Not the same thing. Grounding is for spark safety (aircraft used to be gasoline-fueled). VHF radios, even powerful ones, don't worry me much because they are carrier-wave devices. Very predictable interference, fairly easy to tune-out [absorb]. Digital devices are bursty and not so predictable.
250-500 mW _sounds_ nice and low. But it's all in short, much higher spikes. iThat's how it carries. Ditto for the frequency. Yes, it's 'way high. But sent as digitized packets whose frequency is much lower.
Yes, the risk isn't "sure to crash" high. But it is plausibly high. What risk do you consider acceptable? 1 in 10,000 aircraft-years? 1/1,000,000? Current prohibitions probably cut whater risk by 2 OOM (10^2). Are you sure a planeload of running cellphones won't push risk into the unacceptable zone? Under all conditions, with all the poxy towers out there, funny packets and phones in high-pwr modes?
the newer 747 have much more powerful engines, so can handle increased weight. My point was about design philosophy. Aircraft are always designed tight and light. Whether it's used or just saves fuel is a totally different question.
And just how are you going to test? Should you need to prove safety, or do you assume it and wonder when aircraft crash?
Cellphones are remarkably powerful devices. I can hear interference from mine on my landline when they're close. I wouldn't want to try it on unshielded (weight) avionics. Aircraft design is very tight (weight) without the robustness you might expect.
If Verizon has a contract with the customer, they'd better honor that contract! Cutting people off is not honoring the contract. Throttling them arguably is.
Why do you say the customer can't terminate a month-to-month arrangement at will? They cancel all the time.
ISPs aren't a regulated monopoly.
Any competitor can easily advertise hidden limits. Just get a consultant to mystery-shop and discover them. Then this competitor will attract all the hogs! So they're not very likely to do it.
Many companies sell "basic" and "pro" plans. They might well have higher limits for the "pro" plans. It's a business error to not migrate customers.
Of course. Hog hunting & slaughtering is a part of any competant business plan. Not all customers are profitable, and not all are desireable. Getting rid of them can be done with either carrot or stick.
"Unlimited" does mean really mean "unlimited". But only for the term of the contract, if any. For month-to-month, you can terminate at will. Why shouldn't the company be able to do likewise?
My laptop has 128 MB and runs KDE/FF just fine (no thrashing). One important point: with such a small screen, it's unlikely the users will want to keep too many apps open at once.
Suites also work well internally to share libs. KDe takes less RAM iff you use Konqueror iso FireFox, and KEdit iso OpenOffice. Mixed suites eats RAM.
I see lots of these "Top 10" type lists, and I always chuckle: The list makers apply whatever criteria they think makes for a good society, then think up a clever name for what those criteria might represent.
One small think they left off -- marginal tax rates. High rates like Sweden positively drive innovators away.
Sorta, and sorta not. If all the RIAA is threatening is a lawsuit for the tort of copyright infringement, they they can threaten all they wish.
Howver, the moment they believe a felony is involved, they _must_ stop threatening and report the crime to the police. If they continue to threaten (perhaps to advance a civil settlement), then they are committing the crime of "BLACKMAIL" and ought to be charged.
This might also be sufficient grounds to refuse interrogatories or other discovery. The 5th still applies in civil cases, but only wrt admissions of crime.
I love the expression. However tenpting it is to mock, much business is done this way. It is a question of establishing trust and relationships. This is not a question of spec sheets!
Or more accurately, the decisionmakers don't understand the material well enough to use technical discussions as a mechanism for trust-building and/or don't trust their own technical specialists' judgement.
My sympathies. But I'd say your problem stems mostly from a lack-of-attention [ignorability] more than unpersuasiveness. Your colleagues ignore your emails, yet you don't ignore theirs. The telecommuter is often a second-class corporate citizen. Especially since the boss doesn't see any need to make adjustments.
The real thing is you are probably asking people for things that will cost them and not give back much except to the corporation via your projects. They're busy, so will ignore you if they can. But it's amazing what you can accomplish if you let others take the credit for it.
Marshall McLuan said [of TV]: "The Medium is the Message." That is an atstute observation, but turn it around and it really says the medium is part of the message.
Media have characteristics. Messages have characteristics. It is best they work in harmony.
For a concrete example, I usually avoid communicating a complex controversial idea verbally. It's too confrontational and recepients may miss key points or react too early and get themselves locking into an unnecessarily contrary position. Beter they read and react in private, then calm down before replying.
In person is very good for using body language when sincerity or other emotions are important components of the message. Phone is not quite as good, but often a very workable intermediate.
But I certainly don't consider in-person to be any sort of "gold standard" in communications. Too many different messages.
NIST has had these out for at least 5 years. I would consider testing against NIST patches to be essential before app/patch release from any commercial software vendor. They're two very well defined configs, and after that, the vendor can claim "plays well with secured PCs".
The tough thing in software testing is to reasonably define what needs to be tested. The testing is tedious but trivial and can be subcontracted.
Grounds for counter-suit? Surely you jest! Any American attorney half worth his contingency fee can come up with half-a-dozen. It's call "papering over" a defendant. In this case, an immediate counter-suit for costs would be appropriate and clear notice to the RIAA that they will be persued. Such notice makes it easier to a judge to find against them.
Sure, the counter-suit at that point might be for only $2-500 response filing costs, but the RIAA can't just walk away weithout paying or agreeing to some other settlement. Double-bind, not a cheap free shot
This is a not-uncommon problem: plantiff sues but is wrong. How should innocent defendant be protected/compensated and plaintiffs made more cautious? The UK & Commonwealth do this by awarding costs, but this may be against the US Constitution.
The usual American solution is to cross-file, wherein defendant becomes cross-plantiff. Then plantiff might well withdraw their suit, but cross action proceeds. Most often, both are cleared in a settlement agreement.
Here, it appears the crossfile was not done, so the Judge has to unfortunately step in.
"The Best Overall" is an extremely stupid question. It assumes that everyone values everything identically. That texting matters [or does not] for everyone. That access in the London Tube matters for a Glaswegian. That access while driving matters more than access at fixed locations. No-one is the best at everything, so it becomes a matter of compromise -- giving up things you don't value to get thing that are more important.
Not only is it SOP for their FUD modus-operandi, but in this case they have to distance themselves (MSFT) from themselves (Novell). Their new acquisition distributes Linux, and they might face "equitable estoppel" on patent claims. To most safely preserve any patent claims, they really should stop Novell from distributing Linux. Yet this might bring them afoul of anti-trust laws.
In addition, the established media sees itself as tthe primary defender and guardian of the First Amendment's Freedom of Speech. The resent and depracate anyone else assuming that role.
After all, media is all about publicity. They aren't going to build up their competitors.
I'm sorry, but I'm not sure why anyone expects commercial software [vidgame] producers and vendors to fight for freedom in the abstract. They are required by law to look out for the interests of their owners.
Sure, this may mean for a given project, they fight censorship. But it is far from certain that fighting pays in general. It costs, and what revenue does it bring in?
Freedom always has to be defended by the people. Their proxies cannot do it for them. At least, not well or thoroughly. It's a question of who benefits.
There are differences between big & small businesses, particularly their ability to spread extra-ordinary losses over more/fewer customers.
However, the customer still pays in the long run even with small biz: if an industry is prone to large risks of loss, it will attract far fewer entrepreneurs, and those it does attract will demand margins to cover the losses.
Yes of course some customers pay more. It's called "market segmentation". Different people pay different amounts in an attempt to capture the range of consumer utility while maintaining volume.
Sorry, but I disagree. Only the watched can watch the watchers. There is no other group, even if you make the chain long.
This is a wonderful example. The Police Dept that is trumping up "stalking" will have lots of questions from lots of skeptical people. Including other LE.
Actually, because this can happen, it must given enough chances. And 300M people is a lot of chances. This has probably has happened dozens of times elsewhere, but in most cases, the PD made amends. In this case, they didn't, so it's news.
I'm not at all surprised at the trumping-up. Poor LE (already in evidence) have trouble seeing in other than black-and-white (the car color is ironic). Since something bad happened, someone was at fault. It wasn't them, so what did the others do? Find something, anything! Better PDs would have just admitted fault.
Slashdot Mirror
Yes, the risk isn't "sure to crash" high. But it is plausibly high. What risk do you consider acceptable? 1 in 10,000 aircraft-years? 1/1,000,000? Current prohibitions probably cut whater risk by 2 OOM (10^2). Are you sure a planeload of running cellphones won't push risk into the unacceptable zone? Under all conditions, with all the poxy towers out there, funny packets and phones in high-pwr modes?
Cellphones are remarkably powerful devices. I can hear interference from mine on my landline when they're close. I wouldn't want to try it on unshielded (weight) avionics. Aircraft design is very tight (weight) without the robustness you might expect.
I don't think cell data is regulated.
ISPs aren't a regulated monopoly.
Any competitor can easily advertise hidden limits. Just get a consultant to mystery-shop and discover them. Then this competitor will attract all the hogs! So they're not very likely to do it.
Many companies sell "basic" and "pro" plans. They might well have higher limits for the "pro" plans. It's a business error to not migrate customers.
"Unlimited" does mean really mean "unlimited". But only for the term of the contract, if any. For month-to-month, you can terminate at will. Why shouldn't the company be able to do likewise?
Suites also work well internally to share libs. KDe takes less RAM iff you use Konqueror iso FireFox, and KEdit iso OpenOffice. Mixed suites eats RAM.
One small think they left off -- marginal tax rates. High rates like Sweden positively drive innovators away.
Howver, the moment they believe a felony is involved, they _must_ stop threatening and report the crime to the police. If they continue to threaten (perhaps to advance a civil settlement), then they are committing the crime of "BLACKMAIL" and ought to be charged.
This might also be sufficient grounds to refuse interrogatories or other discovery. The 5th still applies in civil cases, but only wrt admissions of crime.
... gee, I'd better not throw mine away!
Or more accurately, the decisionmakers don't understand the material well enough to use technical discussions as a mechanism for trust-building and/or don't trust their own technical specialists' judgement.
The real thing is you are probably asking people for things that will cost them and not give back much except to the corporation via your projects. They're busy, so will ignore you if they can. But it's amazing what you can accomplish if you let others take the credit for it.
Media have characteristics. Messages have characteristics. It is best they work in harmony.
For a concrete example, I usually avoid communicating a complex controversial idea verbally. It's too confrontational and recepients may miss key points or react too early and get themselves locking into an unnecessarily contrary position. Beter they read and react in private, then calm down before replying.
In person is very good for using body language when sincerity or other emotions are important components of the message. Phone is not quite as good, but often a very workable intermediate.
But I certainly don't consider in-person to be any sort of "gold standard" in communications. Too many different messages.
The tough thing in software testing is to reasonably define what needs to be tested. The testing is tedious but trivial and can be subcontracted.
Sure, the counter-suit at that point might be for only $2-500 response filing costs, but the RIAA can't just walk away weithout paying or agreeing to some other settlement. Double-bind, not a cheap free shot
The usual American solution is to cross-file, wherein defendant becomes cross-plantiff. Then plantiff might well withdraw their suit, but cross action proceeds. Most often, both are cleared in a settlement agreement.
Here, it appears the crossfile was not done, so the Judge has to unfortunately step in.
After all, media is all about publicity. They aren't going to build up their competitors.
Sure, this may mean for a given project, they fight censorship. But it is far from certain that fighting pays in general. It costs, and what revenue does it bring in?
Freedom always has to be defended by the people. Their proxies cannot do it for them. At least, not well or thoroughly. It's a question of who benefits.
Frankly, I much prefer email to voicemail. Live phone calls are better for some subjects, but worse for others.
However, the customer still pays in the long run even with small biz: if an industry is prone to large risks of loss, it will attract far fewer entrepreneurs, and those it does attract will demand margins to cover the losses.
This is a wonderful example. The Police Dept that is trumping up "stalking" will have lots of questions from lots of skeptical people. Including other LE.
Actually, because this can happen, it must given enough chances. And 300M people is a lot of chances. This has probably has happened dozens of times elsewhere, but in most cases, the PD made amends. In this case, they didn't, so it's news.
I'm not at all surprised at the trumping-up. Poor LE (already in evidence) have trouble seeing in other than black-and-white (the car color is ironic). Since something bad happened, someone was at fault. It wasn't them, so what did the others do? Find something, anything! Better PDs would have just admitted fault.