: 2, Funny

      Hope not, cos that'll mean I've somehow been drafted into the US Army and I'm not an American!!

      "drafted" is a very PC term for being a POW now?

  8. Thurn & Taxis APRP... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

    Anonymous Pigeon Relay Protocol...

  9. Always interesting to follow. by WiiVault · · Score: 3, Insightful

    We may live in the armpit of freedom right now, but there is no doubt that our government funded initiatives like this have provided more fruit to the world than any other nation is hundreds of years. Now lets win back our freedom of speech and assembly!

    1. Re:Always interesting to follow. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

      Well, for starters, you don't seem to be doing so bad on that 1st amendment issue here on /.

      and secondly, who exactly is stopping you from going out onto the street (or other less dangerous public place) and forming an assembly?

      its been a while since I've seen american citizens being put in jail for loitering....

    2. Re:Always interesting to follow. by Foolicious · · Score: 1

      Oh shut up. You've made a tremendous leap using "the armpit of freedom". Such statements discredit everything else you say or write, whether they deserve discrediting or not. Point being, if you want people to listen, if you want to make a difference for something that you claim to care so much about, don't say such obviously stupid and exaggerated things.

      --
      Please don't use "umm" or "err" or "erm".
  10. Wont take that long by DesScorp · · Score: 3, Interesting

    These days it seems all but the most classified tech makes it into market very, very quickly. In ten years, not only will this system be a reality, but the civilian market will have figured out how to squeeze even more out of it than the military figured.

    A top Admiral in the Navy was lamenting how the Navy is having a problem selling itself as a cutting edge tech provider simply because any such new tech they get goes to the civilian sector so quickly, and further, civilian use eclipses military use. In particular, he used the Arleigh Burke class of destroyers as an example. When it was being designed in the 80's, it was absolutely cutting edge stuff. It's been in service just over 15 years, and now the Admiral lamented that a single Blackberry has more com bandwidth than an entire Burke destroyer.

    Kind of hard to sell recruits on "cutting edge" when that's the case.

    --
    Life is hard, and the world is cruel
    1. Re:Wont take that long by YttriumOxide · · Score: 3, Insightful

      The scale is much lesser, and the technology much less cool, but we get the same thing where I work. There's a development lifecycle of a couple of years, and someone somewhere in "Management" decided that they'd go with a Waterfall model of development, where our spec is TOTALLY fixed in stone about 2 years before we release the product. Every product is therefore close to 2 years behind where it really should be. Right now, this also applies to all of our competition (they're all equally as dumb as we are in that regard), so it's not hurting us too much, but I recently gave a presentation to them about how we effectively implement a better development model (I was aiming at a variant of Agile that's tailored to our business) so we can (at least until the competition catch on) be effectively two years ahead of our competition. Perhaps the US Navy should re-consider their design processes also...

      --
      My book about LSD and Self-Discovery
      Also on facebook as: DroppingAcidDaleBewan
    2. Re:Wont take that long by afidel · · Score: 3, Insightful

      The problem isn't so much the design lifecycle, it's the cost of upgrades. When you have to essentially rebuild an entire ship to retool the comm infrastructure that's a hell of a lot of cost. They design a hull to sail for 50 years, but the ship will typically have to be refitted multiple time during that span to keep up with newer technology costing several times the initial cost to build it and keeping it out of service for years in total.

      --
      There are 4 boxes to use in the defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, ammo. Use in that order. Starting now.
    3. Re:Wont take that long by YttriumOxide · · Score: 3, Interesting

      I'd say it's a bit of both. To clarify and expand on my last post, I work for an MFP manufacturer (Konica Minolta). Our hardware (print engines/scanners/accessories) tends to have a much longer lifecycle, and you can still see design elements from 10 year old equipment in things we're releasing today (although only if you know what you're looking for). Many models will come out that are only a minor incremental change in hardware while being a huge change in the software/firmware (my side of it).

      This pretty much means the same thing as far as those "upgrades" you're talking about on naval vessels (but again, a totally different scale of course). When I gave my "development process" explanation/presentation to the appropriate people in our company, they raised this exact point - how to handle it when the hardware just isn't capable of what we want these software improvements to do - they considered it to be basically a kind of solid limit where no amount of software would get around it. They were right to an extent, but only an extent. I explained to them that the system should be designed from a hardware perspective in the same sort of way as I proposed for software: Much more modular and with less "reliance" on the exact workings of other parts (as long as a common messaging system is understood by both ends, they don't need to know HOW the other end accomplishes its tasks).

      Now, I will freely admit I don't know much about Naval Vessels and maybe this concept just wouldn't fit at all, but given the example of comms - everyone has known for a LONG time that comms improve at a rapid pace, they're high-tech. So, when designing a vessel, the comms system should never be so tightly integrated in to it that it's hard to upgrade - even the channels that carry the wires around the ship should be (relatively) easy to access and replace the cables should an upgrade require it. I'm not thinking that one should be able to "swap it all out just like that", but to plan to be able to do a complete comms refit in a matter of weeks with as minimal cost as possible. They KNOW they'll need to do it (as I mentioned, it's blatantly obvious that comms tech improves rapidly, and has been obvious for many decades already), so they should plan ahead for doing so.

      --
      My book about LSD and Self-Discovery
      Also on facebook as: DroppingAcidDaleBewan
    4. Re:Wont take that long by cgenman · · Score: 2, Interesting

      In ten years, not only will this system be a reality, but the civilian market will have figured out how to squeeze even more out of it than the military figured.

      Of course, the US military is about 3 million people. The world's population is about 2 thousand times that. Once a technology makes its way into a base that large, of course it will advance more rapidly.

      "A top Admiral in the Navy was lamenting how the Navy is having a problem selling itself as a cutting edge tech provider..."

      Cutting edge tech frequently doesn't work. iPhones crash, Magellans don't get GPS locks, etc. Computerizing brings instability.

      Also, replacing a Blackberry is a lot easier than replacing the comm system on a Burke destroyer. The Blackberry only has to work with ok one or two bluetooth accessory types: the Burke needs to be 100% with all of the custom systems on board.

    5. Re:Wont take that long by Actually,+I+do+RTFA · · Score: 1

      It's been in service just over 15 years, and now the Admiral lamented that a single Blackberry has more com bandwidth than an entire Burke destroyer.

      Yeah, but an EMP kills the blackberry. And you have to compare it to civilian boats, not civilian cellphones. It's cheaper to replace one than the other.

      --
      Your ad here. Ask me how!
    6. Re:Wont take that long by 7+digits · · Score: 1

      > These days it seems all but the most classified tech makes it into market very, very quickly.

      No, you didn't got it right. The article meant that, in 10 years, everybody will be enrolled in the military due to the global draft to fight in the war after the economic collapse...

    7. Re:Wont take that long by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The reason why the time to market has decreased so much is because of government contractors. They want to push the next biggest thing out and make even more money than they did with the military. And then take into account that the military and government rely so heavily upon contractors.

    8. Re:Wont take that long by mikael · · Score: 2, Informative

      GlobalSecurity has a list of communications systems that the Arleigh Burke class of destroyers have.

      # LF through HF Receive,10 kHz - 30 MHz
      R-1051 H/URR; twelve receivers
      R-2368 H/URR; three receivers
      # HF Transmit; 2-30 MHz
      AN/URT-23D; nine transmitters
      # VHF Transmit and Receive, 30-162 MHz
      AN/GRR-211; two transceivers for non-secure voice
      ANNRC-46A; two FM transceivers for secure voice
      AN/URC-80 (V)6; one transceiver for bridge-to-bridge communications
      # UHF Transmit and Receive, 220-400 MHz
      AN/URC-93 (V)1; two transceiver for Link 4A
      AN/WSC-3 (V)7,11; fourteen transceivers
      AN/WSC-3 (V)11, have-quick transceiver
      # SATCOM Transmit and/or Receive
      AN/SSR-1A; one receiver for fleet broadcast
      ANNWSC-3A (V)3; five transceivers for digital voice
      # Infra-Red, Transmit and Receive
      AN/SAR-7A; two IR Viewers
      # Land Line Terminations, Transmit and/or Receive
      AN/SAT-2B, one IR Transmitter
      Single Channel DC Secure TTY
      # Telephone Special Communications Channel
      AN/USQ-69 (V)7; OTCIXS
      AN/USQ-69 (V)8; TADIXS
      AN/SYQ-7 (V)5 and AN/USQ-69 (V)6; NAVMACS/CUDIX
      AN/USQ-83 (V) and AN/USQ-125 (V); Link 11
      AN/SSW-1 D; Link 4A
      AN/SRQ-4; HawkLink (LAMPS MK III)
      AN/ARR-75 Sonobouy antenna

      A Blackberry operates on the 850/900/1800/1900 MHz GSM network.

      --
      Vintage computer adverts: http://www.vintageadbrowser.com/computers-and-software-ads
  11. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 4, Funny

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  12. Internet in Jail by syousef · · Score: 4, Funny

    I thought the Internet I'll be using in 10 years will be called the RIAA distribution network and that I'd be using it from a jail cell because I once hummed "Happy Birthday" at a children's birthday party sometime in the 90s without paying the piper.

    --
    These posts express my own personal views, not those of my employer
    1. Re:Internet in Jail by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      You forgot to use the TM or R symbol in your post regarding "Happy Birthday". Up against the car and spread your legs punk!

    2. Re:Internet in Jail by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You jerk! if you invited a piper to play at a kid's party and still insisted on humming the tune yourself, the least you could do is pay him for his time.

    3. Re:Internet in Jail by nurb432 · · Score: 1

      You may have been modded as funny, but don't be surprised if in 10 years the RIAA/MPAA own the commercial internet.

      They own pieces of the entry points now via companies like timewarner..

      --
      ---- Booth was a patriot ----
  13. UK by Frankie70 · · Score: 2, Interesting

    I would imagine that if you consider even the last 100 years, the UK come up trumps in terms of "provided more
    fruit to the world than any other nation".

    1. Re:UK by Warll · · Score: 2, Funny

      Oh, how do you figure that? I mean you have to admit, California produces a lot of fruit.

    2. Re:UK by WiiVault · · Score: 1

      Funny enough I would imagine that Cali is about on par with the UK. Listen I didn't mean to bash other nations, but the airplane, the car, nuclear energy.... I'm sorry but be happy with music.

    3. Re:UK by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    4. Re:UK by Frankie70 · · Score: 1

      Listen I didn't mean to bash other nations

      I never thought you meant to bash others. Never attribute to
      malice, that which can be explained by ignorance.

      airplane, the car, nuclear energy.

      I thought we were talking about Govt funded research.
      How is airplane & car govt funded research.

      Other than that
      1) Airplane
        http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Stringfellow

      2) Cars
      Far too many europeans made cars before the US did it
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Trevithick - steam powered locomotive
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fran%C3%A7ois_Isaac_de_Rivaz - Internal Combustion Engine
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karl_Benz - Inventor of the modern automobile.

      3) Nuclear Energy
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enrico_Fermi - he emigrated to the US only
      after he got the Nobel Prize

    5. Re:UK by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I would imagine you're out of your fucking mind.

    6. Re:UK by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The UK come up trumps in terms of "provided more
      fruits to the world than any other nation".

      There. Fixed that for you.

    7. Re:UK by baeksu · · Score: 1

      I think he was talking about gay people...

      --
      Gnome: A never ending quest to make unix friendly to people who don't want unix and excruciating for those that do.
  14. Re:Ungenerous Interpretation by Hal_Porter · · Score: 3, Funny

    Greetings,

    My name is Adeola Hussein, son of former Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein. I have come into the possetion of 10 North Korean Taepodong 2 ICBMs and I need your help transferring them from a warehouse in Syria to a third country.

    I have been informed you were a trustworthy fellow.

    In return for your help you will collect a commision of 1 Taepodong 2 missile.

    I look forward to doing business with you.

    --
    echo -e 'global _start\n _start:\n mov eax, 2\n int 80h\n jmp _start' > a.asm; nasm a.asm -f elf; ld a.o -o a;
  15. Hell has the internet? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I know where I'm gonna be in ten. Woncha come with?

  16. How about the internet... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The internet is a much better example of an idea conceived of for military applications becoming ubiquitous, dumb dumb.

  17. How is the radiation, will cook an eeg? by jopsen · · Score: 1

    Extremely High Frequency

    I'm usually not paranoid about radio radiation... But extremely high frequency from a satelite?

    Also, I've got to comment this thing... I'm sorry can't hold it back... :)

    If GPS and remote imaging (think Google Earth) have proven anything, it is that technology initially developed for military purposes, and extremely expensive for initial civil use, will eventually reach the point where it forms part of our daily lives without us ever being conscious of the massive investment to get to that point.

    I don't think that means that the technology could not have been developed without the military... It's just because you Americans have a problem subsidizing general purpose technology if it doesn't have a military purpose...

    1. Re:How is the radiation, will cook an eeg? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      As sad as it is, the military is on the forefront of novel "futuristic" technologies. There is a good reason for this. The US military funds a large part of professional research, directly and indirectly. Moreover, it employs tactically or strategically minded think tanks to monitor the research and suggest material or procedural improvements. (Indeed, this is basically how the internet was invented)

      The internet's military purpose was only to make everyone's life easier.

  18. Re:Ungenerous Interpretation by MrNaz · · Score: 1

    I'd love to help you but there's no space in the garage for a Taepodong 2 launch assembly :(

    --
    I hate printers.
  19. Ridicolus by Eivind · · Score: 4, Funny
    LF Low Frequency MF Medium Frequency HF High Frequency VHF Vergy High Frequency UHF Ultra High Frequency SHF Super High Frequency EHF Extremely High Frequency

    Still waiting for Ludicrously High Frequency.... Seriously..

    1. Re:Ridicolus by hankwang · · Score: 1

      Still waiting for Ludicrously High Frequency.... Seriously..

      Well, EHF is up to 0.3 THz (1 mm wavelength). Long-distance fiber links already use 1.5 micron wavelengths (200 THz); it is called infrared and it is already widely used for communication.

    2. Re:Ridicolus by Eivind · · Score: 1

      I know. I was just commenting on the folly of having a unbounded variable and labeling the three main spectra in use on a certain date "low" "medium" and "high". That way lays madness, because soon thereafter you need "very" high, thereafter "extremely" high, etc....

  20. I don't buy the GPS analogy by BlahBlahWhatBlah · · Score: 2, Informative

    It doesn't cost the military anything to have millions of GPS users using their GPS system because the satellites take a passive role. It is the device in your hand doing the calculations based on signals and timing from a few satellites. On the other hand, a communications network actually has a limited resource in the form of bandwidth to be consumed by the millions of potential users.

    1. Re:I don't buy the GPS analogy by BlahBlahWhatBlah · · Score: 1

      If GPS and remote imaging (think Google Earth) have proven anything, it is that technology initially developed for military purposes, and extremely expensive for initial civil use, will eventually reach the point where it forms part of our daily lives without us ever being conscious of the massive investment to get to that point.

      If the massive investment has to keep on happening in relation to the number of users, then we probably will be aware of it because we'll be paying for it in a monthly fee and companies will have bidding wars for their slice of the bandwidth.

  21. It's been my experience........ by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    As I have posted here before, in 1991 the DEA used GPS to track me. I can only imagine what they are using now. I'm not in that business anymore, in case anyone is listening to this conversation. I'm not even thinking about it. My DNA does not have those characteristics. My head does not resemble the shape of a criminal. Please just let me live my life and make stupid human mistakes. I don't need working on. I want to be imperfect.

  22. Screw mobile internet, i want my flying car by freedom_india · · Score: 2, Funny

    Screw the predictors' predictions.
    10 years from now...20 years from now... blah, blah...
    WHERE THE FUCK is my Flying car promised to me 50 years ago???
    Bring that first, and we will talk about stupid mobile internet...
    As if enough AOL morons don't exist already...
    The predictors should be drafted and send to Iraq: they can get to experience mobile artillery very much...

    --
    "Doing what i can, with what i have." ~ Burt Gummer
    1. Re:Screw mobile internet, i want my flying car by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I Second that!

    2. Re:Screw mobile internet, i want my flying car by evilviper · · Score: 1

      WHERE THE FUCK is my Flying car promised to me 50 years ago???

      Do you see that smoking crater over there?

      Here's the keys... Enjoy!

      --
      Slashdot gets worse every day... Pipedot: News for nerds, without the corporate slant
    3. Re:Screw mobile internet, i want my flying car by Kingrames · · Score: 1

      Clearly you don't watch Mythbusters enough, or you'd have a flying car by now.

      At least, the remains of a few.

      --
      If you can read this, I forgot to post anonymously.
  23. Massive investment by willyhill · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Yes, and that's also the reason why there should be a space program. Sadly though, many people nowadays don't see it that way. They think that reaching for the stars is "impractical" when we have so many problems here at ground level. But money spent this way, even in military endeavors, is *never* wasted. Eventually it reaches everyone in some way or another.

    Like... TANG!

    (just kidding)

    --
    The twitter monologues. Click on my homepage and be amazed.
  24. Police fight that every day by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

    its been a while since I've seen american citizens being put in jail for loitering....

    Then you're not looking very hard. More and more cities are passing increasingly punitive "anti-loitering" laws all the time. Mostly under the logic that they "clean up" downtowns and prevent panhandling.
     
    As for people getting punished for public assembly, just go to Flickr and type in "RNC" and you'll find plenty of people, almost all non-violent and cooperative, fwiw, being stopped from public assembly.
     
      As soon as the feds started this concept of "free speech zones" they had publicly admitted that free speech wasn't predictably allowed anywhere else.

  25. frost 431th post!!!! by gearloos · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    frosteth poseth 431th... 'so my fingers are old, and slow.

    --
    "Computers are a lot like Air Conditioners" "They both work great until you start opening Windows"
  26. and I thought m ham radio packet was fine by gearloos · · Score: 0, Redundant

    booming along at 1200 baud..... I get email.. anywhere in the world... whats the problem? heh

    --
    "Computers are a lot like Air Conditioners" "They both work great until you start opening Windows"
  27. Forget 10 years, we have better systems NOW. by Hozza · · Score: 3, Insightful

    The EHF satellites are great for what they've been designed to do, deliver bandwidth to 10,000's users over a large area of the earth, but that isn't what most consumers need.

    They need things that will work in urban canyons and can cope with 10,000's of users within a few square miles. This is much better served by local radio masts than satellite systems.

    The future of mobile internet is 3G and WiMAX and its rivals, and its already here.

  28. Oh..which plan is it,the one with "rollover" bits? by plasmacutter · · Score: 0

    With the trends land line providers are taking, our service plans will be a buck per bit, with roaming, higher peak time charges, overage fees of 4 bucks extra per bit, and of course, for the "polite" users, "rollover bits".

    Base price, 200 bucks a month for 30 bits, + unlimited off-peak (11 pm to 4 am), + your bit handling fee, your connection fees (per page of course), and of course 40 bucks a month rental charge for the modems.

    Exceed your cap and you'll be taken down to 28 kilobits a second, just like the good old aol days.

    --
    VLC FOR MAC IS DYING! IF YOU DEVELOP, PLEASE SAVE IT!!
  29. Never aware? by tubapro12 · · Score: 1

    without us ever being conscious of the massive investment to get to that point

    You must be rich, us middle-class are very aware of how much it costs every time we pay taxes...

  30. When I saw the headline, I thought... by Jogar+the+Barbarian · · Score: 1
    --
    3. Profit!
    2. ???
    1. On Soviet Slashdot, a Beowulf cluster of alien Natalie Portman overlords welcomes YOU!
  31. technology trickle down theory by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Oh yeah? Then where's my jet propulsion backpack?

  32. Yes! by QZTR · · Score: 1

    "I would imagine...the UK comes up trumps..."

    Yes, you would have to imagine that.

    I kid I kid! (not really)

    --
    To quote LongNoi "QZTR was right and won't leave me alone because I called him a moron when I was wrong" FYS
  33. Wow! Fortune Tellers! by PHPNerd · · Score: 1

    How do they know I'll be running that in 10 years? Crazy! They must be spying on me...in the future!

  34. Jesus stop trying so hard by QZTR · · Score: 1

    "How is airplane & car government funded research"

    The US Air Force and CARB, that's how, and we were talking about research, not "firsts", nice try changing the goalposts.

    Now, what's next? Well Fermi got his funding from the US Government, so his citizenship is irrelevant, since as you say, we were discussing government funding not place of birth.

    Two people on your list aren't from and seemingly got nothing from the UK, so WTF?

    Then there's Stringfellow, who got his funding privately and developed very little of any practical ongoing use, and made a dubious "first powered flight" that still gets eye rolls when mentioned.

    Last there's Trevithick, who was also seemingly privately funded, and wasn't even the first anyway, William Murdoch beat him to it.

    Then there's the fact that most of your list is well outside "the last hundred years"...

    Listen, a little nationalistic rivalry is fun, but you've crossed the line into tryiing way too hard.

    --
    To quote LongNoi "QZTR was right and won't leave me alone because I called him a moron when I was wrong" FYS
  35. Silly reporter, satelllites are for soldiers by time961 · · Score: 1
    Tight-beam high-bandwidth satellite radio links are great for military use, where it's unlikely that you can depend on existing communication infrastructure.

    However, for most commercial uses, it's just silly: even if it were just being used as backhaul for base stations, the requirement for directional antennas alone means that it's way more expensive and less reliable than conventional alternatives, and bandwidth to satellites can't help but be vastly more expensive than terrestrial connections, either wired or wireless. Imagining direct connections from laptops to satellites is even sillier.

    There are places where this might actually make sense commercially, like cruise ships and such, but there just aren't that many other places in the middle of nowhere that have enough well-heeled customers to make satellite links a worthwhile proposition.

    And, of course, there's latency. Absent a repeal of the lightspeed limit (an action favored by the outgoing Cheney administration, but unlikely to pass before November), going up to geosynchronous orbit and back down will be much worse than going to the other side of the world by fiber. Those folks who have DirecNet experience this today, and it is physically impossible for it to get any better.

  36. So? by QZTR · · Score: 1

    So, you mention the anti-loitering laws, but fail to mentio whether they work, and more importantly that the laws protect other citizen's rights, namely customers and property owners.

    But who gives a fuck about the rights of people who are actually useful and productive, there are downtrodden residentially challenged citizens to protect! They should absolutely have the right to soil themselves in my doorway and run off my customers...

    As to the "free speech zones", I'm so tired of this stupidity.

    Did it ever occur to you that maybe the argument is "some of the more radical protesting is unsafe to the general public, so we're forced to move the protests to an area we can more effectivley monitor".

    Of course it hasn't, your kind always asssumes the worst, despite the fact that if someone, like one of those idiot protesters at the republican convention, sprayed me with urine and feces there sure as fuck would be a murder.

    But hell no! Why should we hold idiot citizens who abuse the rights of others to task, especially when the police are such an easy target?

    Of course, thinking that way is direct evidence of colossal intellectual laziness, butt who cares! FUCK THE PO-LICE!

    --
    To quote LongNoi "QZTR was right and won't leave me alone because I called him a moron when I was wrong" FYS
  37. Not the internet of tomorrow by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

    EHF communications is NOT the mobile internet of tomorrow. In fact AEHF won't even be the military's SATCOM system of choice when bandwidth is the primary requirement. They're generally going to turn to WGS (http://www.afspc.af.mil/library/factsheets/factsheet.asp?id=5582) or even more likely, commercial SATCOM because that's where the REAL bandwidth is.

    Don't get me wrong EHF SATCOM does what's it designed to do very well. It's protected. The narrow beam widths on uplink and downlink provide low probability of detection & intercept (LPI/LPD). Being that it's a high-gain system (narrow beams, high power) coupled with frequency jumping across an enormous spectrum it makes it very hard to jam. Lastly, and least practical to a civilian user, EHF communications are more resistant to the effects of atmospheric scintillation in a post-nuclear environment.

    So, if in 10 years, you find yourself in need of anti-jam, LPI/LPD communications following a major nuclear attack, then YES! EHF SATCOM will be there for you! :)

    PS EHF may survive a nuke attack, but heavy rain does knock you off the air! Gotta take the good with the bad. :)

  38. Latency by nurb432 · · Score: 1

    Wont matter in 10 years, as all we will be able to afford to do is read a couple of emails and dream of the days before oppressive metered service that wasn't monitored for content.

    --
    ---- Booth was a patriot ----
  39. Costs? by IronChef · · Score: 1

    I am too cheap to pay $30/mo for mobile internet on my phone. A service beamed from OUTER SPACE doesn't sound like it is going to be a bargain.

    The mobile internet that I am using in 10 years will be cheap, or I will be relying on unicorn-rare wlan hot spots as I do today.

  40. Re:Ungenerous Interpretation by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ...technology initially developed for military purposes, and extremely expensive for initial civil use, will eventually reach the point where it forms part of our daily lives without us ever being conscious of the massive investment to get to that point.

    So true. Though I admit I'm frustrated by how long Wal*Mart is taking to stock those do-it-yourself ICBMs.

    Case in point.

    The methods of making the booster fuel are being integrated into the automotive market.
    The onboard chips for guidance, etc. have long since worked their way onto Wal-Mart's shelves in the form of everything from ipods, usb drives, and computers to the sensors in the kitchen hardware.
    The large-scale manufacturing & precision building of the tanks, body, etc. of the missiles have been adopted into the manufacturing sectors.

    So the original point is valid, and yes I know you're being funny but that's the point- most people think "Gee, if I don't see nukes in Wal-Mart, then everything that went into making that nuke must also not be in Wal-Mart" which is just plain wrong.

  41. It's not scalable, therefore no mass usage by sevenfactorial · · Score: 1

    Satellite photography and the GPS system have the property of being usable by large numbers of people with no reduction in quality. A wireless internet will degrade as usage increases. Therefore we may not see this technology open itself to widespread usage in the way Google Earth and GPS have.

  42. Actually they didn't. by Jane+Q.+Public · · Score: 1

    The military only released very low-resolution (within about 100-200 yards) GPS to the public. They did NOT release high-resolution GPS reception. It took some civilians a lot of work to figure out how to get high-resolution GPS navigation from the satellites without using the military's own high-resolution system, before it was very useful to the public.