I though systems that can separate signals by direction were fairly standard engineering these days? And GPS is a weak signal at a frequency easily blocked in built up areas, so wouldn't multi-path ability help improve reception? I can understand why this would affect old systems, but why are modern GPS receivers so... primitive?
It's possible OP read TFA. It's likely you didn't.
"In 2010, he conducted an experiment in the North Sea, aboard the THV Galatea, a 500-tonne ship. The Galatea is the pride of its fleet, with all the latest navigation equipment. Last wanted to find out how it would cope without GPS. So he used a simple jamming device that overwhelmed the GPS signal by broadcasting noise on the same frequency as the satellites.
When Last activated the jammer, the ship went haywire. According to the electronic display on the ship's bridge, the Galatea was suddenly flying at Mach speeds over northern Europe and Ireland. Then alarms sounded. The ship's navigation backup – its gyrocompass – crashed, because it uses GPS to provide corrections. The radar did the same. Even the ship's satellite communications failed, because GPS points the antenna in the right direction."
Question for the bio-folks: is there a way for someone (okay, me) to DIY this?
Wait ten years and then buy ten year old sequencers from todays companies.
(I'm not being a sarcastic dick. A number of DIY bio-hackers/Makers have "cheaply" stocked their sheds/basements with high-end analysis and synthesis equipment by buying the stuff that mainstream biotech labs have moved away from. When a field is progressing as quickly as biotech, once equipment is one generation out of date, it's completely out of date.)
Right now, on the slashdot homepage, the top story is "Malware Declines, Trojans Dominate", and the story's title bar links to "http://news.slashdot.org/story/11/03/03/1329214/Malware-Declines-Trojans-Dominate". So far so happy. But the next 11 stories all link to "http://slashdot.org/". (Only one of them is a one-liner, "Calculate DrunkenNES With an 8-bit Breathalyzer".)
(Then there are two stories "High-Bandwidth Users Are Just Early Adopters" and "Gosper's Algorithm Meets Wall Street Formulas" with full links, then the remaining stories revert back to "http://slashdot.org/".)
If I refresh the page manually, generally the links will restore to their intended state. But then as new stories are added at the top, the problem re-occurs. Don't get me wrong, I don't mind the auto-update feature, it's a good idea, it just doesn't work properly. And, as I said, I always forget to check before I open a bunch in new tabs.
Does that explain it better? Like I said, it would be hard to describe it in a bug report.
I'm more annoyed at the links on the main-page randomly linking back to the main-page rather than the article. Something to do with the auto-update script(s), but not consistent/repeatable enough for a bug-report.
Those are the one-line stories...
No it's not. And no they don't. (Errr, that is, one line stories have a proper link as often as they don't. And expanded stories with bunged links are the ones that annoy me. I tend to scroll down the main-page, right-click/new-tabbing anything that grabs my attention. Then reading each comment-thread one tab at a time. So by the time I realise three or four have just bounced back to the main page, I've forgotten which story they were supposed to be. (And being stupid, I always forget to check.))
If this one is not a good deal for what you want, and at your price then don't buy it. Hopefully an Android will come along that does suit you better.
I wasn't being narky, I was genuinely curious. (Also, I didn't realise the iPad v1's single cam was on the back. I assumed it was user-facing. It's the front-facing one I don't understand.)
As I said, I understand why there are two cams on any decent cellphone, it's a good size for taking pics/videos. And I understand why iPad users wanted a user-facing cam (well, the non-socially-retarded ones, I don't even have a webcam on my PC.) But I couldn't see why people wanted to use a 1.6lb flat plate as a camcorder. Wrong size, wrong weight, wrong form-factor. <Shrug> I stand corrected.
Things normal people wanted and did get:... two cameras,
In all seriousness, why was that a "normal" request? I understand (and use it) in cellphones, since they are commonly used as a mini-cam or a party self-cam. But why on a tablet? It feels more like ticking a feature box than anything anyone has seriously been clamouring for. A user-facing webcam for video-chat, okay, but what's the other for?
I set the comment slider to 2.5 (what the heck does that mean, anyway?).
2.5 means 3. There are 8 "notches", but 7 labels, so the slider falls out of alignment with the scale.
(The highest (left-most) setting abbreviates even +5 comments. So the scale needs an extra label, ">5".)
I'm more annoyed at the links on the main-page randomly linking back to the main-page rather than the article. Something to do with the auto-update script(s), but not consistent/repeatable enough for a bug-report.
Bit late to reply. Sorry. Hopefully you have email notification...
If they had to get 40% of the registered voters to at least show up at the polls, most of our elections would be void!
I'm in Australia. From memory, the quorum is two thirds for state and federal elections. If more than one third of voters either stay at home, or spoil their ballots, the result is void and a new bi-election is held in that seat (district) with a new round of candidates.
In reality, thanks to compulsory voting (which in practice only means mandatory attendance), turnout never falls below 90%. The penalty is only $50, and it's apparently not hard to get out of. But it works.
Since some states in the US are moving to distribute their electoral college votes according to district results (rather than en mass), there may be a willingness to look at other options too, such as quorum or mandatory attendance.
One of these days, people might wake up and see that all politicians are bad, not just the ones of the other party.... I am just a simple realist.
That's not very realistic, though. The question is are they all exactly equally bad. If not, if there's any variation, then you have something to work with. Select against the worst, and no matter how bad the pool is to begin with, it will slowly work towards what you consider "good".
The problem is the inability of the voters to consistently select for desired properties. Try advocating for a law requiring attendance at voting stations for all registered voters during every election. That alone should help soften the extremes.
...Joe the Plumber, if you remember him. He asked the President some decently tough, decidedly non-scripted questions. Next thing you know, the media starts trying to dig up dirt on him and leaves no stone unturned in an effort to make him look bad
Gee, as I remember it the GOP adopted him as a postertool and THAT is what caused anyone to give a damn about his background.
Also, in the original encounter, Obama actually stopped and tried to explain his business policies - in detail, not just sloganeering. "Joe" wasn't treated like a partisan heckler. I found that interesting. By contrast, the Republicans just treated him as a mascot to be shown at events.
I'm not sure I buy this. When Bush did this stuff, no one could say they were surprised. Whatever you might say about the Republicans, you can't say they're deceitful. They're completely blatant and open about their motives and methods. The Democrats are worse... they do the exact same thing.
It feels that way to you, because you consider Republicans evil, so you expect them to act evil. Don't forget, Bush campaigned as a "Compassionate Conservative", small government advocate, and staunch protector of the US Constitution.
If you had believed and voted for him, you'd have been duped.
(Of course, I'm not entirely sure why the people who voted for Obama's hope'n'change are now voting Republican. How do they think that will work?)
Slashdot Mirror
I though systems that can separate signals by direction were fairly standard engineering these days? And GPS is a weak signal at a frequency easily blocked in built up areas, so wouldn't multi-path ability help improve reception? I can understand why this would affect old systems, but why are modern GPS receivers so... primitive?
WTF are you talking about?
It's possible OP read TFA. It's likely you didn't.
"In 2010, he conducted an experiment in the North Sea, aboard the THV Galatea, a 500-tonne ship. The Galatea is the pride of its fleet, with all the latest navigation equipment. Last wanted to find out how it would cope without GPS. So he used a simple jamming device that overwhelmed the GPS signal by broadcasting noise on the same frequency as the satellites.
When Last activated the jammer, the ship went haywire. According to the electronic display on the ship's bridge, the Galatea was suddenly flying at Mach speeds over northern Europe and Ireland. Then alarms sounded. The ship's navigation backup – its gyrocompass – crashed, because it uses GPS to provide corrections. The radar did the same. Even the ship's satellite communications failed, because GPS points the antenna in the right direction."
Jesus those are expensive (and bulky) for what they do. Isn't there a free app for android?
One causes essential infrastructure to malfunction. The other blocks cellphones.
The only technology that's ever interfered with my sleep is my neighbour's sub-woofer.
At a bit over 1,500 fps
What graphics card are you using?
There's also a US team. "Team North American Eagle"... <sigh> ...using a converted supersonic Lockheed F-104 Starfighter.
Noble seems to get the most press.
Should have included a Link.
It did inspire one of the better first season Mythbusters episode.
It's getting a vehicle to stay on the ground
Especially when the ground liquefies in front of the sonic boom. (Truly!)
Space shuttle is propably the most complicated piece of technology ever developed. Over one million moving parts.
Do people really still say that as if it's a good thing?
Question for the bio-folks: is there a way for someone (okay, me) to DIY this?
Wait ten years and then buy ten year old sequencers from todays companies.
(I'm not being a sarcastic dick. A number of DIY bio-hackers/Makers have "cheaply" stocked their sheds/basements with high-end analysis and synthesis equipment by buying the stuff that mainstream biotech labs have moved away from. When a field is progressing as quickly as biotech, once equipment is one generation out of date, it's completely out of date.)
He said Japanese. Try CandyGirls.
(Ah, google, is there anything you can't find?)
Right now, on the slashdot homepage, the top story is "Malware Declines, Trojans Dominate", and the story's title bar links to "http://news.slashdot.org/story/11/03/03/1329214/Malware-Declines-Trojans-Dominate". So far so happy. But the next 11 stories all link to "http://slashdot.org/". (Only one of them is a one-liner, "Calculate DrunkenNES With an 8-bit Breathalyzer".)
(Then there are two stories "High-Bandwidth Users Are Just Early Adopters" and "Gosper's Algorithm Meets Wall Street Formulas" with full links, then the remaining stories revert back to "http://slashdot.org/".)
If I refresh the page manually, generally the links will restore to their intended state. But then as new stories are added at the top, the problem re-occurs. Don't get me wrong, I don't mind the auto-update feature, it's a good idea, it just doesn't work properly. And, as I said, I always forget to check before I open a bunch in new tabs.
Does that explain it better? Like I said, it would be hard to describe it in a bug report.
I'm more annoyed at the links on the main-page randomly linking back to the main-page rather than the article. Something to do with the auto-update script(s), but not consistent/repeatable enough for a bug-report.
Those are the one-line stories...
No it's not. And no they don't. (Errr, that is, one line stories have a proper link as often as they don't. And expanded stories with bunged links are the ones that annoy me. I tend to scroll down the main-page, right-click/new-tabbing anything that grabs my attention. Then reading each comment-thread one tab at a time. So by the time I realise three or four have just bounced back to the main page, I've forgotten which story they were supposed to be.
(And being stupid, I always forget to check.))
If this one is not a good deal for what you want, and at your price then don't buy it. Hopefully an Android will come along that does suit you better.
I wasn't being narky, I was genuinely curious. (Also, I didn't realise the iPad v1's single cam was on the back. I assumed it was user-facing. It's the front-facing one I don't understand.)
As I said, I understand why there are two cams on any decent cellphone, it's a good size for taking pics/videos. And I understand why iPad users wanted a user-facing cam (well, the non-socially-retarded ones, I don't even have a webcam on my PC.) But I couldn't see why people wanted to use a 1.6lb flat plate as a camcorder. Wrong size, wrong weight, wrong form-factor. <Shrug> I stand corrected.
Things normal people wanted and did get: ... two cameras,
In all seriousness, why was that a "normal" request? I understand (and use it) in cellphones, since they are commonly used as a mini-cam or a party self-cam. But why on a tablet? It feels more like ticking a feature box than anything anyone has seriously been clamouring for. A user-facing webcam for video-chat, okay, but what's the other for?
I set the comment slider to 2.5 (what the heck does that mean, anyway?).
2.5 means 3. There are 8 "notches", but 7 labels, so the slider falls out of alignment with the scale.
(The highest (left-most) setting abbreviates even +5 comments. So the scale needs an extra label, ">5".)
I'm more annoyed at the links on the main-page randomly linking back to the main-page rather than the article. Something to do with the auto-update script(s), but not consistent/repeatable enough for a bug-report.
I'd love to meet this Internet guy some day.
Don't be silly, the Internet isn't a person, it's a small black box.
Is there any irony in a site with an article about tracking-protection having (according to Ghostery) 10 trackers?
Can any web-masters on /. explain why some sites (especially "magazine" sites) have so damn many trackers? How many ad-networks do you subscribe to?
Bit late to reply. Sorry. Hopefully you have email notification...
If they had to get 40% of the registered voters to at least show up at the polls, most of our elections would be void!
I'm in Australia. From memory, the quorum is two thirds for state and federal elections. If more than one third of voters either stay at home, or spoil their ballots, the result is void and a new bi-election is held in that seat (district) with a new round of candidates.
In reality, thanks to compulsory voting (which in practice only means mandatory attendance), turnout never falls below 90%. The penalty is only $50, and it's apparently not hard to get out of. But it works.
Since some states in the US are moving to distribute their electoral college votes according to district results (rather than en mass), there may be a willingness to look at other options too, such as quorum or mandatory attendance.
Tell me, Mr. Anderson... what good is a business... if you have no domain?
One of these days, people might wake up and see that all politicians are bad, not just the ones of the other party. ... I am just a simple realist.
That's not very realistic, though. The question is are they all exactly equally bad. If not, if there's any variation, then you have something to work with. Select against the worst, and no matter how bad the pool is to begin with, it will slowly work towards what you consider "good".
The problem is the inability of the voters to consistently select for desired properties. Try advocating for a law requiring attendance at voting stations for all registered voters during every election. That alone should help soften the extremes.
Gee, as I remember it the GOP adopted him as a postertool and THAT is what caused anyone to give a damn about his background.
Also, in the original encounter, Obama actually stopped and tried to explain his business policies - in detail, not just sloganeering. "Joe" wasn't treated like a partisan heckler. I found that interesting. By contrast, the Republicans just treated him as a mascot to be shown at events.
I'm not sure I buy this. When Bush did this stuff, no one could say they were surprised. Whatever you might say about the Republicans, you can't say they're deceitful. They're completely blatant and open about their motives and methods. The Democrats are worse ... they do the exact same thing.
It feels that way to you, because you consider Republicans evil, so you expect them to act evil. Don't forget, Bush campaigned as a "Compassionate Conservative", small government advocate, and staunch protector of the US Constitution.
If you had believed and voted for him, you'd have been duped.
(Of course, I'm not entirely sure why the people who voted for Obama's hope'n'change are now voting Republican. How do they think that will work?)