Until scouring this post, I had never heard of a thing called a "DS". Still don't know if thats an acronymn or what. And I am a huge gamer too. For those of you being called idiots for asking, dont feel bad. There is no reason you should have heard of this thing, especially if you don't play games.
This book is not only for the business minded, but for a consumer looking to establish a quality long-distance wireless network of their own.
The jacket of the book explicitely states: The WiMax Operator's Manual will prove useful and accessable to any executive or manager interested in becoming a service provider and exploring the wireless options. The emphasis is on building the business case for wireless and achieving a positive cash flow.
Nowhere does it talk about consumers setting up their own WiMax network. This is obviously because WiMax is not intended for consumer use. Again, as stated on the jacket:
Designing and implementing 802.16 service networks is far from a trivial undertaking.
Inside the book it explains the byzantine issues facing WiMax, not the least of which are the various problems with spectrum such as licensing, multipath interference and a host of niggling issues well beyond the scope of an individual consumer.
As an analogy, if Wi-Fi is a walkie talkie, then WiMax is a radio station. WiMax was clearly envisioned by its creators as a tool for internet service providers with thousands of customers, not for individual people.
Just recently, suppliments have been shown to reduce lifespan. So by this recent data, Kurzweil may actually be shortening his lifespan. And this study is not based on diabetics taking masses doses either. I'm wondering what age his kidneys are.
The standard argument [seen above several times] about flying cars being unsafe because you are in 3D space is misguided. An aircraft at altitude is much easier to guide than an automobile! First off, the odds of collision with other vehicles is vastly reduced because the space for vehicles and escape routes has more dimesions; in a car on the road, if the car in front of you suddenly stops, you have exactly one option, to stop. In the air, the the car in front of you suddenly went into hover or popped a chute, you wouldnt even have to change course typicall because you are on a different route in 3d, and if even if you did have to take evasive action, you have 3 dimensions to reroute too.
Traffic jams would never happen because there are no physical bottlenecks; course would be plotted on a virtual 3D highway where you are the only one in your lane. Remember, its not just one dimension more, but 2; up down right and left in addition to the typical forward only.
Typically in an aircraft, when something goes wrong, you have several minutes to compensate befoer you collide with anything. In a car, you typically have about one second to compensate, or you go off the road.
The reasons aircraft today are just as safe as cars, but not safer, is mainly down to the fact that they are not VTOL and dont have parachutes for engine out; in emergency you have to land on rough terrain at high speed. If you remove the need for a runway and the need for high speeds near the ground, and compensate for engine out properly, aircraft could actually be safer than cars.
Well, you said it, so it must be true! But what is your basis for this, as I'm sure you know, mainstream physics categorically denies this statement. So, some evidence would be nice.
I just bought my first copy of New Scientist off the rack today, the Sept 25 issue. I thought I was buying a magazine that took over where Scientific American left off, but after reading all the articles, I am shocked to find the quality of the science is abyssmal. Its like reading Pravda or the Enquirer only with a scientific sounding tone. Computer scientists here can go look at the article "the jumble cruncher" that is a jaw droppingly stupid story about turing machines and physic with circular logic and proof by authority. The cover story about randomness is also lame, a mathemetician basically says that hidden variables are real, the universe is deterministic and all the physicists and philosphers are just wrong because..well they are. Anyway, is this magazine typicall this bad?
A vote for Nader is a vote for Bush. So, if you are Green member, you should vote for Kerry since he's better than Bush on the environement. If you are republican, you should vote for Nader, since a vote for Nader is a vote for Bush anyway. If you are a democrat, vote for Kerry because a vote for Kerry is not a vote for Bush, the bad man.
Rottweiler's have a very low and scary growl and tremdous bark that is quite scary. A dog like a labrador has a more 'friendly' bark that might not worry a hardened criminal. But that rottweiler sound, that will make anyone think twice.
For the parent: the state of all bits become fixed when observation of any member is read; this is simply a noise correction for what is read, a sort of redundance.
For this: this effect does not supply long distance communication. All it does is supply uncrackable encryption. A signal (probably radio) still needs to be sent in order for information to actually be communicated.
My biggest annoyance with the current version is that it keeps reinstalling features, which requires me to reinsert the master disc over and over. I'm not sure if this is a trick to check with Microsoft's database to make sure I'm a registered user or if the program is just stupid. The reason I switched to Open Office is that I don't like having to register the damn thing everytime I install. And I need to install fairly often, since I like a clean computer and that is the only way to really be sure the spyware, viruses and whatnot are all really gone.
Installing Open Office is way easier, just click an link and it goes. No questions or annoyances. And I dont have to bother actually finding where eactly the CD went to.
And really, as far as features go, I only 10% of them anyway, so if there is a difference between them, I don't notice.
Extraplolating, I can easily see Windows itself being replaced by a future knoptix-like system, just as soon as it runs the latest games.
Smartphone and internet
on
Portable Storage?
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
I've toyed around with several portable solutions, what I settled on is an internet server accessable from my smartphone.
The main problem with the portable solutions I've tried, such as zip disks, cd burners, usb doohickies and handheld storage is that you need to actually carry it around. And hassle with hooking stuff up to use it. Things you have to carry around can get broken. Also, you have the issue of instant access anywhere. Sure you can use a USB keychain, but can you read it at the mall without a device? In any event, you need a device, that device might as well be your cell phone, since you carry it everywhere. The smartphones out now have little insertable media; this might do the trick for you, but you still have the issue of syncing and all that bother. So my solution is to keep my data on broadband server, access it from anywhere with my smartphone, access from work/home on my broadband connection. The best of all worlds, even backed up regularly by the sever admins.
The map was indeed the timezone map. The all green undifferentiated map is the 'fixed' version. The original had boundary lines; when they removed them for kashmir, they removed all boundaries for all versions of windows.
I did some research a while back on building a machine that could last more than a day on a portable battery. Clearly, this technology does not exist off the shelf today, but what could you get if you were willing to get your hands dirty?
The best technologies I found were ones being researched by the military that used a combination lithium and fuel cell battery. Another interesting one was a mini gasoline generator! These experimental technologies could get maybe 24 hours of full power computing, but this still entails carrying around like a liter of fuel.
So realistically, the near future of laptop computer battery does not really look very bright. Literally. Reducing power consumption is going to be the only way to reach decent times, and that means no backlight, small screens, and very low power solid state components.
The best case imagined chemical scenario is a solid-fuel fuel cell, but even with these, the hours of power are going not going to get to even cell-phone-like batterly life.
So, I looked into nuclear, and there might be a way to invent a safe halfnium battery that will solve the problem for good....but getting nuclear tech to the mainstream safely doesn't seem within our reach for many decades.
I posted a while back about Hanford. After having seen it from the air, parts of it that few people ever see, I have to tell you to believe the worst case scenarios. I am pro-nuke, but what I saw at hanford is something worse than the destruction left by the Hiroshima and Nagasaki nukes. Its not death: with that at least the cycle of life begins again with decay. It is sterilization. The damage is already done there, and it is hard to see how it could ever be fixed. If they say its going to take 7 billion to fix it, do it. Its that bad.
Wait a minute, this seems like bunk. This thing reads the brainwaves and moves the ball. But how could it ever be calibrated to be fair in the first place? For all we know, what this really detects is the type of face cream used by the player [is it impedes the reading]. How do you know that what happens to the ball actually correlates to anything but noise? Blinking your eyes will set an EEG off the map; if you blink do you lose? I think it would be very hard to show that this is measuring any real state at all, and that its not just differencing two sets of noise.
I myself have corporate C, and guess what, it paid no taxes last year! How come? Because its a useless piece of paper with no income.
The interesting number is, what percentage of the aggregate corporate income is taxed, not the number of corporations that are taxed. Most corporations are teeny non-revenue producing shells.
As I imply above, hanford is one of the scariest places in the world. I have met many people who have gone on tours of the facility, with happy dazy reports such as yours. This is because quite clearly, any place they let people visit is carefully designed to give a sense of normality. I overflew Hanford several years ago, and let me tell you, this place is not "cool". No doubt their seismograph is to detect intruders, not to detect "vibrations from space" (lol). From the air, the truth becomes apparent, the LIGO is fairly distant from "real" hanford site, and no doubt from ground level its seems just like any old desert like area. To the NW of the LIGO is the site of devastation so bizarre I cant even describe it to you; along with an outlying area of buildings with little square grass gardens, which, when seen in full perspective of the alien landscape just over the ridge, is almost comical.
While scanning the einstein@home site I noticed a picture that looked a lot like something I had overflown at Hanford. Blew my mind to see that in fact it is the same facility.
I cannot overstate the alien devastation that is at the Hanford site. It is by far the most bizarre and scary thing I have ever seen. Nothing in my experience prepared me for what I saw, nor can I describe it to you. The most heinous depictions in movies and games only begin to capture the horror.
When I first heard of a 300 million dollar proposal to clean up Hanford, I thot it was just pork, but now I think that would just be a bandaid.
There is no doubt in my mind that that site was designed by insane people.
Thus, I would not be surprised at all that if the hanford lab is involved, its probably unsavory.
Actually, there is a tilted 2-way mirror between the viewer and the viewed. The viewer sees through the mirror. The projector is shown on the mirror from an angle, which reflects onto the object. As long as the viwer didnt notice that he was looking through a pane of glass, it might just work...:P
Several posters have made glib comments about this idea being retro and unworthy. Let me tell you why I see this sort of grass-roots things as the wave of the future.
First and formost, the primary feature of this system is that it has no recurring cost [well, assuming you are using solar]. Free is good.
Next, there is no controlling authority with rules, regulations and contracts. You know that your rights are severely limited in the contract you signed with your internet provider right? Freedom is good.
These intranet hotspots will be by definition local. They always talk about web communities, but they arent really. A bunch of anonymous jerks out trolling each other. This idea allows for locals to get together and be social. Community is good.
This sort of setup has no agenda. No chinese shyster selling penis pills, no corporation telling you what to think. No agenda is good.
The most interesting thing is the possibilities that arise from synergy with other hotspots and the internet itself. If the number of local hotspots becomes large, and they become ubiquitous, there will be bridges formed between them..again all free, expanding the social network in interesting ways. New cultures will arise from these interactions without the debilitating noise of too many voices. Culture is good.
I envision in the future rather than wi-fi, we will see wi-max versions of this idea. The neat thing about this is that you will be able to bridge to internet via your home isp when you wish to, and still use of the local hotspot would be free.
Slashdot Mirror
Until scouring this post, I had never heard of a thing called a "DS". Still don't know if thats an acronymn or what. And I am a huge gamer too.
For those of you being called idiots for asking, dont feel bad. There is no reason you should have heard of this thing, especially if you don't play games.
This book is not only for the business minded, but for a consumer looking to establish a quality long-distance wireless network of their own.
The jacket of the book explicitely states:
The WiMax Operator's Manual will prove useful and accessable to any executive or manager interested in becoming a service provider and exploring the wireless options. The emphasis is on building the business case for wireless and achieving a positive cash flow.
Nowhere does it talk about consumers setting up their own WiMax network. This is obviously because WiMax is not intended for consumer use. Again, as stated on the jacket:
Designing and implementing 802.16 service networks is far from a trivial undertaking.
Inside the book it explains the byzantine issues facing WiMax, not the least of which are the various problems with spectrum such as licensing, multipath interference and a host of niggling issues well beyond the scope of an individual consumer.
As an analogy, if Wi-Fi is a walkie talkie, then WiMax is a radio station. WiMax was clearly envisioned by its creators as a tool for internet service providers with thousands of customers, not for individual people.
Just recently, suppliments have been shown to reduce lifespan. So by this recent data, Kurzweil may actually be shortening his lifespan. And this study is not based on diabetics taking masses doses either. I'm wondering what age his kidneys are.
The first version of Internet Explorer shipped in Microsoft Plus pack, which was released simultaneously with windows 95.
The standard argument [seen above several times] about flying cars being unsafe because you are in 3D space is misguided. An aircraft at altitude is much easier to guide than an automobile! First off, the odds of collision with other vehicles is vastly reduced because the space for vehicles and escape routes has more dimesions; in a car on the road, if the car in front of you suddenly stops, you have exactly one option, to stop. In the air, the the car in front of you suddenly went into hover or popped a chute, you wouldnt even have to change course typicall because you are on a different route in 3d, and if even if you did have to take evasive action, you have 3 dimensions to reroute too.
Traffic jams would never happen because there are no physical bottlenecks; course would be plotted on a virtual 3D highway where you are the only one in your lane. Remember, its not just one dimension more, but 2; up down right and left in addition to the typical forward only.
Typically in an aircraft, when something goes wrong, you have several minutes to compensate befoer you collide with anything. In a car, you typically have about one second to compensate, or you go off the road.
The reasons aircraft today are just as safe as cars, but not safer, is mainly down to the fact that they are not VTOL and dont have parachutes for engine out; in emergency you have to land on rough terrain at high speed. If you remove the need for a runway and the need for high speeds near the ground, and compensate for engine out properly, aircraft could actually be safer than cars.
Well, you said it, so it must be true! But what is your basis for this, as I'm sure you know, mainstream physics categorically denies this statement. So, some evidence would be nice.
I just bought my first copy of New Scientist off the rack today, the Sept 25 issue. I thought I was buying a magazine that took over where Scientific American left off, but after reading all the articles, I am shocked to find the quality of the science is abyssmal. Its like reading Pravda or the Enquirer only with a scientific sounding tone.
Computer scientists here can go look at the article "the jumble cruncher" that is a jaw droppingly stupid story about turing machines and physic with circular logic and proof by authority.
The cover story about randomness is also lame, a mathemetician basically says that hidden variables are real, the universe is deterministic and all the physicists and philosphers are just wrong because..well they are.
Anyway, is this magazine typicall this bad?
A vote for Nader is a vote for Bush. So, if you are Green member, you should vote for Kerry since he's better than Bush on the environement. If you are republican, you should vote for Nader, since a vote for Nader is a vote for Bush anyway.
If you are a democrat, vote for Kerry because a vote for Kerry is not a vote for Bush, the bad man.
The copy mart there uses an ungarded cardboard box for payment. Last I heard, never been swiped.
Oops, cats out of that bag.
This thing is speced at 25ms response time. Games and intensive graphics animation would be a complete blure on this thing.
Rottweiler's have a very low and scary growl and tremdous bark that is quite scary. A dog like a labrador has a more 'friendly' bark that might not worry a hardened criminal. But that rottweiler sound, that will make anyone think twice.
This and its parent are incorrect.
For the parent: the state of all bits become fixed when observation of any member is read; this is simply a noise correction for what is read, a sort of redundance.
For this: this effect does not supply long distance communication. All it does is supply uncrackable encryption. A signal (probably radio) still needs to be sent in order for information to actually be communicated.
My biggest annoyance with the current version is that it keeps reinstalling features, which requires me to reinsert the master disc over and over. I'm not sure if this is a trick to check with Microsoft's database to make sure I'm a registered user or if the program is just stupid.
The reason I switched to Open Office is that I don't like having to register the damn thing everytime I install. And I need to install fairly often, since I like a clean computer and that is the only way to really be sure the spyware, viruses and whatnot are all really gone.
Installing Open Office is way easier, just click an link and it goes. No questions or annoyances. And I dont have to bother actually finding where eactly the CD went to.
And really, as far as features go, I only 10% of them anyway, so if there is a difference between them, I don't notice.
Extraplolating, I can easily see Windows itself being replaced by a future knoptix-like system, just as soon as it runs the latest games.
I've toyed around with several portable solutions, what I settled on is an internet server accessable from my smartphone.
The main problem with the portable solutions I've tried, such as zip disks, cd burners, usb doohickies and handheld storage is that you need to actually carry it around. And hassle with hooking stuff up to use it. Things you have to carry around can get broken.
Also, you have the issue of instant access anywhere. Sure you can use a USB keychain, but can you read it at the mall without a device?
In any event, you need a device, that device might as well be your cell phone, since you carry it everywhere. The smartphones out now have little insertable media; this might do the trick for you, but you still have the issue of syncing and all that bother.
So my solution is to keep my data on broadband server, access it from anywhere with my smartphone, access from work/home on my broadband connection.
The best of all worlds, even backed up regularly by the sever admins.
The map was indeed the timezone map. The all green undifferentiated map is the 'fixed' version. The original had boundary lines; when they removed them for kashmir, they removed all boundaries for all versions of windows.
I did some research a while back on building a machine that could last more than a day on a portable battery. Clearly, this technology does not exist off the shelf today, but what could you get if you were willing to get your hands dirty?
The best technologies I found were ones being researched by the military that used a combination lithium and fuel cell battery. Another interesting one was a mini gasoline generator! These experimental technologies could get maybe 24 hours of full power computing, but this still entails carrying around like a liter of fuel.
So realistically, the near future of laptop computer battery does not really look very bright. Literally. Reducing power consumption is going to be the only way to reach decent times, and that means no backlight, small screens, and very low power solid state components.
The best case imagined chemical scenario is a solid-fuel fuel cell, but even with these, the hours of power are going not going to get to even cell-phone-like batterly life.
So, I looked into nuclear, and there might be a way to invent a safe halfnium battery that will solve the problem for good....but getting nuclear tech to the mainstream safely doesn't seem within our reach for many decades.
I posted a while back about Hanford.
After having seen it from the air, parts of it that few people ever see, I have to tell you to believe the worst case scenarios. I am pro-nuke, but what I saw at hanford is something worse than the destruction left by the Hiroshima and Nagasaki nukes. Its not death: with that at least the cycle of life begins again with decay. It is sterilization. The damage is already done there, and it is hard to see how it could ever be fixed. If they say its going to take 7 billion to fix it, do it. Its that bad.
Wait a minute, this seems like bunk. This thing reads the brainwaves and moves the ball. But how could it ever be calibrated to be fair in the first place? For all we know, what this really detects is the type of face cream used by the player [is it impedes the reading].
How do you know that what happens to the ball actually correlates to anything but noise? Blinking your eyes will set an EEG off the map; if you blink do you lose?
I think it would be very hard to show that this is measuring any real state at all, and that its not just differencing two sets of noise.
I myself have corporate C, and guess what, it paid no taxes last year! How come? Because its a useless piece of paper with no income.
The interesting number is, what percentage of the aggregate corporate income is taxed, not the number of corporations that are taxed. Most corporations are teeny non-revenue producing shells.
The method and conclusion used here is deceptive.
Saw it last night, and let me tell you, the movie is even worse than the trailer implies. What a piece of garbage. Doesnt even deserve a review.
As I imply above, hanford is one of the scariest places in the world. I have met many people who have gone on tours of the facility, with happy dazy reports such as yours. This is because quite clearly, any place they let people visit is carefully designed to give a sense of normality.
I overflew Hanford several years ago, and let me tell you, this place is not "cool". No doubt their seismograph is to detect intruders, not to detect "vibrations from space" (lol).
From the air, the truth becomes apparent, the LIGO is fairly distant from "real" hanford site, and no doubt from ground level its seems just like any old desert like area.
To the NW of the LIGO is the site of devastation so bizarre I cant even describe it to you; along with an outlying area of buildings with little square grass gardens, which, when seen in full perspective of the alien landscape just over the ridge, is almost comical.
While scanning the einstein@home site I noticed a picture that looked a lot like something I had overflown at Hanford. Blew my mind to see that in fact it is the same facility.
I cannot overstate the alien devastation that is at the Hanford site. It is by far the most bizarre and scary thing I have ever seen. Nothing in my experience prepared me for what I saw, nor can I describe it to you. The most heinous depictions in movies and games only begin to capture the horror.
When I first heard of a 300 million dollar proposal to clean up Hanford, I thot it was just pork, but now I think that would just be a bandaid.
There is no doubt in my mind that that site was designed by insane people.
Thus, I would not be surprised at all that if the hanford lab is involved, its probably unsavory.
The phrase I think your are looking for is cognitive dissonance
Actually, there is a tilted 2-way mirror between the viewer and the viewed. The viewer sees through the mirror. The projector is shown on the mirror from an angle, which reflects onto the object.
As long as the viwer didnt notice that he was looking through a pane of glass, it might just work...:P
Several posters have made glib comments about this idea being retro and unworthy.
Let me tell you why I see this sort of grass-roots things as the wave of the future.
First and formost, the primary feature of this system is that it has no recurring cost [well, assuming you are using solar]. Free is good.
Next, there is no controlling authority with rules, regulations and contracts. You know that your rights are severely limited in the contract you signed with your internet provider right? Freedom is good.
These intranet hotspots will be by definition local. They always talk about web communities, but they arent really. A bunch of anonymous jerks out trolling each other. This idea allows for locals to get together and be social. Community is good.
This sort of setup has no agenda. No chinese shyster selling penis pills, no corporation telling you what to think.
No agenda is good.
The most interesting thing is the possibilities that arise from synergy with other hotspots and the internet itself. If the number of local hotspots becomes large, and they become ubiquitous, there will be bridges formed between them..again all free, expanding the social network in interesting ways. New cultures will arise from these interactions without the debilitating noise of too many voices.
Culture is good.
I envision in the future rather than wi-fi, we will see wi-max versions of this idea. The neat thing about this is that you will be able to bridge to internet via your home isp when you wish to, and still use of the local hotspot would be free.