The MHL/micro-USB connector is a de-facto standard (there are two version: one that uses fewer pins and doesn't allow simultaneous use, and another one that uses more pins and allows simultaneous USB and MHL use).
No matter which one of the two you use, it always functions as a standard micro-USB connector.
For TCP, they could look at retransmissions. For UDP, it's protocol dependent, of course.
However, the deeper flaw with the article is the assumption that you should only pay for what you receive. In fact, your request of the data is what uses up bandwidth, regardless of whether you receive it or not, so you should actually be charged by what's transmitted, not what's received.
The article makes the assumption that people should only be charged for packets actually received. But the company's wireless infrastructure is busy while it is transmitting packets, whether received or not. Bandwidth could be entirely saturated even if no client ever receives anything.
It seems to me that people should pay the way they are, and if they don't like paying for dropped packets, they should turn off data when in marginal areas. Of course, coverage should also be measured that way: if you are in an area in which you receive less than, say, 95% of the data packets, that should be counted as "no coverage".
Is it ironic that you claim that people who don't automatically agree with you are "not thinking independently" and "sheep"?
There are plenty of people who disagree with me that I don't call sheep. I call you a "sheep" not because you disagree with me, but because you argue entirely in terms of Democrats/Republicans.
I think you'll find it difficult to convince anyone of anything as long as you continue write like a petulant teenager.
There are plenty of people that I can convince and that can convince me. On you, reason is obviously lost.
Freedom of Speech is not a law in the US, its a right that is protected by the law. There's a subtle difference there that sometimes I feel is lost on people who didn't grow up here.
That is incorrect. In the US, people have the right to freedom of speech because it isn't one of the enumerated powers of government to restrict it. It isn't a right "protected by law". The First Amendment doesn't create such a right, rather it clarifies additional restrictions on the government ("Congress shall make no law...").
That's not to say that right is fully protected here either, thats slowly slipping away even here. But the point is still valid, you have full freedom of speech, its only a question on your choice to protect it. There as here.
That is incorrect as well. Australia's government is empowered to pass laws to restrict speech in ways that the US government is not. Furthermore, it has passed such laws, and hence Australians have fewer free speech rights than Americans. For example, hate speech continues to be illegal in Australia.
Android devices not only support USB Host (and support it well), the same micro-USB connector is also used for HD video and audio via MHL. Samsung shows that you can make a micro-USB connector that allows simultaneous micro-USB, charging, and MHL connections.
I prefer Obama's platform this year because he's pro-choice, supports gay marriage
I am pro-choice and pro gay marriage, but I also think those issues are insignificant compared to the economy and international politics. In addition, I don't find Obama's stance on these issues particularly principled.
and actually realizes that we have to increase revenue (along with cutting unnecessary spending) to get our national debt under control.
Obama is paying lip service to the idea, but in practice, he isn't doing it either. He wants to keep the Bush tax breaks for people making less than $250000; those tax payers represent 80% of all income tax revenue. How exactly is Obama going to get the national debt under control that way? Obama is using taxes as a political tool; I don't see a convincing plan to reduce the debt there either, and Obama's track record on the economy is lousy. I'll keep an open mind until the election, but the way it looks right now, I may just stay home.
He will sign the REPUBLICAN extension, because if he doesn't they (and YOU) will paint him as being a terrorist.
I'm an independent who voted for Obama last time around. And if Obama can't do the right thing because people criticize him for it then he is unfit to be a president. In fact, I think that pretty much sums up what the problem with Obama is: he isn't governing or doing the right thing for the country, he is going by poll numbers and buying votes.
It's morons like you that are so destructive of the political process by lacking even a glimmer of an independent thought; and, yes, morons like you exist in large numbers both in both parties.
You only have free speech if you don't face potential legal consequences for what you're saying. And in that sense, free speech is much more restricted in Australia (and Europe) than in the US.
That's easy: if it questions entrenched political or economic interests, then it is "trolling". Likewise, if it offends people and causes controversy.
That may sound like cynicism, but it's effectively already the law in many European nations: anonymous speech is not protected, and you can be sued for monetary damages or even charged with a crime for insulting political figures or religious leaders. Criticizing religions is also a no-no if it might upset people and cause them to become violence (it doesn't matter whether what you said is reasonable or even true).
All these desktops (including Unity) are more than fast enough on even low end laptops. The real problem with Unity, KDE, and Windows for that matter, is usability.
The irony behind all of this hoopla is, of course, that Windows and Mac users were always claiming that their desktops were faster because they didn't use X11 and "network transparency"; that was utter nonsense, of course. Nobody cared or even noticed that Windows and Mac graphics were actually worse. Now that temporarily, a couple of Linux desktops benchmark slower on a prerelease version of one Linux distribution, the sky is suddenly falling.
To all desktop developers: fix your usability problems, forget about FPS pissing contests.
Oh, I see, you're saying that the Republicans are more amenable to doing what Obama lobbies then to do than the Democrats.
I'm saying that Obama's pretenses of being any better than Republicans on civil liberties are b.s.; just look at his record.
Personally, I would think the Republicans voted for it because they think their guy is going to be president in a few months and they want to keep the powers available to him.
Republicans voted for this because they think the president (any president) should have this power and because Republican districts don't give a sh*t about this stuff. The Democratic party and the Democratic president like these powers too, and they are using these powers. The only ones who vote against it are a minority of representatives in whose districts such laws actually may be unpopular Their parties don't bother pressuring them because they can't actually keep this from becoming law; if it had been close, you can be sure Obama and the Democratic party would have been twisting arms. But you're trying to read some grand ideological differences into this. It's people like you that keep bad presidents (whether Bush or Obama) in power, to the detriment of the country. Start using your head and thinking independently, instead of acting like a sheep.
The law is an authorization to the administration. Obama likely lobbied for it, because Congress usually doesn't bother authorizing something that the president doesn't actually want to do. In fact, if the Obama administration said "we don't want this, we don't need this, and it is bad for the country", the authorization would likely not have passed.
But regardless of that, Obama is the head of the executive branch. He is under no obligation to do everything he is authorized to do. If he disagreed with the law, he could simply not take advantage of the authorization and publicly condemn it. Instead, he has not just been taking advantage of it, his administration has actually violated even the already broad limits of the authorization in the past.
The Obama administration has been using these wiretaps, Obama is going to sign the law, and he is going to continue to implement it. If the Democratic party thought this act was wrong or bad, it could put a stop to it tomorrow. So don't tell us that Democrats are any better on these issues than Republicans.
The fact that some nominally Democratic representatives in the House voted against it (in order to appease some more liberal voters, knowing full well that it would pass anyway) doesn't change that one iota.
Android tablets are almost as walled off from the rest of your IT infrastructure, and have the same input problems.
Android tablets not only have much better on-screen keyboards, there are several Android tablets that dock to a keyboard, giving you a thin and light, easy-to-use device.
Also, the cost to properly customize a school-wide roll out of tablets with a proper back end, remote projection, translation from MS documents on servers to editable documents on the tablet, is far beyond not just the skill of most IT groups but the budget of nearly all schools.
The same is true for a "school-wide roll out of" Windows laptops, Macintosh laptops, and iPads. Android gives people an alternative, either by giving them devices that "just work" yet still can be customized by users, or by integrating with Google Apps.
Apple's iPad software is targeted at home users and aimed at maximizing Apple revenues by any means possible. That's obviously not good software to use for education.
They should have bought Android tablets instead; they allow most of the things you can do on a laptop, yet retain the simplicity and automatic updating of the iPad.
A company can dominate an industry and "kill off" competition quite legally.
Have I said anything to contradict that?
It's only when they cross the line and abuse their position that "intervention" is warranted.
No, intervention is "warranted" much earlier, if the goal is to preserve a free market, competitiveness, and innovation. That was my point: the Microsoft example in the EU shows that legal interventions currently come too late, and hence we should change the laws to allow interventions earlier.
I know what you are talking about, but you obviously don't. Which means that instead of constructing an argument, you randomly string together factoids that sound good to you and may support one viewpoint, but that you yourself don't understand.
Yes, there is a substantive discussion one can have about whether higher speeds result in higher death rates, but the question is far from settled. The fact that countries like Germany have lower highway death rates than the US itself tells you that the relationship cannot be as simplistic as you make it out to be.
Are you daft or something? My whole point was that government regulators are not intervening because Apple, despite massively misbehaving, hasn't succeeded yet in killing off its competition. That's why I was saying that the time to intervene is now, as opposed to later, as we did in the Microsoft case. Get it?
And like almost all of the people here who have argued with me, you failed to get the point.
No, you fail to get the point. By making the distinction between "detection" and "turning into something intelligible", you are saying that you want the government to regulate in detail what the software on my computer may and may not do with data that I legally obtained. That is an extremely bad and dangerous principle.
And we simply don't need to establish this principle: there is no need for the government to protect people who use unencrypted WiFi from their own stupidity. The dangers are overblown anyway, since important communications are protected through SSL anyway.
If you want to get to the real communication content, there is a whole lot more work (and yes, special equipment) involved.
The fatality rates of automobile collisions increase by about a square function of the speed. When you have a collision, you have a lot of energy to dissipate, and KE = 1/2 mv^2.
"Fatality rates" can't be square functions of speed; it's mathematically impossible. And you implied a relationship between the square law for kinetic energy and a square law for "fatality rates", but that too is utter nonsense.
Now you write:
Bohlin had a graph of fatalities vs. speed, and it wasn't linear. It went up very quickly and it looked like a power function to me.
It can't be a "power function" at high speeds because it saturates. You're also mixing up "fatality rates" and "fatalities" and don't state clearly what the "rates" or "fatalities" are measured over: time periods? passenger miles? vehicles? In different words, you're talking out of your ass.
In addition to all that, Bohlin and his employer have strong financial interests in pushing a particular point of view on safety and restraints.
A 2009 report in the American Journal of Public Health found that higher speed limits adopted by states in the wake of the 1995 repeal of federal speed-limit controls had led to a 3.2% increase in road fatalities... German authorities already have used speed caps to make the autobahn safer. Last year, after an 80-mph limit was imposed on the busy stretch between Hamburg and Berlin, traffic-related deaths fell from eight to zero, according to a government study.
Observing correlations like that implies absolutely nothing. Among other things, changing speed limits tends to have only a small effect on actual speed anyway and there are numerous other confounding variables. As an extreme example, if you close the highway, you get no fatalities on that stretch... they simply move to other roads.
Sorry, but you are a textbook example for scientific illiteracy.
The fatality rates of automobile collisions increase by about a square function of the speed. When you have a collision, you have a lot of energy to dissipate, and KE = 1/2 mv^2.
Fatality rates saturate, so it is impossible for them to increase as a "square function of the speed" even if kinetic energy were all that mattered. Most of the regime before saturation is linear or sublinear, not "quadratic".
As my physics professor used to say, I don't care if you kill yourself, as long as you get the physics right.
Well, your physics professor didn't get the physics right.
But the death rate goes up pretty fast above 55mph.
Highway deaths (per mile) in Germany are significantly lower than in the US, even though the recommended speed is 81 mph and people usually drive even faster. So whatever relationship you seem to be postulating doesn't translate into what actually matters in practice, namely deaths per million miles traveled.
Slashdot Mirror
The MHL/micro-USB connector is a de-facto standard (there are two version: one that uses fewer pins and doesn't allow simultaneous use, and another one that uses more pins and allows simultaneous USB and MHL use).
No matter which one of the two you use, it always functions as a standard micro-USB connector.
For TCP, they could look at retransmissions. For UDP, it's protocol dependent, of course.
However, the deeper flaw with the article is the assumption that you should only pay for what you receive. In fact, your request of the data is what uses up bandwidth, regardless of whether you receive it or not, so you should actually be charged by what's transmitted, not what's received.
The article makes the assumption that people should only be charged for packets actually received. But the company's wireless infrastructure is busy while it is transmitting packets, whether received or not. Bandwidth could be entirely saturated even if no client ever receives anything.
It seems to me that people should pay the way they are, and if they don't like paying for dropped packets, they should turn off data when in marginal areas. Of course, coverage should also be measured that way: if you are in an area in which you receive less than, say, 95% of the data packets, that should be counted as "no coverage".
There are plenty of people who disagree with me that I don't call sheep. I call you a "sheep" not because you disagree with me, but because you argue entirely in terms of Democrats/Republicans.
There are plenty of people that I can convince and that can convince me. On you, reason is obviously lost.
That is incorrect. In the US, people have the right to freedom of speech because it isn't one of the enumerated powers of government to restrict it. It isn't a right "protected by law". The First Amendment doesn't create such a right, rather it clarifies additional restrictions on the government ("Congress shall make no law...").
That is incorrect as well. Australia's government is empowered to pass laws to restrict speech in ways that the US government is not. Furthermore, it has passed such laws, and hence Australians have fewer free speech rights than Americans. For example, hate speech continues to be illegal in Australia.
Android devices not only support USB Host (and support it well), the same micro-USB connector is also used for HD video and audio via MHL. Samsung shows that you can make a micro-USB connector that allows simultaneous micro-USB, charging, and MHL connections.
I am pro-choice and pro gay marriage, but I also think those issues are insignificant compared to the economy and international politics. In addition, I don't find Obama's stance on these issues particularly principled.
Obama is paying lip service to the idea, but in practice, he isn't doing it either. He wants to keep the Bush tax breaks for people making less than $250000; those tax payers represent 80% of all income tax revenue. How exactly is Obama going to get the national debt under control that way? Obama is using taxes as a political tool; I don't see a convincing plan to reduce the debt there either, and Obama's track record on the economy is lousy. I'll keep an open mind until the election, but the way it looks right now, I may just stay home.
I'm an independent who voted for Obama last time around. And if Obama can't do the right thing because people criticize him for it then he is unfit to be a president. In fact, I think that pretty much sums up what the problem with Obama is: he isn't governing or doing the right thing for the country, he is going by poll numbers and buying votes.
It's morons like you that are so destructive of the political process by lacking even a glimmer of an independent thought; and, yes, morons like you exist in large numbers both in both parties.
You only have free speech if you don't face potential legal consequences for what you're saying. And in that sense, free speech is much more restricted in Australia (and Europe) than in the US.
That's easy: if it questions entrenched political or economic interests, then it is "trolling". Likewise, if it offends people and causes controversy.
That may sound like cynicism, but it's effectively already the law in many European nations: anonymous speech is not protected, and you can be sued for monetary damages or even charged with a crime for insulting political figures or religious leaders. Criticizing religions is also a no-no if it might upset people and cause them to become violence (it doesn't matter whether what you said is reasonable or even true).
All these desktops (including Unity) are more than fast enough on even low end laptops. The real problem with Unity, KDE, and Windows for that matter, is usability.
The irony behind all of this hoopla is, of course, that Windows and Mac users were always claiming that their desktops were faster because they didn't use X11 and "network transparency"; that was utter nonsense, of course. Nobody cared or even noticed that Windows and Mac graphics were actually worse. Now that temporarily, a couple of Linux desktops benchmark slower on a prerelease version of one Linux distribution, the sky is suddenly falling.
To all desktop developers: fix your usability problems, forget about FPS pissing contests.
I'm saying that Obama's pretenses of being any better than Republicans on civil liberties are b.s.; just look at his record.
Republicans voted for this because they think the president (any president) should have this power and because Republican districts don't give a sh*t about this stuff. The Democratic party and the Democratic president like these powers too, and they are using these powers. The only ones who vote against it are a minority of representatives in whose districts such laws actually may be unpopular Their parties don't bother pressuring them because they can't actually keep this from becoming law; if it had been close, you can be sure Obama and the Democratic party would have been twisting arms. But you're trying to read some grand ideological differences into this. It's people like you that keep bad presidents (whether Bush or Obama) in power, to the detriment of the country. Start using your head and thinking independently, instead of acting like a sheep.
The law is an authorization to the administration. Obama likely lobbied for it, because Congress usually doesn't bother authorizing something that the president doesn't actually want to do. In fact, if the Obama administration said "we don't want this, we don't need this, and it is bad for the country", the authorization would likely not have passed.
But regardless of that, Obama is the head of the executive branch. He is under no obligation to do everything he is authorized to do. If he disagreed with the law, he could simply not take advantage of the authorization and publicly condemn it. Instead, he has not just been taking advantage of it, his administration has actually violated even the already broad limits of the authorization in the past.
The Obama administration has been using these wiretaps, Obama is going to sign the law, and he is going to continue to implement it. If the Democratic party thought this act was wrong or bad, it could put a stop to it tomorrow. So don't tell us that Democrats are any better on these issues than Republicans.
The fact that some nominally Democratic representatives in the House voted against it (in order to appease some more liberal voters, knowing full well that it would pass anyway) doesn't change that one iota.
Yeah, these "evildoers" are called traffic accidents, medical errors, obesity, smoking, lack of preventive medical care, etc.
Well, yes, as you would realize if you actually read my original posting.
Android tablets not only have much better on-screen keyboards, there are several Android tablets that dock to a keyboard, giving you a thin and light, easy-to-use device.
The same is true for a "school-wide roll out of" Windows laptops, Macintosh laptops, and iPads. Android gives people an alternative, either by giving them devices that "just work" yet still can be customized by users, or by integrating with Google Apps.
Apple's iPad software is targeted at home users and aimed at maximizing Apple revenues by any means possible. That's obviously not good software to use for education.
They should have bought Android tablets instead; they allow most of the things you can do on a laptop, yet retain the simplicity and automatic updating of the iPad.
Have I said anything to contradict that?
No, intervention is "warranted" much earlier, if the goal is to preserve a free market, competitiveness, and innovation. That was my point: the Microsoft example in the EU shows that legal interventions currently come too late, and hence we should change the laws to allow interventions earlier.
I know what you are talking about, but you obviously don't. Which means that instead of constructing an argument, you randomly string together factoids that sound good to you and may support one viewpoint, but that you yourself don't understand.
Yes, there is a substantive discussion one can have about whether higher speeds result in higher death rates, but the question is far from settled. The fact that countries like Germany have lower highway death rates than the US itself tells you that the relationship cannot be as simplistic as you make it out to be.
How is criticizing Apple an "adherence to the fruit cult"? Are you on drugs or something?
Are you daft or something? My whole point was that government regulators are not intervening because Apple, despite massively misbehaving, hasn't succeeded yet in killing off its competition. That's why I was saying that the time to intervene is now, as opposed to later, as we did in the Microsoft case. Get it?
No, you fail to get the point. By making the distinction between "detection" and "turning into something intelligible", you are saying that you want the government to regulate in detail what the software on my computer may and may not do with data that I legally obtained. That is an extremely bad and dangerous principle.
And we simply don't need to establish this principle: there is no need for the government to protect people who use unencrypted WiFi from their own stupidity. The dangers are overblown anyway, since important communications are protected through SSL anyway.
You don't know what you're talking about.
You wrote:
"Fatality rates" can't be square functions of speed; it's mathematically impossible. And you implied a relationship between the square law for kinetic energy and a square law for "fatality rates", but that too is utter nonsense.
Now you write:
It can't be a "power function" at high speeds because it saturates. You're also mixing up "fatality rates" and "fatalities" and don't state clearly what the "rates" or "fatalities" are measured over: time periods? passenger miles? vehicles? In different words, you're talking out of your ass.
In addition to all that, Bohlin and his employer have strong financial interests in pushing a particular point of view on safety and restraints.
Observing correlations like that implies absolutely nothing. Among other things, changing speed limits tends to have only a small effect on actual speed anyway and there are numerous other confounding variables. As an extreme example, if you close the highway, you get no fatalities on that stretch... they simply move to other roads.
Sorry, but you are a textbook example for scientific illiteracy.
Fatality rates saturate, so it is impossible for them to increase as a "square function of the speed" even if kinetic energy were all that mattered. Most of the regime before saturation is linear or sublinear, not "quadratic".
Well, your physics professor didn't get the physics right.
Highway deaths (per mile) in Germany are significantly lower than in the US, even though the recommended speed is 81 mph and people usually drive even faster. So whatever relationship you seem to be postulating doesn't translate into what actually matters in practice, namely deaths per million miles traveled.