I get what you mean (and FWIW I agree), I was referring to the fact that those two actors are long dead, which rather limits their casting opportunities.
Of course an argument could be made that it would cause more damage for the bugs to be in Boeing...
Exactly! The sale was approved by the US government because they knew the Chinese would use the opportunity to bug the computers at Boeing and steal the plans for the shuttle. Its really an intricate plot to set the Chinese space program back about 40 years.
what if china makes modified televisions and telephones capable of spying on people sending all the juicy data straight back to china via the internet...
..."television watches you" can actually be on-topic?!? Ye gods...
Of course not. Microsoft realised that 99% of problems occur when people try to run software, so in the interests of system stability they removed that feature.
It took years and hundreds of millions of dollars to replace "clunk". You don't think we can achieve Star Wars grade sound effect technology in space overnight, surely?
How crushed would you feel watching all that happen from so far away, and being utterly helpless?
Less crushed than the satellite, I'd imagine.
Seriously though, exploration is often accompanied by mistakes. The important thing is that they can analyse the problem and fix it; what I find depressing is the doubt NASA's culture is geared to that at the moment.
Anecdotes aren't proof by any means, and should never be treated as the basis of an informed decision. But I agree we don't have enough information yet, I simply choose to err on the side of caution because of an unsettling statistical anomaly.
A Faraday "cage" does not need to be sheilded on all sides to work in specialized cases (such as this one).
I'm curious: what makes this a "specialized case"? I was under the impression that the laws of physics are invariant. However, my point was that a Faraday cage is a specific configuration of shielding, not a generic term for EM shielding.
Sorry your poor teachers confused you to the point that they taught you only a completely sealed Faraday cage would decrease radio emissions
I'm under no such illusion, and said nothing of the sort. The critical difference between a Faraday cage and a ground plane is that a ground plane only provides effective EM shielding in one physical axis (as you rightly mentioned). So you're correct if the transmitter is mounted above the ground plane; however in Australia most cell phone transmitters are on the side or corners of buildings (ie close to 90 degrees to the ground plane, the angle where it provides least shielding). So the accuracy of the assumption "it is absolutely impossible that any radiation of any kind managed to get through that roof to the people below" is very much dependent on the individual installation.
Now, about reflections. Your example talks about white light, which is always additive. But cell phones use discrete frequencies, which are subject to phase cancellations. If a reflected signal approaches the strength of the direct signal (or other reflected signals) it would be possible to find null points; a sweep with an RF sniffer will usually reveal no nulls in the average office building that can't be explained by structural absorbtion (I have actually done this as part of my work on a number of occasions).
Of course, if I were a jerk, I could have given you the classic one liner quote from your quote:
If you need to tell people you aren't being a jerk, you're probably wrong. Ground planes on PCBs are effective (regardless of the direction of the EM source, BTW) because of the close proximity of the ground and signal path: EM interference affects both near equally, so the two approximately cancel out. People aren't in close enough proxity to a metal roof, nor do they share a common ground, so there is no similar cancellation. I was wondering if you'd cite that part, but I thought the comparison to twisted pair and coaxial cable in the link would have made it an obvious trap.
An ocean-monitor would be great. Imagine how good an aquarium screen saver would look on one of those...
So true about pipe tobacco: a good smoke cures anything (ask any kipper). But I'm thinking it would have been better if that guy designed the Concorde's fuel tanks rather than the nose.
(Sorry about the pun. I would have deleted it, but I already hit "Submit")
Hard to say, however, due to the fact that cell phone popularity has risen so recently.
The masts on this building have been there for at least ten years. Australia had one of the highest cell phone adoption rates in the world during the 90's, and the reception in Bourke Street was pretty good back then even on the old analog system.
Anecdotally, I know three people who have died of brain tumors in the last five years (they all worked in different fields, so there isn't an obvious common link. Unless its me, and while I like messing with people's heads, that's a tad excessive). Needless to say, I don't own a cell phone.
Also, did any of these people work in hazardous areas? A university can have all sorts of nasty stuff around.
There is a lot of nasty stuff in that building: its the business school (cause of brain damage, perhaps, but not tumors). Apart from that, its an ordinary office block in central Melbourne.
Now, if only someone can breed/bioengineer more colours and the ponds are divided into hectare-sized squares, they could offset the cost of production by selling advertising space that would show up on satellite photos.
Slashdot Mirror
I get what you mean (and FWIW I agree), I was referring to the fact that those two actors are long dead, which rather limits their casting opportunities.
Of course an argument could be made that it would cause more damage for the bugs to be in Boeing...
Exactly! The sale was approved by the US government because they knew the Chinese would use the opportunity to bug the computers at Boeing and steal the plans for the shuttle. Its really an intricate plot to set the Chinese space program back about 40 years.
what if china makes modified televisions and telephones capable of spying on people sending all the juicy data straight back to china via the internet...
..."television watches you" can actually be on-topic?!? Ye gods...
Isn't there a spelling checker in slashcode?
Yes, but its disabled because they can't afford the supercomputing cluster needed to cope with the work load.
Human actors who have real character, like Humphrey Bogart or Lauren Bacall are a pretty valuable commodity
Neither of those two are valuable commodities today, unless perhaps you're making a zombie film.
Slashdot probes the responsiveness of the crazy fundies...
Do we get to see the results of that research? http://www.bachelorette.com/fununfortwo.html
Middle East money is plentiful, Chinese production is cheap, Japanese technology is excellent, European engineering is suberb.
Of course, politics would ensure we'd get Middle East technology, Chinese engineering, Japanese money and European production costs.
there's no 'run' button in the start menu.
Of course not. Microsoft realised that 99% of problems occur when people try to run software, so in the interests of system stability they removed that feature.
Scientific progress goes boink??
It took years and hundreds of millions of dollars to replace "clunk". You don't think we can achieve Star Wars grade sound effect technology in space overnight, surely?
How crushed would you feel watching all that happen from so far away, and being utterly helpless?
Less crushed than the satellite, I'd imagine.
Seriously though, exploration is often accompanied by mistakes. The important thing is that they can analyse the problem and fix it; what I find depressing is the doubt NASA's culture is geared to that at the moment.
I think that a significantly more secure machine could have been made using an XBox!
Plus, a decent selection of games would make voting more popular.
Really, those Diebold games consoles are awful. You only get to press one button, and even when you win you lose (because a politician gets elected).
Some Apple fans just get over-excited, that's well known. Closing the kernel source is simply a measure to keep out the riff-raff.
Anecdotes aren't proof by any means, and should never be treated as the basis of an informed decision. But I agree we don't have enough information yet, I simply choose to err on the side of caution because of an unsettling statistical anomaly.
"Take this jar of mayonaise and leave it in the sun".
You can mate anything with enough Tequila.
On the other hand, its pretty hard to say no to a 500kg bear. Not that I frequent those kind of bars...
You appear to have linked to a download of Duke Nukem Forever.
The Giant Mutant Rat was quite visibly a guy in a rat suit. We were done in 8 days.
Hey, it worked for Toho.
A Faraday "cage" does not need to be sheilded on all sides to work in specialized cases (such as this one).
I'm curious: what makes this a "specialized case"? I was under the impression that the laws of physics are invariant. However, my point was that a Faraday cage is a specific configuration of shielding, not a generic term for EM shielding.
Sorry your poor teachers confused you to the point that they taught you only a completely sealed Faraday cage would decrease radio emissions
I'm under no such illusion, and said nothing of the sort. The critical difference between a Faraday cage and a ground plane is that a ground plane only provides effective EM shielding in one physical axis (as you rightly mentioned). So you're correct if the transmitter is mounted above the ground plane; however in Australia most cell phone transmitters are on the side or corners of buildings (ie close to 90 degrees to the ground plane, the angle where it provides least shielding). So the accuracy of the assumption "it is absolutely impossible that any radiation of any kind managed to get through that roof to the people below" is very much dependent on the individual installation.
Now, about reflections. Your example talks about white light, which is always additive. But cell phones use discrete frequencies, which are subject to phase cancellations. If a reflected signal approaches the strength of the direct signal (or other reflected signals) it would be possible to find null points; a sweep with an RF sniffer will usually reveal no nulls in the average office building that can't be explained by structural absorbtion (I have actually done this as part of my work on a number of occasions).
Of course, if I were a jerk, I could have given you the classic one liner quote from your quote:
If you need to tell people you aren't being a jerk, you're probably wrong. Ground planes on PCBs are effective (regardless of the direction of the EM source, BTW) because of the close proximity of the ground and signal path: EM interference affects both near equally, so the two approximately cancel out. People aren't in close enough proxity to a metal roof, nor do they share a common ground, so there is no similar cancellation. I was wondering if you'd cite that part, but I thought the comparison to twisted pair and coaxial cable in the link would have made it an obvious trap.
An ocean-monitor would be great. Imagine how good an aquarium screen saver would look on one of those...
So true about pipe tobacco: a good smoke cures anything (ask any kipper). But I'm thinking it would have been better if that guy designed the Concorde's fuel tanks rather than the nose.
(Sorry about the pun. I would have deleted it, but I already hit "Submit")
Kill the lab rats--quickly!!
But slowly is much more fun...I mean, informative.
Hard to say, however, due to the fact that cell phone popularity has risen so recently.
The masts on this building have been there for at least ten years. Australia had one of the highest cell phone adoption rates in the world during the 90's, and the reception in Bourke Street was pretty good back then even on the old analog system.
Anecdotally, I know three people who have died of brain tumors in the last five years (they all worked in different fields, so there isn't an obvious common link. Unless its me, and while I like messing with people's heads, that's a tad excessive). Needless to say, I don't own a cell phone.
Also, did any of these people work in hazardous areas? A university can have all sorts of nasty stuff around.
There is a lot of nasty stuff in that building: its the business school (cause of brain damage, perhaps, but not tumors). Apart from that, its an ordinary office block in central Melbourne.
But if it *is* built like this, it is absolutely impossible that any radiation of any kind managed to get through that roof to the people below.
g /6d422cb367cac613, not a Faraday cage.
A sheet metal roof like that is a ground plane http://groups.google.com/group/sci.electronics/ms
I'd also say you're wrong on empirical evidence: cell phones generally do work inside buildings, this one is no exception.
Touche!
Actually, the thought of huge mosaics is pretty interesting in an arty wanker kind of way.
Or fit electronically activated shutters to the ponds and you've got the world's largest monitor...take that, Project Blinkenlights!
Or maybe you can get different coloured algae these days.
Indeed you can.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_tide
Now, if only someone can breed/bioengineer more colours and the ponds are divided into hectare-sized squares, they could offset the cost of production by selling advertising space that would show up on satellite photos.
Advertsing using pond scum...seems appropriate.