Wifi only works because of the very short range it has. And more to the point, if your Wifi does not work because of interefence from someone else there is nothing you can do about it.
Sound thinking there. The GMO crops "raison d'etre" is to sell more weedkiller, eh? So farmers willingly buy this more expensive GMO crop JUST so they can buy more weedkiller? Yeah, that makes sense. Or maybe Monsanto is making this GMO crop JUST so it can sell more glyphosphate, which has no patent protection and is dirt cheap? Yeah, that makes sense. And of course, before GMO crops they weren't spraying pesticides everywhere, right? And those pesticides could never have affected insect populations, right? And, oh yeah, Monsanto destroyed every food crop except their own, right?
And, 2 engines are actually more reliable than 4 - less that can go wrong.
Right, which is why nobody would ever buy a server with 2 power supplies when 1 will do. Nobody would ever build a cluster of low power systems rather than using a single high power machine, etc.
Number of failures does not matter near as much as number of catastrophic faliures. If 'number of failures' was all that mattered nobody would ever use redundancy.
It is important to notice the difference between having 'access to' 25Mb/s download and having 25Mb/s download. I have 'access' to 100Mb/s download, but I do not see the need for it or wish to pay for it, so I only have 15Mb/s download.
It would be interesting to see how many people actually have 25Mb/s download.
Yeah, they're still using designs from the 50s. The cars are still made of wood and have ceiling fans (oops, they are stainless steel/fiberglass and have A/C).
The cars currently being made (R188) were designed in 2011. Previous generation (R160) was designed in 2005. Prior to that was the R143 (2010) and the R142 (1999).
Uh, yeah. Of the 6400 cars in the NYC subway, more than 4300 were built in the last 15 years. Only 1400 are more than 30 years old, only 300 more than 40 years old, and none more than 50 years old.
Nope. The key to part 15 is that you have no regulatory protection from interference with your unlicensed device. That is what the 'must accept interference' statement means.
If you have no regulatory protection, then there is absolutely no requirement that I don't interfere with your device, since such a requirement would be by definition regulatory protection.
If there is no requirement that I don't interefere with your unlicensed device, but there is a requirement that I don't create harmful intereference, what is the only possible explanation? That I can't interfere with licensed operations.
The 'above comments' incorrectly make the assumption that because there are some requirements on the 5GHz band for frequency hopping, etc that must be so that WiFi devices do not interfere with each other. That is not the case. The requirements are there so you don't sit on one frequency and cause interference to weather and military radar (licensed operations).
Well, since you are licensed under those rules you should understand that the purpose of those rules is to not cause interference with weather and military radar systems, and not to prevent interference with other wifi devices. So the point still stands - you can not interfere with licensed services, and nobody cares if you are interfered with.
That does not mean what you think it does. Those are not technical rules, those are rules of operation. And what they mean is this:
If someone complains about your unlicensed device interfering, you have to stop using the device, and you, as the operator of an unlicensed device can not complain.
In other words, you can not interfere with a licensed operator, but you are in no way protected from anyone, licensed or not, interfering with your device.
Other than radiated power, there are no technical restrictions on unlicensed devices. There are certainly no rules about frequency hopping and exponential backoff. Those things may well be in the WiFi spec, but they are in no way law.
There is no such rule. The things you mentioned are all in place to get around interference caused by other devices, not to prevent interfering. Anyone can legally make a device that uses those frequencies, and there is no requirement at all that they do what you said.
Cautions do not work, that has been proven time and time again. Everybody thinks they are a superior driver and/or their job is so important that they go out. And then they get in an accident, or get stuck, and emergency services have to deal with that. Meanwhile, the plows can't get the roads cleared because of all the people on them.
A ban, on the other hand, keeps most people off the road. Emergency services have the roads to themselves so they can better serve the community. And the plows get the roads cleared MUCH quicker, so EVERYONE can get back on the roads quicker.
The governor of NY was discussing this just this morning. A few weeks ago Buffalo got hit with 7 feet of snow. The state cautioned people to stay off the roads, but the local people thought 'we are used to this, we can deal with it', and went out. As a result, there were people stuck on highways for days, and it took a very long time to get everything cleaned up. Then people were complaining 'why didn't you ban travel'.
That is exactly my point. So quit with the 'trying to ensure there are enough drivers' nonsense. They are trying to make as much money as they can, and nothing else.
Exactly my point. They are only trying to make money for themselves, and if exploiting a disaster make them more money, they will do that. Yet here we have people (like the OP) trying to claim that they are 'ensuring there are enough drivers'. Bullshit.
How is it any less arbitrary than 32 is the freezing point and 212 is the boiling point at normal pressure? The both just (arbitrarily) assign values to specific events.
Which do you think is more likely to occur - injury to your family from incorrect braking by an automated system in strange outlier conditions, or injury to your family from incorrect braking when some texting jackass doesn't notice that traffic has slowed or stopped? Your logic is similar to people who argue against seat belt use because in some possible but very unlikely situations it could cause a problem, while ignoring the fact that the vast majority of the time it helps.
Consider that Local Motors themselves said the cars are not street legal.
I had not considered the 'we're disruptive so laws don't apply to us' aspect. Assuming they want to operate as a legitimate company and not have a bunch of dead customers, I am sure even you could find some laws in here that would make a 'design it yourself' car made out of printed plastic just a bit of a problem, especially in the 'crashworthiness' section.
My point was that all of the common parts (ie the ones that you can actually make money selling) are already available from third parties. No auto manufacturer is getting rich selling climate control sliders or even climate control heads. Yes, those parts may be expensive to buy, but that does not mean they are some sort of cash cow for the manufacturer like the OP seems to think. I suspect that the manufacturers wouldn't carry those parts at all if they could avoid it, because they are money losers.
Slashdot Mirror
Wifi only works because of the very short range it has. And more to the point, if your Wifi does not work because of interefence from someone else there is nothing you can do about it.
And how do you 'know' this? There are many plants that secrete insecticide.
So, we shouldn't use glyphosphate because plants could become resistant and then we can't use glyphosphate? That doesn't make much sense.
Sound thinking there. The GMO crops "raison d'etre" is to sell more weedkiller, eh? So farmers willingly buy this more expensive GMO crop JUST so they can buy more weedkiller? Yeah, that makes sense. Or maybe Monsanto is making this GMO crop JUST so it can sell more glyphosphate, which has no patent protection and is dirt cheap? Yeah, that makes sense. And of course, before GMO crops they weren't spraying pesticides everywhere, right? And those pesticides could never have affected insect populations, right? And, oh yeah, Monsanto destroyed every food crop except their own, right?
And, 2 engines are actually more reliable than 4 - less that can go wrong.
Right, which is why nobody would ever buy a server with 2 power supplies when 1 will do. Nobody would ever build a cluster of low power systems rather than using a single high power machine, etc.
Number of failures does not matter near as much as number of catastrophic faliures. If 'number of failures' was all that mattered nobody would ever use redundancy.
It is important to notice the difference between having 'access to' 25Mb/s download and having 25Mb/s download. I have 'access' to 100Mb/s download, but I do not see the need for it or wish to pay for it, so I only have 15Mb/s download.
It would be interesting to see how many people actually have 25Mb/s download.
Yeah, they're still using designs from the 50s. The cars are still made of wood and have ceiling fans (oops, they are stainless steel/fiberglass and have A/C).
The cars currently being made (R188) were designed in 2011. Previous generation (R160) was designed in 2005. Prior to that was the R143 (2010) and the R142 (1999).
Uh, yeah. Of the 6400 cars in the NYC subway, more than 4300 were built in the last 15 years. Only 1400 are more than 30 years old, only 300 more than 40 years old, and none more than 50 years old.
Nope. The key to part 15 is that you have no regulatory protection from interference with your unlicensed device. That is what the 'must accept interference' statement means.
If you have no regulatory protection, then there is absolutely no requirement that I don't interfere with your device, since such a requirement would be by definition regulatory protection.
If there is no requirement that I don't interefere with your unlicensed device, but there is a requirement that I don't create harmful intereference, what is the only possible explanation? That I can't interfere with licensed operations.
The 'above comments' incorrectly make the assumption that because there are some requirements on the 5GHz band for frequency hopping, etc that must be so that WiFi devices do not interfere with each other. That is not the case. The requirements are there so you don't sit on one frequency and cause interference to weather and military radar (licensed operations).
Well, since you are licensed under those rules you should understand that the purpose of those rules is to not cause interference with weather and military radar systems, and not to prevent interference with other wifi devices. So the point still stands - you can not interfere with licensed services, and nobody cares if you are interfered with.
That does not mean what you think it does. Those are not technical rules, those are rules of operation. And what they mean is this:
If someone complains about your unlicensed device interfering, you have to stop using the device, and you, as the operator of an unlicensed device can not complain.
In other words, you can not interfere with a licensed operator, but you are in no way protected from anyone, licensed or not, interfering with your device.
Other than radiated power, there are no technical restrictions on unlicensed devices. There are certainly no rules about frequency hopping and exponential backoff. Those things may well be in the WiFi spec, but they are in no way law.
There is no such rule. The things you mentioned are all in place to get around interference caused by other devices, not to prevent interfering. Anyone can legally make a device that uses those frequencies, and there is no requirement at all that they do what you said.
Cautions do not work, that has been proven time and time again. Everybody thinks they are a superior driver and/or their job is so important that they go out. And then they get in an accident, or get stuck, and emergency services have to deal with that. Meanwhile, the plows can't get the roads cleared because of all the people on them.
A ban, on the other hand, keeps most people off the road. Emergency services have the roads to themselves so they can better serve the community. And the plows get the roads cleared MUCH quicker, so EVERYONE can get back on the roads quicker.
The governor of NY was discussing this just this morning. A few weeks ago Buffalo got hit with 7 feet of snow. The state cautioned people to stay off the roads, but the local people thought 'we are used to this, we can deal with it', and went out. As a result, there were people stuck on highways for days, and it took a very long time to get everything cleaned up. Then people were complaining 'why didn't you ban travel'.
That is exactly my point. So quit with the 'trying to ensure there are enough drivers' nonsense. They are trying to make as much money as they can, and nothing else.
Exactly my point. They are only trying to make money for themselves, and if exploiting a disaster make them more money, they will do that. Yet here we have people (like the OP) trying to claim that they are 'ensuring there are enough drivers'. Bullshit.
Huh? NYC had a travel ban, as did Westchester, Rockland, Orange, Putnam, Duchess, and Ulster counties (at least).
Who still needs to eat? The billionaire owners of Uber?
'They' don't want people on the roads at all. The last thing they want is someone dimwit who says 'for the right price I will ignore the travel bans'.
They could still pay the drivers more, without charging the passengers more, if they actually want people to believe they are only trying to help.
How is it any less arbitrary than 32 is the freezing point and 212 is the boiling point at normal pressure? The both just (arbitrarily) assign values to specific events.
Which do you think is more likely to occur - injury to your family from incorrect braking by an automated system in strange outlier conditions, or injury to your family from incorrect braking when some texting jackass doesn't notice that traffic has slowed or stopped? Your logic is similar to people who argue against seat belt use because in some possible but very unlikely situations it could cause a problem, while ignoring the fact that the vast majority of the time it helps.
Consider that Local Motors themselves said the cars are not street legal.
I had not considered the 'we're disruptive so laws don't apply to us' aspect. Assuming they want to operate as a legitimate company and not have a bunch of dead customers, I am sure even you could find some laws in here that would make a 'design it yourself' car made out of printed plastic just a bit of a problem, especially in the 'crashworthiness' section.
44 HOURS per machine. Almost 80000 times as long as stamping.
My point was that all of the common parts (ie the ones that you can actually make money selling) are already available from third parties. No auto manufacturer is getting rich selling climate control sliders or even climate control heads. Yes, those parts may be expensive to buy, but that does not mean they are some sort of cash cow for the manufacturer like the OP seems to think. I suspect that the manufacturers wouldn't carry those parts at all if they could avoid it, because they are money losers.