It might help to think of government as something you buy.
Over the course of 5 years I’ll end up paying hundreds of thousands of dollars for my government services during that time.
Spending a few minutes every 5 years to ensure they know what my needs look like is a pretty small investment to ensure my “purchase” is working well.
I’m sure filling out this census once every 5 years takes less time than you’ve spent on your last major electronics purchase (which I would guess was a fraction of the cost, unless you’re buying a truckload of gold-plated uni-directional ethernet electron guide cables).
Also: nowhere do I spot the specific inane question that you posited. Care to reference a specific page?
In case you've been living in Layton UT for the last 3 months you've realized by now every commercial on TV and every website has finished or is about to finish changing its strategy to focus on "architecture". Just a nugget of career advancing vocabulary you should tack onto your "solution", "commerce", and "appliance" words of 1999, 2000, and 2001 respectively.
Whew. Thank gods. For the last 4 years, I've been working on a commerce appliance solution architecture.
In response to your post, I do hope that two-way transferring isn't a problem.
That said...
Thinking about the iPod, I can't help but realise that the use of FireWire is very understated -- basically, it is being used only as a conduit between your computer and the iPod. But wait a second -- FireWire is a device-to-device bus, unlike USB. So do we really need the computer?
Imagine -- being able to transfer music files, playlists, etc. to your buddies by simply attaching a FireWire cable between two iPods. Why not?
Technologically, this is probably a no-brainer. But being Apple, I would have to assume they would be all over this if it were a real feature. It seems that you can only transfer music to the iPod and back to your (or another) Mac. This seems to preclude transferring data and music between iPods, which would be truly a ground-breaking improvement over existing portable music devices.
So, why is this (most assuredly) artificial limitation in place? My guess is pressure on Apple from the music industry (RIAA et al). Thoughts?
"There has grown up in the minds of certain groups in this country the notion that because a man or a corporation has made a profit out of the public for a number of years, the government and the courts are charged with the duty of guaranteeing such profit in the future, even in the face of changing circumstances and contrary public interest. This strange doctrine is not supported by statute nor common law. Neither individuals nor corporations have any right to come into court and ask that the clock of history be stopped, or turned back, for their private benefit. That is all."
So all we need to do is fly it higher and match the rotation speed of the earth, thereby making the earth seem to be still from the satellite's perspective.
Unfortunately, this involves a HUGE tradeoff in resolution at the current state of technology.
The Ikonos satellite data (see here) shows that it orbits at an altitude of 681 kilometers / 423 miles. Why so close? Because the closer to the earth, the higher the resolution of the picture, all things being equal.
If you look here, you'll find a quick rundown of orbital types -- of interest is Geostationary Orbit (GEO), which is what would be necessary to accomplish what you want. However, its altitude is 35786 km / 22228 mi. So, if they were to push the satellite to a higher orbit (which is also much more expensive to do, and required a much bigger launch vehicle and other things I'm probably overlooking), the resolution would be 53^2 (2809) times poorer, again all things being equal. This would make a 1m resolution picture into a 53m resolution picture. Not likely to catch you sunbathing in the back yard.
They would have to increase their optical system by over 3 orders of magnitude to do as you suggest.
I'm no expert, and I have probably overlooked many things. However, this is a quick summary of why it's not as easy to do as it sounds.
Slashdot Mirror
It might help to think of government as something you buy.
Over the course of 5 years I’ll end up paying hundreds of thousands of dollars for my government services during that time.
Spending a few minutes every 5 years to ensure they know what my needs look like is a pretty small investment to ensure my “purchase” is working well.
I’m sure filling out this census once every 5 years takes less time than you’ve spent on your last major electronics purchase (which I would guess was a fraction of the cost, unless you’re buying a truckload of gold-plated uni-directional ethernet electron guide cables).
Also: nowhere do I spot the specific inane question that you posited. Care to reference a specific page?
Whew. Thank gods. For the last 4 years, I've been working on a commerce appliance solution architecture.
(hey, it's Friday, give me a bre -- *thwack* )
-LunaticIn response to your post, I do hope that two-way transferring isn't a problem.
That said...
Thinking about the iPod, I can't help but realise that the use of FireWire is very understated -- basically, it is being used only as a conduit between your computer and the iPod. But wait a second -- FireWire is a device-to-device bus, unlike USB. So do we really need the computer?
Imagine -- being able to transfer music files, playlists, etc. to your buddies by simply attaching a FireWire cable between two iPods. Why not?
Technologically, this is probably a no-brainer. But being Apple, I would have to assume they would be all over this if it were a real feature. It seems that you can only transfer music to the iPod and back to your (or another) Mac. This seems to preclude transferring data and music between iPods, which would be truly a ground-breaking improvement over existing portable music devices.
So, why is this (most assuredly) artificial limitation in place? My guess is pressure on Apple from the music industry (RIAA et al). Thoughts?
-Lunatic
-Lunatic
The Ikonos satellite data (see here) shows that it orbits at an altitude of 681 kilometers / 423 miles. Why so close? Because the closer to the earth, the higher the resolution of the picture, all things being equal.
If you look here, you'll find a quick rundown of orbital types -- of interest is Geostationary Orbit (GEO), which is what would be necessary to accomplish what you want. However, its altitude is 35786 km / 22228 mi. So, if they were to push the satellite to a higher orbit (which is also much more expensive to do, and required a much bigger launch vehicle and other things I'm probably overlooking), the resolution would be 53^2 (2809) times poorer, again all things being equal. This would make a 1m resolution picture into a 53m resolution picture. Not likely to catch you sunbathing in the back yard.
They would have to increase their optical system by over 3 orders of magnitude to do as you suggest.
I'm no expert, and I have probably overlooked many things. However, this is a quick summary of why it's not as easy to do as it sounds.
-Lunatic
Take a look here at the Smithsonian to see how Edison is basically given credit for the total use of electricity in the world! Wow!
-Michael