The free market does not really exist. It requires that everyone be honest and play by the rules. In reality, people cheat and lie all the time. For this reason, the free market does not exist in its idealized form. We still strive for a free market, but rules, regulation, and enforcement are required in the real world. The only real question is how much "rules, regulation, and enforcement" is required to minimize the loss that results from fraud? Republicans and Democrats have different answers to this question.
I imagine audio could be solved by tunnelling USB through DisplayPort. Most monitors already have a USB hub and DisplayPort was designed to tunnel other protocols. This way the monitor could act as a USB audio device and the controlling computer could simply use it. How it would work when going through the video card is a good question, but specific support for audio is not required when one can simply support USB.
Note the term "just".... I never claimed that diet never had an effect, just that it was not the only effect.
And with regards to your quote, it supports my assertion. Different feed does not have an impact on final quality. But you really should not read much into it. I'm from Canada. Neighbours are ranchers. There is no alteration of diet before the slaughter. [1] Ranchers are paid at auction based on the weight and general appearance of the animal. The fact that there are different diets between Ontario and Alberta is most likely a result of different grains being grown. The reason why grains are used in place of hay is that the stress of their changing environment can put them off their food. Grains ensures that they will retain their weight.
------------
The diet will change when the animal is brought to auction because ownership changes hands. But the auctions are quick and the slaughterhouses do not keep animals for long.
Diet has everything to do with the flavor of the meat.
Not just diet - also exercise. Unused muscle tends to not taste very good. If it were just diet, farmers would simply change the diet of the animal for the last couple of weeks to change the taste.
I tried to post the above in Chrome but it failed to work. The Submit button just kept on saying to try again later. So I then tried in Safari. The Submit button still did not work but it did display a countdown. This countdown was not visible in the Mac version of Chrome.
So I guess I'm saying that if you use the Mac version be prepared for some issues.
I am using it right now on a Mac. You just have to google "chrome developer mac" to get a download link. Or you can just go here. Anyway, it is fast and works well. It does not integrate with MacOS the way it should - but they are working on it. Overall I am very impresses as I like it more then Firefox.
No, the core duo is also a 32bit chip and is supported by 10.6. In addition, the Atom has a 64bit variant. It is typically found on desktops where the 32bit version is found in netbooks.
So, whatever you do to reduce population growth, evolution will counter it. Those that were "resistant" to you method of population control will prosper and spread their "resistant" genes. Absent-minded, careless and/or uncaring people are resistant to birth control methods. People with strong maternal/paternal instinct are resistant to high standard of living and active lifestyle reducing number of children. Etc.
Umm, no. Genes really do not play a role as it is not the physical body that is evolving. It is our various different cultures that are fighting for supremacy. And because people born into a culture typically adopt that culture, a higher birth rate is advantageous. But because we are not dealing with genes, there are other ways cultures can grow. For example, they can poach from other cultures. This is essentially what the western nations do.
So because a culture can prevail without high birth rates, population control can have an impact. A culture that adopts such policies must aggressively poach from other cultures in order to survive, but it is possible. Hollywood, for example, acts as a huge distributer of American culture.
Apple might have been one of the big names behind 1394 - but there were many others. Apple never had much of a say as to what the royalties would be. They even gave away their trademark name "Firewire" in order to help with adoption. Eventually the 1394 royalties were reduced to 25c a device but by this time USB2 was already in the market.
But you are correct about greed in the beginning. Had the group of companies kept 1394 affordable (ie, 10c a device) then Intel would never have developed USB 2.0 in the first place. After all, Intel was originally a supporter of 1394.
we agree that the transmitters share the same channel.
Yes
the channel is made up of frequencies
No - at least not wrt this discussion
the exact frequencies in the channel that are used are determined by the code
No, all use the same frequency.
the senders have different codes
Yes
therefore when the senders transmit, they don't use the *exact same frequency* at the exact same time, although they are sharing the same channel.
No - they send at the same time...
For Frequency-hopping spread spectrum, yes, it is how you described. It is used in Bluetooth and wireless sensor networks (802.15??). It is also popular with the military because it is difficult to jam. Basically, it's used in peer to peer networks where you do not have a single coordinator. (Well, bluetooth sort of has one - but I'm sure you understand..)
But CDMA (as in cell networks) use DSSS - multiple transmitters at the same time. When I first heard of it, like you, I called BS. But it is real and it works. It relies on a central coordinator and will not work in p2p type networks. I'll try to explain...
The nodes encode their data with their unique code (making it 32? times larger).
The nodes then transmit their encoded data (1|0)+ at the same time. The packets from each node must overlap perfectly at the coordinator. The requires that they send at different times depending on how far away they are from the coordinator. It also requires that they send at an appropriate power level such that the signal strength from each node is the same when measured at the receiver. fyi - this is very hard to do and is why CDMA spent so much time in development...
Now with the waves all arriving at the same time, they overlap. If three nodes are transmitting, it results in the following possible waves... N1:+1,-1,+1 N2:+1,+1,+1 N3:+1,-1,-1 -> for a resulting wave of +3,-1,+1
So the coordinator receives a wave that is not limited to 1 and -1. There are multiple signal strengths - a number determined by the size of the code. This is how the signal can hold more information then what was transmitted at the individual nodes (see, not magic). The coordinator then decodes the data sent from individual nodes by applying an algorithm - it is simple but I do not know it off the top of my head.
So CDMA is complex but makes excellent use of the spectrum. The size of the code is what limits the number of nodes that can share a channel. But a 32bit code does not imply 2^32 nodes. The maximum number is 32*32 - but that does not allow for error so half that is recommended. A large code also requires more bits be sent for each data bit. A 32bit code results in 32 times as much data to send - which fyi, is what kills the battery and is why GSM has more talk time then CDMA.
All 3g and future 4g standards make use of CDMA - at least in a limited fashion. They basically combine multiple different schemes (time division, frequency division, code division) in an attempt to inherit the best qualities of each scheme with discarding their pitfalls. It is not a "one size fits all" type problem.
Make sense? When I finally figured it out it was like, wow... wow.... ok, I finally get it... wow....;)
Resistors could be printed by using a semi-conductive compound. Adjust the width, length, and depth of the printed element to adjust the value.
Capacitors could be printed in multiple layers. First a conductive layer, then a dielectric layer, then a conductive layer. Repeat the process to produce a capacitor of the desired value. They have already developed the required dielectric compounds.
Inductors are obvious, but likely limited in value due to the difficulties in printing in three dimensions. It would still be possible but would require multiple layers. Possible, but most would end up being a simple trace of squiggles. But inductors needing to support large currents would be near impossible to create - so no switching power supplies.
So it would be possible, but also quite limiting. The circuit would be spread out and limited with respect to operating speed (for digital circuits). I would also question the accuracy of any printed analog circuits. Those printed on a stiff background might be ok, but flexible plastic would likely result in problems if, for example, you are trying to make an accurate amplifier. But that is just speculation and I would welcome someone who could prove me wrong.
As far as costs go, this method should be much cheaper then the traditional method of making and then populating a PCB. If it were not cheaper, it would have little value.
The printer and ink won't come cheap, but compared to the cost of one-off PCBs... if it's good enough and cheap enough, this thing could revitalize the electronics industry by taking low-budget electronics design way beyond the realm of breadboards.
Ok, while this would be incredibly cool - it would not revitalize anything. Getting a PCB build is not very expensive. It is really only a hindrance to students on a budget. Compared to the time invested in designing a PCB, getting one built is actually quite cheap. Where it might actually make a difference is with hobbyists who are designing integrated circuits. It would make it feasible to design and build a circuit where traditionally one would rely on ICs. So yes, it is very cool and has some real potential. But the only thing it will help revitalize is the way electronic classes are taught - the industry as a whole will not be transformed.
No, I believe that they are talking about actually printing circuits. I know they were talking about printing OLED displays - this would require printing LEDs. An LED is a diode and if you can print a diode you can print a transistor. Resistors, capacitors, and inductors would be easy compared to transistors.
The whole point of this process is for cheap, flexible, disposable electronics. If you have to use chips, the cost would probably increase as soldering chips onto a piece of plastic has to be harder then a PCB. Anyway, below is a quote from the article:
Integrated circuits are made up of three components - a semiconductor, a conductor and a dielectric element - and currently are manufactured in costly silicon chip fabricating factories. By creating a breakthrough silver ink to print the conductor, Xerox has developed all three of the materials necessary for printing plastic circuits.
So you can see that the goal is to replace the chips. In reality, it will likely replace both chips and the board for low cost electronics.
Well what you described is called Frequency-hopping spread spectrum and is utilized in FH-CDMA (or so says Wikipedia).
Here is a quote from the wiki that I linked to previously:
If sender0 has code (1,–1) and data (1,0,1,1), and sender1 has code (1,1) and data (0,0,1,1), and both senders transmit simultaneously, then this table describes the coding steps:
You can see reference to "both senders transmit simultaneously" - this is what CDMA traditionally does. And here is a quote from the Wiki page on DSSS:
If an undesired transmitter transmits on the same channel but with a different PN sequence (or no sequence at all), the de-spreading process results in no processing gain for that signal. This effect is the basis for the code division multiple access (CDMA) property of DSSS, which allows multiple transmitters to share the same channel within the limits of the cross-correlation properties of their PN sequences.
Note that transmitters share the same channel.
This always made sense to me because when you compare similar phones that work on different networks, their battery life differs. For example, the RAZR on a CDMA network has the same standby time, but only half the talk time as a RAZR on a GSM network. This is because the CDMA network requires sending 32 bits for each data bit being sent. (Ok, the 32 is an estimate...) If it operated as you described the power usage would be the same.
still only one transmitter per frequency per moment in time
Not true with CDMA. The entire point of CDMA is that it enables radios to do just that - multiple transmitters operating at the same time. Sounds like magic, but just check out the wiki page for more info. They refer to it as spread-spectrum technology.
And the ideas behind CDMA have made there way into 3G and 4G standards so all future cell products will all support multiple transmitters to a certain extent.
But ISPs should be required to validate the shaping. ISPs should be required to provide a web interface to allow users to see if shaping took place. The amount of shaping, what traffic was shaped, and why it was required should also be provided upon request. And overall statistics should be posted to ensure that the ISPs do not rely on shaping as a replacement for infrastructure investment (typically funded by the government).
Without this information there is no way to keep the ISPs honest. So require that is is available. And the legal right for an ISP to shape traffic should be preserved just in case it is occasionally required.
As is stands, this is not required. Net neutrality just died in Canada.
This currently works for Apple/Amazon audio with zero issues.
They do not use watermarking - they simply add metadata to the file. The metadata can be removed without touching the media content - there is no loss of quality.
I believe that the newer versions of OSX server will perform indexing on the volume so the clients do not have to. So searches are fast and the problems you described are gone.
Ok, just went over to apple.com to find the info page. It is here.
Should a desktop GUI paradigm like this take hold, how would those with disabilities use it? Managing multiple pointers is physically impossible for some people. The GUI has to be usable with only one such pointer. Sure it can be better with more, but it must be usable with only one.
They _HAVE_TO_CREATE_. They _HAVE_TO_SOLVE_PROBLEMS_.
And one more, they _HAVE_TO_UNDERSTAND_. Understand what you say? Simply put, everything.
Speaking for myself, it was the need to understand the magic of electricity/electronics that drove me into that field. It was just so magical - you can't see an electron... That introduced me to programming and embedded systems. How does an OS work? Once again, it was all so magical and it led me to a CS degree. (That and I could see a future where embedded systems were not all programmed in assembly - higher level languages and techniques would be required for the future.)
The need to understand still drives me and will likely never go away. I hope it never goes away....
Yes, MIMO technology is great - but does it require a third radio?
Using multiple antenna give the radio the concept of geographic position - specifically the position of the other devices on the network. The radio can use this info to filter the signal thereby reducing noise when receiving - kind of like RADAR or SONAR. But this does not require an additional radio - it requires specialized circuitry to apply this filter before the signal is forwarded to the radio. At least, this is how the receiving works.
Transmitting is different, but again does not require an additional radio. The same signal is sent to all three antenna. But between the radio and the antenna there exists circuitry to produce an adjustable time delay. The idea is that the transmitted signals from each antenna should overlap such that there is no phase offset between the signals. This results in the strongest possible signal - but only in one direction. The purpose of the delay circuitry is to adjust the delays so that the signal is directed at the destination device. Note that using MIMO technology makes it more difficult to eavesdrop as the signals are no longer truly omnidirectional.
I was reading about this chip antenna that basically integrated hundreds of little antenna and the required circuitry to apply MIMO tech. It was in the R&D phase - sorry, don't have a link. The reason why RADAR costs so much money is because of the hundreds/thousands of individual antenna and associated circuitry. This chip basically replaces all of this and will allow future cell phones to have more range, higher bandwidth, and reduced power usage. Ahh, the future....
Note that I am not involved with MIMO tech in any way, but I do find it interesting. So don't anyone take my word as gospel - read up on it for yourselves. The wiki link is a good place to start.
On two markets they have a 'monopoly' similar to MS with windows - portable MP3 players and online music downloads. That stinks of unfair or anti-competitive business practices and plenty of other random legal terms.
Not even close. You do not need to buy an Apple MP3 player - there are alternatives. There are also alternative places to download music.
In addition, there is nothing wrong with a monopoly. The problems arise when a monopoly is used to leverage a product in another market. But music from iTunes can play on other players now that DRM is gone. And music from non-iTunes sources still works fine on an iPod. Even if both the iTunes store and the iPod did represented monopolies, it would not be a problem because one product does not require the other.
The difference with Microsoft is that they were using their monopoly in operating systems to leverage other markets. Bundling MS Money with Windows for free was an illegal attempt to kill Quicken. There are many other examples - none of them are like Apple with iTunes and the iPod.
What if MS decided that all windows programs needed to be signed and licensed and sold through an app store they controlled?
That would be the illegal use of a monopoly - but only because Windows is a monopoly. If people could switch out Windows for an alternative OS and still use all of their programs then it would be perfectly OK. And as long as you can still listen to your favourite band on a non-iPod device - all is OK.
If Apple let third party devices to sync back to iTunes then it would be possible for a poorly designed device to cause serious harm to your media library. Supporting such devices in a relatively safe manner is possible but it would be very expensive. It would also limit what Apple could do with their software as backwards compatibility would be required for third party devices.
It all comes down to money. Apple does not want to be in the situation where an iTunes update could result in a third party device killing their software - and reputation. In a situation where this is possible, it would be very costly for Apple wrt time, development and testing costs. That would be ok if Apple were getting paid by Palm for use of iTunes - but they are not. Unless Palm is willing to pay Apple for their time, it is unlikely to happen.
The only feature I really miss is that it's not duplex.
The problem I has with that printer is that duplex printing would not work. Most venders say their printers supports "software duplexing" (glorified way of saying you have to do it manually) when a hardware duplexer is not present. The samsung requires "software duplexing"
But the problem with the Samsung is that printing on the second side results in ghosting. Toner from the second side of the first page gets picked up on the rollers and deposited on the next page. Horribly annoying and impossible to fix. And this is with standard toner and paper...
fyi - for those who do not already know, you don't need special software for "software duplexing". If you are scared of vender software on your computer simply do the following. 1, print all even pages in reverse order. 2, flip the pages over and reinsert into printer. 3, print all odd pages. This technique depends on the paper path but works on most printers.
From the photos, it looks like it is a standard USB connector. The optical part likely connects through the centre of the connector. I imagine the standard 4 copper conductors are still in place. This makes sense as it enables low cost cables and peripherals by simply using the existing USB standard.
Future computers could use the physical connector as the only interface to the machine while retaining compatibility with existing USB devices. Kind of like how those Mini-TOSLINK cables work.
Internet Explorer was a mosaic clone. Although MS are giving it away for nothing they are still marketing it like crazy.
Actually, Microsoft acquired a company that was developing Explorer - so basically it was purchased.
Active Directory is just a LDAP clone. They market it as something which will solve all the worlds problems.
I do not know if it was an LDAP clone so much as a Novell NDS clone. At the time they were trying to kill off Novell and capture the x86 server market.
Slashdot Mirror
The free market does not really exist. It requires that everyone be honest and play by the rules. In reality, people cheat and lie all the time. For this reason, the free market does not exist in its idealized form. We still strive for a free market, but rules, regulation, and enforcement are required in the real world. The only real question is how much "rules, regulation, and enforcement" is required to minimize the loss that results from fraud? Republicans and Democrats have different answers to this question.
I imagine audio could be solved by tunnelling USB through DisplayPort. Most monitors already have a USB hub and DisplayPort was designed to tunnel other protocols. This way the monitor could act as a USB audio device and the controlling computer could simply use it. How it would work when going through the video card is a good question, but specific support for audio is not required when one can simply support USB.
Note the term "just".... I never claimed that diet never had an effect, just that it was not the only effect.
And with regards to your quote, it supports my assertion. Different feed does not have an impact on final quality. But you really should not read much into it. I'm from Canada. Neighbours are ranchers. There is no alteration of diet before the slaughter. [1] Ranchers are paid at auction based on the weight and general appearance of the animal. The fact that there are different diets between Ontario and Alberta is most likely a result of different grains being grown. The reason why grains are used in place of hay is that the stress of their changing environment can put them off their food. Grains ensures that they will retain their weight.
------------
The diet will change when the animal is brought to auction because ownership changes hands. But the auctions are quick and the slaughterhouses do not keep animals for long.
Diet has everything to do with the flavor of the meat.
Not just diet - also exercise. Unused muscle tends to not taste very good. If it were just diet, farmers would simply change the diet of the animal for the last couple of weeks to change the taste.
I tried to post the above in Chrome but it failed to work. The Submit button just kept on saying to try again later. So I then tried in Safari. The Submit button still did not work but it did display a countdown. This countdown was not visible in the Mac version of Chrome.
So I guess I'm saying that if you use the Mac version be prepared for some issues.
I am using it right now on a Mac. You just have to google "chrome developer mac" to get a download link. Or you can just go here. Anyway, it is fast and works well. It does not integrate with MacOS the way it should - but they are working on it. Overall I am very impresses as I like it more then Firefox.
No, the core duo is also a 32bit chip and is supported by 10.6. In addition, the Atom has a 64bit variant. It is typically found on desktops where the 32bit version is found in netbooks.
So, whatever you do to reduce population growth, evolution will counter it. Those that were "resistant" to you method of population control will prosper and spread their "resistant" genes. Absent-minded, careless and/or uncaring people are resistant to birth control methods. People with strong maternal/paternal instinct are resistant to high standard of living and active lifestyle reducing number of children. Etc.
Umm, no. Genes really do not play a role as it is not the physical body that is evolving. It is our various different cultures that are fighting for supremacy. And because people born into a culture typically adopt that culture, a higher birth rate is advantageous. But because we are not dealing with genes, there are other ways cultures can grow. For example, they can poach from other cultures. This is essentially what the western nations do.
So because a culture can prevail without high birth rates, population control can have an impact. A culture that adopts such policies must aggressively poach from other cultures in order to survive, but it is possible. Hollywood, for example, acts as a huge distributer of American culture.
Apple might have been one of the big names behind 1394 - but there were many others. Apple never had much of a say as to what the royalties would be. They even gave away their trademark name "Firewire" in order to help with adoption. Eventually the 1394 royalties were reduced to 25c a device but by this time USB2 was already in the market.
But you are correct about greed in the beginning. Had the group of companies kept 1394 affordable (ie, 10c a device) then Intel would never have developed USB 2.0 in the first place. After all, Intel was originally a supporter of 1394.
we agree that the transmitters share the same channel.
Yes
the channel is made up of frequencies
No - at least not wrt this discussion
the exact frequencies in the channel that are used are determined by the code
No, all use the same frequency.
the senders have different codes
Yes
therefore when the senders transmit, they don't use the *exact same frequency* at the exact same time, although they are sharing the same channel.
No - they send at the same time...
For Frequency-hopping spread spectrum, yes, it is how you described. It is used in Bluetooth and wireless sensor networks (802.15??). It is also popular with the military because it is difficult to jam. Basically, it's used in peer to peer networks where you do not have a single coordinator. (Well, bluetooth sort of has one - but I'm sure you understand..)
But CDMA (as in cell networks) use DSSS - multiple transmitters at the same time. When I first heard of it, like you, I called BS. But it is real and it works. It relies on a central coordinator and will not work in p2p type networks. I'll try to explain...
The nodes encode their data with their unique code (making it 32? times larger).
The nodes then transmit their encoded data (1|0)+ at the same time. The packets from each node must overlap perfectly at the coordinator. The requires that they send at different times depending on how far away they are from the coordinator. It also requires that they send at an appropriate power level such that the signal strength from each node is the same when measured at the receiver. fyi - this is very hard to do and is why CDMA spent so much time in development...
Now with the waves all arriving at the same time, they overlap. If three nodes are transmitting, it results in the following possible waves... N1:+1,-1,+1 N2:+1,+1,+1 N3:+1,-1,-1 -> for a resulting wave of +3,-1,+1
So the coordinator receives a wave that is not limited to 1 and -1. There are multiple signal strengths - a number determined by the size of the code. This is how the signal can hold more information then what was transmitted at the individual nodes (see, not magic). The coordinator then decodes the data sent from individual nodes by applying an algorithm - it is simple but I do not know it off the top of my head.
So CDMA is complex but makes excellent use of the spectrum. The size of the code is what limits the number of nodes that can share a channel. But a 32bit code does not imply 2^32 nodes. The maximum number is 32*32 - but that does not allow for error so half that is recommended. A large code also requires more bits be sent for each data bit. A 32bit code results in 32 times as much data to send - which fyi, is what kills the battery and is why GSM has more talk time then CDMA.
All 3g and future 4g standards make use of CDMA - at least in a limited fashion. They basically combine multiple different schemes (time division, frequency division, code division) in an attempt to inherit the best qualities of each scheme with discarding their pitfalls. It is not a "one size fits all" type problem.
Make sense? When I finally figured it out it was like, wow... wow.... ok, I finally get it... wow.... ;)
Resistors could be printed by using a semi-conductive compound. Adjust the width, length, and depth of the printed element to adjust the value.
Capacitors could be printed in multiple layers. First a conductive layer, then a dielectric layer, then a conductive layer. Repeat the process to produce a capacitor of the desired value. They have already developed the required dielectric compounds.
Inductors are obvious, but likely limited in value due to the difficulties in printing in three dimensions. It would still be possible but would require multiple layers. Possible, but most would end up being a simple trace of squiggles. But inductors needing to support large currents would be near impossible to create - so no switching power supplies.
So it would be possible, but also quite limiting. The circuit would be spread out and limited with respect to operating speed (for digital circuits). I would also question the accuracy of any printed analog circuits. Those printed on a stiff background might be ok, but flexible plastic would likely result in problems if, for example, you are trying to make an accurate amplifier. But that is just speculation and I would welcome someone who could prove me wrong.
As far as costs go, this method should be much cheaper then the traditional method of making and then populating a PCB. If it were not cheaper, it would have little value.
The printer and ink won't come cheap, but compared to the cost of one-off PCBs... if it's good enough and cheap enough, this thing could revitalize the electronics industry by taking low-budget electronics design way beyond the realm of breadboards.
Ok, while this would be incredibly cool - it would not revitalize anything. Getting a PCB build is not very expensive. It is really only a hindrance to students on a budget. Compared to the time invested in designing a PCB, getting one built is actually quite cheap. Where it might actually make a difference is with hobbyists who are designing integrated circuits. It would make it feasible to design and build a circuit where traditionally one would rely on ICs. So yes, it is very cool and has some real potential. But the only thing it will help revitalize is the way electronic classes are taught - the industry as a whole will not be transformed.
No, I believe that they are talking about actually printing circuits. I know they were talking about printing OLED displays - this would require printing LEDs. An LED is a diode and if you can print a diode you can print a transistor. Resistors, capacitors, and inductors would be easy compared to transistors.
The whole point of this process is for cheap, flexible, disposable electronics. If you have to use chips, the cost would probably increase as soldering chips onto a piece of plastic has to be harder then a PCB. Anyway, below is a quote from the article:
Integrated circuits are made up of three components - a semiconductor, a conductor and a dielectric element - and currently are manufactured in costly silicon chip fabricating factories. By creating a breakthrough silver ink to print the conductor, Xerox has developed all three of the materials necessary for printing plastic circuits.
So you can see that the goal is to replace the chips. In reality, it will likely replace both chips and the board for low cost electronics.
Well what you described is called Frequency-hopping spread spectrum and is utilized in FH-CDMA (or so says Wikipedia).
Here is a quote from the wiki that I linked to previously:
If sender0 has code (1,–1) and data (1,0,1,1), and sender1 has code (1,1) and data (0,0,1,1), and both senders transmit simultaneously, then this table describes the coding steps:
You can see reference to "both senders transmit simultaneously" - this is what CDMA traditionally does. And here is a quote from the Wiki page on DSSS:
If an undesired transmitter transmits on the same channel but with a different PN sequence (or no sequence at all), the de-spreading process results in no processing gain for that signal. This effect is the basis for the code division multiple access (CDMA) property of DSSS, which allows multiple transmitters to share the same channel within the limits of the cross-correlation properties of their PN sequences.
Note that transmitters share the same channel.
This always made sense to me because when you compare similar phones that work on different networks, their battery life differs. For example, the RAZR on a CDMA network has the same standby time, but only half the talk time as a RAZR on a GSM network. This is because the CDMA network requires sending 32 bits for each data bit being sent. (Ok, the 32 is an estimate...) If it operated as you described the power usage would be the same.
still only one transmitter per frequency per moment in time
Not true with CDMA. The entire point of CDMA is that it enables radios to do just that - multiple transmitters operating at the same time. Sounds like magic, but just check out the wiki page for more info. They refer to it as spread-spectrum technology.
And the ideas behind CDMA have made there way into 3G and 4G standards so all future cell products will all support multiple transmitters to a certain extent.
But ISPs should be required to validate the shaping. ISPs should be required to provide a web interface to allow users to see if shaping took place. The amount of shaping, what traffic was shaped, and why it was required should also be provided upon request. And overall statistics should be posted to ensure that the ISPs do not rely on shaping as a replacement for infrastructure investment (typically funded by the government).
Without this information there is no way to keep the ISPs honest. So require that is is available. And the legal right for an ISP to shape traffic should be preserved just in case it is occasionally required.
As is stands, this is not required. Net neutrality just died in Canada.
This currently works for Apple/Amazon audio with zero issues.
They do not use watermarking - they simply add metadata to the file. The metadata can be removed without touching the media content - there is no loss of quality.
I believe that the newer versions of OSX server will perform indexing on the volume so the clients do not have to. So searches are fast and the problems you described are gone.
Ok, just went over to apple.com to find the info page. It is here.
Should a desktop GUI paradigm like this take hold, how would those with disabilities use it? Managing multiple pointers is physically impossible for some people. The GUI has to be usable with only one such pointer. Sure it can be better with more, but it must be usable with only one.
They _HAVE_TO_CREATE_. They _HAVE_TO_SOLVE_PROBLEMS_.
And one more, they _HAVE_TO_UNDERSTAND_. Understand what you say? Simply put, everything.
Speaking for myself, it was the need to understand the magic of electricity/electronics that drove me into that field. It was just so magical - you can't see an electron... That introduced me to programming and embedded systems. How does an OS work? Once again, it was all so magical and it led me to a CS degree. (That and I could see a future where embedded systems were not all programmed in assembly - higher level languages and techniques would be required for the future.)
The need to understand still drives me and will likely never go away. I hope it never goes away....
Yes, MIMO technology is great - but does it require a third radio?
Using multiple antenna give the radio the concept of geographic position - specifically the position of the other devices on the network. The radio can use this info to filter the signal thereby reducing noise when receiving - kind of like RADAR or SONAR. But this does not require an additional radio - it requires specialized circuitry to apply this filter before the signal is forwarded to the radio. At least, this is how the receiving works.
Transmitting is different, but again does not require an additional radio. The same signal is sent to all three antenna. But between the radio and the antenna there exists circuitry to produce an adjustable time delay. The idea is that the transmitted signals from each antenna should overlap such that there is no phase offset between the signals. This results in the strongest possible signal - but only in one direction. The purpose of the delay circuitry is to adjust the delays so that the signal is directed at the destination device. Note that using MIMO technology makes it more difficult to eavesdrop as the signals are no longer truly omnidirectional.
I was reading about this chip antenna that basically integrated hundreds of little antenna and the required circuitry to apply MIMO tech. It was in the R&D phase - sorry, don't have a link. The reason why RADAR costs so much money is because of the hundreds/thousands of individual antenna and associated circuitry. This chip basically replaces all of this and will allow future cell phones to have more range, higher bandwidth, and reduced power usage. Ahh, the future....
Note that I am not involved with MIMO tech in any way, but I do find it interesting. So don't anyone take my word as gospel - read up on it for yourselves. The wiki link is a good place to start.
On two markets they have a 'monopoly' similar to MS with windows - portable MP3 players and online music downloads. That stinks of unfair or anti-competitive business practices and plenty of other random legal terms.
Not even close. You do not need to buy an Apple MP3 player - there are alternatives. There are also alternative places to download music.
In addition, there is nothing wrong with a monopoly. The problems arise when a monopoly is used to leverage a product in another market. But music from iTunes can play on other players now that DRM is gone. And music from non-iTunes sources still works fine on an iPod. Even if both the iTunes store and the iPod did represented monopolies, it would not be a problem because one product does not require the other.
The difference with Microsoft is that they were using their monopoly in operating systems to leverage other markets. Bundling MS Money with Windows for free was an illegal attempt to kill Quicken. There are many other examples - none of them are like Apple with iTunes and the iPod.
What if MS decided that all windows programs needed to be signed and licensed and sold through an app store they controlled?
That would be the illegal use of a monopoly - but only because Windows is a monopoly. If people could switch out Windows for an alternative OS and still use all of their programs then it would be perfectly OK. And as long as you can still listen to your favourite band on a non-iPod device - all is OK.
If Apple let third party devices to sync back to iTunes then it would be possible for a poorly designed device to cause serious harm to your media library. Supporting such devices in a relatively safe manner is possible but it would be very expensive. It would also limit what Apple could do with their software as backwards compatibility would be required for third party devices.
It all comes down to money. Apple does not want to be in the situation where an iTunes update could result in a third party device killing their software - and reputation. In a situation where this is possible, it would be very costly for Apple wrt time, development and testing costs. That would be ok if Apple were getting paid by Palm for use of iTunes - but they are not. Unless Palm is willing to pay Apple for their time, it is unlikely to happen.
The only feature I really miss is that it's not duplex.
The problem I has with that printer is that duplex printing would not work. Most venders say their printers supports "software duplexing" (glorified way of saying you have to do it manually) when a hardware duplexer is not present. The samsung requires "software duplexing"
But the problem with the Samsung is that printing on the second side results in ghosting. Toner from the second side of the first page gets picked up on the rollers and deposited on the next page. Horribly annoying and impossible to fix. And this is with standard toner and paper...
fyi - for those who do not already know, you don't need special software for "software duplexing". If you are scared of vender software on your computer simply do the following. 1, print all even pages in reverse order. 2, flip the pages over and reinsert into printer. 3, print all odd pages. This technique depends on the paper path but works on most printers.
From the photos, it looks like it is a standard USB connector. The optical part likely connects through the centre of the connector. I imagine the standard 4 copper conductors are still in place. This makes sense as it enables low cost cables and peripherals by simply using the existing USB standard.
Future computers could use the physical connector as the only interface to the machine while retaining compatibility with existing USB devices. Kind of like how those Mini-TOSLINK cables work.
Internet Explorer was a mosaic clone. Although MS are giving it away for nothing they are still marketing it like crazy.
Actually, Microsoft acquired a company that was developing Explorer - so basically it was purchased.
Active Directory is just a LDAP clone. They market it as something which will solve all the worlds problems.
I do not know if it was an LDAP clone so much as a Novell NDS clone. At the time they were trying to kill off Novell and capture the x86 server market.