Let's be real here. Powerline broadband is a cheap hack, not technically sophisticated at all. It's a get-rich-quick kludge for a few interests who control the power lines. It's basically the equivalent of issuing bullhorns to teenagers in school so they can talk to each other in the hallway between classes. The proper thing to do is pull shielded cable or fibre.
I'll give you that one. You're probably right on that count.
"The chunks you end up with after performing this infinite division may be too small to be useable for anything. Various kinds of radio communication or broadcasts require a certain minimum bandwidth in order to be useable."
Yes, this is a determination that has to be made by the scientists and the regulators. And this shouldn't be set in stones yet because our technology hasn't reached the theoritical limits yet.
"each captain has to have the proper certificates (each operator is required to be licensed, with some leeway in emergencies),"
This depends on the type of boats you're talking about. Private sailboats, for example, don't need to have a licensed skipper on board. I am talking from personal experience here.
"The spectrum actually has a limit, but it's only because it gets into light frequencies. (light is a frequency of wave, very high)"
By infinite spectrum, I meant the spectrum was infinitly divisible. Please read the article I was referencing, apparently few people read it. My post was modded from +5 insightful to -1 troll.
"Ham radios are some of the best lasting pieces of equipment around because their owners are usually capable of repairing and maintaining them."
By your logic, since my Apple 1200 baud modem is still working and since I really took good care of it, the government should have made a law preventing my ISP from requiring me to upgrade. I know the technology is different and I know the problem is different, but the results are the same -- I can't use my 1200 baud modem anymore and you might not be able to use your Ham Radio anymore. Big f- deal. This kind of sacrifice is made everyday. It's called Eminent Domain. If we can fit 100 times more people on the same chunk of bandwidth, we're going to do it. It would be insane not to.
The radio spectrum is an infinite spectrum and it really does bother me that some people don't understand that. Personally, I think the spectrum should be reallocated and the regulations should be rewritten from scratch every ten years.
ex: I believe SCO is going to tank, so I 'sell' 100 shares today at $3 each. In one months, which is how long I bought my short for, I then buy the stock for $1 and (minus commissions, minus the fees for the 3rd party who has to cover the month where I didn't have the stock I sold) I make money.
You have to believe SCO is going to tank before a certain date. If for some reason, SCO can keep its FUD believable by the time you have to buy your shares, then you may actually lose money.
"Actually I think the bad documentation is related to the hacker culture and the "do it on your own" attitud."
No, I don't think that bad documentation is caused by the "do it yourself" attitude. Bad documentation is caused by the fact that good documentation is so damn hard to write and so damn hard to maintain.
Go ahead, go write some documentation, publish it on your web site, and help reverse the trend. Every bit helps. But again, it's not that easy and it takes more work than people realize.
"you'd prefer we lived in a value free zone where no one makes any judgments?"
No, I prefer to live in a world where each individual makes his/her own judgement.
"But make your own judgments instead of being offended, not by the subtance of others judgements, but that they make them at all. "
I am not offended. I am just worried that some of you would be willing to take away my own individual right to chose. Not that you all think that way. If you don't, then my apologies, my message wasn't directed at you.
In the Australian context where we already have a thriving independent cafe culture, Starbucks is offering an inferior product and using marketting size and brand recognition to crush smaller players (plus wireless access).
How do you know it's an inferior product? Do you even know what the product is?
To me, Starbucks sells me an environment where I can study, plug in my laptop, and/or meet people for the price of a cup of coffee.
To others, Starbucks means decent wages and benefits for their workers. To some, Starbucks means somekind of Yuppy status symbol for their small ego. To others, Starbucks means an evil corporation taking over the world. And to others still, it means something entirely different.
Who's to say who's right and who's wrong? You are. No I don't think so. Even if I am making a "wrong" decision by going to Starbucks, it's my decision. Better my wrong decision than your right decision.
In any case, I don't think you have anything to worry about. I live in a College town in the US. We have 20+ independent coffee shops, 2 Starbucks, and 1 Tullys. It seems Tullys and Starbucks only took over the coffee shops with the worst environments. I don't think they were willing to pay for the full market value of the coffee shops that already had their shit together.
"Despite the fact that the station's LuAnne Sorrell did a four-part report on the scheme -- supposedly giving men the chance to hunt naked women with paintball guns for up to $10,000 -- it failed to do the heavy lifting needed to unmask the hoax. Instead, urban legends site Snopes.com led the way within days with a detailed explanation of why it was a hoax."
I would hate to interrupt this self-congratulatory pat on the back, but "Hunting for Bambi" wasn't much of a hoax. A publicity stunt, yes. An hoax, not really. Assuming you have the money and assuming you have the desire, shooting paintballs at naked girls isn't something an *unlicensed* escort service would shy away from. Afterall, fullfilling sexual and/or sadistic fantasies is their business.
If we call "Hunting for Bambi" a hoax, we might as well call the Nike publicity stunts hoaxes as well. For example, the incident where they blocked traffic by setting up an impromptu tennis court. The news may be shocking to you, but that was staged -- even the outburst of the bus driver was carefully choreographed.
Does this indicate a move toward DNA databases instead of fingerprint ones?
Yes, surely we're moving in that direction. All of our military personnel already has its DNA on file. And this information has already been used successfully to find and convict the *relative* of a retired veteran. So the question is, do you have a relative in the military? And if you do, you can bet the US government already has some of your DNA in its database. DNA profiling is what they call it.
The problem is so bad, conspiracy theorists have already given up and started to handle pennies again.
For example, if the judge isn't the most tech-savvy judge around, someone could bullshit him/her into believing that the DNA samples are unreliable.
The opposite is actually more likely to occur. The mere presence of DNA "evidence" can induce judges and juries to stop thinking altogether.
In the case of illegaly obtained confessions, the mere presence of a "confession" (even when it gets stricken from the record) is usually enough to get a conviction. Unfortunately, what most people don't realize is that the confessions that the police collects are nothing more than answers to loaded questions such as "Assuming you were the murderer and assuming you had the same intimate knowledge of the surrounding area, where would you have ditched the body?". With those types of "confessions" casually mentioned in passing to the jury and immediately stricken from the record by the judge, the defendant is not even given a chance to explain to the jury that the illegal confession mentioned by the DA is nothing *but* a confession.
IMO this is a critical thing to improve. Please, people, stop saying "Linux is easy to install and configure", but say instead "[Gentoo|RedHat|Whatever distro] is easy to configure and install"
This is not my job. This is the job of whoever owns and controls the brand.
Slashdot Mirror
Don't journalists make comments on law?
Do you think bloggers don't use facts in their discussion?
I'll give you that one. You're probably right on that count.
Yes, this is a determination that has to be made by the scientists and the regulators. And this shouldn't be set in stones yet because our technology hasn't reached the theoritical limits yet.
"each captain has to have the proper certificates (each operator is required to be licensed, with some leeway in emergencies),"
This depends on the type of boats you're talking about. Private sailboats, for example, don't need to have a licensed skipper on board. I am talking from personal experience here.
Hey Agurkan, Do you think we always get the real facts from the news?
Just wondering what you're opinion is.
By infinite spectrum, I meant the spectrum was infinitly divisible. Please read the article I was referencing, apparently few people read it. My post was modded from +5 insightful to -1 troll.
"Ham radios are some of the best lasting pieces of equipment around because their owners are usually capable of repairing and maintaining them."
By your logic, since my Apple 1200 baud modem is still working and since I really took good care of it, the government should have made a law preventing my ISP from requiring me to upgrade. I know the technology is different and I know the problem is different, but the results are the same -- I can't use my 1200 baud modem anymore and you might not be able to use your Ham Radio anymore. Big f- deal. This kind of sacrifice is made everyday. It's called Eminent Domain. If we can fit 100 times more people on the same chunk of bandwidth, we're going to do it. It would be insane not to.
Satellite phones are still pretty expensive and those networks are controlled by the US government.
The radio spectrum is an infinite spectrum and it really does bother me that some people don't understand that. Personally, I think the spectrum should be reallocated and the regulations should be rewritten from scratch every ten years.
You have to believe SCO is going to tank before a certain date. If for some reason, SCO can keep its FUD believable by the time you have to buy your shares, then you may actually lose money.
There is only one reason you guys are all a bunch of introverts as opposed to being extroverts.
I'm waiting for a book called The Fat Advantage: How to Thrive In a World Full of Skinny People
No, I don't think that bad documentation is caused by the "do it yourself" attitude. Bad documentation is caused by the fact that good documentation is so damn hard to write and so damn hard to maintain.
Go ahead, go write some documentation, publish it on your web site, and help reverse the trend. Every bit helps. But again, it's not that easy and it takes more work than people realize.
Yep, it's spreading, now even MS has it.
ReligiousTolerance.com was a hoax. It was debunked by snopes.com years ago.
...can't make the kids smart, so let's make their environment smart.
No, I prefer to live in a world where each individual makes his/her own judgement.
"But make your own judgments instead of being offended, not by the subtance of others judgements, but that they make them at all. "
I am not offended. I am just worried that some of you would be willing to take away my own individual right to chose. Not that you all think that way. If you don't, then my apologies, my message wasn't directed at you.
Whoever owns the trademark controls the brand. Making something open source doesn't mean the controlling company of the brand will play nice.
How do you know it's an inferior product? Do you even know what the product is? To me, Starbucks sells me an environment where I can study, plug in my laptop, and/or meet people for the price of a cup of coffee. To others, Starbucks means decent wages and benefits for their workers. To some, Starbucks means somekind of Yuppy status symbol for their small ego. To others, Starbucks means an evil corporation taking over the world. And to others still, it means something entirely different.
Who's to say who's right and who's wrong? You are. No I don't think so. Even if I am making a "wrong" decision by going to Starbucks, it's my decision. Better my wrong decision than your right decision.
In any case, I don't think you have anything to worry about. I live in a College town in the US. We have 20+ independent coffee shops, 2 Starbucks, and 1 Tullys. It seems Tullys and Starbucks only took over the coffee shops with the worst environments. I don't think they were willing to pay for the full market value of the coffee shops that already had their shit together.
I guess this means they won't have showrooms anymore. That's the only innovation of the Dell model that car manufacturers haven't tried yet.
I would hate to interrupt this self-congratulatory pat on the back, but "Hunting for Bambi" wasn't much of a hoax. A publicity stunt, yes. An hoax, not really. Assuming you have the money and assuming you have the desire, shooting paintballs at naked girls isn't something an *unlicensed* escort service would shy away from. Afterall, fullfilling sexual and/or sadistic fantasies is their business.
If we call "Hunting for Bambi" a hoax, we might as well call the Nike publicity stunts hoaxes as well. For example, the incident where they blocked traffic by setting up an impromptu tennis court. The news may be shocking to you, but that was staged -- even the outburst of the bus driver was carefully choreographed.
I am not into automobiles, but this particular book is so well written it reminded me a lot of Professor Feynman.
Yes, surely we're moving in that direction. All of our military personnel already has its DNA on file. And this information has already been used successfully to find and convict the *relative* of a retired veteran. So the question is, do you have a relative in the military? And if you do, you can bet the US government already has some of your DNA in its database. DNA profiling is what they call it. The problem is so bad, conspiracy theorists have already given up and started to handle pennies again.
The opposite is actually more likely to occur. The mere presence of DNA "evidence" can induce judges and juries to stop thinking altogether.
In the case of illegaly obtained confessions, the mere presence of a "confession" (even when it gets stricken from the record) is usually enough to get a conviction. Unfortunately, what most people don't realize is that the confessions that the police collects are nothing more than answers to loaded questions such as "Assuming you were the murderer and assuming you had the same intimate knowledge of the surrounding area, where would you have ditched the body?". With those types of "confessions" casually mentioned in passing to the jury and immediately stricken from the record by the judge, the defendant is not even given a chance to explain to the jury that the illegal confession mentioned by the DA is nothing *but* a confession.
This is not my job. This is the job of whoever owns and controls the brand.
I like at how they arribed at the 93% number. It sounds so precise. It sure sounds like they know what they're doing.