Phones are heavily regulated. They don't just turn on their transmitters at 3000mW and start screaming to get maximum range and speed, they carefully follow a very strict and well defined set of rules laid out in the standards.
The spectrum that FPV drones operate in is multi-standard and so uses power and duty cycle limits to ensure it can be shared properly.
I don't know what this guy's agenda is but it's not hard to understand at all. Here is the wikipedia article that explains it very well: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
Look at Article 11, for example. The supposed "link tax". Oh look, the EU studied the situation, realized that a link tax won't work and that stopping the use of small portions of copyrighted works on things like news aggregation sites is a terrible idea, and put in specific exemptions that actually remove restrictions in a couple of countries (Germany and Spain).
A lot of the changes were due to feedback from the public. You know, democracy. Elections are not the only way to participate.
Except that the proposal is specifically designed to make linking and using snippets free, so while they could in theory get paid in Germany and Spain right now (if anyone was willing to give them money) the EU is taking that away from them.
The sad things is we don't need to brexit for either of those things. Croatia has blue passports, we just picked red of our own free will because at the time no-one thought anything of it and that was the default colour.
This is another Euromyth, the latest in a long line that convinced people to vote for brexit against their own interests.
Straight bananas, hair nets for fishermen, hard hays for tightrope walkers, mandatory small size condoms, a slop bucket in your kitchen, wine lakes, red passports, the list is endless and the "link tax" is just the latest one.
What really worries me is how people keep falling for it after decades of debunking. Straight bananas was mid 90s and it was far from the first one.
For example, the "link tax" is actually designed to stop companies like Google and Facebook having to pay for linking to stuff. It's the exact opposite of what the summary claims.
A couple of EU countries did try a link tax - Germany and Spain. Google News pulled out for that reason, and it actually hurt publishers. The EU did a study, understood that the market had decided that it wasn't going to pay for links or snippets and decided to have an EU wide standard that allowed linking and snippets for free.
This is good news because before you had to worry about which EU country you were operating in, but now you can be sure that your news aggregation site can operate anywhere in the EU without paying any licence fees.
The battery industry is changing rapidly at the moment. You have Panasonic/Tesla making packs, with LG and SK Innovation coming in with lower prices and a radically different pack design. There are a few Chinese companies building huge factories that dwarf Gigafactory, some partnering with European car manufacturers with locations in the EU.
The lack of major investment in this could be caution or the abundance of more certain investments, or as you say it could be pie in the sky.
It's kind of weird that nuclear fans come out of the woodwork to mod stuff like this down as "troll". It's the nuclear industry bothering to astroturf Slashdot, or add they really just that sensitive to criticism?
Either way it explains why the nuclear industry is failing.
I actually bothered to read the proposal and it turns out that most of the fears are unfounded.
There is no threat to hyperlinks, they are specifically exempted.
EU did a study on the effect that laws in Germany and Spain had on news outlets being able to charge for snippets (e.g. Google News withdrew) and decided that there should be an exemption because the market values such rights a 0 Euro. So no threat to news aggregation or search results or snippets in tweets etc, in fact the situation should get better.
Article 13 is the worrying one because it does seem to mandate YouTube style content filtering. However, it could equally make things much better for Europeans. For example, YouTube already has that system and it isn't going away, but the proposal requires there to be an effective appeal process. Currently it's impossible to contact a human at YouTube to get stuff reviewed and the appeals process is very slow. During the appeal the person making the copyright claim steals all your ad revenue too. It's very likely that the EU would require speedy resolution and much fairer dealing.
Realistically we are not going to get to a point where there are no filters on major media sharing services like YouTube. At least the EU proposal, unlike the DMCA, does require a proper appeals process and has better built in exemptions and rights for the uploader. It's not perfect but it's probably better than what we have now, and as ever smaller sites are exempt too.
They cost a fortune to build, and were never profitable. The government tried to sell them but literally couldn't give them away for free - they had to pay private companies to take them and agree to cover all the decommissioning costs.
I'd call that a disaster, at least for the UK taxpayer who stumped up for it.
So why didn't other countries develop non-water-cooled reactors? Oh wait, they tried and they were all disasters. The UK ones will take 90 years to decommission and we money pits. Every thorium experimental reactor of any significant size screwed up somehow and was deemed not worth commercially developing.
All you ever do is claim that if only hippies wouldn't get in the way we would develop these amazing, flawless reactors that are cheap and meltdown-proof, but all the evidence says otherwise.
If your theory about malodorous hippies is correct then you have to wonder why they have been so effective at making nuclear power uneconomical, yet failed to do much against big oil and numerous other sources of pollution. How come they can't get past opposition to wind turbines in many locations, or force everyone to drive a Nissan Leaf?
More likely is that nuclear is just expensive by its nature. Predictions of power too cheap to meter were just fantasies. And it produces a lot of CO2 anyway.
To be fair the high end ones have really good sound. Google and Apple in particular. They do room correction and are generally a lot better than most comparable hifi systems.
Assuming you have an AptX Bluetooth source of course.
What if you want to pair your headphones to your phone, tablet, laptop and work PC? How are you going to switch which one they are paired to?
Keep in mind that if you switch off Bluetooth then your keyboard and mouse stop working too. Your phone won't pair to your car automatically any more and you will forget to switch back on when you get in.
You will have to unpair and repair every time. Some devices have NFC to make it less painful, but not Apple ones.
Basic Bluetooth audio is bad even for non audiophiles. You really need AptX or you will notice.
About pairing, I meant pairing the device to multiple phones/tablets/computers. Instead of just switching the cable over you have to muck about with Bluetooth pairing.
Back in the day the best voice recognition wasn't that accurate and need a quiet environment to work. Google Voice works in a noisy street when you have a thick Scottish accent.
I'm not saying it's impossible on a phone, just not as easy as you might think.
Bluetooth audio is shit unless you have at least AptX and ideally AptX HD. So there are levels of compatibility.
Bluetooth is also a pain in the arse if you need to switch devices much. Unpair, re-pair every time. You can toggle Bluetooth on and off instead, but only if you have no other Bluetooth devices.
Your headphones won't outlast your gadgets if they come with proprietary audio codecs and connectors. That's probably the idea - deprecate "old" tech to make people upgrade to get the latest Bluetooth codec.
Looking at the pin code entry it seems that the order of the buttons isn't randomised, so the pin code will be easy to steal just by looking at the fingerprint smudges on the screen.
Slashdot Mirror
Phones are heavily regulated. They don't just turn on their transmitters at 3000mW and start screaming to get maximum range and speed, they carefully follow a very strict and well defined set of rules laid out in the standards.
The spectrum that FPV drones operate in is multi-standard and so uses power and duty cycle limits to ensure it can be shared properly.
I don't know what this guy's agenda is but it's not hard to understand at all. Here is the wikipedia article that explains it very well: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
Look at Article 11, for example. The supposed "link tax". Oh look, the EU studied the situation, realized that a link tax won't work and that stopping the use of small portions of copyrighted works on things like news aggregation sites is a terrible idea, and put in specific exemptions that actually remove restrictions in a couple of countries (Germany and Spain).
A lot of the changes were due to feedback from the public. You know, democracy. Elections are not the only way to participate.
Except that the proposal is specifically designed to make linking and using snippets free, so while they could in theory get paid in Germany and Spain right now (if anyone was willing to give them money) the EU is taking that away from them.
The sad things is we don't need to brexit for either of those things. Croatia has blue passports, we just picked red of our own free will because at the time no-one thought anything of it and that was the default colour.
This is another Euromyth, the latest in a long line that convinced people to vote for brexit against their own interests.
Straight bananas, hair nets for fishermen, hard hays for tightrope walkers, mandatory small size condoms, a slop bucket in your kitchen, wine lakes, red passports, the list is endless and the "link tax" is just the latest one.
What really worries me is how people keep falling for it after decades of debunking. Straight bananas was mid 90s and it was far from the first one.
Except that it's all complete bollocks.
For example, the "link tax" is actually designed to stop companies like Google and Facebook having to pay for linking to stuff. It's the exact opposite of what the summary claims.
A couple of EU countries did try a link tax - Germany and Spain. Google News pulled out for that reason, and it actually hurt publishers. The EU did a study, understood that the market had decided that it wasn't going to pay for links or snippets and decided to have an EU wide standard that allowed linking and snippets for free.
This is good news because before you had to worry about which EU country you were operating in, but now you can be sure that your news aggregation site can operate anywhere in the EU without paying any licence fees.
The battery industry is changing rapidly at the moment. You have Panasonic/Tesla making packs, with LG and SK Innovation coming in with lower prices and a radically different pack design. There are a few Chinese companies building huge factories that dwarf Gigafactory, some partnering with European car manufacturers with locations in the EU.
The lack of major investment in this could be caution or the abundance of more certain investments, or as you say it could be pie in the sky.
It's kind of weird that nuclear fans come out of the woodwork to mod stuff like this down as "troll". It's the nuclear industry bothering to astroturf Slashdot, or add they really just that sensitive to criticism?
Either way it explains why the nuclear industry is failing.
I actually bothered to read the proposal and it turns out that most of the fears are unfounded.
There is no threat to hyperlinks, they are specifically exempted.
EU did a study on the effect that laws in Germany and Spain had on news outlets being able to charge for snippets (e.g. Google News withdrew) and decided that there should be an exemption because the market values such rights a 0 Euro. So no threat to news aggregation or search results or snippets in tweets etc, in fact the situation should get better.
Article 13 is the worrying one because it does seem to mandate YouTube style content filtering. However, it could equally make things much better for Europeans. For example, YouTube already has that system and it isn't going away, but the proposal requires there to be an effective appeal process. Currently it's impossible to contact a human at YouTube to get stuff reviewed and the appeals process is very slow. During the appeal the person making the copyright claim steals all your ad revenue too. It's very likely that the EU would require speedy resolution and much fairer dealing.
Realistically we are not going to get to a point where there are no filters on major media sharing services like YouTube. At least the EU proposal, unlike the DMCA, does require a proper appeals process and has better built in exemptions and rights for the uploader. It's not perfect but it's probably better than what we have now, and as ever smaller sites are exempt too.
Why do you see everything in terms of race and "us and them"? I'm just trying to help some folks.
That's actually the first decent argument I've heard for nuclear in a long, long time. Thanks.
I take your point but I think it's very unlikely to be the case that nuclear is ultimately cheaper than renewables+storage over any time period.
No, that's factually incorrect. They did not sell any of them, they had to pay companies to take them away.
I'm asking you for proof of your claims. I can't prove a negative.
Do you know anything about the UK ones?
They cost a fortune to build, and were never profitable. The government tried to sell them but literally couldn't give them away for free - they had to pay private companies to take them and agree to cover all the decommissioning costs.
I'd call that a disaster, at least for the UK taxpayer who stumped up for it.
So why didn't other countries develop non-water-cooled reactors? Oh wait, they tried and they were all disasters. The UK ones will take 90 years to decommission and we money pits. Every thorium experimental reactor of any significant size screwed up somehow and was deemed not worth commercially developing.
All you ever do is claim that if only hippies wouldn't get in the way we would develop these amazing, flawless reactors that are cheap and meltdown-proof, but all the evidence says otherwise.
You vastly overestimate the difficulty of achieving this goal, and underestimate the economic opportunity it represents.
It's going to have to happen eventually. The only question is who will get to profit from developing the technology and skills.
What documentary is this and who paid for it?
If your theory about malodorous hippies is correct then you have to wonder why they have been so effective at making nuclear power uneconomical, yet failed to do much against big oil and numerous other sources of pollution. How come they can't get past opposition to wind turbines in many locations, or force everyone to drive a Nissan Leaf?
More likely is that nuclear is just expensive by its nature. Predictions of power too cheap to meter were just fantasies. And it produces a lot of CO2 anyway.
To be fair the high end ones have really good sound. Google and Apple in particular. They do room correction and are generally a lot better than most comparable hifi systems.
Assuming you have an AptX Bluetooth source of course.
Don't forget the glued in battery. LiPo gets about 500 cycles, so 1.5 years of daily use.
What if you want to pair your headphones to your phone, tablet, laptop and work PC? How are you going to switch which one they are paired to?
Keep in mind that if you switch off Bluetooth then your keyboard and mouse stop working too. Your phone won't pair to your car automatically any more and you will forget to switch back on when you get in.
You will have to unpair and repair every time. Some devices have NFC to make it less painful, but not Apple ones.
Basic Bluetooth audio is bad even for non audiophiles. You really need AptX or you will notice.
About pairing, I meant pairing the device to multiple phones/tablets/computers. Instead of just switching the cable over you have to muck about with Bluetooth pairing.
Back in the day the best voice recognition wasn't that accurate and need a quiet environment to work. Google Voice works in a noisy street when you have a thick Scottish accent.
I'm not saying it's impossible on a phone, just not as easy as you might think.
Bluetooth audio is shit unless you have at least AptX and ideally AptX HD. So there are levels of compatibility.
Bluetooth is also a pain in the arse if you need to switch devices much. Unpair, re-pair every time. You can toggle Bluetooth on and off instead, but only if you have no other Bluetooth devices.
Your headphones won't outlast your gadgets if they come with proprietary audio codecs and connectors. That's probably the idea - deprecate "old" tech to make people upgrade to get the latest Bluetooth codec.
Looking at the pin code entry it seems that the order of the buttons isn't randomised, so the pin code will be easy to steal just by looking at the fingerprint smudges on the screen.