This range pretty much includes all Europe (except Portugal/Spain/Italy/Balkans), Russia, Mongolia, and Northern parts of China & Japan.
This is correct, but it's not correct to assume that people in these areas can expect to see an auroral display just because one is visible in Minnesota. Auroral displays are responsive to geomagnetic, not geographic, coordinates, and the geomagnetic coordinates swing south over North America and north over Asia. One would have to be above 60N (geographically) to see an auroral event in Asia visible in Minnesota at 45N.
might even produce an aurora visible as far south as Minnesota and Wisconsin
The submission is so old, we can say what really happened. Aurora were visible in the United States as far south as Utah, Colorado, and Nebraska. (Tip-'o-the-hat to SpaceWeather.com.)
another thing today's programmers deal with more: insane deadlines. Expectations are growing and deadlines are getting shorter...
Don't kid yourself -- some things never change, although the reasons for them might. There's nothing new about insane deadlines.
When microprocessors were just becoming popular, management of embedded software projects was an unknown: Nobody could determine, based on the product requirements, how many people would be required to complete the task, or how long it would take. Hardware projects people knew how to manage, based on experience, but software projects were a mystery -- especially when they were combined with hardware development.
The first software project with which I was associated, in the 1980s, ended up taking six times as long as initially estimated, with twice the staff. The last six months of the program, the coders' hours were: Arrive at work 8 AM Monday, leave at 5 PM Tuesday. Arrive at work 8 AM Wednesday, leave at 5 PM Thursday. Arrive at work 8 AM Friday, leave at 5 PM Saturday. And a lot of them came in on Sunday, too. Managers made food runs for meals, so that the coders did not have to leave their keyboards. This was not unusual at the time. Divorces were common.
Just because people have gray hair doesn't mean they haven't been put through the wringer. Quite the opposite, in fact.
It's more complicated than "someone has fingerprints or they don't." The testing method matters, too. The print some people leave with the traditional ink-and-paper is substantially different from the print they leave with direct-light fingerprint scanners, which is substantially different from the print they leave with 3D sidelight fingerprint scanners. And all of these, of course, vary in comparison to latent prints, which vary depending on a host of factors.
After a quick search on the USPTO web site, there are no issued patents or published patent applications assigned to "airBNB" or "Airbed and Breakfast." Of the founding team, Nathan Blecharczyk, Brian Chesky, and Joe Gebbia, there is design patent (not utility patent, mind you) D540,097, "Portable seat cushion," listing a "Joseph Gibbia" as inventor, and assigned to "Joe Gibbia." Other than that, I couldn't find any issued patents or published patent applications associated with the founding team, either.
Of course, patent applications are published 18 months after they are filed, so it's possible they have some applications in the works of which we are not aware.
(a) My friends be interested in my news interests? I'm not interested in theirs. ..except under unusual circumstances, when I'll just ask them myself. . . . (b) I want to display my expertise, start a conversation or just plain brag about how well-read I am? Wouldn't that just drive any (remaining) friends away? (c) I want to give Google a signed-in account with web history, and permission to track me in even greater detail?
I confess that this type of stuff just baffles me completely. What's the attraction?
Most students... seem unable to distinguish information gathering from actual understanding.
Absolutely. As I've commented elsewhere, having free access to the world's ideas is great, except when you're trying to train students to generate new ideas. With information and ideas so freely available, it's now incredibly difficult to get students to study an issue and develop their own viewpoints -- they've been trained since childhood to "look it up on the web," and are now fact-rich but understanding-poor. Ask for a few paragraphs describing, say, why the Great Eastern was used to lay the first submarine telegraph cable, and one gets the same paragraphs from a dozen students, copied from a web site.
Copying others' work has been done since the second cuneiform stylus was made, so that's not the new problem. The new problem is, the students don't understand that they've done anything wrong. Since the information they've submitted is factually correct, they say, what's the problem? They equate the production of correct information with understanding.
...because then you can expect the noise floor at your receivers to be determined by your own receivers and can (at least in theory) complain to the relevant regulatory body if you experience harmful interference significantly in excess of that level. In an unlicensed ISM band, a homeowner can turn on a microwave oven, Wi-Fi AP, or other transmitter a foot away from your receiver, and you can't do anything about it -- other than wait for it to stop. Under very common ISM band interference conditions, you may need 30 dB of processing gain just to overcome your local interference -- let alone that needed to pull your weak signal out of Gaussian noise.
Are utilities willing to operate their networks with such reliability issues?
If I've missed the point completely, it's because it wasn't the point of the article. It's not fair to the reader to emphasize speed & distance in the article, and then complain that the reader didn't get the point of distance at a low cost per node. The lead of the article (that's the first sentence, for those who skipped freshman English) should emphasize what the article is about, and this article's lead is all about distance. Cost isn't mentioned until the fifth paragraph.
This AC's complaint is a good example of why it's important to learn to write well if one is a technologist. One can have great, world-changing technology, but if you write poorly, no one will ever hear about it.
"There's no technology available for devices that just need a trickle of connectivity over long distance," says On-Ramp's chief technology officer, Ted Myers, who says that with a clear line of sight, On-Ramp's technology can send a signal 45 miles.
With a 45-mile line-of-sight link, sending 50 bits/s is hardly an achievement, especially when the antennas used are not specified. With a data rate that is "roughly 100,000 times less than the average U.S. broadband speed of five megabits per second", each bit has roughly 100,000 times more energy than bits in an "average U.S. broadband" signal -- which has the disadvantage of having to traverse a non-line-of-sight path.
On-Ramp Wireless may have some interesting technology, but this is not the way to advertise it.
But CS engineering has no licensing requirements in the US, so no, it doesn't actually mean something.
Be careful. At least in the state of Florida, a person may not:
use the name or title "professional engineer" or any other title, designation, words, letters, abbreviations, or device tending to indicate that such person holds an active license as an engineer when the person is not licensed under this chapter, including, but not limited to, the following titles: [long list omitted], "software engineer," "computer hardware engineer," or "systems engineer." Florida Statute 471.031(1)(b)1.
There are some significant exceptions, such as working in the aerospace or defense industries, but if one is an independent consultant in the State of Florida with the word "engineer" on his business card, software or otherwise, he should read Florida Statue 471 carefully, and perhaps consult an attorney. The state frequently views using the word "engineer" in one's title as implying that one is a licensed, Registered Professional Engineer and, if one is not, one is considered to have committed a misdemeanor of the first degree (FS 471.031(2)).
I think the rules in many other states are similar.
The rivers smell so bad, I'd think the biggest problem would be convincing people to get near them, let alone in them. I think they'd have to be enclosed.
Unmentioned in the article is that one also needs the conventional cleaning system to clean the water from (speaking carefully now) pollutants generated internally, too.
[British -- American English humor explanation: In American English "Hoover" is a specific brand of vacuum cleaner, but in British English it's a generic term for any vacuum cleaner. My compliments to oobayly.]
To be sure, we can both read, but the claim of the original Nazi (you?) was that it was parabolic "like ANY OTHER radio telescope", and Arecibo is famously not parabolic.
Yeah -- and an incorrect one, at that. Not all radio telescopes are parabolic. Arecibo, for instance, is spherical. The original paper even notes, "FAST is an Arecibo-type spherical telescope" (p. 3).
Slashdot Mirror
Mea culpa.
If Slashdot impresses you, try EurekAlert.
Whooosh!
1969 called. They want their drug back.
This range pretty much includes all Europe (except Portugal/Spain/Italy/Balkans), Russia, Mongolia, and Northern parts of China & Japan.
This is correct, but it's not correct to assume that people in these areas can expect to see an auroral display just because one is visible in Minnesota. Auroral displays are responsive to geomagnetic, not geographic, coordinates, and the geomagnetic coordinates swing south over North America and north over Asia. One would have to be above 60N (geographically) to see an auroral event in Asia visible in Minnesota at 45N.
might even produce an aurora visible as far south as Minnesota and Wisconsin
The submission is so old, we can say what really happened. Aurora were visible in the United States as far south as Utah, Colorado, and Nebraska. (Tip-'o-the-hat to SpaceWeather.com.)
another thing today's programmers deal with more: insane deadlines. Expectations are growing and deadlines are getting shorter...
Don't kid yourself -- some things never change, although the reasons for them might. There's nothing new about insane deadlines.
When microprocessors were just becoming popular, management of embedded software projects was an unknown: Nobody could determine, based on the product requirements, how many people would be required to complete the task, or how long it would take. Hardware projects people knew how to manage, based on experience, but software projects were a mystery -- especially when they were combined with hardware development.
The first software project with which I was associated, in the 1980s, ended up taking six times as long as initially estimated, with twice the staff. The last six months of the program, the coders' hours were: Arrive at work 8 AM Monday, leave at 5 PM Tuesday. Arrive at work 8 AM Wednesday, leave at 5 PM Thursday. Arrive at work 8 AM Friday, leave at 5 PM Saturday. And a lot of them came in on Sunday, too. Managers made food runs for meals, so that the coders did not have to leave their keyboards. This was not unusual at the time. Divorces were common.
Just because people have gray hair doesn't mean they haven't been put through the wringer. Quite the opposite, in fact.
It's more complicated than "someone has fingerprints or they don't." The testing method matters, too. The print some people leave with the traditional ink-and-paper is substantially different from the print they leave with direct-light fingerprint scanners, which is substantially different from the print they leave with 3D sidelight fingerprint scanners. And all of these, of course, vary in comparison to latent prints, which vary depending on a host of factors.
Who the heck is that?
Whats [sic] their patent portfolio look like?
After a quick search on the USPTO web site, there are no issued patents or published patent applications assigned to "airBNB" or "Airbed and Breakfast." Of the founding team, Nathan Blecharczyk, Brian Chesky, and Joe Gebbia, there is design patent (not utility patent, mind you) D540,097, "Portable seat cushion," listing a "Joseph Gibbia" as inventor, and assigned to "Joe Gibbia." Other than that, I couldn't find any issued patents or published patent applications associated with the founding team, either.
Of course, patent applications are published 18 months after they are filed, so it's possible they have some applications in the works of which we are not aware.
The domes featured steeply sloping sides which Jolliff and colleagues interpret as, 'volcanic in origin and formed from viscous lava'. . .
. . . 800 million years ago. While undeniably still an interesting and intriguing find, it was a hotspot, um, a while back.
This is as it should be. I mean, who would stay in a profession in which one got worse with time?
Why would:
(a) My friends be interested in my news interests? I'm not interested in theirs. . .except under unusual circumstances, when I'll just ask them myself. . . .
(b) I want to display my expertise, start a conversation or just plain brag about how well-read I am? Wouldn't that just drive any (remaining) friends away?
(c) I want to give Google a signed-in account with web history, and permission to track me in even greater detail?
I confess that this type of stuff just baffles me completely. What's the attraction?
http://tech.slashdot.org/story/10/09/13/1342209/How-Good-Software-Makes-Us-Stupid
Did you Google that?
Or did you remember it?
Most students ... seem unable to distinguish information gathering from actual understanding.
Absolutely. As I've commented elsewhere, having free access to the world's ideas is great, except when you're trying to train students to generate new ideas. With information and ideas so freely available, it's now incredibly difficult to get students to study an issue and develop their own viewpoints -- they've been trained since childhood to "look it up on the web," and are now fact-rich but understanding-poor. Ask for a few paragraphs describing, say, why the Great Eastern was used to lay the first submarine telegraph cable, and one gets the same paragraphs from a dozen students, copied from a web site.
Copying others' work has been done since the second cuneiform stylus was made, so that's not the new problem. The new problem is, the students don't understand that they've done anything wrong. Since the information they've submitted is factually correct, they say, what's the problem? They equate the production of correct information with understanding.
Not quite dead yet ...
why pay for licensed spectrum?
...because then you can expect the noise floor at your receivers to be determined by your own receivers and can (at least in theory) complain to the relevant regulatory body if you experience harmful interference significantly in excess of that level. In an unlicensed ISM band, a homeowner can turn on a microwave oven, Wi-Fi AP, or other transmitter a foot away from your receiver, and you can't do anything about it -- other than wait for it to stop. Under very common ISM band interference conditions, you may need 30 dB of processing gain just to overcome your local interference -- let alone that needed to pull your weak signal out of Gaussian noise.
Are utilities willing to operate their networks with such reliability issues?
If I've missed the point completely, it's because it wasn't the point of the article. It's not fair to the reader to emphasize speed & distance in the article, and then complain that the reader didn't get the point of distance at a low cost per node. The lead of the article (that's the first sentence, for those who skipped freshman English) should emphasize what the article is about, and this article's lead is all about distance. Cost isn't mentioned until the fifth paragraph.
This AC's complaint is a good example of why it's important to learn to write well if one is a technologist. One can have great, world-changing technology, but if you write poorly, no one will ever hear about it.
RTFA:
"There's no technology available for devices that just need a trickle of connectivity over long distance," says On-Ramp's chief technology officer, Ted Myers, who says that with a clear line of sight, On-Ramp's technology can send a signal 45 miles.
With a 45-mile line-of-sight link, sending 50 bits/s is hardly an achievement, especially when the antennas used are not specified. With a data rate that is "roughly 100,000 times less than the average U.S. broadband speed of five megabits per second", each bit has roughly 100,000 times more energy than bits in an "average U.S. broadband" signal -- which has the disadvantage of having to traverse a non-line-of-sight path.
On-Ramp Wireless may have some interesting technology, but this is not the way to advertise it.
But CS engineering has no licensing requirements in the US, so no, it doesn't actually mean something.
Be careful. At least in the state of Florida, a person may not:
use the name or title "professional engineer" or any other title, designation, words, letters, abbreviations, or device tending to indicate that such person holds an active license as an engineer when the person is not licensed under this chapter, including, but not limited to, the following titles: [long list omitted], "software engineer," "computer hardware engineer," or "systems engineer." Florida Statute 471.031(1)(b)1.
There are some significant exceptions, such as working in the aerospace or defense industries, but if one is an independent consultant in the State of Florida with the word "engineer" on his business card, software or otherwise, he should read Florida Statue 471 carefully, and perhaps consult an attorney. The state frequently views using the word "engineer" in one's title as implying that one is a licensed, Registered Professional Engineer and, if one is not, one is considered to have committed a misdemeanor of the first degree (FS 471.031(2)).
I think the rules in many other states are similar.
The rivers smell so bad, I'd think the biggest problem would be convincing people to get near them, let alone in them. I think they'd have to be enclosed.
Unmentioned in the article is that one also needs the conventional cleaning system to clean the water from (speaking carefully now) pollutants generated internally, too.
What happens in winter?
. . . it made me spill my drink.
[British -- American English humor explanation: In American English "Hoover" is a specific brand of vacuum cleaner, but in British English it's a generic term for any vacuum cleaner. My compliments to oobayly.]
To be sure, we can both read, but the claim of the original Nazi (you?) was that it was parabolic "like ANY OTHER radio telescope", and Arecibo is famously not parabolic.
Yeah -- and an incorrect one, at that. Not all radio telescopes are parabolic. Arecibo, for instance, is spherical. The original paper even notes, "FAST is an Arecibo-type spherical telescope" (p. 3).