I agree that it is a little silly to put each and every little thing on-line, but my wifi thermostat has been very, very useful. I can't imagine the need to connect the 'fridge though. A wifi stove would be about as useful as the 'cook time' feature I never use. A wifi coffee maker would be about as useful as its clock I never bother setting (besides, a clock should just *know* what time it is). Now where is my wifi stapler?
AC, all of what you wrote misses almost completely.
The IEEEE is the Goldilocks looking for the perfect spectrum and I am not sure that's even realistic.
Perfect is in the eye of the objective.
* 2.4GHz band is ideal for many applications but not all.
* 5GHz band has more bandwidth than 2.4 but also less range.
* 900MHz band has less bandwidth than 2.4GHz band but also more range.
So what is your objective?
One can argue that there was no need for the HaLow because other protocols exist for communicating on that range, but that's a different argument. If other protocols suit the objective better, nothing prevents them from being used.
Actually, my Samsung smart tv [used to] update almost weekly. It drove me nuts. It took about 5 minutes. What was it updating? As far as I know, just the ads for services someone paid them to install. I was pretty stoked when I first bought it. I soon discovered it was a very dumb version of smart. It crashed continuously. And worse, it pings some Samsung domain to see if it is connected to the internet and if they were down (which was pretty frequent), the TV thought my internet was down. Netflix took about 3 minutes to load any given show, and more often than not just crashed the tv. I never did get the youtube app to work for more than a few minutes. It had an internet browser that couldn't render any pages correctly. My remote keyboard would only function with that and nothing else. It was just a piece of shit. But the picture was good. I disconnected it from the internet and use a roku instead. Problem solved.
Well, if you get arrested and imprisoned for copying 1s and 0s and you argue that it is illegal and they laugh, what then? Do you tweet that it is an injustice?
There are, unless I'm missing something, already communication protocols that IoT could use - right in that same spectrum. Isn't moving this, a separate and different protocol, into that spectrum going to screw up existing things?:/
I don't think you're missing anything. But the harm is not obvious to me. What difference does it make whether an IoT device uses this protocol or some other existing protocol; it is still using the bandwidth. Perhaps if one or the other made more efficient use of it there might be an argument. We'd need an expert to chime in and debate that. I don't think that folks are going to opt to use this over 2.4 or 5GHz to do their data dumps. Well, not unless their really patient.
It is a decent idea, but the OP makes it seem like a new idea. As a boy most of my SciFi reading was done in installments. What did I care? I didn't pay for the subscription. Astounding Magazine published Asimov's Foundation in monthly installments. It was old marketing then, I'm sure. Applying the technological App to the name doesn't change what it is. You're subscribing to a book series. Wait'll it's done and you can buy the book with decent edits.
At first I thought that perhaps the publisher thinks they'll beat the pirates by locking it into an app. That will survive at least a day of pirate efforts. Every installment will be available in torrent the day after release. So no, that's not it. They're doing it for novelty. No pun intended but I'll take it.
I'm okay with this. Long range, low bandwidth. It might be useful for fairly remote devices that just don't have a lot to say. Some folks are disturbed about the possibility of interference with other devices on this band (mobile mostly) but presumably the FCC did their job (yea, large values of Assume in that Presume, of course). I don't think it is going to get a lot of use so I don't think it is going to much matter. It will probably have a lot of value in the industrial world in terms of remote sensing. Not so much for the home.
ledow, the fact that your neighbors can 'see' your dual networks isn't really relevant. What matters is throughput.
But this...
In work, I deploy site-wide wireless over a school and the 5GHz bands covers just as much as the 2.4Ghz but are much quieter (and hence get more authorised traffic because devices prefer them).
steveha, I thought about using a mod point to mod you up but your post requires such a caveat that I wanted to reply instead.
That caveat being, at that level of political power, she's pretty much immune to 'common folk' rules unless it can be demonstrated that her intent was also unlawful [re: Sandy Berger]. Given her position at the time, for all practical purposes she was the arbitrator of what was and was not classified; at best it demonstrates her incompetence. I realize the law, as written, doesn't say that but the political system, as practiced, will accommodate that; and Obama demonstrates that perfectly with the 'wasn't classified at the time' excuse.
That is why this this isn't going to go anywhere legally. It may have legs politically but there's no way she's going to be charged and convicted of mishandling classified information.
Speaking of 'common folks', Had Sandy Berger been one of those he'd have died in prison. Instead, he never saw the inside of one.
All of the revenue comes from the two street-level 55-inch advertising displays. None of the revenue is going to come form the wifi/charging kiosks. What's that mean? The wifi/charging aspects will quickly fall into disrepair. There's no money in keeping them working.
Those advertising displays have to bring in ~$500-$1000/mo to break-even. Will advertisers pay that much for street-level displays? Probably. At least in some neighborhoods.
That 911 button is going to see a lot of LULZ action.
Thus you have Motorola chargers that won't charge a Sanyo phone, LG phones that won't charge from generic chargers, etc. (Names used for example only.)
That's a valid issue but a temporary one. Even now, USB 3.1 is pretty much standardizing charging. There was a recent PC World article testing this. Interesting read
USB-C charging: Universal or bust! We plug in every device we have to chase the dream
Four devices and five chargers tell us just how close we are.
But "having" that counter, the incentive is for the manufacturer to take big margins on when to call it "full".
There are no big margins. If your printer dies, for whatever reason, then you have to buy another one. They are sold at cost or at a loss. There is no profit there. And since you might buy a competitor's printer because you're pissed off, the margin becomes negative. You say...
Designing it in such a way that it is (with some trouble) exchangeable should be quite possible without increasing cost.
You can buy a waste ink system for just about any printer. It will take you about an hour to change and a big fucking mess. Or you can buy a new printer with new features at what it costs to buy replacement ink for the old printer.
That 'unrecoverable' error is telling you the waste ink system is saturated. Sure, you can reset the error if you know the trick. About a hundred or so power cycles later you'll discover that ink is leaking out of your printer and onto your [once] nice desk. They didn't do this to dick you, it is an engineering compromise. They could build in a replaceable waste ink system (as they do in higher end printers) but doing so would put the printer beyond the price point.
Printer companies want you to keep your printer as long as possible. They are not in the printer selling business; they sell their printers at cost or at a loss. They are in the ink selling business. Which printer you buy it for really makes no difference to them.
This is a GSA sources sought so there's no money on the table. And yes, they have a vendor with a product in mind. The synopsis is describing that product. FAR mandates they seek other sources over a certain dollar amount. There's really nothing untoward going on here... well, other than the GSA in general.
And interesting tidbit from the FBO text:
https://www.fbo.gov/index?s=op...
Must be able to disrupt communications on 2.4 and 5.8 GHz ISM bands, Stop autonomous waypoint flights
Why are these two clauses ganged in one line item? Why does the second clause start with a capital. This indicates they were two separate line items and were edited to be a a single. Why? Nothing wrong with it other than being oddly written.
Disrupt ISM. Check.
Stop autonomous waypoint flights. ?. To do that you have to disrupt GPS. Why not just say that? Well, they do in the very next line item.
Disrupt satellite navigation on GPS L1 and GLONAS L1
I don't think a lot of thought went into this RFI.
Of course, what happens if the data center goes defunct? A large building like that in the middle of nowhere can't really be used for a warehouse, since it isn't on main transportation lines. It can't really be turned into a mall, since the population might not be enough to support it.
In this case the building already exists, has been vacant for years, is an eyesore, and in need of some expensive environmental clean-up. There is little downside to this move. Perhaps you are right as a matter of principle, but this instance is a poor example for it.
This is simply not true. Since the datacenters create only a tiny number of permanent jobs, there is no benefit in defecting (in this case, offering a tax break).
In this case it may well be true. The deal is 400 jobs by 2022 and 1000 jobs by 2027. That's greater than tiny by my reckoning. If they don't follow through, they lose the tax breaks. I'm not sure why a pure data center needs 400 people, much less 1000, but perhaps it is more than just a data center.
The final package, which passed at 11:30 p.m. Tuesday, would end the tax exemptions if the data center industry does not collectively create at least 400 new jobs in Michigan by 2022 and 1,000 new jobs by 2026. The package now heads to the desk of Michigan Gov. Rick Snyder, who had sought the assurances on job growth for the project.
I know there's a lot of contention here about offering tax breaks but states really are in competition for jobs. Getting past the moral dilemma of it, a dilemma I can't seem to muster, it is hard to see a downside to this. The perspective real estate--the Steelcase Pyramid Complex--has been vacant for some time now. It used to be a furniture manufacturing plant. Whoever buys it has to gut it and clean it up, as there are some nasty pollution problems to be remedied. Switch, the company that wants it, can go anywhere east of the Mississippi. I see no reason why they shouldn't look for the best deal.
The only part I don't get is why a data center needs 400 people, much less 1000.
None of that excuses the utterly batshit dumb things they claim to believe. Stupidity remains stupidity even if it aligns with a credible argument.
It is NIMBY politics clothed as stupidity. They want their cut but have no legal way of getting it absent holding that land for ransom. And they'll probably get it. If not then Strata is stuck with several hundred acres they still have to pay property taxes on or sell at a [probably] significant loss. So, not at all stupid.
Slashdot Mirror
Thermostats?
I agree that it is a little silly to put each and every little thing on-line, but my wifi thermostat has been very, very useful. I can't imagine the need to connect the 'fridge though. A wifi stove would be about as useful as the 'cook time' feature I never use. A wifi coffee maker would be about as useful as its clock I never bother setting (besides, a clock should just *know* what time it is). Now where is my wifi stapler?
The IEEEE is the Goldilocks looking for the perfect spectrum and I am not sure that's even realistic.
Perfect is in the eye of the objective.
* 2.4GHz band is ideal for many applications but not all.
* 5GHz band has more bandwidth than 2.4 but also less range.
* 900MHz band has less bandwidth than 2.4GHz band but also more range.
So what is your objective?
One can argue that there was no need for the HaLow because other protocols exist for communicating on that range, but that's a different argument. If other protocols suit the objective better, nothing prevents them from being used.
Actually, my Samsung smart tv [used to] update almost weekly. It drove me nuts. It took about 5 minutes. What was it updating? As far as I know, just the ads for services someone paid them to install. I was pretty stoked when I first bought it. I soon discovered it was a very dumb version of smart. It crashed continuously. And worse, it pings some Samsung domain to see if it is connected to the internet and if they were down (which was pretty frequent), the TV thought my internet was down. Netflix took about 3 minutes to load any given show, and more often than not just crashed the tv. I never did get the youtube app to work for more than a few minutes. It had an internet browser that couldn't render any pages correctly. My remote keyboard would only function with that and nothing else. It was just a piece of shit. But the picture was good. I disconnected it from the internet and use a roku instead. Problem solved.
A drone delivering thumb drives would probably far surpass any radio-based system. I think the OP is probably based on something close to that.
Socialism is always a dictatorship - for some.
So ... not always for others?
You're free to argue that run-away capitalism make it so to because of inequality and the huge difference in capability.
I can't parse that. Did you leave out a word? And what is your point?
Well, if you get arrested and imprisoned for copying 1s and 0s and you argue that it is illegal and they laugh, what then? Do you tweet that it is an injustice?
Dude, please stop. It is a dictatorship. Of course it is closed. Be relevant. Pretty please. Cherry on top.
It is hard to see a downside to this but for limited distribution. Can you think of a modern analog?
There are, unless I'm missing something, already communication protocols that IoT could use - right in that same spectrum. Isn't moving this, a separate and different protocol, into that spectrum going to screw up existing things? :/
I don't think you're missing anything. But the harm is not obvious to me. What difference does it make whether an IoT device uses this protocol or some other existing protocol; it is still using the bandwidth. Perhaps if one or the other made more efficient use of it there might be an argument. We'd need an expert to chime in and debate that. I don't think that folks are going to opt to use this over 2.4 or 5GHz to do their data dumps. Well, not unless their really patient.
It is a decent idea, but the OP makes it seem like a new idea. As a boy most of my SciFi reading was done in installments. What did I care? I didn't pay for the subscription. Astounding Magazine published Asimov's Foundation in monthly installments. It was old marketing then, I'm sure. Applying the technological App to the name doesn't change what it is. You're subscribing to a book series. Wait'll it's done and you can buy the book with decent edits.
At first I thought that perhaps the publisher thinks they'll beat the pirates by locking it into an app. That will survive at least a day of pirate efforts. Every installment will be available in torrent the day after release. So no, that's not it. They're doing it for novelty. No pun intended but I'll take it.
I'm okay with this. Long range, low bandwidth. It might be useful for fairly remote devices that just don't have a lot to say. Some folks are disturbed about the possibility of interference with other devices on this band (mobile mostly) but presumably the FCC did their job (yea, large values of Assume in that Presume, of course). I don't think it is going to get a lot of use so I don't think it is going to much matter. It will probably have a lot of value in the industrial world in terms of remote sensing. Not so much for the home.
In work, I deploy site-wide wireless over a school and the 5GHz bands covers just as much as the 2.4Ghz but are much quieter (and hence get more authorised traffic because devices prefer them).
Makes me cry a bit.
That's because rockets are hard and space is harsh.
We actually have a space colony, for very small values of colony; the ISS.
Space is really not our future. Our future is, for better or worse, right here in this gravity well.
Sorry to be a bummer.
steveha, I thought about using a mod point to mod you up but your post requires such a caveat that I wanted to reply instead.
That caveat being, at that level of political power, she's pretty much immune to 'common folk' rules unless it can be demonstrated that her intent was also unlawful [re: Sandy Berger]. Given her position at the time, for all practical purposes she was the arbitrator of what was and was not classified; at best it demonstrates her incompetence. I realize the law, as written, doesn't say that but the political system, as practiced, will accommodate that; and Obama demonstrates that perfectly with the 'wasn't classified at the time' excuse.
That is why this this isn't going to go anywhere legally. It may have legs politically but there's no way she's going to be charged and convicted of mishandling classified information.
Speaking of 'common folks', Had Sandy Berger been one of those he'd have died in prison. Instead, he never saw the inside of one.
All of the revenue comes from the two street-level 55-inch advertising displays. None of the revenue is going to come form the wifi/charging kiosks. What's that mean? The wifi/charging aspects will quickly fall into disrepair. There's no money in keeping them working.
Those advertising displays have to bring in ~$500-$1000/mo to break-even. Will advertisers pay that much for street-level displays? Probably. At least in some neighborhoods.
That 911 button is going to see a lot of LULZ action.
Thus you have Motorola chargers that won't charge a Sanyo phone, LG phones that won't charge from generic chargers, etc. (Names used for example only.)
That's a valid issue but a temporary one. Even now, USB 3.1 is pretty much standardizing charging. There was a recent PC World article testing this. Interesting read
USB-C charging: Universal or bust! We plug in every device we have to chase the dream Four devices and five chargers tell us just how close we are.
Link: http://www.pcworld.com/article...
But "having" that counter, the incentive is for the manufacturer to take big margins on when to call it "full".
There are no big margins. If your printer dies, for whatever reason, then you have to buy another one. They are sold at cost or at a loss. There is no profit there. And since you might buy a competitor's printer because you're pissed off, the margin becomes negative. You say ...
Designing it in such a way that it is (with some trouble) exchangeable should be quite possible without increasing cost.
You can buy a waste ink system for just about any printer. It will take you about an hour to change and a big fucking mess. Or you can buy a new printer with new features at what it costs to buy replacement ink for the old printer.
That 'unrecoverable' error is telling you the waste ink system is saturated. Sure, you can reset the error if you know the trick. About a hundred or so power cycles later you'll discover that ink is leaking out of your printer and onto your [once] nice desk. They didn't do this to dick you, it is an engineering compromise. They could build in a replaceable waste ink system (as they do in higher end printers) but doing so would put the printer beyond the price point.
Printer companies want you to keep your printer as long as possible. They are not in the printer selling business; they sell their printers at cost or at a loss. They are in the ink selling business. Which printer you buy it for really makes no difference to them.
Maybe it is a blessing in disguise. Why would one go to Forbes to read a science article?
Must be able to disrupt communications on 2.4 and 5.8 GHz ISM bands, Stop autonomous waypoint flights
Why are these two clauses ganged in one line item? Why does the second clause start with a capital. This indicates they were two separate line items and were edited to be a a single. Why? Nothing wrong with it other than being oddly written.
Disrupt ISM. Check.
Stop autonomous waypoint flights. ?. To do that you have to disrupt GPS. Why not just say that? Well, they do in the very next line item.
Disrupt satellite navigation on GPS L1 and GLONAS L1
I don't think a lot of thought went into this RFI.
Of course, what happens if the data center goes defunct? A large building like that in the middle of nowhere can't really be used for a warehouse, since it isn't on main transportation lines. It can't really be turned into a mall, since the population might not be enough to support it.
In this case the building already exists, has been vacant for years, is an eyesore, and in need of some expensive environmental clean-up. There is little downside to this move. Perhaps you are right as a matter of principle, but this instance is a poor example for it.
This is simply not true. Since the datacenters create only a tiny number of permanent jobs, there is no benefit in defecting (in this case, offering a tax break).
In this case it may well be true. The deal is 400 jobs by 2022 and 1000 jobs by 2027. That's greater than tiny by my reckoning. If they don't follow through, they lose the tax breaks. I'm not sure why a pure data center needs 400 people, much less 1000, but perhaps it is more than just a data center.
The final package, which passed at 11:30 p.m. Tuesday, would end the tax exemptions if the data center industry does not collectively create at least 400 new jobs in Michigan by 2022 and 1,000 new jobs by 2026. The package now heads to the desk of Michigan Gov. Rick Snyder, who had sought the assurances on job growth for the project.
I know there's a lot of contention here about offering tax breaks but states really are in competition for jobs. Getting past the moral dilemma of it, a dilemma I can't seem to muster, it is hard to see a downside to this. The perspective real estate--the Steelcase Pyramid Complex--has been vacant for some time now. It used to be a furniture manufacturing plant. Whoever buys it has to gut it and clean it up, as there are some nasty pollution problems to be remedied. Switch, the company that wants it, can go anywhere east of the Mississippi. I see no reason why they shouldn't look for the best deal.
The only part I don't get is why a data center needs 400 people, much less 1000.
Anne Aaron is the project manager.
She doesn't seem particularly misogynistic.
None of that excuses the utterly batshit dumb things they claim to believe. Stupidity remains stupidity even if it aligns with a credible argument.
It is NIMBY politics clothed as stupidity. They want their cut but have no legal way of getting it absent holding that land for ransom. And they'll probably get it. If not then Strata is stuck with several hundred acres they still have to pay property taxes on or sell at a [probably] significant loss. So, not at all stupid.