Not really, at least not if we're talking about a short cable that's only meant to be temporarily connected (usually with a user nearby) and not in direct contact with anything highly flammable.
Building codes require fat wires for 20A, but that's a whole different situation with much longer runs of cable and higher stakes in terms of damage if something goes wrong.
The spectrum is always limited by currently available technology.
Since the spectrum at any given point in time is finite it's a limited resource that needs to be managed. A common sense principle would be to release some fixed fraction A of the currently technologically feasible spectrum for general short-range/low power use, with bands spread out fairly evenly all the way from the bottom end to the top end. Then the bandwidth of one of these bands will be roughly proportional to A*f where f is a frequency contained in the band.
That means that in order to get faster WiFi in the future without increasing the fraction A we're going to need our f to be higher than 5GHz. We're probably going to end up somewhere in the 10GHz to 100GHz range.
IIRC he lost his licence because he deliberately falsified the preliminary study in order to lay the groundworks for a business that he would stand to gain from. Something about selling safer vaccines. So he basically got caught trying to pull an elaborate scam and lost his licence because of it.
Aside from the morally reprehensible part of what he did, you could say that he screwed up by failing to follow the basic principle to not shit where you eat.
Your first line is nonsense... A given bandwidth (eg. 6MHz channel) will give you the same throughput, whether it's at 700Mhz or 50GHz. People see higher frequencies as faster, only because there's usually a lot more bandwidth available at higher frequencies, in part because pentration is lower and reuse is higher.
Well, there's more bandwidth at higher frequencies, relatively speaking, precisely because the frequencies are higher. For example between 100 and 110 MHz there is 10MHz of bandwidth. Between 1000 and 1100 MHz there is 100MHz of bandwidth. Between 5 and 5.5 GHz there is 500MHz of bandwidth.
If we make a simplified assumtion as assume that we're going to regulate that a fixed percentage (say 10%) of bandwidth throughout the spectrum will be available for general public use then the vast majority of the bandwidth is going to be in the higher frequencies.
Well, I guess the idea behind making 5GHz routers is that higher frequencies will give you better data rates all other things being equal if you are in a typical office environment where there aren't a lot of thick walls.
The really interesting thing would be to do a test where you'd switch all the routers in an office building (or apartment block) from 2.4 to 5 GHz and look at the effect on interference. You could probably predict it pretty well by measuring how two adjacent routers in adjacent offices or apartments interfere with one another. In other words: router v.s. concrete wall or concrete floor. Did you test anything like that?
One reason why you've never seen an area saturated with 5 GHz signals is that they don't penetrate walls and other obstacles as easily as 2.4 GHz signals. This is either good or bad depending on what you want to achieve, but having more spectrum is never bad!
Fuck changing the order all the time. Just keep the screens in the same order so I know how many screens to swipe to get to what I want to see, every time.
Sure, so the way that might work is you can press a button to go to the home screen of the watch where you have the time and date and maybe icons showing missed calls etc. Now if you swipe to the left (for example) from the home screen you swipe through the screens that the watch thinks are most important. If you swipe to the other way from the home screen you get your "pinned" screens in the order that you have arranged.
The way it might work in practice is you'll have "screens" that you can swipe between. The screens can be thought of as a list of information items listed in order of descending importance that you can swipe through The usefulness of this will depend entirely on the ability of the software to rank information by importance, which will be extremely dependent on the nature of the information and the current context that you're in. The problem of filtering and sorting information by order of importance is going to turn out to be very nontrivial.
Up until recently you didn't need Google Play Services to run most apps on Android, but things do seem to be moving in that direction slowly but surely.
I guess you could order a Firefox OS phone that's not tied to any major social network / identity ecosystem: http://stores.ebay.com/ztemobi... Doesn't look great, but it's only 80 bucks.
If you're a nerd you can root your Android phone and get rid of the G+ stuff, assuming you own the phone and don't care about voiding the warranty. iPhone doesn't even come with any of the top five social networking apps preinstalled last time I checked.
The government is such a wonderful thing to have for owners of large businesses that if it didn't exist they would invent it almost instantly and impose it on everyone else.
Citizens struggling to get rid of the government are about as likely to succeed as people with shovels trying to reshape the Earth into a cube.
Microsoft office for iPhone was released last summer while Ballmer was still CEO and the iPad app is much more advanced, so I would guess they probably started working on that around the same time they started on the simpler iPhone app.
The digital economy has its own economies of scale, just like other industries. Whatsapp is also big enough to make money. Oculus? Dunno, maybe Zuckerberg is feeling nostalgic about the 90's VR hype.
Yes, but that's a kind of planning that abstracts away almost all of the details. The master plan for Phoenix might have been something like "the city shall be a grid with the following dimensions and with the following rights of way for various kinds of infrastructure". You can certainly make plans that are vague enough to give future detail planners room to adapt, yet firm enough that the detail planners can't easily plan themselves into a corner that they can't escape from.
The sprawl is probably mainly a function of the price of vehicle fuel. If fuel had been more expensive when Phoenix was built the blocks would have been filled with higher density.
The primary example of a city that has been planned is Brasilia. But it is only the central parts of Brasilia that have been planned. Most people live in the suburbs that have grown organically around the city. For cities with more than a million inhabitants we can say with some certainty that they can't be planned, because nobody can predict with enough accuracy what the needs of people, businesses and government agencies will be in the future. Planners can only vaguely grasp what the needs are at present.
One scheme that would be fair and nice for the gamer would be if games were free to download and play, but only the first chapter (or equivalent).
For example I would pay a dollar or two to play one game of Civilization 5 on a tablet. I'm not likely to ever play more than two or three games of a Civ before I have to go into detox, so it would save me a lot of money v.s. buying the whole game for $40.
- Too much faffing about to build the things (or too much cost to acquire them pre-built). - Too much faffing about having to calibrate, adjust, tinker and play with them to get good results. - Too fragile (i.e. you can't throw them about, take them to a friend's house). - Too reliant on a small set of manufacturers (for the source materials, software, etc.)
The same could be said for automobiles in the 1910's. That didn't stop people from buying cars.
The real question is whether or not there is a common and high value use case for 3D printers in the home.
Well, I hear you, but that's how news work. If a dog bites a man, it's not news. If a man bites a dog, it's news even if it happened in a faraway country.
If an expensive high status car has a problem, it's news.
Well, things are different this time. Russia's economy is highly dependent on income from exports and their exports is basically gas and oil, which they pipeline into Europe. The Russians are never going to risk a war in which those pipelines would be destroyed and the customers would stop buying anyway.
As for Ukraine, it got a 50% discount on Russian gas and still failed to pay its gas bills. Putin will probably grab as much as he can without major fighting breaking out. Other former USSR countries that have trouble paying the bills are likely to be next on the list. The US will almost certainly not get involved.
A study that studies the ill effects of X without considering the costs and drawbacks of combating X is always going to find that we should do something about X, so then it's no surprise that the studies about the effects of global warming find that we should do something about it, since that is the only conclusion that a study like that can reach. I'd like to see a study that compares the effects of three different government policies, assuming all of the governments on the planet do the same thing (a ridiculous assumption, but let's humor it for the sake of argument):
Scenario 1: Governments tax the hell out of fossil fuels in order to prevent more global warming from happening. Scenario 2: Governments lower taxes on fossil fuels in order to help the economy grow, which will help people adapt to global warming. The warming will of course be much worse than in scenario 1. Scenario 3: Business as usual.
Has this been done and what have the results been?
It's an aside point, but I don't think OpenGL games render in 1920x1080 on phones with that resolution, based on what I can tell by looking at my Nexus 5 it looks like games render in a much lower resolution and use FSAA and other filtering to smooth out the artifacts.
I don't think having a higher res screen would slow down games much, unless the game you're playing chooses it's rendering res based on the screen res rather than on how powerful the GPU is.
And even if gays and lesbians were being homosexual just for the hell of it, it would still not follow that that is bad. Whether or not it's bad would depend on your ethical system.
It is true that the climate has changed over time and it is also true that it has been much warmer than we could ever hope to make it by burning fossil fuel and that the sea levels have been much higher than today. There is one crucial difference: that was before the apes evolved walking on two legs and complex language and eventually went on to build huge cities, most of which are only a few meters above sea level.
Slashdot Mirror
20A require enormous (by computing standards) cables.
Not really, at least not if we're talking about a short cable that's only meant to be temporarily connected (usually with a user nearby) and not in direct contact with anything highly flammable.
Building codes require fat wires for 20A, but that's a whole different situation with much longer runs of cable and higher stakes in terms of damage if something goes wrong.
The spectrum is always limited by currently available technology.
Since the spectrum at any given point in time is finite it's a limited resource that needs to be managed. A common sense principle would be to release some fixed fraction A of the currently technologically feasible spectrum for general short-range/low power use, with bands spread out fairly evenly all the way from the bottom end to the top end. Then the bandwidth of one of these bands will be roughly proportional to A*f where f is a frequency contained in the band.
That means that in order to get faster WiFi in the future without increasing the fraction A we're going to need our f to be higher than 5GHz. We're probably going to end up somewhere in the 10GHz to 100GHz range.
IIRC he lost his licence because he deliberately falsified the preliminary study in order to lay the groundworks for a business that he would stand to gain from. Something about selling safer vaccines. So he basically got caught trying to pull an elaborate scam and lost his licence because of it.
Aside from the morally reprehensible part of what he did, you could say that he screwed up by failing to follow the basic principle to not shit where you eat.
Your first line is nonsense... A given bandwidth (eg. 6MHz channel) will give you the same throughput, whether it's at 700Mhz or 50GHz. People see higher frequencies as faster, only because there's usually a lot more bandwidth available at higher frequencies, in part because pentration is lower and reuse is higher.
Well, there's more bandwidth at higher frequencies, relatively speaking, precisely because the frequencies are higher. For example between 100 and 110 MHz there is 10MHz of bandwidth. Between 1000 and 1100 MHz there is 100MHz of bandwidth. Between 5 and 5.5 GHz there is 500MHz of bandwidth.
If we make a simplified assumtion as assume that we're going to regulate that a fixed percentage (say 10%) of bandwidth throughout the spectrum will be available for general public use then the vast majority of the bandwidth is going to be in the higher frequencies.
Well, I guess the idea behind making 5GHz routers is that higher frequencies will give you better data rates all other things being equal if you are in a typical office environment where there aren't a lot of thick walls.
The really interesting thing would be to do a test where you'd switch all the routers in an office building (or apartment block) from 2.4 to 5 GHz and look at the effect on interference. You could probably predict it pretty well by measuring how two adjacent routers in adjacent offices or apartments interfere with one another. In other words: router v.s. concrete wall or concrete floor. Did you test anything like that?
One reason why you've never seen an area saturated with 5 GHz signals is that they don't penetrate walls and other obstacles as easily as 2.4 GHz signals. This is either good or bad depending on what you want to achieve, but having more spectrum is never bad!
Fuck changing the order all the time. Just keep the screens in the same order so I know how many screens to swipe to get to what I want to see, every time.
Sure, so the way that might work is you can press a button to go to the home screen of the watch where you have the time and date and maybe icons showing missed calls etc. Now if you swipe to the left (for example) from the home screen you swipe through the screens that the watch thinks are most important. If you swipe to the other way from the home screen you get your "pinned" screens in the order that you have arranged.
They key is always going to be the software.
The way it might work in practice is you'll have "screens" that you can swipe between. The screens can be thought of as a list of information items listed in order of descending importance that you can swipe through The usefulness of this will depend entirely on the ability of the software to rank information by importance, which will be extremely dependent on the nature of the information and the current context that you're in. The problem of filtering and sorting information by order of importance is going to turn out to be very nontrivial.
Up until recently you didn't need Google Play Services to run most apps on Android, but things do seem to be moving in that direction slowly but surely.
I guess you could order a Firefox OS phone that's not tied to any major social network / identity ecosystem: http://stores.ebay.com/ztemobi... Doesn't look great, but it's only 80 bucks.
I'm guessing you don't own a smartphone then...
If you're a nerd you can root your Android phone and get rid of the G+ stuff, assuming you own the phone and don't care about voiding the warranty. iPhone doesn't even come with any of the top five social networking apps preinstalled last time I checked.
So if I understand this correctly, thanks to the 3D printer we will soon have access to affordable items made of plastic.
Wow, it's difficult to even imagine what the world will be like!
The government is such a wonderful thing to have for owners of large businesses that if it didn't exist they would invent it almost instantly and impose it on everyone else.
Citizens struggling to get rid of the government are about as likely to succeed as people with shovels trying to reshape the Earth into a cube.
You'll probably have to wait a while judging by this: https://wiki.documentfoundatio...
Microsoft office for iPhone was released last summer while Ballmer was still CEO and the iPad app is much more advanced, so I would guess they probably started working on that around the same time they started on the simpler iPhone app.
Facebook makes plenty of revenue from ads, just like Google. http://www.businessinsider.com...
The digital economy has its own economies of scale, just like other industries. Whatsapp is also big enough to make money. Oculus? Dunno, maybe Zuckerberg is feeling nostalgic about the 90's VR hype.
Yes, but that's a kind of planning that abstracts away almost all of the details. The master plan for Phoenix might have been something like "the city shall be a grid with the following dimensions and with the following rights of way for various kinds of infrastructure". You can certainly make plans that are vague enough to give future detail planners room to adapt, yet firm enough that the detail planners can't easily plan themselves into a corner that they can't escape from.
The sprawl is probably mainly a function of the price of vehicle fuel. If fuel had been more expensive when Phoenix was built the blocks would have been filled with higher density.
The primary example of a city that has been planned is Brasilia. But it is only the central parts of Brasilia that have been planned. Most people live in the suburbs that have grown organically around the city. For cities with more than a million inhabitants we can say with some certainty that they can't be planned, because nobody can predict with enough accuracy what the needs of people, businesses and government agencies will be in the future. Planners can only vaguely grasp what the needs are at present.
One scheme that would be fair and nice for the gamer would be if games were free to download and play, but only the first chapter (or equivalent).
For example I would pay a dollar or two to play one game of Civilization 5 on a tablet. I'm not likely to ever play more than two or three games of a Civ before I have to go into detox, so it would save me a lot of money v.s. buying the whole game for $40.
- Too much faffing about to build the things (or too much cost to acquire them pre-built).
- Too much faffing about having to calibrate, adjust, tinker and play with them to get good results.
- Too fragile (i.e. you can't throw them about, take them to a friend's house).
- Too reliant on a small set of manufacturers (for the source materials, software, etc.)
The same could be said for automobiles in the 1910's. That didn't stop people from buying cars.
The real question is whether or not there is a common and high value use case for 3D printers in the home.
Well, I hear you, but that's how news work. If a dog bites a man, it's not news. If a man bites a dog, it's news even if it happened in a faraway country.
If an expensive high status car has a problem, it's news.
Well, things are different this time. Russia's economy is highly dependent on income from exports and their exports is basically gas and oil, which they pipeline into Europe. The Russians are never going to risk a war in which those pipelines would be destroyed and the customers would stop buying anyway.
As for Ukraine, it got a 50% discount on Russian gas and still failed to pay its gas bills. Putin will probably grab as much as he can without major fighting breaking out. Other former USSR countries that have trouble paying the bills are likely to be next on the list. The US will almost certainly not get involved.
A study that studies the ill effects of X without considering the costs and drawbacks of combating X is always going to find that we should do something about X, so then it's no surprise that the studies about the effects of global warming find that we should do something about it, since that is the only conclusion that a study like that can reach. I'd like to see a study that compares the effects of three different government policies, assuming all of the governments on the planet do the same thing (a ridiculous assumption, but let's humor it for the sake of argument):
Scenario 1: Governments tax the hell out of fossil fuels in order to prevent more global warming from happening.
Scenario 2: Governments lower taxes on fossil fuels in order to help the economy grow, which will help people adapt to global warming. The warming will of course be much worse than in scenario 1.
Scenario 3: Business as usual.
Has this been done and what have the results been?
It's an aside point, but I don't think OpenGL games render in 1920x1080 on phones with that resolution, based on what I can tell by looking at my Nexus 5 it looks like games render in a much lower resolution and use FSAA and other filtering to smooth out the artifacts.
I don't think having a higher res screen would slow down games much, unless the game you're playing chooses it's rendering res based on the screen res rather than on how powerful the GPU is.
And even if gays and lesbians were being homosexual just for the hell of it, it would still not follow that that is bad. Whether or not it's bad would depend on your ethical system.
It is true that the climate has changed over time and it is also true that it has been much warmer than we could ever hope to make it by burning fossil fuel and that the sea levels have been much higher than today. There is one crucial difference: that was before the apes evolved walking on two legs and complex language and eventually went on to build huge cities, most of which are only a few meters above sea level.