Your electric stove burner is capable of melting a hard drive platter, liquifying it completely. But you might want to have a spare burner and pan to replace the one you've messed up using this procedure. You *can* clean up the mess, but it can be a bit of work.
Perhaps the AT&T cellsite is further away from your location than the T-Mobile cellsite. Hence, your phone has to "talk louder" for the AT&T cell to hear it.
No cellular provider would intentionally instruct your cellphone to emit more power than required, because it would be self-defeating. Excess transmit power just means unnecessary interference to nearby cells on the same frequency. The cellular protocols provide a means for controlling the power of a handset up and down as needed to get "just the right amount" of RF energy at the cell tower's receiver.
1) Are your line level runs balanced or unbalanced? Probably unbalanced. If you can convert to balanced, it might help. This may not be practical because the only audio balun transformers I've ever seen are for microphones. But it wouldn't cost much (for the transformers) to give it a try.
2) Shielding and grounding. Shielding and grounding. Shielding and grounding. (can't have too much)
3) Silly idea but I bet this would help: Instead of line, try putting a small amplifier (a few watts) at the mixer and run speaker cable under the audience to a direct injection (DI) box with a dummy load near the powered speakers. Feed the output of the DI into the powered speaker. The output of a DI will be line level, but since you're using a low impedance run (speaker wire) between the amplifier behind the mixer and the DI box, any induced voltages from cellphones should be much less of an effect than they would be on a line level run. Of course, remember to apply 2) above to the speaker wire as well, for even better isolation. BTW - you can buy DI boxes for $40 or less from Guitar Center or any online music instrument supplier. And 8 ohms of power resistor will do for a dummy load.
You said:
There's something to be said for spread-spectrum emitters, like WiFi and Sprint PCS phones.
But the 3G iPhone is also spread spectrum. It spreads its energy over about 4 MHz, and is fact called Wideband CDMA (older IS-95 CDMA uses a 1.25 MHz bandwidth, IIRC).
So much for spread spectrum solving the problem....
With the signal now being digital, in order to reproduce the intelligence, you need all the parts of that packet, so when a wave with a digital intelligence is absorbed by those same trees parts of the packets are lost, and without the full packet your signal looks like crap.
I guess you've never heard of FEC (forward error correction).
I won't go into the green topic. But here's a suggestion: Why don't you just shut down ethernet switches and routers at night? That would be just as effective at halting propagation of virii/bots, and would be much easier to effect.
And improved employee morale could result as well, since what would be the point of working late?:-)
Paragraph 2 of the Introduction starts with: "At the previous PIERS meeting in Cambridge, MASS, USA, 2006 we presented the design and methodology of an ongoing double-blind controlled laboratory study with the objective to estab-
lish whether RF during mobile phone use had any direct effects on:..." (emphasis added)
Just bought my MSI AM2+ mobo and 4Gig DDR2. Next week I buy my own broke-ass Phenom - happily!
Why?
Because I still have the choice of buying a broke-ass AMD processor instead of an Intel. If AMD folds, Intel might just give every employee a new Porsche just for kicks. Because with what they will be able to charge (in a monopoly business), the Porsches would be a rounding error.
Remember that Free Enterprise is the ultimate democracy. Vote with your dollars!
1) The 100m range for copper Ethernet is over Category 5 or better twisted pair wiring, and requires two (for 10/100Mbit) or four (1 Gbit) pairs of wires to carry the Ethernet signal. Residences are wired with Category 3, and seldom are more than two pair. And being Category 3, they aren't twisted or insulated to the necessary degree to carry even 10 Mbit Ethernet reliably.
2) Your "junction boxes" have existed for decades. They are called SLC (Subscriber Loop Carrier) or DLC (Digital Loop Carrier) -- look them up on Wikipedia.
3) Central office sizes have already been substantially reduced. That real estate has already been sold off.
4) Switches (telephone switches that is) do not easily "remote" out to where the "junction boxes" (SLC/DLC) are located. Switches include all kinds of accounting equipment, network management equipment, the "routing tables" (i.e. dial this sequence of digits to send your call down this circuit to another switch somewhere else), etc. While it is technically feasible to put all of this in a "junction box", it is still more economical to keep it all in the traditional "switching office" for logistical reasons if nothing else.
But in any case, you clearly have the right idea. You just didn't know that it was already thought of, and exploited, to the technical limit (the CAT5 wiring requirement for Ethernet being the "limit").
Much of the forest destruction comes from burning. Almost 30% of the CO2 released into the atmosphere each year is a result of the burning of brushland for subsistence agriculture and wood fires used for cooking.
Page 217 of "An Inconvenient Truth:"
(a graph showing) 2006 global population: 6.5 billion. 2050 global population: 9.1 billion.
I find it interesting that Gore trumpets the so-called "tipping point" positive feedback theory about the Arctic ice cap melting, leading to more solar absorption, leading to faster melting, while...
Each tree cut down to make space for subsistence agriculture and wood fires not only releases the carbon in the tree, but also removes the tree from the ecosystem, so it isn't there to absorb the just-released carbon (or any other, which it had been faithfully doing since it was a wee little sapling).
Greg Gutfeld had an interesting (and irreverent, which is his specialty) comment on Fox News website. He said we have two problems -- global warming, and overpopulation. He suggested we change our moral value system to encourage cannibalism. Bada bing -- two birds with one stone.
I guess my main point here is that one can justify any position desired, by simply sifting through the "facts" and arranging them according to one's personal agenda. Al Gore now has a nice Nobel prize to show to his grandchildren (who will never, ever need to burn trees for cooking), and the bandwagon is in full motion. I read yesterday that Dell would like to know if I wanted to pay a couple of dollars with the purchase of my laptop to offset the carbon my new toy (er, tool) would release by burning electricity.
A tax by any other name is a tax. Thankfully death will ultimately relieve me of that burden too. (Joe Black notwithstanding).
The real explanation seems to go like this. In effect what's happening is that Apple is choosing to exploit the market value of OSX by setting a price for the OS which is lower than they could get if they sold it freely in the market, by using it to get higher margins on own branded hardware.
You must be new to the Apple product line. Back before Steve Jobs' "second coming" (to Apple, that is), the Macintosh was exhorbitantly expensive and the OS was included for free.
Apple got battered by the commoditization of the PC -- so bad that they really had no choice but to unbundle the OS and charge for it. At first, it was simply a way to get another hundred bucks out of the customer to make up for the hundreds (thousands?) they lost when they had to drastically lower their hardware costs to be even "in the ballpark" with the super-discounted PC market.
Apple has capitulated in many ways -- going to Intel x86, PCI, and all the assorted baggage that PC architecture carries. But they would be unwise to "officially" port OS X to "commodity" PC hardware, because there is no way they could carry the burden of supporting "brand X" hardware the way Microsoft does. They would need three times the market share they have to afford that.
I think they're doing extremely well at "staying alive" in the computer market, while kicking butt in music players and media sales. Then there's iPhone, of which my jury is still out...
Apple doesn't do that because they don't want the albatross around their neck that Microsoft has to bear. Microsoft has a huge burden to support, and continue to support, a universe of "PC-compatible" hardware. Apple only has to support the hardware they build. If you can make OS X run on a PC, good for you. But if Apple had to support you doing so, bad for Apple.
The 900G represents how fast the object was going when it hit the ground, and how fast it stopped going down. The further something falls, the faster its velocity will be at impact. When a laptop hits the ground, it STOPS moving down virtually instantaneously. So from a standpoint of "acceleration" (which is what the G represents), the acceleration is very high -- or put another way, the change in velocity from X m/sec to 0 m/sec happens very very fast, hence the rate of change of velocity (which is what acceleration represents) is very high.
Now, if you want to REALLY think about high acceleration, consider a pool player shooting a target ball with high force. The cue ball contacts the object ball, and due to the virtually zero elasticity of billiard balls, the target ball *accelerates* from zero to its "terminal velocity" (whatever that might happen to be) in an exceedingly short time. So the "G force" of the impact would be correspondingly high.
So IOW, the only place your UMA phone will let you use WiFi is in those locations where you have good cell coverage? That eliminates all the poor coverage areas - a major benefit to this technology.
For legal reasons, it would also mean that the phone would have to refuse to provide WiFi service in locations where GSM-based location determination doesn't work. Because? You might make a 911 call from that location. Without E911 location information, TMO is in trouble...
IMHO, E911 is another of many such government mandates where the value judgment is "if just one life is saved, it will all be worth it", while the commercial entity bearing the burden has no vote in judging whether it's worth it. Your tax dollars at work making everything else more expensive too...
Instead of offering UMA over wifi they should have made a GSM "Access Point" that you can hook up to your router. That would allow them to boost TMobile's signal to all GSM phones within range of the device and it wouldn't be dependent on the phone having wifi and having a special TMobile firmware.
A.: Yes, but I don't see the point. It's akin to lock mechanisms or game protection: anyone wishing to reverse engineer the binary will do so no matter how much obfuscation you put into either the source code or the compiled output itself.
While you are correct, there is still the matter if this gentleman's product is so widespread, successful, and desirable as to be worthy of the reverse engineering. The products you cite *were* (are) widespread, popular, etc. Maybe he wants to make a *modest* living on what one might call "table crumbs." In that case, there is value in obfuscating his code, but it's not an *absolute* value - just moves him further down the "too hard to bother" scale.
BTW - probably the cheapest no-brainer way to obfuscate your code is to strip debugging symbols. I have personally discovered retail software that still had the symbols. Makes reverse engineering a WHOLE lot easier:-) Besides, stripping symbols makes the binary footprint smaller.
Besides, copyright laws already provide you full protection.
Again, while you are correct, I take this as a naive position. Copyright "protection" simply means the government will attest to your stated ownership (if the copyright is registered), and gives you a legal advantage in civil court. But you don't want to end up in civil court - ESPECIALLY if you are a small scale operation. The costs of defending your ownership could easily exceed your revenues many times over. What protection is that?
(Shameless plug) A good friend of mine is trying to make a go of building a small business while doing a "good thing" (tm). If you drink coffee, and also want your dollars to do "good things", think about trying a pound of his brew: http://www.specialtyroast.com/
Slashdot Mirror
Your electric stove burner is capable of melting a hard drive platter, liquifying it completely. But you might want to have a spare burner and pan to replace the one you've messed up using this procedure. You *can* clean up the mess, but it can be a bit of work.
Perhaps the AT&T cellsite is further away from your location than the T-Mobile cellsite. Hence, your phone has to "talk louder" for the AT&T cell to hear it.
No cellular provider would intentionally instruct your cellphone to emit more power than required, because it would be self-defeating. Excess transmit power just means unnecessary interference to nearby cells on the same frequency. The cellular protocols provide a means for controlling the power of a handset up and down as needed to get "just the right amount" of RF energy at the cell tower's receiver.
I'll give it a try...
1) Are your line level runs balanced or unbalanced? Probably unbalanced. If you can convert to balanced, it might help. This may not be practical because the only audio balun transformers I've ever seen are for microphones. But it wouldn't cost much (for the transformers) to give it a try.
2) Shielding and grounding. Shielding and grounding. Shielding and grounding. (can't have too much)
3) Silly idea but I bet this would help: Instead of line, try putting a small amplifier (a few watts) at the mixer and run speaker cable under the audience to a direct injection (DI) box with a dummy load near the powered speakers. Feed the output of the DI into the powered speaker. The output of a DI will be line level, but since you're using a low impedance run (speaker wire) between the amplifier behind the mixer and the DI box, any induced voltages from cellphones should be much less of an effect than they would be on a line level run. Of course, remember to apply 2) above to the speaker wire as well, for even better isolation. BTW - you can buy DI boxes for $40 or less from Guitar Center or any online music instrument supplier. And 8 ohms of power resistor will do for a dummy load.
You said: There's something to be said for spread-spectrum emitters, like WiFi and Sprint PCS phones. But the 3G iPhone is also spread spectrum. It spreads its energy over about 4 MHz, and is fact called Wideband CDMA (older IS-95 CDMA uses a 1.25 MHz bandwidth, IIRC). So much for spread spectrum solving the problem....
Your cellular company probably rolled out a few COWs. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cell_On_Wheels
With the signal now being digital, in order to reproduce the intelligence, you need all the parts of that packet, so when a wave with a digital intelligence is absorbed by those same trees parts of the packets are lost, and without the full packet your signal looks like crap.
I guess you've never heard of FEC (forward error correction).
I won't go into the green topic. But here's a suggestion: Why don't you just shut down ethernet switches and routers at night? That would be just as effective at halting propagation of virii/bots, and would be much easier to effect.
:-)
And improved employee morale could result as well, since what would be the point of working late?
WRONG.
GSM is TDMA --- TIME DOMAIN MULTIPLE ACCESS
CDMA is (drum roll) CDMA -- CODE DOMAIN MULTIPLE ACCESS.
TDMA in effect means the signals are separated from one another by time of transmission (i.e. "time domain").
CDMA in effect means the signals are separated from one another by CODING (i.e. "code domain").
Never thought I'd hear someone admitting to "sleeping with their phone."
Paragraph 2 of the Introduction starts with: "At the previous PIERS meeting in Cambridge, MASS, USA, 2006 we presented the design and methodology of an ongoing double-blind controlled laboratory study with the objective to estab- lish whether RF during mobile phone use had any direct effects on: ..." (emphasis added)
GSM *is* TDMA
The linked article seems to be Slashdotted. http://www.nec.co.jp/press/en/0711/3001.html/ is NEC's own press release.
I cannot believe you bothered with that reply!
Just bought my MSI AM2+ mobo and 4Gig DDR2. Next week I buy my own broke-ass Phenom - happily!
Why?
Because I still have the choice of buying a broke-ass AMD processor instead of an Intel. If AMD folds, Intel might just give every employee a new Porsche just for kicks. Because with what they will be able to charge (in a monopoly business), the Porsches would be a rounding error.
Remember that Free Enterprise is the ultimate democracy. Vote with your dollars!
Several problems with your comments:
1) The 100m range for copper Ethernet is over Category 5 or better twisted pair wiring, and requires two (for 10/100Mbit) or four (1 Gbit) pairs of wires to carry the Ethernet signal. Residences are wired with Category 3, and seldom are more than two pair. And being Category 3, they aren't twisted or insulated to the necessary degree to carry even 10 Mbit Ethernet reliably.
2) Your "junction boxes" have existed for decades. They are called SLC (Subscriber Loop Carrier) or DLC (Digital Loop Carrier) -- look them up on Wikipedia.
3) Central office sizes have already been substantially reduced. That real estate has already been sold off.
4) Switches (telephone switches that is) do not easily "remote" out to where the "junction boxes" (SLC/DLC) are located. Switches include all kinds of accounting equipment, network management equipment, the "routing tables" (i.e. dial this sequence of digits to send your call down this circuit to another switch somewhere else), etc. While it is technically feasible to put all of this in a "junction box", it is still more economical to keep it all in the traditional "switching office" for logistical reasons if nothing else.
But in any case, you clearly have the right idea. You just didn't know that it was already thought of, and exploited, to the technical limit (the CAT5 wiring requirement for Ethernet being the "limit").
Cheers....
Page 227 of "An Inconvenient Truth":
Much of the forest destruction comes from burning. Almost 30% of the CO2 released into the atmosphere each year is a result of the burning of brushland for subsistence agriculture and wood fires used for cooking.
Page 217 of "An Inconvenient Truth:"
(a graph showing) 2006 global population: 6.5 billion. 2050 global population: 9.1 billion.
I find it interesting that Gore trumpets the so-called "tipping point" positive feedback theory about the Arctic ice cap melting, leading to more solar absorption, leading to faster melting, while...
Each tree cut down to make space for subsistence agriculture and wood fires not only releases the carbon in the tree, but also removes the tree from the ecosystem, so it isn't there to absorb the just-released carbon (or any other, which it had been faithfully doing since it was a wee little sapling).
Greg Gutfeld had an interesting (and irreverent, which is his specialty) comment on Fox News website. He said we have two problems -- global warming, and overpopulation. He suggested we change our moral value system to encourage cannibalism. Bada bing -- two birds with one stone.
I guess my main point here is that one can justify any position desired, by simply sifting through the "facts" and arranging them according to one's personal agenda. Al Gore now has a nice Nobel prize to show to his grandchildren (who will never, ever need to burn trees for cooking), and the bandwagon is in full motion. I read yesterday that Dell would like to know if I wanted to pay a couple of dollars with the purchase of my laptop to offset the carbon my new toy (er, tool) would release by burning electricity.
A tax by any other name is a tax. Thankfully death will ultimately relieve me of that burden too. (Joe Black notwithstanding).
You must be new to the Apple product line. Back before Steve Jobs' "second coming" (to Apple, that is), the Macintosh was exhorbitantly expensive and the OS was included for free.
Apple got battered by the commoditization of the PC -- so bad that they really had no choice but to unbundle the OS and charge for it. At first, it was simply a way to get another hundred bucks out of the customer to make up for the hundreds (thousands?) they lost when they had to drastically lower their hardware costs to be even "in the ballpark" with the super-discounted PC market.
Apple has capitulated in many ways -- going to Intel x86, PCI, and all the assorted baggage that PC architecture carries. But they would be unwise to "officially" port OS X to "commodity" PC hardware, because there is no way they could carry the burden of supporting "brand X" hardware the way Microsoft does. They would need three times the market share they have to afford that.
I think they're doing extremely well at "staying alive" in the computer market, while kicking butt in music players and media sales. Then there's iPhone, of which my jury is still out...
Apple doesn't do that because they don't want the albatross around their neck that Microsoft has to bear. Microsoft has a huge burden to support, and continue to support, a universe of "PC-compatible" hardware. Apple only has to support the hardware they build. If you can make OS X run on a PC, good for you. But if Apple had to support you doing so, bad for Apple.
The 900G represents how fast the object was going when it hit the ground, and how fast it stopped going down. The further something falls, the faster its velocity will be at impact. When a laptop hits the ground, it STOPS moving down virtually instantaneously. So from a standpoint of "acceleration" (which is what the G represents), the acceleration is very high -- or put another way, the change in velocity from X m/sec to 0 m/sec happens very very fast, hence the rate of change of velocity (which is what acceleration represents) is very high.
Now, if you want to REALLY think about high acceleration, consider a pool player shooting a target ball with high force. The cue ball contacts the object ball, and due to the virtually zero elasticity of billiard balls, the target ball *accelerates* from zero to its "terminal velocity" (whatever that might happen to be) in an exceedingly short time. So the "G force" of the impact would be correspondingly high.
http://www.seagate.com/ has a press release on their home page.
12 Monkeys
So IOW, the only place your UMA phone will let you use WiFi is in those locations where you have good cell coverage? That eliminates all the poor coverage areas - a major benefit to this technology.
For legal reasons, it would also mean that the phone would have to refuse to provide WiFi service in locations where GSM-based location determination doesn't work. Because? You might make a 911 call from that location. Without E911 location information, TMO is in trouble...
IMHO, E911 is another of many such government mandates where the value judgment is "if just one life is saved, it will all be worth it", while the commercial entity bearing the burden has no vote in judging whether it's worth it. Your tax dollars at work making everything else more expensive too...
Instead of offering UMA over wifi they should have made a GSM "Access Point" that you can hook up to your router. That would allow them to boost TMobile's signal to all GSM phones within range of the device and it wouldn't be dependent on the phone having wifi and having a special TMobile firmware.
http://www.radioframenetworks.com/
Are you still wearing bifocals? Or have you graduated to trifocals?
3. Can I obfuscate my code (e.g. encode it)?
:-) Besides, stripping symbols makes the binary footprint smaller.
A.: Yes, but I don't see the point. It's akin to lock mechanisms or game protection: anyone wishing to reverse engineer the binary will do so no matter how much obfuscation you put into either the source code or the compiled output itself.
While you are correct, there is still the matter if this gentleman's product is so widespread, successful, and desirable as to be worthy of the reverse engineering. The products you cite *were* (are) widespread, popular, etc. Maybe he wants to make a *modest* living on what one might call "table crumbs." In that case, there is value in obfuscating his code, but it's not an *absolute* value - just moves him further down the "too hard to bother" scale.
BTW - probably the cheapest no-brainer way to obfuscate your code is to strip debugging symbols. I have personally discovered retail software that still had the symbols. Makes reverse engineering a WHOLE lot easier
Besides, copyright laws already provide you full protection.
Again, while you are correct, I take this as a naive position. Copyright "protection" simply means the government will attest to your stated ownership (if the copyright is registered), and gives you a legal advantage in civil court. But you don't want to end up in civil court - ESPECIALLY if you are a small scale operation. The costs of defending your ownership could easily exceed your revenues many times over. What protection is that?
(Shameless plug)
A good friend of mine is trying to make a go of building a small business while doing a "good thing" (tm). If you drink coffee, and also want your dollars to do "good things", think about trying a pound of his brew: http://www.specialtyroast.com/