Hmm, that example isn't terribly reassuring, especially given the current legal battles cropping up over water rights. Given the amount of capitol that it takes for the company to put the satellite up in space and keep it in geosynchronous orbit, I think they'd get a bit pissy if someone starts mooching power (I think I would).
Ah, I always think of radio waves as being longer than microwaves (AM-FM spectrum), but you're right the radio spectrum does cover microwaves. Thanks for pointing that out.
I'm sorry, but what's all this talk about microwaves? Didn't the article say that we're dealing with radio waves or am I missing some sort of implication here? This seems perfectly reasonable, I've heard of people in military zones building series antennas to serve menial electrical needs (back in the day where wireless communication involved high-power radio transmissions). It created a wretched dead-zone for the troops but certainly didn't cook anyone; I believe the wavelengths are too large to bother organic molecules. Hell it's even possible to do this with AM-FM radio today (though you won't get much out of it). The only issue I'd see is the crafty old electrical engineer living close by who decides to build a series antenna to skim his power needs off the company.
I was hoping someone would say this. Doesn't this approach institutionalize a means by which the government can make it more expensive to express and consume content that it finds objectionable? This a back door method to restrict our most basic of liberties; it's essentially the foundation for a dissent tax.
The situation that is described by this editorial piece is cause by something that we are all to familiar with: our culture has not yet gotten used to the extraordinary communicative power that the internet has given to people. I can't really believe that anyone would think that legislating some clumsy anti-snooping law would really fix the issue, rather we'll simply have to watch it play out. The real question at hand is which will change first, the manic inclination of people to express themselves or the hand-wringing tendencies of companies disbelieve that their employees actually have lives outside of their work. I'm optimistic on this point in that many stubborn, opinionated internet users are productive members of society, meaning that eventually the job market will be forced to pull themselves out of the past and accept the diversity within their workforce. Does anyone really think that the companies who hire the least opinionated/controversial in society are going to have a competitive edge of innovation? Of course not, progressive thinking in this situation will benefit the companies that are so inclined to apply it. We just have to tough it out through a couple decades of waiting for this antique hiring practice to fade (unfortunately I'll be getting out of grad school during that period and let's just say I certainly haven't held back on my self expression).
As a graduate student in physics at RPI, I'm often disappointed by the lack of physical examples and applications of the material that plagues the teaching of our field. While projects on the latest in our field is terribly sexy, I'd encourage you not to forget that the basics of physics holds some great and terribly interesting insights. I've found that in our rush to learn the latest craze in the field, many HIGHLY intelligent students in physics lack a comprehensive understanding of the basics of their field. While I can't come up with any particularly good suggestions in my scotch-induced stupor, might I suggest some sort of clever experimental process to confirm lower level theory that ties together course work that the students have already encountered.
Slashdot Mirror
Hmm, that example isn't terribly reassuring, especially given the current legal battles cropping up over water rights. Given the amount of capitol that it takes for the company to put the satellite up in space and keep it in geosynchronous orbit, I think they'd get a bit pissy if someone starts mooching power (I think I would).
Ah, I always think of radio waves as being longer than microwaves (AM-FM spectrum), but you're right the radio spectrum does cover microwaves. Thanks for pointing that out.
I'm sorry, but what's all this talk about microwaves? Didn't the article say that we're dealing with radio waves or am I missing some sort of implication here? This seems perfectly reasonable, I've heard of people in military zones building series antennas to serve menial electrical needs (back in the day where wireless communication involved high-power radio transmissions). It created a wretched dead-zone for the troops but certainly didn't cook anyone; I believe the wavelengths are too large to bother organic molecules. Hell it's even possible to do this with AM-FM radio today (though you won't get much out of it). The only issue I'd see is the crafty old electrical engineer living close by who decides to build a series antenna to skim his power needs off the company.
I was hoping someone would say this. Doesn't this approach institutionalize a means by which the government can make it more expensive to express and consume content that it finds objectionable? This a back door method to restrict our most basic of liberties; it's essentially the foundation for a dissent tax.
The situation that is described by this editorial piece is cause by something that we are all to familiar with: our culture has not yet gotten used to the extraordinary communicative power that the internet has given to people. I can't really believe that anyone would think that legislating some clumsy anti-snooping law would really fix the issue, rather we'll simply have to watch it play out. The real question at hand is which will change first, the manic inclination of people to express themselves or the hand-wringing tendencies of companies disbelieve that their employees actually have lives outside of their work. I'm optimistic on this point in that many stubborn, opinionated internet users are productive members of society, meaning that eventually the job market will be forced to pull themselves out of the past and accept the diversity within their workforce. Does anyone really think that the companies who hire the least opinionated/controversial in society are going to have a competitive edge of innovation? Of course not, progressive thinking in this situation will benefit the companies that are so inclined to apply it. We just have to tough it out through a couple decades of waiting for this antique hiring practice to fade (unfortunately I'll be getting out of grad school during that period and let's just say I certainly haven't held back on my self expression).
As a graduate student in physics at RPI, I'm often disappointed by the lack of physical examples and applications of the material that plagues the teaching of our field. While projects on the latest in our field is terribly sexy, I'd encourage you not to forget that the basics of physics holds some great and terribly interesting insights. I've found that in our rush to learn the latest craze in the field, many HIGHLY intelligent students in physics lack a comprehensive understanding of the basics of their field. While I can't come up with any particularly good suggestions in my scotch-induced stupor, might I suggest some sort of clever experimental process to confirm lower level theory that ties together course work that the students have already encountered.