Different carriers use different technology for the conversation between the handset and the cell tower. GSM, TDMA, and CDMA were the three technologies the last time I looked. You have to look at the technologies your phone has, and the technologies that the carriers use, to see what works with what.
It's kinda like am and fm on the radio. A long time ago, you could get AM-only radios. Only worked with AM radio stations. Or pay more for AM-FM radios that worked with all radio stations.
Anotehr problem with the "date of filing" is that patents can (could? did this change?) be amended. So one path to riches was to file a patent, keep it "in process" until a similar-sounding technology matures and becomes widespread, then amend the patent to cover the by-then common technology, and then sue.
See "Lemuelson" for the classic example of this kind of parasitic indulgence.
learning how to not alienate the rest of the world...
It's just a little too close to the liberal view spewed over the airwaves these days that ignores detail in any situation just so they can point fingers.
Huh? What color is the sky on your world? Because we don't live on the same planet. What is this "liberal view" that is "spewed over the airwaves these days" that "ignores detail" so the liberals can "point fingers"?
Pulling out now will result in a civil war, with millions displaced and hundreds of thousands (perhaps millions, once disease, starvation, and dehydration are added) of casualties. With a possibility that the civil war spreads to include Iran, Turkey, Syria, and/or Saudi Arabia.
The question is, will staying and spending blood and treasure increase the chance of avoiding a civil war? The more time goes on, the less I think the answer to this question is "yes".
The US cannot "finish the war" unless the other side (which seems to be the Sunni-based al Zarqawi-inspired insurgency) giving up. And the insurgency has an alternative to giving up, which is melting back into the population and waiting until the foreign occupiers leave, and then trying to take over. The more the US tries to kill all the insurgents, the more people become so pissed off that they join the insurgency.
The choices that the US has are to escalate the war (takes more money, and more troops than we have), continue to occupy the country for a while and then leave, or to leave sooner rather than later. In the dreams of the administration, leaving later leaves a native government in place strong enough to resist the insurgency. Show me evidence to support the dream becoming real, and I'll evaluate it.
The shuttle was designed in the 1970s, when there was still optimism about the space program, and the big concern was the cost of a launch. Which too many folks presumed was dominated by the cost of fabricating the launch vehicle. So it was presumed that a reusable launch vehicle would be an order of magnitude or two less expensive to run than expendible launch vehicles. So "reusable" got set into stone. Which then ran up against the actual difficulties of flying into orbit and getting back down. From which came the expensive and fussy tiles (each one is different! There are thousands...), and the fussy and dangerous Solid Rocket Booster/External Tank decisions. So they got a fussy, delicate, dangerous, partly-reusable ship that takes an awful lot of maintenance to lauch, land, and turn around for another launch.
Then throw non-negotiable requirements from the DoD (the cargo bay is just the right size to fit a 1970-s era spy satellite) into the mix.
NASA never perceived its job to be reducing the actual cost of providing a national space-launch capability. They never focused on that as a goal, just used it in the sales pitch.
Bush did say "Iraq is now the central front in the War on Terror".
Bush did say that the US would not stand for countries providing WMDs to terrorists. So he had to invade Iraq.
And not everyone in the intelligence agencies thought there were WMDs in Iraq. Especially after the investigators started going where the CIA told them to go and not finding what the CIA said they would find.
The thing is, Japan attacked the United States. And then Germany declared war on the United States.
Iraq never attacked the United States. Or the United Kingdom. Instead, the President of the United States and his advisors used an actual attack on the US by followers of Osama bin Laden to scare the population, and then lied about Iraq and Saddam Hussein's cooperation with the terrorists to generate support for a US invasion of Iraq.
Fighting the insurgency in Iraq has cost more than the Marshall plan.
I carp and moan about the incompetent civilian leadership that have made bad decision after bad decision. To keep the public support for the war, you have to be honest with the public. Lying about the reasons for going to war was mistake number one. The military leaders are also complicit. Generals who gave honest, accurate assessments of what it would take to pacify Iraq, like Gen. Shinseki, were punished. The toadies who told the civilian fools what they wanted to hear were rewarded. The leadership in the intelligence services failed similarly, by not supporting the analysts when they came up with answers that the civilian leaders did not want to hear.
I have not seen the leadership in this country articulate a plan for victory. "More of the same" is all they promise. More civilians killed, more military killed, more money spent. For what? How is continuing on in the current course going to lead to a good outcome? Who are "they", who know how to defeat us?
That doesn't sound much like my Freshman year at a well-respected Engineering school in Ohio. Granted, my experience started a quarter century ago...
Two semesters of Calculus, two semesters of Physics, tho semesters of Chemistry, Chem Lab, a Social Science intro (I chose Economics), a Humanities intro (I chose music theory), a Foreign Language (I continued the German I had taken in High School), Computer Science, and an elective, Energy and Society. But then again, we weren't expected to choose a major until the end of the Freshman year. I started with an advisor in the Mechanical Engineering department (I thought I wanted to design and build robots), and he steered me to Systems Engineering.
Now, I write software.
College is for generalized education. And a bit of specialized training.
We can't possibly ask why the terrorists hate us. Why they justify their actions to themselves. It would open up too much dirty laundry. Like Mr. Rumsfeld supplying Chemical Weapons to and assuring Mr. Hussein his use thereof would cause a gentle slap on the wrists. Not a slap, so much as a caress. Remind the world that a large fraction of the wealth of the "developing" world was transferred to the "developed" world through colonialism.
1/3rd of Gaza (and half the water resources; important in a desert) for 12,000 "settlers", and 2/3rds of Gaza for the 1,500,000 who lived there or evacuated there as refugees? Sounds like a fair settlement to me. That couldn't cause any resentment.
I mean, really, just because the scientists have all of their atmospheric modelling, and collections of data to support the anthropogenic rise in atmospheric CO2, and the predictions of the impacts of further increases.
On the other side, you have representatives of carbon-based energy industries, saying that it's all OK and there's no need to do anything drastic about it, like reducing the amount of CO2 we put in the atmosphere.
Stating the obvious, sometimes you get a feeling of security by keeping a low profile. If something is popular it naturally attracts saboteurs, and therefore has a better chance of being exploited, thereby ruining its reputation. Some might brand less popular OSes as insecure as Windows -- we just don't hear of as many incidents related to breaches.
And that very same reason, low market share, is why there are so few exploits for IIS and so many more exploits for Apache.
Oh, wait a minute. Reality is the other way around.
Remember, the laws that create Intellectual "Property" _are_ government butting into the market. Supposedly, for the greater good. I don't see it. I see the system gamed for the enrichment of individuals who have contributed to nothing but the gaming of the system (e.g. Lemuelson, BSA).
I don't see the good in the government fighting the production of alcohol. I don't see the good in the government fighting a war on abstract nouns, e.g. Poverty, Drugs, or Terror.
This post is one of the most insulting posts I've seen in ages.
It seems to assert that the people who make computer models are too stupid to avoid linear extrapolations from cyclic data.
You can't have a consensus among reputable, peer-reviewed scientists when discussing new results.
Yes, the article reports a prediction of an ice-free arctic (at the end of summer) in 65 years. That's the result of a model. But the article also reports that the September ice coverage of the arctic was at a record low in September 2004, which followed a record low in September 2003, which followed a record low in September 2002. Ice coverage at the end of August, 2005 is 1/6th lower (2.0 million square miles vs. 2.4 million square miles) than it has averaged since we've had satellites watching. And that the more of the arctic ocean that is ice free, the more of the ice melts.
We won't be able to build large scale habitats in space with materials lifted up from the surface of the earth. We'll need to get materials from space: the moon, mars, and the asteroids. Maybe water from comets. To get those materials, we'll need people to be able to live and work up there. Which starts with permanent, self-sustaining colonies on the moon and mars. Which will probably require clanking replicators (see wikipedia) to produce the power infrastructure we'll need up there. Make sure you build an "off" switch, guys!
Humanity cannot destry earth, as in the 8,000 mile sphere of iron and rock.
Humanity is also very unlikely to eradicate life on earth. There's too much, and life is too clever.
We do stand a good chance of affecting global climate in such a way that the trillions of dollars in investments we've made in food production suddenly becomes inappropriate because the climate changes over years-to-decades. And then hundreds of millions to billions of people starve or dehydrate or die in migration to places where there are food and water and people consuming that food and water who don't want no foreigners crossing the border.
Our entire dating technology is completely and utterly circular.
No, it isn't. Whoever told you that was lying.
We truly do know that carbon dating tells us when the carbon in a living creature was absorbed from the atmosphere, and these numbers are good from 150 to 50,000 years before present. Other radioactive methods are good for determining when rocks solidified, millions of years ago. Counting and comparing tree rings is good for 9,000 years.
AKAImBatman, you don't seem to realize that you're swimming in an Egyptian river.
Life will continue on, and those of us who survive will carry on. Which will be cold comfort to those who struggle and perish.
Human-induced climate change, which you dismiss as no big deal, is being demonstrated over and over again. Record reductions in arctic sea ice for the fourth year in a row. Don't worry. Be happy.
Someone can do the math about the number of calories produced by a forest fire or volcano. The continual increase in atmospheric CO2 and Methane traps an increasing fraction of the sun's energy. "But that's okay". AKABatman, this is de nile. De Nile, AKABatman.
So the fresh water melt might disrupt the gulf stream, the "atlantic conveyor" that keeps Europe's climate warm and growing season long. So what if the snows come earlier and melt later and crops fail and people starve. "We'll adapt."
Slashdot Mirror
Different carriers use different technology for the conversation between the handset and the cell tower. GSM, TDMA, and CDMA were the three technologies the last time I looked. You have to look at the technologies your phone has, and the technologies that the carriers use, to see what works with what.
It's kinda like am and fm on the radio. A long time ago, you could get AM-only radios. Only worked with AM radio stations. Or pay more for AM-FM radios that worked with all radio stations.
Anotehr problem with the "date of filing" is that patents can (could? did this change?) be amended. So one path to riches was to file a patent, keep it "in process" until a similar-sounding technology matures and becomes widespread, then amend the patent to cover the by-then common technology, and then sue.
See "Lemuelson" for the classic example of this kind of parasitic indulgence.
Huh? What color is the sky on your world? Because we don't live on the same planet. What is this "liberal view" that is "spewed over the airwaves these days" that "ignores detail" so the liberals can "point fingers"?
Japan attacked the United States at Pearl Harbor, and Germany subsequently declared war on the United States.
Iraq did neither.
If W. had been President in 1941, he would have declared war on sneak-attackism, and then invaded Mexico.
Pulling out now will result in a civil war, with millions displaced and hundreds of thousands (perhaps millions, once disease, starvation, and dehydration are added) of casualties. With a possibility that the civil war spreads to include Iran, Turkey, Syria, and/or Saudi Arabia.
The question is, will staying and spending blood and treasure increase the chance of avoiding a civil war? The more time goes on, the less I think the answer to this question is "yes".
The US cannot "finish the war" unless the other side (which seems to be the Sunni-based al Zarqawi-inspired insurgency) giving up. And the insurgency has an alternative to giving up, which is melting back into the population and waiting until the foreign occupiers leave, and then trying to take over. The more the US tries to kill all the insurgents, the more people become so pissed off that they join the insurgency.
The choices that the US has are to escalate the war (takes more money, and more troops than we have), continue to occupy the country for a while and then leave, or to leave sooner rather than later. In the dreams of the administration, leaving later leaves a native government in place strong enough to resist the insurgency. Show me evidence to support the dream becoming real, and I'll evaluate it.
Amen. I've posted, so I can't mod this up.
s/built/maintained/ and I'll agree with you.
The shuttle was designed in the 1970s, when there was still optimism about the space program, and the big concern was the cost of a launch. Which too many folks presumed was dominated by the cost of fabricating the launch vehicle. So it was presumed that a reusable launch vehicle would be an order of magnitude or two less expensive to run than expendible launch vehicles. So "reusable" got set into stone. Which then ran up against the actual difficulties of flying into orbit and getting back down. From which came the expensive and fussy tiles (each one is different! There are thousands...), and the fussy and dangerous Solid Rocket Booster/External Tank decisions. So they got a fussy, delicate, dangerous, partly-reusable ship that takes an awful lot of maintenance to lauch, land, and turn around for another launch.
Then throw non-negotiable requirements from the DoD (the cargo bay is just the right size to fit a 1970-s era spy satellite) into the mix.
NASA never perceived its job to be reducing the actual cost of providing a national space-launch capability. They never focused on that as a goal, just used it in the sales pitch.
Bush did say "Iraq is now the central front in the War on Terror".
Bush did say that the US would not stand for countries providing WMDs to terrorists. So he had to invade Iraq.
And not everyone in the intelligence agencies thought there were WMDs in Iraq. Especially after the investigators started going where the CIA told them to go and not finding what the CIA said they would find.
The thing is, Japan attacked the United States. And then Germany declared war on the United States.
Iraq never attacked the United States. Or the United Kingdom. Instead, the President of the United States and his advisors used an actual attack on the US by followers of Osama bin Laden to scare the population, and then lied about Iraq and Saddam Hussein's cooperation with the terrorists to generate support for a US invasion of Iraq.
Fighting the insurgency in Iraq has cost more than the Marshall plan.
I carp and moan about the incompetent civilian leadership that have made bad decision after bad decision. To keep the public support for the war, you have to be honest with the public. Lying about the reasons for going to war was mistake number one. The military leaders are also complicit. Generals who gave honest, accurate assessments of what it would take to pacify Iraq, like Gen. Shinseki, were punished. The toadies who told the civilian fools what they wanted to hear were rewarded. The leadership in the intelligence services failed similarly, by not supporting the analysts when they came up with answers that the civilian leaders did not want to hear.
I have not seen the leadership in this country articulate a plan for victory. "More of the same" is all they promise. More civilians killed, more military killed, more money spent. For what? How is continuing on in the current course going to lead to a good outcome? Who are "they", who know how to defeat us?
That doesn't sound much like my Freshman year at a well-respected Engineering school in Ohio. Granted, my experience started a quarter century ago...
Two semesters of Calculus, two semesters of Physics, tho semesters of Chemistry, Chem Lab, a Social Science intro (I chose Economics), a Humanities intro (I chose music theory), a Foreign Language (I continued the German I had taken in High School), Computer Science, and an elective, Energy and Society. But then again, we weren't expected to choose a major until the end of the Freshman year. I started with an advisor in the Mechanical Engineering department (I thought I wanted to design and build robots), and he steered me to Systems Engineering.
Now, I write software.
College is for generalized education. And a bit of specialized training.
We can't possibly ask why the terrorists hate us. Why they justify their actions to themselves. It would open up too much dirty laundry. Like Mr. Rumsfeld supplying Chemical Weapons to and assuring Mr. Hussein his use thereof would cause a gentle slap on the wrists. Not a slap, so much as a caress. Remind the world that a large fraction of the wealth of the "developing" world was transferred to the "developed" world through colonialism.
1/3rd of Gaza (and half the water resources; important in a desert) for 12,000 "settlers", and 2/3rds of Gaza for the 1,500,000 who lived there or evacuated there as refugees? Sounds like a fair settlement to me. That couldn't cause any resentment.
The plain fact of the matter is that young, tall, blond-haired blue-eyed men blow up buildings. Search all of them. And their dark-haired buddies.
Terrorists come in all sizes, shapes, ages, and religions. To think otherwise is to ignore reality.
And you advocate racist policies that don't actually work.
Tell that to the victims of Timothy McVeigh or Eric Rudolph.
I mean, really, just because the scientists have all of their atmospheric modelling, and collections of data to support the anthropogenic rise in atmospheric CO2, and the predictions of the impacts of further increases.
On the other side, you have representatives of carbon-based energy industries, saying that it's all OK and there's no need to do anything drastic about it, like reducing the amount of CO2 we put in the atmosphere.
And that very same reason, low market share, is why there are so few exploits for IIS and so many more exploits for Apache.
Oh, wait a minute. Reality is the other way around.
Remember, the laws that create Intellectual "Property" _are_ government butting into the market. Supposedly, for the greater good. I don't see it. I see the system gamed for the enrichment of individuals who have contributed to nothing but the gaming of the system (e.g. Lemuelson, BSA).
I don't see the good in the government fighting the production of alcohol. I don't see the good in the government fighting a war on abstract nouns, e.g. Poverty, Drugs, or Terror.
I go to the movies here. $3 tickets. Popcorn and candy; no dinner. "Valiant" was last week; they haven't posted this weekend's feature yet.
They have first-run movies on opening weekend, with $3 tickets, a surprising number of times.
Guns don't kill people. Bullets kill people.
This post is one of the most insulting posts I've seen in ages.
It seems to assert that the people who make computer models are too stupid to avoid linear extrapolations from cyclic data.
You can't have a consensus among reputable, peer-reviewed scientists when discussing new results.
Yes, the article reports a prediction of an ice-free arctic (at the end of summer) in 65 years. That's the result of a model. But the article also reports that the September ice coverage of the arctic was at a record low in September 2004, which followed a record low in September 2003, which followed a record low in September 2002. Ice coverage at the end of August, 2005 is 1/6th lower (2.0 million square miles vs. 2.4 million square miles) than it has averaged since we've had satellites watching. And that the more of the arctic ocean that is ice free, the more of the ice melts.
We won't be able to build large scale habitats in space with materials lifted up from the surface of the earth. We'll need to get materials from space: the moon, mars, and the asteroids. Maybe water from comets. To get those materials, we'll need people to be able to live and work up there. Which starts with permanent, self-sustaining colonies on the moon and mars. Which will probably require clanking replicators (see wikipedia) to produce the power infrastructure we'll need up there. Make sure you build an "off" switch, guys!
Humanity cannot destry earth, as in the 8,000 mile sphere of iron and rock.
Humanity is also very unlikely to eradicate life on earth. There's too much, and life is too clever.
We do stand a good chance of affecting global climate in such a way that the trillions of dollars in investments we've made in food production suddenly becomes inappropriate because the climate changes over years-to-decades. And then hundreds of millions to billions of people starve or dehydrate or die in migration to places where there are food and water and people consuming that food and water who don't want no foreigners crossing the border.
No, it isn't. Whoever told you that was lying.
We truly do know that carbon dating tells us when the carbon in a living creature was absorbed from the atmosphere, and these numbers are good from 150 to 50,000 years before present. Other radioactive methods are good for determining when rocks solidified, millions of years ago. Counting and comparing tree rings is good for 9,000 years.
AKAImBatman, you don't seem to realize that you're swimming in an Egyptian river.
Life will continue on, and those of us who survive will carry on. Which will be cold comfort to those who struggle and perish.
Human-induced climate change, which you dismiss as no big deal, is being demonstrated over and over again. Record reductions in arctic sea ice for the fourth year in a row. Don't worry. Be happy.
Someone can do the math about the number of calories produced by a forest fire or volcano. The continual increase in atmospheric CO2 and Methane traps an increasing fraction of the sun's energy. "But that's okay". AKABatman, this is de nile. De Nile, AKABatman.
So the fresh water melt might disrupt the gulf stream, the "atlantic conveyor" that keeps Europe's climate warm and growing season long. So what if the snows come earlier and melt later and crops fail and people starve. "We'll adapt."
If God is not nice, he does not deserve worship.