... landed in bed with a beautiful naked girl and my two best friends.
"He said he got stuck in the lifeboat for an hour before it was lowered into the water off the coast of Giglio island. Also with him was Dimitri Christidis, the Greek second in command of the Concordia and Silvia Coronica, the third officer, according to La Repubblica newspaper. " [Telegraph]
swalve is correct, the camera takes about an hour to capture an entire scene. To quote the video (starting at 1:32):
"So what's happening is, the camera keeps taking images and we very slowly rotate this mirror to scan our field of view across the entire scene. And because all of our pulses look the same we can in the end go and combine all these images we took to get one complete movie of the scene."
That movie of the light pulse had a different, but identical, pulse in each frame.
So what they have invented is a very accurate shutter trigger and a sensor with a very fast shutter speed.
The image sweep is accomplished by mechanically moving a mirror very accurately, but not quickly.
This camera rig is not really a slow motion camera, it does not capture a single event at 10^9 frames per second.
Nobody will destroy existing paper books. They will be around forever, and new ones will always be made. This is not a one or the other scenario.
However, over time more and more books will be delivered in electronic format only and fewer and fewer paper books will be printed. It is inevitable; there are too many government agencies and (very large) corporations with their own interests and agendas that are dependent on this.
That electronic book readers may have benefits for the user is only incidental, sugar to make the medicine go down.
Irony: Seeing the quote "Linux is obsolete (Andrew Tanenbaum)" in the footer of the Slashdot article discussing Google's open source release of a new mobile phone platform based on Linux, assuring that Linux will eventually be running on more processors than any other OS created and be around for a very long time.
What is the difference between playing Microsoft Flight Simulator and piloting an Unmanned Aerial Vehicle (UAV) from Boeing for the Air Force?
Remember the opening sequence to the original Terminator movie? They weren't autonomous robots, they were radio-controlled Unmanned Fighting Units from the US of A.
Yes, I see your point. I overstated my point about VOR vs GPS. I should have said "VOR is going the way of the DoDo bird." rather than "has gone". I agree that VOR's are still in wide use, that navigation charts prominently describe VOR's, and that ATC's still use radials as landmarks.
Avionics systems are all about redundancy, and so using both VOR's and GPS as inputs into a flight management system makes perfect sense. I never dealt with such a system myself as that was well outside my price range. My FMS consisted of two nav radios, a map, and a ruler.
However, I stand by the assertion that GPS is superior to VOR and that reliance on VOR is rapidly diminishing. If I had to choose between having only VOR or only GPS, it would be an easy choice in favor of GPS. I am a little confused by your reference to augmentation (VLF?).
However, this whole issue is off the main point, the assertion that mobile phones would endanger aircraft because it would interfere with VOR navigation. I am arguing that this is false because:
GPS exists in parallel with VOR and is more reliable, making the loss of VOR a nuisance, not catastrophic
Mobile phones have no effect on GPS reception
Mobile phones are not transmitting above roughly 10,000 ft AGL since they are no longer detecting any available towers
That incidents reporting interference are not compelling; the reports I have read have been either minor nuisances or at low altitudes in small aircraft
Every day thousands of phones are left powered on during flights without incident, and that a phone that is barely within range of a tower and rapidly transitioning from one tower to the next is transmitting less data but more power than a phone in a conversation
If airlines wanted to allow passengers to use their phones during flight it would take more than simply telling them it is OK. Everyone would quickly discover that there is no cellular service at 45,000 feet. And at lower altitudes it is more about preparing for emergencies than radio interference.
I was trying, perhaps unsuccessfully, to point out that the whole VOR interference argument has very little to do with it.
Is that a counter-argument or an observation? Either way, it is pointless.
Aircraft will crash. I hope I am not aboard when it happens. But I also hope that people will spend time worrying about real dangers and not waste their time on issues that have proven over the past fifteen years to be benign.
A couple other points: Your study was conducted using a small aircraft. How small? At what altitude? Over populated areas? The worst-case scenario would be a small piston aircraft with the GPS receiver antenna located within the cabin (on the dash), at an altitude of 5,000 - 10,000 feet (1-2 miles above ground level), traveling at 100mph, over a populated area. In this scenario, the phone would be constantly on the fringe of cell tower coverage, rapidly transitioning towers but with enough time to lock on to each one. This requires the phone to be radiating at maximum power and constantly negotiating. Since the aircraft is physically small, the GPS antenna is located within feet of the phone and unshielded. I would not be surprised at all if this caused some small problems for the GPS, but I would be surprised if it would shut the GPS down completely.
This scenario is very, very different from a large commercial airliner. An airliner is cruising at 35,000 - 45,0000 feet (6-8 miles above ground level), traveling at 575mph, mostly over unpopulated areas. Now the phone is always out of range of the tower (range 3-5 miles) and never able to lock on. The phone is constantly running the receiver and DSP, draining the battery, but not transmitting. Furthermore, the GPS antenna is located away from the phone with a layer of aluminum between.
I am pretty sure that the real reason is to prevent people from putting the headphones on and mentally tuning out during the most dangerous parts of the flight, takeoff and landing. In the unlikely event of an emergency, the flight attendants don't want to spend the first five minutes trying to get everyone's attention.
Also, in the event of an emergency the attendants would rather have everyone's eyes on them rather than watching their plane on TV while it descends to disaster. Imagine the Jet Blue flight into San Francisco last year. ("Hey, is that our plane on the news?")
As for GPS, it is a matter of expediency. Is that a GPS or a phone? Is it a phone with GPS? Are you just telling me it is a GPS when it is really a phone? It is simpler to say, "If it has an On/Off switch, turn it off." I'm happy I am allowed to turn it back on eventually -- it was only a few year's ago that everything other than a laptop had to be hidden^H^H^H^H^H^H turned off for the entire flight.
The interference disappeared when the phone was turned off or covered behind a metal object, and re-appeared when turned on or brought into the open again.
Your solution is obvious: run a layer of tin foil along the roof of the passenger cabin. (Tin foil hats for everyone!) This is much, much, more likely to happen than trying to achieve 100% compliance among all airline passengers to turn the phones off.
A couple other points: The study was conducted using a small aircraft. How small? At what altitude? Over populated areas? The worst-case scenario would be a small piston aircraft with the GPS receiver antenna located within the cabin (on the dash), at an altitude of 5,000 - 10,000 feet (1-2 miles above ground level), traveling at 100mph, over a populated area. In this scenario, the phone would be constantly on the fringe of cell tower coverage, rapidly transitioning towers but with enough time to lock on to each one. This requires the phone to be radiating at maximum power and constantly negotiating. Since the aircraft is physically small, the GPS antenna is located within feet of the phone and unshielded. I would not be surprised at all if this caused some small problems for the GPS, but I would be surprised if it would shut the GPS down completely.
This scenario is very, very different from a large commercial airliner. An airliner is cruising at 35,000 - 45,0000 feet (6-8 miles above ground level), traveling at 575mph, mostly over unpopulated areas. Now the phone is always out of range of the tower (range 3-5 miles) and never able to lock on. The phone is constantly running the receiver and DSP, draining the battery, but not transmitting. Furthermore, the GPS antenna is located away from the phone with a layer of aluminum between.
You would be much better off installing a small cell tower that covered the interior of the theatre and forced all cellular traffic to be routed through it. You could then filter (and sniff) all incoming and outgoing traffic, blocking most calls and allowing some. A special identifier on certain calls could identify calls destined for emergency personnel and override the blocks.
Once people entered coverage, their phones would lock onto the onsite tower and use it. Since the people are on private property, a disclaimer by the entrance ("By entering these premises, you agree that your phone will no longer work.") would address legal issues.
Cost was an obstacle before, but the price of picocells has dropped dramatically over the past couple of years. At the CTIA show I saw Samsung demonstrating picocells intended for the consumer market to provide residential coverage.
The temptation to sniff, snoop, and spam is the real problem.
The "special identifier" means standardization and government involvement, which is a whole other bucket of worms.
I need to point out that VOR navigation has gone the way of the DoDo bird. I cannot imagine anyone in a modern aircraft spending the time to fiddle around with triangulating VOR's when the GPS is sitting there telling the pilot the current position within 10 meters, current groundspeed, and the exact distance to any point on the planet (within 10 meters). The nav radios are now used as a backup to the GPS, if at all. (Autopilots rely solely on GPS.)
I suppose one could make an argument that VOR's are useful in case the GPS fails, but I would retort that one would be much better off with a second redundant GPS on a separate power supply. Which system sounds more reliable: one based on a collection of a couple dozen satellites with no moving parts located *above* the aircraft where there is no weather or terrain and cannot be vandalized, or a system based on hundreds of rotating VHS radios scattered around on the ground, subject to weather, terrain, vandalism, and maintenance problems? Also, it is a simple and prudent matter to mount the GPS receiving antenna so that it is looking up and shielded from RF radiated from below. (A secondary receiver can be located below for extended inverted flight, if that is a concern.) GPS is in all ways better than VOR.
Secondly, the whole interference argument is moot. It doesn't matter. Out of the 137 passengers on a 737, how many of them have mobile phones? I'll guess 30%, or 41. How many of them actually turn their phones OFF when told to do so? I'll guess 50%, leaving 20 phones actively seeking cell towers for the duration of the flight. As far as interference goes, there is really very little difference between a handset trying to negotiate with a tower and one that is locked on and transmitting data. In fact, the device typically radiates more power when negotiating. The only way to prevent this situation is to be absolutely positive all the devices are OFF (including the ones in the baggage hold) -- an impossible task, or move the devices out of range of the towers (five miles UP) -- an inevitable task. So the solution is either impossible or inevitable, neither requiring any action on anyone's part.
Furthermore, radio communication is most critical during takeoff and approach. This is precisely when the devices onboard are the most active -- low altitude over populated areas, within range and transitioning cell tower coverage at a rapid clip. And guess what? Not a single significant incident reported. There have been anecdotal reports, but nothing more than mild curiosities.
This whole argument is a bunch of hooey. The airlines just want to figure out a way to monetize the connections, others want people to just shut the hell up and let them sleep, and the FAA is (as usual) in a state of paralysis. (This is usually a good thing.) The only thing I am pretty sure about is that it has nothing to do with radio interference.
However, if passengers did want, and were allowed, to use mobile phones openly (as opposed to furtively;) ) in flight it would require a system to relay the signals to the network in a way that overcomes the problems of distance and speed. This will most likely (must be?) a small cell tower (picocell) located on the plane that relays the signals to a satellite link, then down to a central terrestrial hub. Once all the onboard devices discover the very nearby cell tower, they all back off to their lowest power settings and contently sit in low-power mode for the duration of the flight. Even if the picocell were not relaying the signals I think it is the only viable method to control the user devices. But this is a few hundred thousand dollars per aircraft to install, ongoing maintenance costs, and additional regulations and contracts. Not to mention media headaches when some tech blog points out that the airline is now bathing the passenger cabin with microwave RF. So it does not surprise me that this is happening slowly, but I am confident that within the next five
New York Times:
Mr. Litvinenko, 43, a prominent opponent of the
Kremlin, was hospitalized earlier this month. He said that he fell ill
after having lunch at a sushi restaurant with a man who said he had
information about the killing of Anna Politkovskaya, a journalist who
had made her name as a critic of the government's policies in
Chechnya.
I read another article in which Litvinenko suspected the poison was
in the tea served to him.
Also, Litvinenko and Putin have a long history: New York Times: (from the archives,
paid registration required)
November 21, 1998
Report of Plot to Kill Tycoon Leads Yeltsin to Call Inquiry
By MICHAEL WINES
President Boris N. Yeltsin ordered an inquiry today into
spectacular charges leveled earlier this week -- so far without
evidence -- that Russia's equivalent of the F.B.I. plotted to kill one
of the country's most influential tycoons.
The tycoon is Boris A. Berezovsky, an oil magnate and director of
Russia's biggest television network, who was a leading supporter of
Mr. Yeltsin during the last presidential campaign in 1996.
Mr. Berezovsky, who is still alive, released a letter last week
asserting that the Federal Security Service, a spinoff of the old
Soviet K.G.B. that is responsible for domestic law enforcement,
plotted last winter to murder him.
On Tuesday the source of Mr. Berezovsky's information, a Security
Service colonel named Aleksandr Litvinenko, called a news conference
to elaborate on the accusation and warn that a rogue element was
running wild within the agency.
...
The list of very prominent people who once opposed Putin
and suffered extremely nasty reversals of fortune is growing
conspicuously long:
Life sentence to a Siberian gulag [Mikhail Khodorkovsky]
Slow, painful, and irreversible death from radiation poisoning [Litvinenko]
Execution (hitman style) on one's doorstep [Anna Politkovskaya]
Execution leaving a soccer game [Andrei Kozlov]
Execution at one's dacha [Enver Ziganshin]
Dioxin poisoning (nearly fatal) [Viktor A. Yushchenko]
Ironically, an interview of Litvinenko from December 15 2004
included this prophetic quote:
"The view inside our agency was that poison is just a weapon, like a pistol,"
said Alexander V. Litvinenko, who served in the K.G.B. and its Russian successor,
the Federal Security Service, from 1988 to 1999 and now lives in London.
"It's not seen that way in the West, but it was just viewed as an ordinary tool."
Diebold also builds automated teller machines (ATM), the definitive model for reliability and accountability.
The AcuuVote machines are what they are, not due to poor design or unintentional mistake. They are the result of a deliberate intent to enable fraud on a massive scale. Viewed from this perspective, the AccuVote design is very good. The real problem comes when Diebold realizes that it needs to become better at obfuscation and makes it harder to detect the fraud.
"IN mid-August, Walden W. O'Dell, the chief executive of Diebold Inc., sat down at his computer to compose a letter inviting 100 wealthy and politically inclined friends to a Republican Party fund-raiser, to be held at his home in a suburb of Columbus, Ohio. ''I am committed to helping Ohio deliver its electoral votes to the president next year,'' wrote Mr. O'Dell, whose company is based in Canton, Ohio."
This is just another example of a bad patent application. It doesn't matter that the idea makes absolutely no sense whatsoever, the guy is simply patenting the idea on the remote chance that someone else will eventually create it. Then the patent holder can pop up and demand his ransom. Thomas Edison patented the telephone that communicates with the dead. He will be the guy laughing his head off on the other head if it should ever actually happen.
I actually think this application is quite clever. If someone ever does manage to manufacture such a bullet -- not so far out, I believe modern gatling guns (Vulcan) use electronics, not hammers, to ignite the primers in the shells -- you can bet your bottom dollar Congress will pass a law making it mandatory for all gun manufacturers. It won't matter that it makes absolutely no sense, we are talking about Congress here. Then the patent holder will have the last laugh.
I can only hope that the patent would make it more difficult to pass such a law.
Mr. Frist also voted "no" in the end, but in a purely parliamentary maneuver to allow him to try to bring up the bill again. Thus, the Patriot Act was actually seven votes short of the 60 needed to end debate today.
Air America is the mirror image of Fox News; don't believe anything either says without checking it out first.
When I installed iTunes (a year ago?) it hooked into the CDROM device driver chain, installing drivers in the system32/drivers directory. This was done to enforce Apple's DRM business rules when writing iTunes files to a writable CD. This caused problems on my computer by conflicting with another company's similar draconian DRM solution, which is why I investigated and found what iTunes was doing. Uninstalling iTunes left the drivers in place and I had to remove them manually.
So yes, it is doing the same thing. At least it was then, it may have changed since but most likely not.
I later talked to the engineer at Apple who was responsible for implementing those drivers, so I have quite a bit of insight into the how and why.
IIRC, Google intends to scan and store the entirety of all books and promise to only display small parts of them. The publishers' objections are that once that data are compiled Google will forever have the publishing industry by the throat with the ability to change, without notice, the definition of small parts.
Having one's entire livelihood held hostage by a stranger who says "Trust me, I mean no evil" is a sword of Damocles that any sane person would want to avoid.
Is Google's plan popular with the general public? Sure, the same way Napster wildly popularized a new distribution mechanism (wholesale theft) of copyrighted music. I'm sure I would use it if it were available. Is it legal and ethical? Smells fishy to me if it is done over the objections of the owners of the material.
This is actually a clever bit of PR on Microsoft's part. Since they have no fear of losing the installed base of WinXP, they can start bashing it to convince people that it is a piece of crap (not a hard task) and clear the way for proclaiming Vista to be the cure to all the problems in WinXP. This is just part of the effort to promote the widespread migration from WinXP to Vista, especially when the new features may not be enough to sell someone on going through the trouble of installing a completely new OS. Microsoft must also convince customers that it is dangerous and bad to stay with WinXP.
I, for one, look forward to when it will be commonplace for men to carry purses in the US. Then I can finally carry my wallet, pda, phone(s), earpiece (aka headphones), keys, coins, credit cards, access badges, national ID card (aka driver's license), etc. without either looking like (a) Batman in civilian clothes but forgot to remove his utility belt, (b) I have huge tumors growing out of my pockets, or (c) a terrorist carrying a rucksack full of electronic equipment and wires.
It will take a company with a lot of money and a lot of lawyers to finally push the whole broken software patent system over the redline. When it becomes obvious to *EVERYONE* that the software patent system in the US is completely broken, Congress will be forced to finally address the issue. (Perhaps patenting the space " " character will do the trick.)
I can only hope that all software patents are abolished. IMHO, software patents are bad, software copyrights are good.
On the other hand, as long as the software patent process continues in its current form it is only smart defensive business to patent everything under the sun. In this situation the only intelligent strategy is, "If I don't patent it, my competitor will." Microsoft itself has been stung to the tune of hundreds of millions of dollars by stupid patents filed by others. Don't blame corporations for filing stupid patent applications, blame the Patent Office for granting them.
Slashdot Mirror
... landed in bed with a beautiful naked girl and my two best friends.
"He said he got stuck in the lifeboat for an hour before it was lowered into the water off the coast of Giglio island. Also with him was Dimitri Christidis, the Greek second in command of the Concordia and Silvia Coronica, the third officer, according to La Repubblica newspaper. " [Telegraph]
swalve is correct, the camera takes about an hour to capture an entire scene. To quote the video (starting at 1:32):
"So what's happening is, the camera keeps taking images and we very slowly rotate this mirror to scan our field of view across the entire scene. And because all of our pulses look the same we can in the end go and combine all these images we took to get one complete movie of the scene."
That movie of the light pulse had a different, but identical, pulse in each frame.
So what they have invented is a very accurate shutter trigger and a sensor with a very fast shutter speed.
The image sweep is accomplished by mechanically moving a mirror very accurately, but not quickly.
This camera rig is not really a slow motion camera, it does not capture a single event at 10^9 frames per second.
Nobody will destroy existing paper books. They will be around forever, and new ones will always be made. This is not a one or the other scenario.
However, over time more and more books will be delivered in electronic format only and fewer and fewer paper books will be printed. It is inevitable; there are too many government agencies and (very large) corporations with their own interests and agendas that are dependent on this.
That electronic book readers may have benefits for the user is only incidental, sugar to make the medicine go down.
Irony: Seeing the quote "Linux is obsolete (Andrew Tanenbaum)" in the footer of the Slashdot article discussing Google's open source release of a new mobile phone platform based on Linux, assuring that Linux will eventually be running on more processors than any other OS created and be around for a very long time.
The interesting bits are in the details.
What is the difference between playing Microsoft Flight Simulator and piloting an Unmanned Aerial Vehicle (UAV) from Boeing for the Air Force?
Remember the opening sequence to the original Terminator movie? They weren't autonomous robots, they were radio-controlled Unmanned Fighting Units from the US of A.
Calendar.com -- 896 bytes, displays the calendar for any month.
C:\Bin>dir calendar.com
Volume in drive C is XPPro
Volume Serial Number is 5851-2646
Directory of C:\Bin
10/13/2006 11:46 PM 896 Calendar.com
1 File(s) 896 bytes
0 Dir(s) 23,780,888,576 bytes free
C:\Bin>calendar
September 2007
Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
1
2 3 4 5 6 7 8
9 10 11 12 13 14 15
16 17 18 19 20 21 22
23 24 25 26 27 28 29
30
C:\Bin>calendar nov 1963
November 1963
Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
1 2
3 4 5 6 7 8 9
10 11 12 13 14 15 16
17 18 19 20 21 22 23
24 25 26 27 28 29 30
C:\Bin>
Yes, I see your point. I overstated my point about VOR vs GPS. I should have said "VOR is going the way of the DoDo bird." rather than "has gone". I agree that VOR's are still in wide use, that navigation charts prominently describe VOR's, and that ATC's still use radials as landmarks.
Avionics systems are all about redundancy, and so using both VOR's and GPS as inputs into a flight management system makes perfect sense. I never dealt with such a system myself as that was well outside my price range. My FMS consisted of two nav radios, a map, and a ruler.
However, I stand by the assertion that GPS is superior to VOR and that reliance on VOR is rapidly diminishing. If I had to choose between having only VOR or only GPS, it would be an easy choice in favor of GPS. I am a little confused by your reference to augmentation (VLF?).
However, this whole issue is off the main point, the assertion that mobile phones would endanger aircraft because it would interfere with VOR navigation. I am arguing that this is false because:
If airlines wanted to allow passengers to use their phones during flight it would take more than simply telling them it is OK. Everyone would quickly discover that there is no cellular service at 45,000 feet. And at lower altitudes it is more about preparing for emergencies than radio interference.
I was trying, perhaps unsuccessfully, to point out that the whole VOR interference argument has very little to do with it.
Is that a counter-argument or an observation? Either way, it is pointless.
Aircraft will crash. I hope I am not aboard when it happens. But I also hope that people will spend time worrying about real dangers and not waste their time on issues that have proven over the past fifteen years to be benign.
A couple other points: Your study was conducted using a small aircraft. How small? At what altitude? Over populated areas? The worst-case scenario would be a small piston aircraft with the GPS receiver antenna located within the cabin (on the dash), at an altitude of 5,000 - 10,000 feet (1-2 miles above ground level), traveling at 100mph, over a populated area. In this scenario, the phone would be constantly on the fringe of cell tower coverage, rapidly transitioning towers but with enough time to lock on to each one. This requires the phone to be radiating at maximum power and constantly negotiating. Since the aircraft is physically small, the GPS antenna is located within feet of the phone and unshielded. I would not be surprised at all if this caused some small problems for the GPS, but I would be surprised if it would shut the GPS down completely.
This scenario is very, very different from a large commercial airliner. An airliner is cruising at 35,000 - 45,0000 feet (6-8 miles above ground level), traveling at 575mph, mostly over unpopulated areas. Now the phone is always out of range of the tower (range 3-5 miles) and never able to lock on. The phone is constantly running the receiver and DSP, draining the battery, but not transmitting. Furthermore, the GPS antenna is located away from the phone with a layer of aluminum between.
I am pretty sure that the real reason is to prevent people from putting the headphones on and mentally tuning out during the most dangerous parts of the flight, takeoff and landing. In the unlikely event of an emergency, the flight attendants don't want to spend the first five minutes trying to get everyone's attention.
Also, in the event of an emergency the attendants would rather have everyone's eyes on them rather than watching their plane on TV while it descends to disaster. Imagine the Jet Blue flight into San Francisco last year. ("Hey, is that our plane on the news?")
As for GPS, it is a matter of expediency. Is that a GPS or a phone? Is it a phone with GPS? Are you just telling me it is a GPS when it is really a phone? It is simpler to say, "If it has an On/Off switch, turn it off." I'm happy I am allowed to turn it back on eventually -- it was only a few year's ago that everything other than a laptop had to be hidden^H^H^H^H^H^H turned off for the entire flight.
Your solution is obvious: run a layer of tin foil along the roof of the passenger cabin. (Tin foil hats for everyone!) This is much, much, more likely to happen than trying to achieve 100% compliance among all airline passengers to turn the phones off.
A couple other points: The study was conducted using a small aircraft. How small? At what altitude? Over populated areas? The worst-case scenario would be a small piston aircraft with the GPS receiver antenna located within the cabin (on the dash), at an altitude of 5,000 - 10,000 feet (1-2 miles above ground level), traveling at 100mph, over a populated area. In this scenario, the phone would be constantly on the fringe of cell tower coverage, rapidly transitioning towers but with enough time to lock on to each one. This requires the phone to be radiating at maximum power and constantly negotiating. Since the aircraft is physically small, the GPS antenna is located within feet of the phone and unshielded. I would not be surprised at all if this caused some small problems for the GPS, but I would be surprised if it would shut the GPS down completely.
This scenario is very, very different from a large commercial airliner. An airliner is cruising at 35,000 - 45,0000 feet (6-8 miles above ground level), traveling at 575mph, mostly over unpopulated areas. Now the phone is always out of range of the tower (range 3-5 miles) and never able to lock on. The phone is constantly running the receiver and DSP, draining the battery, but not transmitting. Furthermore, the GPS antenna is located away from the phone with a layer of aluminum between.
This whole argument is a bunch of hooey.
You would be much better off installing a small cell tower that covered the interior of the theatre and forced all cellular traffic to be routed through it. You could then filter (and sniff) all incoming and outgoing traffic, blocking most calls and allowing some. A special identifier on certain calls could identify calls destined for emergency personnel and override the blocks.
Once people entered coverage, their phones would lock onto the onsite tower and use it. Since the people are on private property, a disclaimer by the entrance ("By entering these premises, you agree that your phone will no longer work.") would address legal issues.
Cost was an obstacle before, but the price of picocells has dropped dramatically over the past couple of years. At the CTIA show I saw Samsung demonstrating picocells intended for the consumer market to provide residential coverage.
The temptation to sniff, snoop, and spam is the real problem.
The "special identifier" means standardization and government involvement, which is a whole other bucket of worms.
I need to point out that VOR navigation has gone the way of the DoDo bird. I cannot imagine anyone in a modern aircraft spending the time to fiddle around with triangulating VOR's when the GPS is sitting there telling the pilot the current position within 10 meters, current groundspeed, and the exact distance to any point on the planet (within 10 meters). The nav radios are now used as a backup to the GPS, if at all. (Autopilots rely solely on GPS.)
I suppose one could make an argument that VOR's are useful in case the GPS fails, but I would retort that one would be much better off with a second redundant GPS on a separate power supply. Which system sounds more reliable: one based on a collection of a couple dozen satellites with no moving parts located *above* the aircraft where there is no weather or terrain and cannot be vandalized, or a system based on hundreds of rotating VHS radios scattered around on the ground, subject to weather, terrain, vandalism, and maintenance problems? Also, it is a simple and prudent matter to mount the GPS receiving antenna so that it is looking up and shielded from RF radiated from below. (A secondary receiver can be located below for extended inverted flight, if that is a concern.) GPS is in all ways better than VOR.
Secondly, the whole interference argument is moot. It doesn't matter. Out of the 137 passengers on a 737, how many of them have mobile phones? I'll guess 30%, or 41. How many of them actually turn their phones OFF when told to do so? I'll guess 50%, leaving 20 phones actively seeking cell towers for the duration of the flight. As far as interference goes, there is really very little difference between a handset trying to negotiate with a tower and one that is locked on and transmitting data. In fact, the device typically radiates more power when negotiating. The only way to prevent this situation is to be absolutely positive all the devices are OFF (including the ones in the baggage hold) -- an impossible task, or move the devices out of range of the towers (five miles UP) -- an inevitable task. So the solution is either impossible or inevitable, neither requiring any action on anyone's part.
Furthermore, radio communication is most critical during takeoff and approach. This is precisely when the devices onboard are the most active -- low altitude over populated areas, within range and transitioning cell tower coverage at a rapid clip. And guess what? Not a single significant incident reported. There have been anecdotal reports, but nothing more than mild curiosities.
This whole argument is a bunch of hooey. The airlines just want to figure out a way to monetize the connections, others want people to just shut the hell up and let them sleep, and the FAA is (as usual) in a state of paralysis. (This is usually a good thing.) The only thing I am pretty sure about is that it has nothing to do with radio interference.
However, if passengers did want, and were allowed, to use mobile phones openly (as opposed to furtively ;) ) in flight it would require a system to relay the signals to the network in a way that overcomes the problems of distance and speed. This will most likely (must be?) a small cell tower (picocell) located on the plane that relays the signals to a satellite link, then down to a central terrestrial hub. Once all the onboard devices discover the very nearby cell tower, they all back off to their lowest power settings and contently sit in low-power mode for the duration of the flight. Even if the picocell were not relaying the signals I think it is the only viable method to control the user devices. But this is a few hundred thousand dollars per aircraft to install, ongoing maintenance costs, and additional regulations and contracts. Not to mention media headaches when some tech blog points out that the airline is now bathing the passenger cabin with microwave RF. So it does not surprise me that this is happening slowly, but I am confident that within the next five
I read another article in which Litvinenko suspected the poison was in the tea served to him.
Also, Litvinenko and Putin have a long history:
November 21, 1998New York Times: (from the archives, paid registration required)
Report of Plot to Kill Tycoon Leads Yeltsin to Call Inquiry
By MICHAEL WINES
President Boris N. Yeltsin ordered an inquiry today into spectacular charges leveled earlier this week -- so far without evidence -- that Russia's equivalent of the F.B.I. plotted to kill one of the country's most influential tycoons.
The tycoon is Boris A. Berezovsky, an oil magnate and director of Russia's biggest television network, who was a leading supporter of Mr. Yeltsin during the last presidential campaign in 1996.
Mr. Berezovsky, who is still alive, released a letter last week asserting that the Federal Security Service, a spinoff of the old Soviet K.G.B. that is responsible for domestic law enforcement, plotted last winter to murder him.
On Tuesday the source of Mr. Berezovsky's information, a Security Service colonel named Aleksandr Litvinenko, called a news conference to elaborate on the accusation and warn that a rogue element was running wild within the agency.
...
The list of very prominent people who once opposed Putin and suffered extremely nasty reversals of fortune is growing conspicuously long:
Ironically, an interview of Litvinenko from December 15 2004 included this prophetic quote:
"The view inside our agency was that poison is just a weapon, like a pistol," said Alexander V. Litvinenko, who served in the K.G.B. and its Russian successor, the Federal Security Service, from 1988 to 1999 and now lives in London. "It's not seen that way in the West, but it was just viewed as an ordinary tool."The AcuuVote machines are what they are, not due to poor design or unintentional mistake. They are the result of a deliberate intent to enable fraud on a massive scale. Viewed from this perspective, the AccuVote design is very good. The real problem comes when Diebold realizes that it needs to become better at obfuscation and makes it harder to detect the fraud.
This is just another example of a bad patent application. It doesn't matter that the idea makes absolutely no sense whatsoever, the guy is simply patenting the idea on the remote chance that someone else will eventually create it. Then the patent holder can pop up and demand his ransom. Thomas Edison patented the telephone that communicates with the dead. He will be the guy laughing his head off on the other head if it should ever actually happen.
I actually think this application is quite clever. If someone ever does manage to manufacture such a bullet -- not so far out, I believe modern gatling guns (Vulcan) use electronics, not hammers, to ignite the primers in the shells -- you can bet your bottom dollar Congress will pass a law making it mandatory for all gun manufacturers. It won't matter that it makes absolutely no sense, we are talking about Congress here. Then the patent holder will have the last laugh.
I can only hope that the patent would make it more difficult to pass such a law.
Yes, they seem to be making the common mistake of confusing "open source" with "free (as in unpaid) work."
Actually, it should be something like:
Congress fails to vote on extending PATRIOT Act, allowing some provisions to expire.
From the NYT article:
Mr. Frist also voted "no" in the end, but in a purely parliamentary maneuver to allow him to try to bring up the bill again. Thus, the Patriot Act was actually seven votes short of the 60 needed to end debate today.
Air America is the mirror image of Fox News; don't believe anything either says without checking it out first.
When I installed iTunes (a year ago?) it hooked into the CDROM device driver chain, installing drivers in the system32/drivers directory. This was done to enforce Apple's DRM business rules when writing iTunes files to a writable CD. This caused problems on my computer by conflicting with another company's similar draconian DRM solution, which is why I investigated and found what iTunes was doing. Uninstalling iTunes left the drivers in place and I had to remove them manually.
So yes, it is doing the same thing. At least it was then, it may have changed since but most likely not.
I later talked to the engineer at Apple who was responsible for implementing those drivers, so I have quite a bit of insight into the how and why.
IIRC, Google intends to scan and store the entirety of all books and promise to only display small parts of them. The publishers' objections are that once that data are compiled Google will forever have the publishing industry by the throat with the ability to change, without notice, the definition of small parts.
Having one's entire livelihood held hostage by a stranger who says "Trust me, I mean no evil" is a sword of Damocles that any sane person would want to avoid.
Is Google's plan popular with the general public? Sure, the same way Napster wildly popularized a new distribution mechanism (wholesale theft) of copyrighted music. I'm sure I would use it if it were available. Is it legal and ethical? Smells fishy to me if it is done over the objections of the owners of the material.
Apple's iTunes installs new CDROM drivers in the same way. I believe Apple was doing this before Sony.
This is actually a clever bit of PR on Microsoft's part. Since they have no fear of losing the installed base of WinXP, they can start bashing it to convince people that it is a piece of crap (not a hard task) and clear the way for proclaiming Vista to be the cure to all the problems in WinXP. This is just part of the effort to promote the widespread migration from WinXP to Vista, especially when the new features may not be enough to sell someone on going through the trouble of installing a completely new OS. Microsoft must also convince customers that it is dangerous and bad to stay with WinXP.
I, for one, look forward to when it will be commonplace for men to carry purses in the US. Then I can finally carry my wallet, pda, phone(s), earpiece (aka headphones), keys, coins, credit cards, access badges, national ID card (aka driver's license), etc. without either looking like (a) Batman in civilian clothes but forgot to remove his utility belt, (b) I have huge tumors growing out of my pockets, or (c) a terrorist carrying a rucksack full of electronic equipment and wires.
Until then I unhappily vary between (b) and (c).
It will take a company with a lot of money and a lot of lawyers to finally push the whole broken software patent system over the redline. When it becomes obvious to *EVERYONE* that the software patent system in the US is completely broken, Congress will be forced to finally address the issue. (Perhaps patenting the space " " character will do the trick.)
I can only hope that all software patents are abolished. IMHO, software patents are bad, software copyrights are good.
On the other hand, as long as the software patent process continues in its current form it is only smart defensive business to patent everything under the sun. In this situation the only intelligent strategy is, "If I don't patent it, my competitor will." Microsoft itself has been stung to the tune of hundreds of millions of dollars by stupid patents filed by others. Don't blame corporations for filing stupid patent applications, blame the Patent Office for granting them.