The specification of fiber-everywhere should be replaced with a goal of broadband-everywhere (defined as > X Gbps, where X is defined by some balance of cost-performance based on current technologies and X increases over time.)
A lot of us on/. are technical and in engineering-like professions and hobbies. So, why would we demand a specific technology instead of looking at how we can deliver faster broadband to more places in the most economically-efficient way.
Without a doubt, the most economically efficient way to provide broadband to rural areas is via wireless, whether it is via terrestrial antennas/repeaters (LTE, 5G, VHF/UHF/ microwave) or satellite (currently geosynchronous high-latency, but soon with much lower-latency via a LEO constellation).
The US governmental agencies can be involved by lowering the regulatory hurdles for building more cell/radio towers, opening up more RF spectrum, and allowing LEO satellite constellations to be built-out. To do so, would even add competitive pressure to the areas where cable and telephone companies have local monopolies and force them to improve their service to their users, too.
I had an installation problem when installing the macOS 10.13.4 update on my MacBook Air.
After rebooting, my system would crash (requiring a reboot) ad nauseam.
I rebooted in Safe Mode and somehow got the machine out of the annoying reboot cycle. At that point, I rebooted back int 10.13.3 and resolved not to upgrade to 10.13.4 until I heard it was safe to install. When I went to the App Store and checked for updates, the 10.13.4 update disappeared from the list. (It seemed at the time that Apple had pulled it from their servers.) Unfortunately, a week or so later, the update was pushed down and my machine rebooted. But, it seemed to work this time, fortunately.
Reviewing the logs, there was an entry about a file not found which seemed to cause the problem. I didn't save the logs, so I can't report the exact error.
That's a good question, and I'm not certain that the researchers could definitively say yes or no.
I should note that the white blood cells (lymphocytes) that were grown in the lab were those selected to attack the cancerous cells. Some of those T lymphocytes may also have the "memory" for identifying the other foreign items from which I've already acquired immunity. In addition, as part of the treatment, twenty-four hours after receiving the new white blood cells that were grown in the lab, I was given a pint of the blood stem cells that were extracted before treatment, mostly to counteract the effects of the total body radiation on the stem cells in my bone marrow for the trial. (The researchers were trying to determine if they got better survival results with this treatment by giving 12 Grays of radiation versus no radiation. Ultimately, they determined from the trial that the radiation showed little improvement in overall survival.)
I do know that my allergies have changed since my treatment. In fact, they've moderated a bit. My first month or so after treatment, it seemed like I had seasonal allergies to everything, but that has pretty much faded away and ragweed and cottonwood seasons don't seem to affect me much anymore.
Also, my doctors had me on an antibiotic (Bactrim) for at least six months post-treatment, because of the increased risk of contracting a certain type of pneumonia (PCP) because of my suppressed immune system.
I'm living proof these sorts of immunotherapy treatments work: five years and still cancer-free. It's wonderful that the FDA may be on the brink of approving their use outside of trials.
I sought out and was admitted into a trial at NIH in 2012 to use a similar treatment for Stage IV melanoma.
In my trial, the researchers harvested my existing white blood cells and selected those that were able to recognize and attack the mutations present in my melanoma. Those cells were expanded to 130 billion in the lab and then re-infused into my body after my own immune system was killed off. In essence, my immune system was rebooted with white blood cells that could recognize and fight the cancer cells.
In theory, my body has been effectively immunized against the some of the cancerous mutations that my melanoma exhibited. I won't need any further treatment for my previous melanoma EVER.
I know fellow melanoma patients who were in related trials at NIH in which their harvested white cells were genetically engineered to express different proteins (like, IL-12 or IL-15 or NY/ESO) with similar success.
These novel cancer-fighting approaches are working. I'm happy that the FDA may actually be slowing adapting to the changing medical technology.
I had the same problem with SkyHook this last month. I set up my Airport Extreme in my hotel room in San Francisco for WWDC. When I re-used it on a visit to Northern Wisconsin (where there was no cell phone, much less AT&T service), my iPhone always reported its location as the hotel I was staying at in San Francisco.
Frankly, I was surprised that SkyHook picked up my new access point in the short amount of time that I had it up and running in San Francisco.
It's their fiber, why can't they allocate it as they wish?
There seems to be a confusion in TFA about whether this applies to any backbones managed by Verizon versus the optical fiber that Verizon is supplying to people's homes via their FiOS service.
Regarding the backbones, as long as they are meeting their contractual commitments, why should anybody else have any say over how they allocate any additional bandwidth they may have.
Regarding fiber-to-the-home (FTTH), they are planning on allocating it as follows using three wavelengths (according to John Dix at Network World):
Cable TV providers, he said, typically have a 860-MHz channel to serve each house, and have to divvy up that capacity if they want to add services such as video on demand, Internet access and VoIP. Verizon delivers three wavelengths of light to each house: a 860-MHz video channel; a 622Mbps channel for voice, data and video on demand; and a 155Mbps return channel for voice and data (the 622M and 155Mbps channels are shared by up to 32 households).
In the FTTH case, historically the Telcos have been required to provide fair access to their wires (thus you're not required to use Qwest as your ISP if you have Qwest DSL, for example), I would expect that the fair access rules would apply to FTTH.
The surest way to delay getting fiber bandwidth to your home or internet infrastructure is by taking away the incentives (read: profit) for the corporations involved. Verizon is currently making major investements in having a large share of the next generation networks, their competition is being caught flat-footed and behind the curve and will probably try to make legal challenges to slow their growth.
For an object-oriented programming language, either C# or Java will be fine. Once you learn the language of one well, you'll be able to quickly learn the simple syntactical differences and nuances when you transfer to the other.
The harder (in a relative sense) thing is to learn the class libraries and how to make use of the classes and methods to write your programs. Fortunately, again, there are similarities between the two. When coupled with a good intellisense-style editor, you'll be able to move from one to the other fairly readily, I would think.
My advice is to just pick one and learn it well--learning the other at a future time should be a snap. As far as post-college job opportunities, corporations use both (but each corporation tends to focus on one or the other). Perhaps you should do a little local research to see which language/class library is in more demand where you live. I have plenty of consulting friends in the Minneapolis/St. Paul area that focus on each and who are all gainfully under contract (although C# experts are in slightly more demand and can get higher bill rates, unless you're a J2EE expert).
For the long term, technologies will change and evolve. Learn the commonalities and the differences between the two and continually re-apply what you know when confronted with new technologies. Be adapable.
Here is the past Slashdot discussion at the bill's introduction.
The bill text for HR 1606 can be found here.
The bill simply says:
Paragraph (22) of section 301 of the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 (2 U.S.C. 431(22)) is amended by adding at the end the following new sentence: `Such term shall not include communications over the Internet.'.
The law being modified can be found on page 11 (PDF page 25) of this (warning: large PDF) document, which simply defines "public communication" as:
(22) Public communication. The term 'public communication'
means a communication by means of any broadcast, cable, or satellite
communication, newspaper, magazine, outdoor advertising facility,
mass mailing, or telephone bank to the general public, or any other
form of general public political advertising.
Original Usenet Post
on
IMDb Turns 15
·
· Score: 5, Informative
The original Usenet post is here, courtesy of Google.
Each community should have the right to choose for itself.
I really don't see municipal wireless broadband efforts as any different.
It's really similar to how some communities offer garbage service, whereas others do not. If the community's taxpayers are willing to pay for the service, then the local government should be willing to provide it (within the standard Constitutional limits).
Additionally, if a local government provides a broadband service, it should be like the public streets--open to all. I'm not comfortable with the economic exclusion of parts of the taxpaying public through the charging of a separate fee (no matter how small this fee is). Furthermore, I don't have a problem with the implementation of a "Fair Access Policy", which tacks on a surcharge for those users who utilize the network the most, so as not to penalize the light users of the network.
However, what concerns me the most, however, is the community policing of these broadband networks, including government intrusion on people's privacy and censorship of content deemed inappropriate for the community.
One more thing, by all means, the opening of community broadband should not be a dedicated monopoly on broadband service. Thus, communities should NOT be allowed to block other broadband services from coming in to service their residents. This should force the alternate broadband service providers to provide better services and specialized content to get people to want their services.
As a resident of a suburb just outside of Minneapolis (Eden Prairie), I'm somewhat torn about this:
On the positive side, this influx of competition in the broadband arena is good for me as a consumer, currently tithing about $45/month to Time-Warner Cable (which serves Minneapolis and the SW 'burbs). More competition in the broadband arena is a very good thing--especially when it shakes up entrenched local monopolies (Qwest DSL and Time-Warner Cable). Also, as a Hennepin County (which contains Minneapolis and my suburb) taxpayer, technologies that can streamline government operations (and either provide better services and/or lower taxes) is another good thing.
However, on the negative side, I'm nervous about governments getting into the broadband business--the potential for intrusion and abuse of the citizen's rights to privacy is certainly increased. The fact that this deployment is run by a private company helps a little--but it still concerns me, since the government is providing the funding for it.
Technology itself is neutral and can be used for both good and evil purposes. Perhaps, what I'd like to see would be a citizen's oversight group that can provide the checks on government abuse of the network.
Another smaller suburb to my southwest (Chaska) has their own municipal deployment, which apparently is working out pretty well.
As long as municipal broadband doesn't block other entities from providing broadband service to a community and foster competition, municipal broadband could be a very good thing. But, I'm still concerned about potential abuse of the network by the local governments.
Excrement from aircraft hits car (January 13, 2000)
MADRID, Thurs. - A Spanish man narrowly escaped injury when a four-kg ball of ice thought to be frozen human excrement ejected from a passing aircraft fell on his car near the southern city of Seville, authorities said.
The man was about to enter the vehicle when a friend stopped him for a chat. The ball of ice, measuring 20 centimetres then plummeted out of a cloudless sky and crushed the car's bonnet. - Reuters (http://reuters.com)
It seems like the weirdest and wildest fashions always appear in fashion shows, but nobody in their right minds would actually wear those fashions. Microsoft's workplace of the future is similar to a fashion show because they're attempting to probe the possible directions that technology will take us. In all likelihood, the future won't be as wild as they depict it to be.
It will happen... why do you think the broadcasters are licking their chops at the possibilities of digital TV? With digital TV broadcasting everywhere in the US by 2006, the broadcasters will be able to either broadcast a single HDTV feed OR split their spectrum up to provide 4 "regular" NTSC SDTV feeds OR use their spectrum for other uses.
The broadcast industry is very happy with their new digital TV broadcast spectrum for obvious reasons...:-)
I guess this sets a legal precedent for anyone who has a file distribution mechanism to make sure that there are absolute no unlicensed copyrighted material on their sites.
Does this mean that AIM needs to start blocking Buddy Icons that are infringing on someone's copyrights? I guess so much for my Bart Simpson buddy icon. (But how does AOL know that I don't have proper authorization and clearance to use that icon?)
Slashdot Mirror
In many jurisdictions, wearing headsets while driving is illegal (and has been for many years, even before cell phones).
The RCMP Reminds Canadians That You Can Be Fined For Wearing Earphones While Driving
AAA Driving Laws: Headsets
The specification of fiber-everywhere should be replaced with a goal of broadband-everywhere (defined as > X Gbps, where X is defined by some balance of cost-performance based on current technologies and X increases over time.)
A lot of us on /. are technical and in engineering-like professions and hobbies. So, why would we demand a specific technology instead of looking at how we can deliver faster broadband to more places in the most economically-efficient way.
Without a doubt, the most economically efficient way to provide broadband to rural areas is via wireless, whether it is via terrestrial antennas/repeaters (LTE, 5G, VHF/UHF/ microwave) or satellite (currently geosynchronous high-latency, but soon with much lower-latency via a LEO constellation).
The US governmental agencies can be involved by lowering the regulatory hurdles for building more cell/radio towers, opening up more RF spectrum, and allowing LEO satellite constellations to be built-out. To do so, would even add competitive pressure to the areas where cable and telephone companies have local monopolies and force them to improve their service to their users, too.
I had an installation problem when installing the macOS 10.13.4 update on my MacBook Air.
After rebooting, my system would crash (requiring a reboot) ad nauseam.
I rebooted in Safe Mode and somehow got the machine out of the annoying reboot cycle. At that point, I rebooted back int 10.13.3 and resolved not to upgrade to 10.13.4 until I heard it was safe to install. When I went to the App Store and checked for updates, the 10.13.4 update disappeared from the list. (It seemed at the time that Apple had pulled it from their servers.) Unfortunately, a week or so later, the update was pushed down and my machine rebooted. But, it seemed to work this time, fortunately.
Reviewing the logs, there was an entry about a file not found which seemed to cause the problem. I didn't save the logs, so I can't report the exact error.
That's a good question, and I'm not certain that the researchers could definitively say yes or no.
I should note that the white blood cells (lymphocytes) that were grown in the lab were those selected to attack the cancerous cells. Some of those T lymphocytes may also have the "memory" for identifying the other foreign items from which I've already acquired immunity. In addition, as part of the treatment, twenty-four hours after receiving the new white blood cells that were grown in the lab, I was given a pint of the blood stem cells that were extracted before treatment, mostly to counteract the effects of the total body radiation on the stem cells in my bone marrow for the trial. (The researchers were trying to determine if they got better survival results with this treatment by giving 12 Grays of radiation versus no radiation. Ultimately, they determined from the trial that the radiation showed little improvement in overall survival.)
I do know that my allergies have changed since my treatment. In fact, they've moderated a bit. My first month or so after treatment, it seemed like I had seasonal allergies to everything, but that has pretty much faded away and ragweed and cottonwood seasons don't seem to affect me much anymore.
Also, my doctors had me on an antibiotic (Bactrim) for at least six months post-treatment, because of the increased risk of contracting a certain type of pneumonia (PCP) because of my suppressed immune system.
I'm living proof these sorts of immunotherapy treatments work: five years and still cancer-free. It's wonderful that the FDA may be on the brink of approving their use outside of trials.
I sought out and was admitted into a trial at NIH in 2012 to use a similar treatment for Stage IV melanoma.
In my trial, the researchers harvested my existing white blood cells and selected those that were able to recognize and attack the mutations present in my melanoma. Those cells were expanded to 130 billion in the lab and then re-infused into my body after my own immune system was killed off. In essence, my immune system was rebooted with white blood cells that could recognize and fight the cancer cells.
In theory, my body has been effectively immunized against the some of the cancerous mutations that my melanoma exhibited. I won't need any further treatment for my previous melanoma EVER.
I know fellow melanoma patients who were in related trials at NIH in which their harvested white cells were genetically engineered to express different proteins (like, IL-12 or IL-15 or NY/ESO) with similar success.
These novel cancer-fighting approaches are working. I'm happy that the FDA may actually be slowing adapting to the changing medical technology.
I had the same problem with SkyHook this last month. I set up my Airport Extreme in my hotel room in San Francisco for WWDC. When I re-used it on a visit to Northern Wisconsin (where there was no cell phone, much less AT&T service), my iPhone always reported its location as the hotel I was staying at in San Francisco. Frankly, I was surprised that SkyHook picked up my new access point in the short amount of time that I had it up and running in San Francisco.
There's not much resolution from this satellite image, but here's the pyramid's location using Google maps.
sorry for the typos: that's 20,000 tickets at $100 each totalling $2,000,000...
:-)
and it's "higher" price, of course... need my morning coffee...
It's simple supply and demand and the desire to maximize revenues and profits.
If you were Madonna and her management, would you rather sell:
10,000 tickets at $250 each, totalling $2,500,000
or sell:
20,000 tickets at $100 each, totalling $1,000,000 ?
In Madonna's case, she'll likely sell out at the hire price anyway and pocket $5,000,000.
Link to the John Dix Network World article Verizon counting on FiOS tech advantage
It's their fiber, why can't they allocate it as they wish?
There seems to be a confusion in TFA about whether this applies to any backbones managed by Verizon versus the optical fiber that Verizon is supplying to people's homes via their FiOS service.
Regarding the backbones, as long as they are meeting their contractual commitments, why should anybody else have any say over how they allocate any additional bandwidth they may have.
Regarding fiber-to-the-home (FTTH), they are planning on allocating it as follows using three wavelengths (according to John Dix at Network World):
In the FTTH case, historically the Telcos have been required to provide fair access to their wires (thus you're not required to use Qwest as your ISP if you have Qwest DSL, for example), I would expect that the fair access rules would apply to FTTH.
The surest way to delay getting fiber bandwidth to your home or internet infrastructure is by taking away the incentives (read: profit) for the corporations involved. Verizon is currently making major investements in having a large share of the next generation networks, their competition is being caught flat-footed and behind the curve and will probably try to make legal challenges to slow their growth.
For an object-oriented programming language, either C# or Java will be fine. Once you learn the language of one well, you'll be able to quickly learn the simple syntactical differences and nuances when you transfer to the other. The harder (in a relative sense) thing is to learn the class libraries and how to make use of the classes and methods to write your programs. Fortunately, again, there are similarities between the two. When coupled with a good intellisense-style editor, you'll be able to move from one to the other fairly readily, I would think. My advice is to just pick one and learn it well--learning the other at a future time should be a snap. As far as post-college job opportunities, corporations use both (but each corporation tends to focus on one or the other). Perhaps you should do a little local research to see which language/class library is in more demand where you live. I have plenty of consulting friends in the Minneapolis/St. Paul area that focus on each and who are all gainfully under contract (although C# experts are in slightly more demand and can get higher bill rates, unless you're a J2EE expert). For the long term, technologies will change and evolve. Learn the commonalities and the differences between the two and continually re-apply what you know when confronted with new technologies. Be adapable.
The original Usenet post is here, courtesy of Google.
Not to burst ESR's bubble, but it's not a job offer. It's simply a Microsoft recruiting vendor trolling for people who might be interested.
I get a similar e-mail every few months.
So, to ask the obvious question... How long will we have to wait before the PSP runs OS X Tiger?
Each community should have the right to choose for itself.
I really don't see municipal wireless broadband efforts as any different.
It's really similar to how some communities offer garbage service, whereas others do not. If the community's taxpayers are willing to pay for the service, then the local government should be willing to provide it (within the standard Constitutional limits).
Additionally, if a local government provides a broadband service, it should be like the public streets--open to all. I'm not comfortable with the economic exclusion of parts of the taxpaying public through the charging of a separate fee (no matter how small this fee is). Furthermore, I don't have a problem with the implementation of a "Fair Access Policy", which tacks on a surcharge for those users who utilize the network the most, so as not to penalize the light users of the network.
However, what concerns me the most, however, is the community policing of these broadband networks, including government intrusion on people's privacy and censorship of content deemed inappropriate for the community.
One more thing, by all means, the opening of community broadband should not be a dedicated monopoly on broadband service. Thus, communities should NOT be allowed to block other broadband services from coming in to service their residents. This should force the alternate broadband service providers to provide better services and specialized content to get people to want their services.
As a resident of a suburb just outside of Minneapolis (Eden Prairie), I'm somewhat torn about this:
On the positive side, this influx of competition in the broadband arena is good for me as a consumer, currently tithing about $45/month to Time-Warner Cable (which serves Minneapolis and the SW 'burbs). More competition in the broadband arena is a very good thing--especially when it shakes up entrenched local monopolies (Qwest DSL and Time-Warner Cable). Also, as a Hennepin County (which contains Minneapolis and my suburb) taxpayer, technologies that can streamline government operations (and either provide better services and/or lower taxes) is another good thing.
However, on the negative side, I'm nervous about governments getting into the broadband business--the potential for intrusion and abuse of the citizen's rights to privacy is certainly increased. The fact that this deployment is run by a private company helps a little--but it still concerns me, since the government is providing the funding for it.
Technology itself is neutral and can be used for both good and evil purposes. Perhaps, what I'd like to see would be a citizen's oversight group that can provide the checks on government abuse of the network.
Another smaller suburb to my southwest (Chaska) has their own municipal deployment, which apparently is working out pretty well.
As long as municipal broadband doesn't block other entities from providing broadband service to a community and foster competition, municipal broadband could be a very good thing. But, I'm still concerned about potential abuse of the network by the local governments.
Is this the first recorded instance of a wide array of small webcam servers getting simultaneously slashdotted?
It seems like the weirdest and wildest fashions always appear in fashion shows, but nobody in their right minds would actually wear those fashions. Microsoft's workplace of the future is similar to a fashion show because they're attempting to probe the possible directions that technology will take us. In all likelihood, the future won't be as wild as they depict it to be.
It will happen... why do you think the broadcasters are licking their chops at the possibilities of digital TV? With digital TV broadcasting everywhere in the US by 2006, the broadcasters will be able to either broadcast a single HDTV feed OR split their spectrum up to provide 4 "regular" NTSC SDTV feeds OR use their spectrum for other uses. The broadcast industry is very happy with their new digital TV broadcast spectrum for obvious reasons... :-)
I guess this sets a legal precedent for anyone who has a file distribution mechanism to make sure that there are absolute no unlicensed copyrighted material on their sites.
Does this mean that AIM needs to start blocking Buddy Icons that are infringing on someone's copyrights? I guess so much for my Bart Simpson buddy icon. (But how does AOL know that I don't have proper authorization and clearance to use that icon?)
How about GnotGnet?