The reason for that is because providers are allowed to transmit 800MHz signal at higher wattages than 1.9GHz. For whatever reason, the FCC allows providers to pump out 800 at higher wattage. We're talking about a difference of maybe 3 watts, but those few watts can make a huge difference.
Coverage with 800MHz may seem great for a mobile telephone provider, but the extra coverage comes at a price, and the providers all know this.
The majors, namely AT&T/Cingular, T-Mobile, Verizon, and Nextel are all competing for high-speed data service... either now or in the future. These services can not be delivered in the lower sub-1.5GHz bands. This being the case, why cling to lower frequencies? Nextel should jump ship, just like every other major provider.
As a side note... I have a 1900 GSM phone. It works deep inside of massive steel buildings. It works in some basements. It may not work absolutely everywhere, but it does work often enough that I can safely assume that the worries about signal penetration are overblown, to say the least. The issue has much more to do about wattages than 800 being inherently better than 1900.
Not only can they get your data from point-A to point-B in record speeds... they're also vastly superior in helping us find exactly what we're looking for!:)
Perhaps this is off-topic, but I have a question about digital and analog cable: why is it that analog channels still exist? What's stopping the cablecos from forcing everyone into having digital service?
Is it a money thing? Read: financing digital cable boxes for one (or more) telvision(s) in every subscriber's home
Is it an uncertainty thing? Read: why move everyone to new cable hardware now when the move to HDTV will soon need to be addressed at a cable level
Are the cable companies waiting to see what'll happen in regards to television manufacturers incorporating digital cable tuners and access card technology directly into TV sets?
Is it due to a combination of everything I've mentioned...?
Just as this post described... if analog service was eliminated, there would be more room for better picture bitrates and even faster upstream bandwidth... so what's the hold-up? Or did I already answer the question on my own...?
Thawte wants a nationally recognized personal identification number before it'll give me an account. I have a good idea why, but I have a problem giving my personal info to video rental companies, let alone to a subsidiary of VeriSign.
Don't get me wrong... I buy stuff over the 'net using my credit card... but giving my SSN for a certificate is way over the top.
My brother and I attend the same university and a few months ago, he needed a connector for his Powerbook. He was in a class where he needed to run a PowerPoint presentation from his laptop to an LCD projector... but the projector only had a VGA input on it, whereas his laptop only has a DVI port.
When he went to our school's tech support guys for the proper adapter cable, and they either told him that his computer, a 667mhz PowerBook G4, was "obsolete," or they'd hand him a VGA-VGA extension cable and tell him that "it would work."
So there's several scenarios here:
1) The support kids were completely clueless; possibly intimidated by the fact that it was a Powerbook and not an Inspiron or Vaio.
2) The kids purposely wanted to be a jackasses and didn't want to help my brother, knowing full well that the port was in-fact a DVI port and that they're hired and PAID to help other students.
3) They were too busy with "more important things."
My only issue with Google is that it has a mildly annoying problem with linking to other search engines. Say, for instance, you search for n. Sometimes, instead of being presented with a list of sites carrying information about n, you're presented with links to other (mostly horrible) search engines. It's just as bad as being served a list of pages that are nothing more than "Google magnets," filled with a bunch of terms close to the topic you searched for, but missing any real content.
I think the worst assumption in computing is that it's inherently complicated to use a computer from an end-user's point of view. It shouldn't be.
If software programmers and electrical engineers designed products better and eliminated complications, their experience would be better in general. Advanced and complicated settings, if they're needed, should be hidden as must as possible from beginning and novice computer users that either don't know how to set them correctly, are simply intimidated by them.
Here's an example: channel settings in WiFi. If WiFi hopped frequencies automatically, like Bluetooth, there would be one less complication involved with WiFi and finding a clear channel in noisy environments.
One of the largest costs in running a business involved with computing is the cost of customer support. Eliminate potential problems and fewer calls to tech support take place... thus saving money.
Elimination of unneeded complications should be a priority when designing products for mass-use.
Time-shifting is legal in the United States. The Supreme Court said so back in 1984. Wouldn't a Copy-Prohibition Bit go completely against that?
Oh... I get it... every new medium that comes along should have a new set of laws surrounding it, right? No. Fair-use should mean fair-use... regardless of the medium.
On the other hand... why would anyone want to go to the trouble of recording a movie that's aired on TV? I mean seriously... they're gonna have commercials and be edited to hell. Go rent the DVD if you want to watch it... or borrow it from a friend.
I can understand why there's so much outcry against the copy-control bit, but honestly, if applied to cable TV, do you think networks like Comedy Central are going to use the bit to prohibit people from TiVo-ing stuff like South Park? Fuck no. The only practical application this thing has is for the movie channels (HBO, et cetera) and personally, you're better off renting the flick. Get NetFlix or something.
Is it just me, or is it really aggravating that Michael Robertson even gets media attention in the first place? This guy makes headlines promoting his(?) new business strategy focusing on The Next Big Thing. Yet every time he's tried, he's failed. MP3.com and Lindows stick out in my mind the most, and maybe there are others.
Really... Roberson isn't coming up with ideas that nobody's ever heard of before, and he sure as shit isn't a marketing genius. So WHY do I keep reading about him in various places? What has he ever done to deserve the media attention that he gets?
I was going to add this to the end of my submission, but I decided to let someone else bring up this very point. While it is true that Microsoft's software is not to be used in life-critical applications, think on a lower scale.
What about the colleges that need to hire extra support personnel to fix infected Windows computers? What about the networks that are brought to a crawl by worms and Internet related viruses? What about the kids that have their term paper ruined because Word crashed?
Sure, blame these problems on ignorant Windows users for failing to run Windows Update. But as far as I know, Microsoft (and the OEMs) fail to stress the absolute necessity of running update in their printed material. In this case, are consumers to blame for failing to patch, or does the blame rest solely upon Microsoft? (Remember: most of America does not read/. and most struggle to simply install software, let alone run Windows Update)
Granted, the aforementioned problems listed above may not be life-critical mishaps, but from a company which touts security and stability as their primary strengths, they should be sued for false (deceptive) advertising over those very situations alone. Ask Symantec and Network Associates about the security of Windows software. There's an entire segment of the Windows software industry dedicated to picking up where Microsoft fails.
And on a side note, there's a HUGE difference between sharware/freeware coders and large corporate coding farms like Microsoft. Individual coders have limited resources... working with little capital and minimal manpower. In contrast, Microsoft employs thousands of people and makes millions of dollars every year. Clearly, it is not right to go after the big guy simply because he's the big guy, but in this case, Microsoft has the resources to make a bullet-proof operating system. Instead, recent events have shown that Microsoft prefers to take a "lets plug the holes" approach to security, instead of a top-down redesign of their back-end mechanism(s).
Even if it is ultimately chosen by consumers, a line should be drawn when a product is prone to security breaches and the company producing it makes more money than the entire GDP of several small countries. People may not die when Windows is exploited (or crashes) but the lesser results of Microsoft's negligence should not be ignored.
Am I the only one who feels that the corporations who choose to use Microsoft's "solutions" for their technology needs deserve what they get?
Ahem... that is... hoping that said corporation doesn't just so happen to have some sort of public service function in some sort of critical applications such as energy management or some sort of life-supporting systems. (I know Microsoft doesn't endorse that...)
This really goes to show how little our constitution means, 4th Amendment be damned.
But the thing that really frightens me is this... most people are so turned off to politics that things like the Patriot Act slip under the radar. What's worse... a majority of those that actually are involved in our political system choose to be a Democrat or Republican, as if they're their only options.
In 2004, I want G.W. Bush to get out of my government. Sadly, it'll have to be done with a Democrat, and it shouldn't be that way.
After skimming the surface of the German government, I can't help but wonder how different America would be if several parties were in control, not just two. Any Germans care to enlighten me?
Think I'm joking? Maybe, just maybe if stupid people weren't (legally) allowed to breed, problems like this wouldn't happen in the first place.
But then again, who decides who is stupid, and who isn't, right?
I still think it's fucked up that in America, you have to be twenty-one to drink and sixteen to drive in most states, yet, people can have kids whenever they want.
Slashdot Mirror
The exact number of servers that Google uses is trivially easy...
2,718,281,828
; )
Arrrr.
The reason for that is because providers are allowed to transmit 800MHz signal at higher wattages than 1.9GHz. For whatever reason, the FCC allows providers to pump out 800 at higher wattage. We're talking about a difference of maybe 3 watts, but those few watts can make a huge difference.
Coverage with 800MHz may seem great for a mobile telephone provider, but the extra coverage comes at a price, and the providers all know this.
The majors, namely AT&T/Cingular, T-Mobile, Verizon, and Nextel are all competing for high-speed data service... either now or in the future. These services can not be delivered in the lower sub-1.5GHz bands. This being the case, why cling to lower frequencies? Nextel should jump ship, just like every other major provider.
As a side note... I have a 1900 GSM phone. It works deep inside of massive steel buildings. It works in some basements. It may not work absolutely everywhere, but it does work often enough that I can safely assume that the worries about signal penetration are overblown, to say the least. The issue has much more to do about wattages than 800 being inherently better than 1900.
Not only can they get your data from point-A to point-B in record speeds... they're also vastly superior in helping us find exactly what we're looking for! :)
Perhaps this is off-topic, but I have a question about digital and analog cable: why is it that analog channels still exist? What's stopping the cablecos from forcing everyone into having digital service?
Is it a money thing? Read: financing digital cable boxes for one (or more) telvision(s) in every subscriber's home
Is it an uncertainty thing? Read: why move everyone to new cable hardware now when the move to HDTV will soon need to be addressed at a cable level
Are the cable companies waiting to see what'll happen in regards to television manufacturers incorporating digital cable tuners and access card technology directly into TV sets?
Is it due to a combination of everything I've mentioned...?
Just as this post described... if analog service was eliminated, there would be more room for better picture bitrates and even faster upstream bandwidth... so what's the hold-up? Or did I already answer the question on my own...?
[tinfoil]
Thawte wants a nationally recognized personal identification number before it'll give me an account. I have a good idea why, but I have a problem giving my personal info to video rental companies, let alone to a subsidiary of VeriSign.
Don't get me wrong... I buy stuff over the 'net using my credit card... but giving my SSN for a certificate is way over the top.
[/tinfoil]
Maybe off-topic, but isn't it somewhat hypocritical that Jobs won't let his kids drink pop, yet he has no problem running a promotion via Pepsi?
It's like a parent who doesn't want their kids to smoke cigs, but is the president of a major tobacco company...
My brother and I attend the same university and a few months ago, he needed a connector for his Powerbook. He was in a class where he needed to run a PowerPoint presentation from his laptop to an LCD projector... but the projector only had a VGA input on it, whereas his laptop only has a DVI port.
When he went to our school's tech support guys for the proper adapter cable, and they either told him that his computer, a 667mhz PowerBook G4, was "obsolete," or they'd hand him a VGA-VGA extension cable and tell him that "it would work."
So there's several scenarios here:
1) The support kids were completely clueless; possibly intimidated by the fact that it was a Powerbook and not an Inspiron or Vaio.
2) The kids purposely wanted to be a jackasses and didn't want to help my brother, knowing full well that the port was in-fact a DVI port and that they're hired and PAID to help other students.
3) They were too busy with "more important things."
I've always wanted a DVD player that needs to be restarted every few hours...
My only issue with Google is that it has a mildly annoying problem with linking to other search engines. Say, for instance, you search for n. Sometimes, instead of being presented with a list of sites carrying information about n, you're presented with links to other (mostly horrible) search engines. It's just as bad as being served a list of pages that are nothing more than "Google magnets," filled with a bunch of terms close to the topic you searched for, but missing any real content.
That's Google's largest flaw, IMHO.
Someone just read Fast Company's latest Apple article.
I think the worst assumption in computing is that it's inherently complicated to use a computer from an end-user's point of view. It shouldn't be.
If software programmers and electrical engineers designed products better and eliminated complications, their experience would be better in general. Advanced and complicated settings, if they're needed, should be hidden as must as possible from beginning and novice computer users that either don't know how to set them correctly, are simply intimidated by them.
Here's an example: channel settings in WiFi. If WiFi hopped frequencies automatically, like Bluetooth, there would be one less complication involved with WiFi and finding a clear channel in noisy environments.
One of the largest costs in running a business involved with computing is the cost of customer support. Eliminate potential problems and fewer calls to tech support take place... thus saving money.
Elimination of unneeded complications should be a priority when designing products for mass-use.
Time-shifting is legal in the United States. The Supreme Court said so back in 1984. Wouldn't a Copy-Prohibition Bit go completely against that?
Oh... I get it... every new medium that comes along should have a new set of laws surrounding it, right? No. Fair-use should mean fair-use... regardless of the medium.
On the other hand... why would anyone want to go to the trouble of recording a movie that's aired on TV? I mean seriously... they're gonna have commercials and be edited to hell. Go rent the DVD if you want to watch it... or borrow it from a friend.
I can understand why there's so much outcry against the copy-control bit, but honestly, if applied to cable TV, do you think networks like Comedy Central are going to use the bit to prohibit people from TiVo-ing stuff like South Park? Fuck no. The only practical application this thing has is for the movie channels (HBO, et cetera) and personally, you're better off renting the flick. Get NetFlix or something.
success*
iTunes Music Store = sucess
mp3.com = failure
I'm still wondering how Robertson was able to get so much money out of it.
Is it just me, or is it really aggravating that Michael Robertson even gets media attention in the first place? This guy makes headlines promoting his(?) new business strategy focusing on The Next Big Thing. Yet every time he's tried, he's failed. MP3.com and Lindows stick out in my mind the most, and maybe there are others.
Really... Roberson isn't coming up with ideas that nobody's ever heard of before, and he sure as shit isn't a marketing genius. So WHY do I keep reading about him in various places? What has he ever done to deserve the media attention that he gets?
I was going to add this to the end of my submission, but I decided to let someone else bring up this very point. While it is true that Microsoft's software is not to be used in life-critical applications, think on a lower scale.
/. and most struggle to simply install software, let alone run Windows Update)
What about the colleges that need to hire extra support personnel to fix infected Windows computers? What about the networks that are brought to a crawl by worms and Internet related viruses? What about the kids that have their term paper ruined because Word crashed?
Sure, blame these problems on ignorant Windows users for failing to run Windows Update. But as far as I know, Microsoft (and the OEMs) fail to stress the absolute necessity of running update in their printed material. In this case, are consumers to blame for failing to patch, or does the blame rest solely upon Microsoft? (Remember: most of America does not read
Granted, the aforementioned problems listed above may not be life-critical mishaps, but from a company which touts security and stability as their primary strengths, they should be sued for false (deceptive) advertising over those very situations alone. Ask Symantec and Network Associates about the security of Windows software. There's an entire segment of the Windows software industry dedicated to picking up where Microsoft fails.
And on a side note, there's a HUGE difference between sharware/freeware coders and large corporate coding farms like Microsoft. Individual coders have limited resources... working with little capital and minimal manpower. In contrast, Microsoft employs thousands of people and makes millions of dollars every year. Clearly, it is not right to go after the big guy simply because he's the big guy, but in this case, Microsoft has the resources to make a bullet-proof operating system. Instead, recent events have shown that Microsoft prefers to take a "lets plug the holes" approach to security, instead of a top-down redesign of their back-end mechanism(s).
Even if it is ultimately chosen by consumers, a line should be drawn when a product is prone to security breaches and the company producing it makes more money than the entire GDP of several small countries. People may not die when Windows is exploited (or crashes) but the lesser results of Microsoft's negligence should not be ignored.
There are lies, damn lies, and then statistics.
Britt, you fuck. Die. Oh... Ohio State kicked ass again today! w00t!
Am I the only one who feels that the corporations who choose to use Microsoft's "solutions" for their technology needs deserve what they get?
Ahem... that is... hoping that said corporation doesn't just so happen to have some sort of public service function in some sort of critical applications such as energy management or some sort of life-supporting systems. (I know Microsoft doesn't endorse that...)
This really goes to show how little our constitution means, 4th Amendment be damned.
But the thing that really frightens me is this... most people are so turned off to politics that things like the Patriot Act slip under the radar. What's worse... a majority of those that actually are involved in our political system choose to be a Democrat or Republican, as if they're their only options.
In 2004, I want G.W. Bush to get out of my government. Sadly, it'll have to be done with a Democrat, and it shouldn't be that way.
After skimming the surface of the German government, I can't help but wonder how different America would be if several parties were in control, not just two. Any Germans care to enlighten me?
People should have to get a license to have kids, not to surf the Internet.
Yeah, I said it.
the RIAA sues YOU!
wait a minue...
Parental Licenses.
Think I'm joking? Maybe, just maybe if stupid people weren't (legally) allowed to breed, problems like this wouldn't happen in the first place.
But then again, who decides who is stupid, and who isn't, right?
I still think it's fucked up that in America, you have to be twenty-one to drink and sixteen to drive in most states, yet, people can have kids whenever they want.
Yeah, I said it.
"Better burn" ??
Can someone confirm this? This sounds like the bullshit that some audiophiles spout in reviews of hardware.