I think just to be able to see footprints on the moon left by the astronauts you would need a lens about 1800 feet in diameter. I'm sure someone smarter than me can give a better answer, but the gist is that you would need one huge fucking telescope to see cities on a planet outside of our solar system. Bigger than we could probably ever build.
Maybe an array of large telescopes, but I think you're still asking a lot.
I can hold my iPhone 4 on the sides and watch it go from 5 bars to 1 (or less) in about 10 seconds. I also experience dropped calls even when I'm not holding the phone in my hands.
I agree. Where's the middle ground here? I guess making anyone who wants to use the public stuff register their MAC would be a huge pain in the arse, not to mention how easily that is spoofed. What about logging in through a proxy with user-name and password? It would have to be something that changes frequently otherwise they would be swiped by MitM attacks. Why not some sort of biometric credentialing that requires fingerprint or retina? The whole idea is to satisfy audit-tracking and accountability policies but biometrics sounds like a pain, once again.
Has anyone noticed that if you look at DC-8 while tilting your head to the right it looks like an angry man? Especially if you add a greater-than for the eyebrows.
I already checked it....there's nothing to see, really; no outline of the crater is visible. If you really want to check it out though, the cords are Lat: 2117'50.00"N and Long: 8935'40.00"W
Like the Mars rovers, this is truly good engineering at work.
Not to downplay the engineering or skill involved (I couldn't even build a hammer) but when I hear "...operating past its original design limits..." I can't help but think that they purposely set the limits low so that when the machines operate better than anticipated, NASA (or anyone else for that matter) can take a higher degree of credit than if they were more realistic with the expectations. I guess this way it looks better on the budget report.
I wouldn't worry about charting the signal strength for 3G. You can be in a densely populated area showing five bars of 3G and your speed and latency can still be dog shit depending on how many people are hitting the tower, similar to your cable modem. It might be worth it to record whether or not you have 3G just to help map out your general coverage, but that doesn't mean you'll have great speed. Although, you can find something like that here.
As for speed I like to use a util called iperf for measuring speed from one device to another across a network. You may have to open ports on your firewall or setup a VPN, which will add unwanted overhead, but you will get a good idea of which carriers have the best speeds. You can also run the simple tests using other websites like here or here.
So here's one for you: Why can't you fight that misinformation before the patient even steps foot in the exam room? Why don't doctors create peer-reviewed, well-written websites to counter all of the confusion and pseudo-science currently available online?
Because then the Dr. is liable for any information that he may have "pointed" you towards. Even peer-reviewed information, while it may cover the majority of the seekers' symptoms more accurately than the pseudo-science, there's that small percentage that would wind up taking the advice and be wrong...then there's a lawsuit.
More importantly, patients might be less likely to come in for an exam based on the information at-hand, thus the Dr. could not bill the standard 992XX code for their $85 office visit reimbursement from the insurance company. Hey, a guy's gotta eat.
Did you actually look at the pictures in that link? There are all sorts of "erotic" and NSFW displays! Particularly where the one where the drifter is just finishing up with the little girl who is clearly dead...
The one thing everyone wants to point out is that the other "comparable" devices do not transmit RF. Is the EMR still not there, whether something else is transmitting? I'm able to pick up the frequency in my car because it's projected out from a tower somewhere, right? That means it's already in the air and potentially creating changes to cellular division, thus possibly causing cancerous cells, no? I just don't see how one device over another can cause a higher degree of "bad" cell division when the EMR is all around us, all the time. The only people NOT getting cancer are those that live in a Faraday cage and even those people have the same chance as the rest of us, assuming they are genetically predisposed.
Have they done this study against other types of radio frequencies like cordless land-line phones? What about emergency services workers that carry radios on their hips until needed...are they being checked for hip-cancer? Doesn't Nike or some other shoe maker have a device that fits inside a shoe so people can listen to FM whilst jogging? Watch out for heel-cancer! The point being, why are cell-phones being singled out as possible culprits where then are so many other devices out there that use radio technology?
I think the media has way too much control over what is allowed to scare us into taking action. It seems that our efforts could be better directed toward something that actually makes sense. Let Mythbusters handle this type of shit.
Slashdot Mirror
I thought he was Rasta?
I think just to be able to see footprints on the moon left by the astronauts you would need a lens about 1800 feet in diameter. I'm sure someone smarter than me can give a better answer, but the gist is that you would need one huge fucking telescope to see cities on a planet outside of our solar system. Bigger than we could probably ever build.
Maybe an array of large telescopes, but I think you're still asking a lot.
People who cheat have one thing to blame, and to find it they need only look in the mirror.
I don't seem to have a reflection...what does that mean??
I can hold my iPhone 4 on the sides and watch it go from 5 bars to 1 (or less) in about 10 seconds. I also experience dropped calls even when I'm not holding the phone in my hands.
I agree. Where's the middle ground here? I guess making anyone who wants to use the public stuff register their MAC would be a huge pain in the arse, not to mention how easily that is spoofed. What about logging in through a proxy with user-name and password? It would have to be something that changes frequently otherwise they would be swiped by MitM attacks. Why not some sort of biometric credentialing that requires fingerprint or retina? The whole idea is to satisfy audit-tracking and accountability policies but biometrics sounds like a pain, once again.
Surely someone here has some good ideas?
Has anyone noticed that if you look at DC-8 while tilting your head to the right it looks like an angry man? Especially if you add a greater-than for the eyebrows.
Microsoft needs to just go ahead and buy out Mozilla.
Yep. And even then, AT&T still wins. I know, I'm as surprised as you.
In case anyone is confused on the proper designations, please refer to this chart. Just replace K's with M's.
We need more Dexters out there.
And the mouse on the motorcycle will not be able to roll unless he goes "Pb-pb-b-b-b-b. Pb-pb-b-b-b-b".
I thought they were going to call this Grand Theft Horse?
20,000 / 5280 = 3.78 miles != Stratosphere
"as long as a 23-floor skyscraper is tall"
How many libraries of.....
ugh, never mind
That's exactly (sort of) how it does (or doesn't) work (or not work).
I already checked it....there's nothing to see, really; no outline of the crater is visible. If you really want to check it out though, the cords are Lat: 2117'50.00"N and Long: 8935'40.00"W
Like the Mars rovers, this is truly good engineering at work.
Not to downplay the engineering or skill involved (I couldn't even build a hammer) but when I hear "...operating past its original design limits..." I can't help but think that they purposely set the limits low so that when the machines operate better than anticipated, NASA (or anyone else for that matter) can take a higher degree of credit than if they were more realistic with the expectations. I guess this way it looks better on the budget report.
I wouldn't worry about charting the signal strength for 3G. You can be in a densely populated area showing five bars of 3G and your speed and latency can still be dog shit depending on how many people are hitting the tower, similar to your cable modem. It might be worth it to record whether or not you have 3G just to help map out your general coverage, but that doesn't mean you'll have great speed. Although, you can find something like that here.
As for speed I like to use a util called iperf for measuring speed from one device to another across a network. You may have to open ports on your firewall or setup a VPN, which will add unwanted overhead, but you will get a good idea of which carriers have the best speeds. You can also run the simple tests using other websites like here or here.
Poop. That first paragraph was supposed to be quoting parent.
So here's one for you: Why can't you fight that misinformation before the patient even steps foot in the exam room? Why don't doctors create peer-reviewed, well-written websites to counter all of the confusion and pseudo-science currently available online?
Because then the Dr. is liable for any information that he may have "pointed" you towards. Even peer-reviewed information, while it may cover the majority of the seekers' symptoms more accurately than the pseudo-science, there's that small percentage that would wind up taking the advice and be wrong...then there's a lawsuit.
More importantly, patients might be less likely to come in for an exam based on the information at-hand, thus the Dr. could not bill the standard 992XX code for their $85 office visit reimbursement from the insurance company. Hey, a guy's gotta eat.
Did you actually look at the pictures in that link? There are all sorts of "erotic" and NSFW displays! Particularly where the one where the drifter is just finishing up with the little girl who is clearly dead...
The one thing everyone wants to point out is that the other "comparable" devices do not transmit RF. Is the EMR still not there, whether something else is transmitting? I'm able to pick up the frequency in my car because it's projected out from a tower somewhere, right? That means it's already in the air and potentially creating changes to cellular division, thus possibly causing cancerous cells, no? I just don't see how one device over another can cause a higher degree of "bad" cell division when the EMR is all around us, all the time. The only people NOT getting cancer are those that live in a Faraday cage and even those people have the same chance as the rest of us, assuming they are genetically predisposed.
Have they done this study against other types of radio frequencies like cordless land-line phones? What about emergency services workers that carry radios on their hips until needed...are they being checked for hip-cancer? Doesn't Nike or some other shoe maker have a device that fits inside a shoe so people can listen to FM whilst jogging? Watch out for heel-cancer! The point being, why are cell-phones being singled out as possible culprits where then are so many other devices out there that use radio technology?
I think the media has way too much control over what is allowed to scare us into taking action. It seems that our efforts could be better directed toward something that actually makes sense. Let Mythbusters handle this type of shit.
Can you anonymously drop-ship this product to, say, an ex-wife or unfriendly co-worker? I'd like to buy about 10 batches of the "Red", if so.
Is the radiation from the blast better or worse than the oil leak? Or is it even a problem?