Perfect. Then they could offer the carriers free vacations, with the condition that they attend a short presentation about the spectrum chunk under auction.
A master programmer passed a novice programmer one day. The master noted the novice's preoccupation with a hand-held computer game. ``Excuse me,'' he said, ``may I examine it?''
The novice bolted to attention and handed the device to the master. ``I see that the device claims to have three levels of play: Easy, Medium, and Hard,'' said the master. ``Yet every such device has another level of play, where the device seeks not to conquer the human, nor to be conquered by the human.''
``Pray, great master,'' implored the novice, ``how does one find this mysterious setting?''
The master dropped the device to the ground and crushed it underfoot. And suddenly the novice was enlightened.
freeweed writes, "Microsoft secretly paid astroturfers to submit anti-Linux stories to Slashdot, as the following [link to freeweed's blog] story [/link] reports.... "
PKE assumes that public keys are published reliably in some directory in a transaction separate than the communication itself. For example, many hackers put their public keys on their web pages. In addition, these keys might be republished in various other places. This is why it is hard in principle to spoof these keys.
With a man-in-the-middle attack, this PKE assumption is broken because the public key exchange typically happens in the same transaction, which is bad. This is why ssh will ask confirmation when first connecting to an unknown machine, or if a known machine's key changes.
In your example above, C would be able to intercept both directions of the transaction. To avoid the attack, the initial key exchange must not be intercepted. For example, A and B could both publish their keys in the yellow pages, on their web sites, keep it in their signatures, etc.; this way, it will be near impossible for C to spoof them without A and B noticing, if they are diligent.
I guess I should have mentioned they need to fit into standard fixtures... if I'm going to use custom fixtures with built-in ballasts might as well go to MH.
CFLs are hard to shop for. By the time you find one you like, you probably spend more than any near-term savings from reduced energy usage.
My biggest problem with CFLs is that the ballasts often break, so the bulbs actually lasts much less than an incadescent. This happened with both cheap and expensive ones; it could be that the power in our neighborhood is "dirty," but who knows? Thus the savings in energy get wasted in replacing the bulbs, which are not cheap, especially compared to incadescents going for $1 per 8-pack.
My second biggest problem is that they are not bright. The equivalent-wattage figures cited on the packaging are a bunch of baloney most of the time. Furthermore, there are no equivalent CFLs for high-power lights, such as 200W floods. I would *love* to get CFLs with, say, 200-400W equivalent light output. The next best thing I can come up with are halide lamps which, even though more efficient, require annoyingly specialized and expensive ballasts. They really light up, though; recently the MBTA installed a bunch of fixtures in the red-line T-stations around Boston and the effect is like daylight. The first time I saw them from afar I thought they ripped open the ceiling for some random road work.
Other CFL problems are as mentioned: long warm-up period, bad color, not dimmable, fitment, price, etc.
Pretty close, but not quite. MIMO doesn't rely in observing the combined signal at different times, but on the fact that in a multipath environment, there is some independence between an antenna at one location and one located a small distance (on the order of only one wavelength or less) away.
Yes, quite. The independence between antenna pairs arises from delay spread, caused by signals traveling different distances.
In some cases, the path lenghs of these signals are such that they all add in-phase (constructive interference) and the signal is strong. In other cases, they are out of phase and cancel each other (destructive interference) and you get static.
So they do arrive at different times. In your two examples they arrive either in-phase, or one half cycle apart in time.;)
and each element of the matrix is the gain between the transmit and receive antennas
Usually the coefficients are complex, which means they represent both gain (or should I say attenuation) and phase distortion.
A true MIMO system can analyze the paths between all transmit and receive antennas, and effectively transmit different data on each path.
Not quite. This would imply that in a NxM system, we could transmit different data on N*M paths, which is not the case. Upper bound is min(N,M).
It's interesting that they observed better performance *with* line-of-sight. I guess either that's when there is the least distortion of crosspolarization, or there is also less path-loss; in papers like "MIMO measurements in Manhattan" where the BLAST guys observed better performance *without* line-of-sight, they normalized the capacity calculations to factor our the path-loss. So even if the effect of MIMO might be greater when there are a bunch of buildings in the middle to randomize the signal phases, the increased path loss might not be worth it.
Slashdot Mirror
802.11g uses the same channelization as 802.11b.
Perfect. Then they could offer the carriers free vacations, with the condition that they attend a short presentation about the spectrum chunk under auction.
to mod legal arguments Funny.
Quoth the Tao of Programming:
A master programmer passed a novice programmer one day. The master noted the novice's preoccupation with a hand-held computer game. ``Excuse me,'' he said, ``may I examine it?''
The novice bolted to attention and handed the device to the master. ``I see that the device claims to have three levels of play: Easy, Medium, and Hard,'' said the master. ``Yet every such device has another level of play, where the device seeks not to conquer the human, nor to be conquered by the human.''
``Pray, great master,'' implored the novice, ``how does one find this mysterious setting?''
The master dropped the device to the ground and crushed it underfoot. And suddenly the novice was enlightened.
freeweed writes, "Microsoft secretly paid astroturfers to submit anti-Linux stories to Slashdot, as the following [link to freeweed's blog] story [/link] reports. ... "
with zero security incidents ... that you know of ;)
Uh, the original Internet Worm ran on SunOS, and a key reason it did so much damage was the Sun monoculture of the day.
At work we just take pictures. Higher resolution and we can use any color.
This is the worst fucking idea I heard today on Slashdot!
There are systems like Clearcase that do that, but the maintenance is a pain. (Not to mention not FOSS).
Yeah, also, you better not be a smoker if you plan to ingest sulphur and charcoal powder ;)
This is why mplayer is nice. Play any title immediately, without the stupid menu games or the mandatory FBI warning.
Want to bet which brand is more recognizable to consumers after one year
He did make a good point- who cares if it is recognizable if it only has 3% of the market?
But my 85-year-old uncle probably will never own an iPod, and I hope we'll get him to own a Zune.
Heh, in the same way Jack Bauer "hopes" that his daughter would never marry a Bin Laden.
If you see a flashing red laser dot on the ground, run!
It would be interesting to see a study of how many people actually use those EXIT signs in emergencies.
PKE assumes that public keys are published reliably in some directory in a transaction separate than the communication itself. For example, many hackers put their public keys on their web pages. In addition, these keys might be republished in various other places. This is why it is hard in principle to spoof these keys.
With a man-in-the-middle attack, this PKE assumption is broken because the public key exchange typically happens in the same transaction, which is bad. This is why ssh will ask confirmation when first connecting to an unknown machine, or if a known machine's key changes.
In your example above, C would be able to intercept both directions of the transaction. To avoid the attack, the initial key exchange must not be intercepted. For example, A and B could both publish their keys in the yellow pages, on their web sites, keep it in their signatures, etc.; this way, it will be near impossible for C to spoof them without A and B noticing, if they are diligent.
You don't know that his daughters aren't twins.
You're probably right, though. With the last name Xhaard, I bet his sex record could make Ron Jeremy envious. Darn Frenchmen!
Look at this beauty: 400W MH Lamp. The sheer number of lumens makes my head spin and my mouth water!
Pregnant women and children should be removed from a spill site
If your children are pregnant I'd say you have bigger problems than a little spilled mercury ^_^
I guess I should have mentioned they need to fit into standard fixtures... if I'm going to use custom fixtures with built-in ballasts might as well go to MH.
CFLs are hard to shop for. By the time you find one you like, you probably spend more than any near-term savings from reduced energy usage.
My biggest problem with CFLs is that the ballasts often break, so the bulbs actually lasts much less than an incadescent. This happened with both cheap and expensive ones; it could be that the power in our neighborhood is "dirty," but who knows? Thus the savings in energy get wasted in replacing the bulbs, which are not cheap, especially compared to incadescents going for $1 per 8-pack.
My second biggest problem is that they are not bright. The equivalent-wattage figures cited on the packaging are a bunch of baloney most of the time. Furthermore, there are no equivalent CFLs for high-power lights, such as 200W floods. I would *love* to get CFLs with, say, 200-400W equivalent light output. The next best thing I can come up with are halide lamps which, even though more efficient, require annoyingly specialized and expensive ballasts. They really light up, though; recently the MBTA installed a bunch of fixtures in the red-line T-stations around Boston and the effect is like daylight. The first time I saw them from afar I thought they ripped open the ceiling for some random road work.
Other CFL problems are as mentioned: long warm-up period, bad color, not dimmable, fitment, price, etc.
How do you figure that ability to do mental math is not correlated with software development aptitude? From experience I'd say it's the opposite.
It's interesting that they observed better performance *with* line-of-sight. I guess either that's when there is the least distortion of crosspolarization, or there is also less path-loss; in papers like "MIMO measurements in Manhattan" where the BLAST guys observed better performance *without* line-of-sight, they normalized the capacity calculations to factor our the path-loss. So even if the effect of MIMO might be greater when there are a bunch of buildings in the middle to randomize the signal phases, the increased path loss might not be worth it.