When the summary says 20MHz, I can't figure out of they mean a 20MHz allocation, or an allocation at 20MHz. I'd RTFA, but it's down... However, if it's an allocation at 20MHz, they won't need to put towers in the boonies.
20MHz is allocated as Government/Non-Government Shared Fixed (Primary), Government Mobile (Secondary). Right next to that at 21MHz is 450kHz of Amateur Radio allocation (the 15-meter band). You can do long-distance (DX) communications on 15-meter, including around the world, if conditions are right.
In other words, with an allocation in the 20MHz range, a user is theoretically capable of covering an entire continent with just a single tower. Even if they use a relatively small number of towers (which would be realistically required, if not theoretically), all of the towers will most likely be able to at least interfere with each other. So they'll all be using the same frequencies, and therefore all sharing the same bandwidth, even if there are multiple towers. This is unlike cell towers. Two neighboring cell towers may overlap, but a cell tower 50 miles away can use the same frequency (and therefore bandwidth) without a problem.
So, how much bandwidth will they be able to provide? Let's assume a fairly high-tech encoding: 64-QAM or OFDM. Nyquist tell us that bandwidth = 2 * bandwidth * Log2 (states/signal) bits/second, or 2 * 1MHz * Log2(6), which is 3.6Mbit. For the entire area served by each tower.
But remember that these towers will cover a huge area. States, easily, and the entire continent regularly. I live in the Detroit, MI area. That's 6 Million people. That's about *half* a bit per second per person... And that's with a high-tech encoding like 64QAM.
Now I am not an EE, so please check my math. And I haven't read the article (only the summary), so if it's a 20MHz allocation in some other region of the spectrum (instead of a 1MHz allocation at 20MHz), then the story changes. However, even then, it's not great. You're most likely going to be limited to line-of-sight frequencies (the DX frequencies are already taken).
So, if it's an allocation of DX-capable frequencies at 20MHz, you can get away with a few towers, but you won't have enough bandwidth. And even if it's a dedicated 20MHz allocation somewhere else, you're going to need a bunch of towers.
What is the advantage of this over something like 802.11? I just don't know. No matter what, it seems like you'll need a number of towers comparable to cell phones today, even with a dedicated 20MHz of frequency. 802.11g uses 20MHz channels to provide 54Mbit of bandwidth using OFDM. So even assuming that the entire 20MHz is allocated exclusively to them (so it's cleaner than the ISM bands 802.11 works in), you're still only going to have 54Mbit of bandwidth (and likely only half that usable bandwidth) for your users. At 384kbps/user, you're looking at a theoretical maximum of 140 users per sector per tower, and a likely limit of 70. That's comparable to cell phone towers (roughly 100 users per sector).
In any case, this does not seem like a brilliant flash of inspiration in bringing broadband to the masses. It sounds like an attempt to create a government-backed monopoly on wireless communication. At least the cell companies had to buy their frequencies. In the end, I can't see the difference between this and digital cell service...
Why is it good news to us if you're planning to move to Athlon64? Oh, you meant that it's good news that there's two vendors. So you meant period, not comma, right?
Sprint PCS has unlimited data for $10 extra. Verizon has a similar plan, but I'm not sure for how much. So, yes, it's an extra cost, but it's not a deal-killer.
Really, it's no different than having to pay an ISP to be able to play an MMORG from Blizzard or Sony on your computer. In fact, $10 for Internet is cheaper than anything but the cheapest of dial-up ISP's.
But between lack of facilities to shower/change at work,
easily fixable.
You expect me to stuff a suit into a backpack? When you work in blue jeans and a t-shirt, sure, go for it. But I don't.
suburban commute distances,
Chicken and egg.
So what is the solution to this? Spend billions in infrastructure on something that most people are *unwilling* to use? I'm an avid cycler (I'm doing my first sprint triathlon this year), but even *I* don't want to bike 20+ miles back and forth to work every day...
And as a computer consultant, my customers are all over the place. I can't move near *all* of them... Not everyone is a consultant, but people change jobs a *lot* faster than they change houses...
and Inclement weather it has severe limitations. Hell inclement weather can take out whole seaons in some areas (harsh winters).
With modern fabrics I don't see this as being a problem. wind is a problem, but that is fixable by suitable bike-road design (screening trees, bike-tube type things, etc). I've riden in -20C in canada on a still day and still got hot and sweaty.
So I'm going to ride 20+ miles to work in four inches of snow? How about on ice? Here in Michigan, last winter notwithstanding, it is *typical* to have a *number* of snowstorms of at *least* 4 inches of snow, not to mention frequent freeze/thaw cycles that leave patches of ice everywhere. I don't know that Pearl Izumi is going to be able to fix that problem... Cars can drive through 4" of snow--even unplowed. Bikes can't: not practically, anyway.
There are very few microkernal OSes that have aquired a large installed
base (at least since the demise of OS/2).
OS/2 was not a microkernel. There *was* a microkernel-based version of OS/2: OS/2 for PowerPC. However, it was never actually sold (there was no real hardware to run it on).
OS/2 was very much a monolithic kernel that borrowed heavily from IBM's mainframe OS experience (Reference). However, it suffered heavily from its 16-bit heritage (OS/2 1.x was targeted at 80286 processors). It was a modular kernel, but it used 16-bit protected-mode drivers for items such as network adapters (NDIS 2.0) and file system drivers.
In fact, it was OS/2's monolithic nature and 16-bit origins that made OS/2 for PowerPC such a difficult undertaking. Unfortunately, for OS/2 to be a realistic operating system moving forward, you really would have needed a major rewrite like that, just to get rid of the 286 heritage. However, with the lack of momentum behind OS/2 and the failure of PREP/CHRP that just wasn't possible.
I'll think about it for an hour. Still makes sense. Why? Microsoft is a monopoly. Monopolies cannot use their monopoly product (the OS, and according to MS, IE is part of the OS) to leverage other products.
Now, this is not impossible to be gotten around. The entire reason why Windows XP was shipped one year after Windows 2000 is simple: Microsoft wanted to bundle Windows Messenger, and a new version of IE and Outlook Express with Windows 2000. But they couldn't. How do you get around that?
Simple: make them an "inseparable" part of a "new" operating system. Voila! Windows XP.
In any case, the spirit is obvious: MS should not be able to do this. The *leteter*, though, may be different...
I feel exactly the same way about Windows XP: it's Windows 2000 warmed over. There are a couple of half-features that make it slightly better, but certainly not worth *paying* for. Most of my clients have standardized on Windows 2000 and will skip XP completely.
Several years ago, I had hoped that Linux would be a possible upgrade path from 2000 by the time Longhorn (now Vista) gets here. But it won't be, and it looks like we'll end up paying for that upgrade, even if there *still* isn't a compelling reason to upgrade...
How can I use runas to delete a local printer for a user that has User rights? The only way I know of is to log out and log in as an Administrator.
That's not runas' fault: that fault belongs to a system that *requires* GUI access to do things. However, if you build a system that requries the GUI, give me a way to promote the user temporarily to perform that task!
We're *still* waiting for most of Cairo. Cairo was in answer to OS/2 and IBM/Apple/Taligent's Pink. Between the Workplace Shell and SOM, OS/2 was a decently object-oriented operating system, and Pink was supposed to be "even better". To prevent people from going in that direction, Microsoft talked up Cairo, the fully object-oriented OS built on the NT framework.
At the time (1993), there was talk of the fabled database-based file system that would revolutionize file storage. This was going to be integrated with a fully object-oriented interface: afer all, get rid of a typical file system and back everything with a database and objects just fall into place. Right, Gnome?:)
In the end, the closest we got to Cairo was Windows 2000/XP. No object-oriented interface, no database file system. In the interim, Linux started to get the same buzz that OS/2 was in 1993: growing mindshare on the desktop and highly useful in the server space. So what does Microsoft do? The exact same thing they had done a decade ago: start bringing up that advanced OS goodness "right around the corner." The embarassing part is that they used the *exact* *same* features, just a decade later!
Of course, the ones who should be embarrassed are the ones that belived the hype...
It allows you to collaborate via the web on both Office *and* OpenOffice documents, with full IM capabilities built-in. Integrate it with Lotus Sametime and you get a full web conferencing suite: voice (including SIP), video, whiteboarding, etc...
Really some very cool technology. And as you can see from my sig, I can even help you with implementing such a project!:)
I personally live on a hard money standard (all my money is either paid to me in gold or silver, or immediately converted to gold or silver for storing my wealth safely).
To what degree? I can understand converting every piece of income into gold (probably using something like http://www.e-gold.com/) instead of depositing your money into a bank account. If some gold-based micropayment system supported Visa/MC checkcards, it would actually be very little different than a bank account to me. No problem there. I've never thought or heard of it, but now that you mention it, it seems like an interesting gambit: it can't be worse than putting money into zero-interest checking accounts (FDIC insurance not withstanding)... As an aside, care to share what service you're using?
But what about investments such as stocks, bonds or mutal funds? Do you use such vehicles for storing and growing your wealth? If not, how do you grow your money? Gold is a great hedge against inflation: 300 years ago, an ounce of gold bought a good suit. Today, an ounce of gold buys a good suit. But what about investing for retirement?
For example, in every 5 year period over its history, both the S&P 500 (and other broad-based indexes of the market) have grown a minimum of 10% APR for that 5 year period. At that rate, money doubles every 7 years. You're certainly not going to get that level of growth from gold--or any other commodity. While you can certainly leverage them and make huge profits, you can wipe yourself out just as fast!
As for the incredible benefits of anarcho-capitalism: ever read The History of the Standard Oil Company by Ida Tarbell? How would anarcho-capitalism prevent the consolidation of a segment of the marketplace into a monopoly, preventing other competitors from existing and allowing the monopoly to then set prices at whatever level they choose without impunity?
It seems to me that the petroleum market in the middle 1800's was much like the IT market of the last 25 years: very little capital required to start, a brand new business segment without much in existing competition, etc. However, in both cases, within 25 years (or less) you saw the rise of a single company capable of creating a monopoly in a key segment of the business, with the ability to leverage that monopoly to dominate *every* aspect of the business. How do you see anarcho-capitalism preventing this? Particularly in the oil business: while you can make copies of Windows XP for near $0, you can't exactly make copies of oil barrels the same way...
You didn't answer my question. OK, so yes, the comparison is a bit unfair--but only a bit. How many times do you have to see a company do exactly the same thing before you decide that enough is enough?
How many times have we seen Microsoft attempt to compete with new standards by either 1) Embrace and extend, or 2) block by whatever means necessary? How many companies has Microsoft killed, many times through illegal means? Stac, Netscape and Digital Research come to mind instantly. In all three cases a court of law found them guilty of wrongdoing. So how many more times must Microsoft be found before you decide *not* to give them the benefit of the doubt?
Becausge giving them the benefit of the doubt is *exactly* what you're doing. You're "reserving judgement until their reasoning becomes more apparent." It even sounds so enlightened! You can't be known as a judgemental person: that would be so repressive. But how many times will people have to get screwed before you personally decide enough is enough and that they do not deserve to be given the opportunity to show that their reasoning is corrupt?
Said by liliafan in response to a child molester applying to work at a daycare:
Although I am instantly suspicious of anything and everything a child molester does, in this instance I will refrain from making a judgement one way or the other until I see how it progresses. However, that being said, I don't think it would do a lot of harm to their current image to be seem to be involved in a project like this, especially considering the problems they have had in prison recently.
So at what point *do* you become concerned? How many times does a company have to screw the public before you *don't* give them the benefit of the doubt?
Sponsorship is usually defined as giving money to someone in order for them to provide something. Most definitions use the example of a sponsor for a television program: "The Simpsons, brought to you by Quik-E-Mart".
In most cases, the money given by a sponsor is *not* without strings. For example, a sponsor will be associated with the content of the project. If The Simpsons said something about how horrible Squishees were, it is unlikely that Quick-E-Mart would continue to sponsor them. There is the *implication* of a certain amount of control by the sponsors over the sponsored item.
I believe that this is what DiBona was referring to when he said that sponsorship implied stewardship: that, as a sponsor of a project, Google would be seen, at least in part, as being *responsible* for a project. I think that stewardship may be overstating it a bit, but the implied connection between a sponsor and the project is very real, even if the textbook definition of sponsor does not state it.
He did not say that he wants everything that money can buy, as well as everything that money cannot buy. He just wants at least one think from each group.
How unreasonable is that? I too want (at least) one thing from each group. I want food: that's from the money group. I want to earn respect from my peers. That's from the not-money group (at least, if you have the right peers). Why is that scary?
The example I use is protecting the President by making him wear a bulletproof vest. You don't do that: you put someone *between* him and the bullet...
Similar analogy, but more realistic to describe. At least *I* can't see wearing a bulletproof vest on the inside...:)
Highspeed Anti Radiation Missles lock onto sources of radio emissions and track right into them. They're extremely effective at taking out such sources. In fact, HARM's are why the radios for a division are often separated by a large amount of distance from the division itself: it's too easy to hit.
Jamming is not easy to do, and realistically must be done from behind a big wall of protection. Most jamming would be done from some sort of location that is highly protected, such as an AWACS platform like the E-3 Sentry. Trying to jam something like a Predator UAV from the ground is a real good way to let the UAV know exactly where you are, and draw its attention (and possibly its fire) right to you!
It's the same idea behind the fact that a carrier group would normally operate *without* using its radar systems. While the radar might help the carrier group find to a certain distance, the radar does a much better job of announcing its presence to people at many times that distance. And that's why you have AWACS!
Slashdot Mirror
20MHz is allocated as Government/Non-Government Shared Fixed (Primary), Government Mobile (Secondary). Right next to that at 21MHz is 450kHz of Amateur Radio allocation (the 15-meter band). You can do long-distance (DX) communications on 15-meter, including around the world, if conditions are right.
In other words, with an allocation in the 20MHz range, a user is theoretically capable of covering an entire continent with just a single tower. Even if they use a relatively small number of towers (which would be realistically required, if not theoretically), all of the towers will most likely be able to at least interfere with each other. So they'll all be using the same frequencies, and therefore all sharing the same bandwidth, even if there are multiple towers. This is unlike cell towers. Two neighboring cell towers may overlap, but a cell tower 50 miles away can use the same frequency (and therefore bandwidth) without a problem.
So, how much bandwidth will they be able to provide? Let's assume a fairly high-tech encoding: 64-QAM or OFDM. Nyquist tell us that bandwidth = 2 * bandwidth * Log2 (states/signal) bits/second, or 2 * 1MHz * Log2(6), which is 3.6Mbit. For the entire area served by each tower.
But remember that these towers will cover a huge area. States, easily, and the entire continent regularly. I live in the Detroit, MI area. That's 6 Million people. That's about *half* a bit per second per person... And that's with a high-tech encoding like 64QAM.
Now I am not an EE, so please check my math. And I haven't read the article (only the summary), so if it's a 20MHz allocation in some other region of the spectrum (instead of a 1MHz allocation at 20MHz), then the story changes. However, even then, it's not great. You're most likely going to be limited to line-of-sight frequencies (the DX frequencies are already taken).
So, if it's an allocation of DX-capable frequencies at 20MHz, you can get away with a few towers, but you won't have enough bandwidth. And even if it's a dedicated 20MHz allocation somewhere else, you're going to need a bunch of towers.
What is the advantage of this over something like 802.11? I just don't know. No matter what, it seems like you'll need a number of towers comparable to cell phones today, even with a dedicated 20MHz of frequency. 802.11g uses 20MHz channels to provide 54Mbit of bandwidth using OFDM. So even assuming that the entire 20MHz is allocated exclusively to them (so it's cleaner than the ISM bands 802.11 works in), you're still only going to have 54Mbit of bandwidth (and likely only half that usable bandwidth) for your users. At 384kbps/user, you're looking at a theoretical maximum of 140 users per sector per tower, and a likely limit of 70. That's comparable to cell phone towers (roughly 100 users per sector).
In any case, this does not seem like a brilliant flash of inspiration in bringing broadband to the masses. It sounds like an attempt to create a government-backed monopoly on wireless communication. At least the cell companies had to buy their frequencies. In the end, I can't see the difference between this and digital cell service...
</PEDANTIC>
Serenity Virtual Server
Allows you to run Windows, Linux and OS/2 as both a host and guest OS, and FreeBSD as a host-only OS.
Really, it's no different than having to pay an ISP to be able to play an MMORG from Blizzard or Sony on your computer. In fact, $10 for Internet is cheaper than anything but the cheapest of dial-up ISP's.
easily fixable.
You expect me to stuff a suit into a backpack? When you work in blue jeans and a t-shirt, sure, go for it. But I don't.
suburban commute distances,
Chicken and egg.
So what is the solution to this? Spend billions in infrastructure on something that most people are *unwilling* to use? I'm an avid cycler (I'm doing my first sprint triathlon this year), but even *I* don't want to bike 20+ miles back and forth to work every day...
And as a computer consultant, my customers are all over the place. I can't move near *all* of them... Not everyone is a consultant, but people change jobs a *lot* faster than they change houses...
and Inclement weather it has severe limitations. Hell inclement weather can take out whole seaons in some areas (harsh winters).
With modern fabrics I don't see this as being a problem. wind is a problem, but that is fixable by suitable bike-road design (screening trees, bike-tube type things, etc). I've riden in -20C in canada on a still day and still got hot and sweaty.
So I'm going to ride 20+ miles to work in four inches of snow? How about on ice? Here in Michigan, last winter notwithstanding, it is *typical* to have a *number* of snowstorms of at *least* 4 inches of snow, not to mention frequent freeze/thaw cycles that leave patches of ice everywhere. I don't know that Pearl Izumi is going to be able to fix that problem... Cars can drive through 4" of snow--even unplowed. Bikes can't: not practically, anyway.
OS/2 was not a microkernel. There *was* a microkernel-based version of OS/2: OS/2 for PowerPC. However, it was never actually sold (there was no real hardware to run it on).
OS/2 was very much a monolithic kernel that borrowed heavily from IBM's mainframe OS experience (Reference). However, it suffered heavily from its 16-bit heritage (OS/2 1.x was targeted at 80286 processors). It was a modular kernel, but it used 16-bit protected-mode drivers for items such as network adapters (NDIS 2.0) and file system drivers.
In fact, it was OS/2's monolithic nature and 16-bit origins that made OS/2 for PowerPC such a difficult undertaking. Unfortunately, for OS/2 to be a realistic operating system moving forward, you really would have needed a major rewrite like that, just to get rid of the 286 heritage. However, with the lack of momentum behind OS/2 and the failure of PREP/CHRP that just wasn't possible.
Now, this is not impossible to be gotten around. The entire reason why Windows XP was shipped one year after Windows 2000 is simple: Microsoft wanted to bundle Windows Messenger, and a new version of IE and Outlook Express with Windows 2000. But they couldn't. How do you get around that?
Simple: make them an "inseparable" part of a "new" operating system. Voila! Windows XP.
In any case, the spirit is obvious: MS should not be able to do this. The *leteter*, though, may be different...
Several years ago, I had hoped that Linux would be a possible upgrade path from 2000 by the time Longhorn (now Vista) gets here. But it won't be, and it looks like we'll end up paying for that upgrade, even if there *still* isn't a compelling reason to upgrade...
That's not runas' fault: that fault belongs to a system that *requires* GUI access to do things. However, if you build a system that requries the GUI, give me a way to promote the user temporarily to perform that task!
At the time (1993), there was talk of the fabled database-based file system that would revolutionize file storage. This was going to be integrated with a fully object-oriented interface: afer all, get rid of a typical file system and back everything with a database and objects just fall into place. Right, Gnome? :)
In the end, the closest we got to Cairo was Windows 2000/XP. No object-oriented interface, no database file system. In the interim, Linux started to get the same buzz that OS/2 was in 1993: growing mindshare on the desktop and highly useful in the server space. So what does Microsoft do? The exact same thing they had done a decade ago: start bringing up that advanced OS goodness "right around the corner." The embarassing part is that they used the *exact* *same* features, just a decade later!
Of course, the ones who should be embarrassed are the ones that belived the hype...
Sigh.
Me? A bitter ex-OS/2 user? Never! :)
Meet the future: IBM Workplace
It allows you to collaborate via the web on both Office *and* OpenOffice documents, with full IM capabilities built-in. Integrate it with Lotus Sametime and you get a full web conferencing suite: voice (including SIP), video, whiteboarding, etc...
Really some very cool technology. And as you can see from my sig, I can even help you with implementing such a project! :)
BackupPC...
To what degree? I can understand converting every piece of income into gold (probably using something like http://www.e-gold.com/) instead of depositing your money into a bank account. If some gold-based micropayment system supported Visa/MC checkcards, it would actually be very little different than a bank account to me. No problem there. I've never thought or heard of it, but now that you mention it, it seems like an interesting gambit: it can't be worse than putting money into zero-interest checking accounts (FDIC insurance not withstanding)... As an aside, care to share what service you're using?
But what about investments such as stocks, bonds or mutal funds? Do you use such vehicles for storing and growing your wealth? If not, how do you grow your money? Gold is a great hedge against inflation: 300 years ago, an ounce of gold bought a good suit. Today, an ounce of gold buys a good suit. But what about investing for retirement?
For example, in every 5 year period over its history, both the S&P 500 (and other broad-based indexes of the market) have grown a minimum of 10% APR for that 5 year period. At that rate, money doubles every 7 years. You're certainly not going to get that level of growth from gold--or any other commodity. While you can certainly leverage them and make huge profits, you can wipe yourself out just as fast!
As for the incredible benefits of anarcho-capitalism: ever read The History of the Standard Oil Company by Ida Tarbell? How would anarcho-capitalism prevent the consolidation of a segment of the marketplace into a monopoly, preventing other competitors from existing and allowing the monopoly to then set prices at whatever level they choose without impunity?
It seems to me that the petroleum market in the middle 1800's was much like the IT market of the last 25 years: very little capital required to start, a brand new business segment without much in existing competition, etc. However, in both cases, within 25 years (or less) you saw the rise of a single company capable of creating a monopoly in a key segment of the business, with the ability to leverage that monopoly to dominate *every* aspect of the business. How do you see anarcho-capitalism preventing this? Particularly in the oil business: while you can make copies of Windows XP for near $0, you can't exactly make copies of oil barrels the same way...
How many times have we seen Microsoft attempt to compete with new standards by either 1) Embrace and extend, or 2) block by whatever means necessary? How many companies has Microsoft killed, many times through illegal means? Stac, Netscape and Digital Research come to mind instantly. In all three cases a court of law found them guilty of wrongdoing. So how many more times must Microsoft be found before you decide *not* to give them the benefit of the doubt?
Becausge giving them the benefit of the doubt is *exactly* what you're doing. You're "reserving judgement until their reasoning becomes more apparent." It even sounds so enlightened! You can't be known as a judgemental person: that would be so repressive. But how many times will people have to get screwed before you personally decide enough is enough and that they do not deserve to be given the opportunity to show that their reasoning is corrupt?
Is there even such a point?
Although I am instantly suspicious of anything and everything a child molester does, in this instance I will refrain from making a judgement one way or the other until I see how it progresses. However, that being said, I don't think it would do a lot of harm to their current image to be seem to be involved in a project like this, especially considering the problems they have had in prison recently.
So at what point *do* you become concerned? How many times does a company have to screw the public before you *don't* give them the benefit of the doubt?
In most cases, the money given by a sponsor is *not* without strings. For example, a sponsor will be associated with the content of the project. If The Simpsons said something about how horrible Squishees were, it is unlikely that Quick-E-Mart would continue to sponsor them. There is the *implication* of a certain amount of control by the sponsors over the sponsored item.
I believe that this is what DiBona was referring to when he said that sponsorship implied stewardship: that, as a sponsor of a project, Google would be seen, at least in part, as being *responsible* for a project. I think that stewardship may be overstating it a bit, but the implied connection between a sponsor and the project is very real, even if the textbook definition of sponsor does not state it.
How unreasonable is that? I too want (at least) one thing from each group. I want food: that's from the money group. I want to earn respect from my peers. That's from the not-money group (at least, if you have the right peers). Why is that scary?
imply tr.v. implied, implying, implies
1. To involve by logical necessity; entail: Life implies growth and death.
2. To express or indicate indirectly: His tone implied disapproval. See Synonyms at suggest. See Usage Note at infer.
Just because the definition does not use the word does not mean that the connotation of the word does not include it.
Similar analogy, but more realistic to describe. At least *I* can't see wearing a bulletproof vest on the inside... :)
Highspeed Anti Radiation Missles lock onto sources of radio emissions and track right into them. They're extremely effective at taking out such sources. In fact, HARM's are why the radios for a division are often separated by a large amount of distance from the division itself: it's too easy to hit.
Jamming is not easy to do, and realistically must be done from behind a big wall of protection. Most jamming would be done from some sort of location that is highly protected, such as an AWACS platform like the E-3 Sentry. Trying to jam something like a Predator UAV from the ground is a real good way to let the UAV know exactly where you are, and draw its attention (and possibly its fire) right to you!
It's the same idea behind the fact that a carrier group would normally operate *without* using its radar systems. While the radar might help the carrier group find to a certain distance, the radar does a much better job of announcing its presence to people at many times that distance. And that's why you have AWACS!
Chicago, murder capitol of the US, 2003,2004
Washington DC, murder capitol of the US, 2002
Why does everyone automatically gravitate to Detroit for such statistics?