In short, you need a telecom and/or ISP to manage it. I guarantee that a city government won't want to or be able to competently manage the network operations and such over the years.
This has been done, though not in the form you describe.
I'd like to point you to my (late) post on the topic.
...fiber optics... good for data transmission... over long distances
That sums, plus "at high speed", would sum up to prescribed application of fiber in a network.
I think fiber to every household is reaching unnecessarily far and may not be feasible. A more conservative and workable approach might be similar to what the city of Stillwater, OK has done in partnership with Chickasaw Telecommunications (CTSI).
In outline:
1) fiber to every neighborhood 2) copper to each home for voice and data. 3) high speed fiber 'loops' to connect major areas, schools, city entities and businesses and to provide redundancy
Critical to the success of the plan were co-operation between Chickasaw and the city - to the point where city utility workers hung much of the above-ground fiber and the city not attempting to over-regulate Chickasaw's business interests.
The whole thing will take years to complete; it's still in progress in Stillwater, though the major, high speed portions are done, so patience and a long view will help.
One of the nicest (in a revenge sense) things is that the incument baby bell (SBC) dragged their feet from the beginning. This idea didn't fit their business model, so they tried several ways to block anyone else from doing it and became marginalized in the process when the city leaders pushed on to find a willing and capable partner.
Your city may want to contact the City of Stillwater, OK http://stillwater.ok.us for advice on how to procede. Maybe our experience will help your town avoid some of the traps and delays.
What they are doing is slowing the process down so they can create a fix...
WADR, I disagree.
In reality, they're probably running around in circles, not sure what to do. They may wind up doing just as you said, maybe to the point of backing off with the legal threats once they've got a handle on their technical and marketing response to the issue. I think they're scared and lashing out anyway they can.
The cat's outta the bag. Maybe they didn't expect this publicity from their legal actions but I can't believe that... and maybe the adverse publicity doesn't matter.
Dumb move in the long run or not, when they cool down, I bet they'll just stick to their present course. If they can stop wholesale dissemination of their technical flaws, perhaps dealing with the individual, rare case of exploitation (based only on the knowledge that there *are* flaws) can be done under the radar and on the cheap.
Until computers/processors begin to approach the complexity of the human brain, you can forget about...a personality for my handheld! unless you're willing to settle for a souped-up 3D cousin to Clippy(tm).
The level of present 'chatterbots' doesn't even live up to their lowly title.
See www.chatterboxchallenge.com and cry for real AI
Unfortunately, I see rural areas being below the radar of ISP's for a long time to come. Unless it's government mandated (and 'ratepayer' funded in the utility model) there's just not enough money in it.
No, I think the target is precisely metro areas. Just as cellular telephony started in cities, then expanded to the countryside, the rollout cost of blanket wireless networking must be paid by a large initial audience before it will succeed. The backers seem to think that 802.16a is the solution... it's impractical in terms of infrastructure to feed relatively low coverage, low bandwidth areas by copper or fiber (and associated equipment), so enter WiMAX.
Before you try to draw an analogy to cellular telephony and related data services, recall that the bandwidth requirements of modern cell phones is modest compared to what the public (and me) expect from wireless Internet. Hardwiring every 802.11x hotspot back to the net is too expensive. Hardwiring a *few* 802.16x's (yeah, I bet it don't stop there) the net ain't so bad
WiMAX isn't expected to be what you use to hit the 'hotspots' with your notebook. It is expected to feed the hotspots... it *is* the backhaul. Naturally it must have it's own, land-based backhaul, but that's no sweat for guys who'll be rolling this out.
The idea of 'free' zones will largely pass when the people with the money to make wireless internet work finally get the tech and the business model worked out. Yes, I said *business*. Sure, there will be people, organizations and towns who'll foot the bill for small hotspots, but to make it work, to make it ubiquitous such that you *expect* it to work, will be require a commercial model. 802.16a is the first major technological step toward this model's feasibility.
So don't share, sell. See if you can work out a bandwidth reselling agreement from an ISP in your area, get a fat pipe, go to town.
Obviously it's not just that easy, but if you can work up a business plan, get a willing ISP partner, and 802.11x partners around town, you could sign people up for wireless... Which is what 802.16a is for anyway.
You reckon those (possibly overabundant and overfunded) WiFi startups are in on this?
It would be par for the course for a newer technology to lay waste to grand entrepeneurial visions... but since this standard was approved in January, hopefully some of those startups have it 802.16a in their sights.
Ahh, but developers are always going to get bitched at by their users, even if their program works pretty well.
And compensation? Nobody does squat without compensation in some form or another. If not money, then maybe for fun, for public recognition, for personal use that other people use too... any combination of the above.
"...assuming that OSS developers code for his personal benefit"
Seems like a pretty valid assumption to me. If I write an application and make available to the world at large, I have to assume that anyone who uses it is doing so for their personal benefit, therefore I coded it for their personal benefit. And you know what? If they don't like it, they will bitch and/or stop using it.
That's just a problem with the C standard library. Tweak that a bit and the code works for the blind (assuming you could get it to compile as written).
Back on topic: I have to agree with the jist of the editorial. His is a call to head OSS and Linux apps in general in a common direction for the good of the platform's usability... with *focus*. But, he kinda skims over a couple of points that may be very critical here:
a) OSS apps are generally developed by a group of programmers who are less tightly knit than an equivilent group in a commercial evironment. This could lead to a diluted concept of the project's goal.
b) Since OSS developers are generally not being paid for there work there may be (1) less incentive to treat the project seriously, (2) less desire to heed the project leader's desires, (3) the opportunity to have a developer's ego stroked by public recognition as the primary incentive.
You can pontificate all week long about how OSS developers are doing their work for the good of the community or to break certain monopolies or similar goals, but the truth is that that environment may not be able to provide the proper focus and incentive for a large number (not necessarily a majority) of OSS developers to rapidly (or any time soon) converge to a complete and competitive application.
Just my 2 pence.
Re:In all non-decimal systems..
on
Eleventy What?
·
· Score: 1
Gak!
Your assembly teacher is being pedantic on a non-issue. OTOH, it is akin to the big endian/little endian holy wars of past which were never won... the combatants simply tired of the fight.
If it is written out as 11001010001, then natives to non-asian/eastern languages will naturally tend to read it from left to right, starting with "one, one..." As long as the right people know which bit is most significant, it's OK.
Your instructor is distracting you with a rule which is linguistically invalid and therefore technically false. Tell them I said so. I have 14 years experience programming in asm, how about your teacher?
None of the related articles I've read address what I assume is the largest hindrance to this process being economically viable: the laws of thermodynamics.
I've not been able to find scientific data regarding the efficiency of the process... it wouldn't be terribly effective if you had to burn 1 unit of fossil fuels to gain 2 units of 'accelerated fossil' fuels.
As I understand it, many or most deseases are the result of misfunctioning genes, not genes that are superfluous and inherently counter-life.
For example, the symptoms of diseases similar to Alzheimer's are caused by 'prions' which are protiens that are too long and/or with an incorrect structure such that they fold strangely and tend to clump together between the cells in the brain, interfering with neural signalling. Some of these prions are [most likely all?] caused by genes which are the script to manufacture a needed protien but contains unnecessarily long repititions of alleles (repeating amino acid sequences) that result in malformed protiens.
It stands to reason that trimming out portions of these repeating sequences, as apposed to simplying zapping a whole gene, would result in the correct form of the desired protien. Could the techinique described in the article be applied in that manner? Too bad I'm not a subscriber to Nature.
At the risk of losing more karma [of arguable value anyway], I've reposted my message. It was moderated 'overrated'. The original message was not *rated* in any way... twas just a message. However, it is also an informed opinion; if one finds fault in the assertions above, please reply and set the me straight.
..."you can take a machine gun to it"... and cause the top and bottom layers of alumimum conductor to short out the entire array.
I don't buy into the idea that this method is inherently more immune to functional degradation due to physical damage. In fact, I believe the design must include specific measures (read: extra manufacturing cost) to enable either manually or (less likely) automatically bypassing areas of damage that would likely result in a short circuit in order to make it usable in real-world apps.
Imagine using this stuff on a roof and a hailstorm hits. You've seen what golfball sized and larger hailstones can to to a car? Imagine every 3 or 4 square feet of your unprotected "Spheral Solar" sheets having been hit by fast-moving chunks of ice. Do really think it'll survive? They do not address the question of the effects of impact and penetration of their product and I suspect that additional protection (glass/plastic) will be required.
I'm pretty certain (without even checking) that OSS leaders have already spoken at many such. Please remember that "Closed Source" was around as soon as someone could make money selling software to end-users and is the defacto standard. OSS is the new kid on the block, but that doesn't exclude him from software conferences.
Personally, I'd love to be there to witness the heckling, if nothing else.
But if Microsoft pulls off a good presentation on "Shared Source", it should be of interest to all. There are the elements of competition (did I say that in the same sentence as Microsoft?) and commerce in software. Coders must earn a living too and I don't think the OSS [business] model has gelled yet.
Dare I say it, perhaps microsoft could offer some insight on how too make money with open (or "shared") source? I'm certain the topic has been bothering them for some time now, so I'm sure they've some thoughts on it.
"Is it the 550Hz sampling rate?" No. It's the 40KHz sample rate and 550Hz update rate (updating the actuators). I imagine they do some heavy shit math on the 40KHz data between each update of the outputs.
The mil scope has active [vibration only?] cancellation where the civvy model has a unique on-scope mirror which is reshaped to compensate for vibration and atmospheric conditions. BTW, the link you cite says the mirror for the mil job was made by the U of A... I think they've one-upped the air force.
As a person who's spent about 15 years working with closed-loop controls in computer systems, my mind boggles at the thought of the quantity and variety of feedback devices required to pull this off.
Accelerometers and strain transducers for wind forces, ground vibration and thermal effects on structures at the very least (and multitudes of them, all calibrated with respect to their location, etc). What I'm really having trouble with is how they are managing the thermal and atmospheric compensations.
OTOH, this is an acedemic project and the statement "we have the *potential* to get images that are three times sharper than the Hubble" (my emphesis added) from the article doesn't inspire great confidence in what they may *really* have.
Anyway, I'm off to look for answers at this link to the Center for Astronomical Adaptive Optics at the University of Arizona, the folks doing this work.
Has the rapid growth of the Internet of the last few years caused it to reach the status of an immovable object?
IPv6, which includes security, ummm, mechanisms that could be utilized to curtail spoofing, some forms of DDOS and net abuses in general, but rolling it out seems too be gracial.
New RFC's could be authored that extend, modify or replace those upon which our present mail server's are based, but would... could anyone get them pushed through? Or is the Internet infrastructure so massive that any major advances in concept run smack into the issue of interoperability?
My understanding is that, in an organism, removing the RB gene causes the retinoblastoma cells do continue to divide uncontrolled such that they do cause tumors. The term 'immortal' is a stretch that (I think) scientists chose more for hype than accuracy. It's only related to mortality in reference to the normal senescence mechanisms which cause cells to stop replicating after just so many divisions.
I think regulation of the senescence mechanisms, not removal of them, might be the answer to longevity.
As I understand it, many or most deseases are the result of misfunctioning genes, not genes that are superfluous and inherently counter-life.
For example, the symptoms of diseases similar to Alzheimer's are caused by 'prions' which are protiens that are too long and/or with an incorrect structure such that they fold strangely and tend to clump together between the cells in the brain, interfering with neural signalling. Some of these prions are [most likely all?] caused by genes which are the script to manufacture a needed protien but contains unnecessarily long repititions of alleles (repeating amino acid sequences) that result in malformed protiens.
It stands to reason that trimming out portions of these repeating sequences, as apposed to simplying zapping a whole gene, would result in the correct form of the desired protien. Could the techinique described in the article be applied in that manner? Too bad I'm not a subscriber to Nature.
Slashdot Mirror
In short, you need a telecom and/or ISP to manage it. I guarantee that a city government won't want to or be able to competently manage the network operations and such over the years.
This has been done, though not in the form you describe.
I'd like to point you to my (late) post on the topic.
...fiber optics... good for data transmission... over long distances
. stillwater.org/extras/fiber.htm
That sums, plus "at high speed", would sum up to prescribed application of fiber in a network.
I think fiber to every household is reaching unnecessarily far and may not be feasible. A more conservative and workable approach might be similar to what the city of Stillwater, OK has done in partnership with Chickasaw Telecommunications (CTSI).
In outline:
1) fiber to every neighborhood
2) copper to each home for voice and data.
3) high speed fiber 'loops' to connect major areas, schools, city entities and businesses and to provide redundancy
Critical to the success of the plan were co-operation between Chickasaw and the city - to the point where city utility workers hung much of the above-ground fiber and the city not attempting to over-regulate Chickasaw's business interests.
The whole thing will take years to complete; it's still in progress in Stillwater, though the major, high speed portions are done, so patience and a long view will help.
One of the nicest (in a revenge sense) things is that the incument baby bell (SBC) dragged their feet from the beginning. This idea didn't fit their business model, so they tried several ways to block anyone else from doing it and became marginalized in the process when the city leaders pushed on to find a willing and capable partner.
Your city may want to contact the City of Stillwater, OK http://stillwater.ok.us for advice on how to procede. Maybe our experience will help your town avoid some of the traps and delays.
additional links:
http://www.stillwater.brightok.net/
http://www
What they are doing is slowing the process down so they can create a fix...
WADR, I disagree.
In reality, they're probably running around in circles, not sure what to do. They may wind up doing just as you said, maybe to the point of backing off with the legal threats once they've got a handle on their technical and marketing response to the issue. I think they're scared and lashing out anyway they can.
The cat's outta the bag. Maybe they didn't expect this publicity from their legal actions but I can't believe that... and maybe the adverse publicity doesn't matter.
Dumb move in the long run or not, when they cool down, I bet they'll just stick to their present course. If they can stop wholesale dissemination of their technical flaws, perhaps dealing with the individual, rare case of exploitation (based only on the knowledge that there *are* flaws) can be done under the radar and on the cheap.
WRT to the grub client...
Sorry, nevermind, wrong grub. I'll shut up now.
speaking of adverts...
Imagine when the pr0n peddlers start spamming your TV via your videophone. Don't laugh, if everybody's got one of these, it'll happen.
OT PS: improve ROBOTS.TXT handling in the grub client, please.
Until computers/processors begin to approach the complexity of the human brain, you can forget about ...a personality for my handheld! unless you're willing to settle for a souped-up 3D cousin to Clippy(tm).
The level of present 'chatterbots' doesn't even live up to their lowly title.
See www.chatterboxchallenge.com and cry for real AI
Unfortunately, I see rural areas being below the radar of ISP's for a long time to come. Unless it's government mandated (and 'ratepayer' funded in the utility model) there's just not enough money in it.
No, I think the target is precisely metro areas. Just as cellular telephony started in cities, then expanded to the countryside, the rollout cost of blanket wireless networking must be paid by a large initial audience before it will succeed. The backers seem to think that 802.16a is the solution... it's impractical in terms of infrastructure to feed relatively low coverage, low bandwidth areas by copper or fiber (and associated equipment), so enter WiMAX.
Before you try to draw an analogy to cellular telephony and related data services, recall that the bandwidth requirements of modern cell phones is modest compared to what the public (and me) expect from wireless Internet. Hardwiring every 802.11x hotspot back to the net is too expensive. Hardwiring a *few* 802.16x's (yeah, I bet it don't stop there) the net ain't so bad
To clarify,
And every one of them has got to have backhaul
WiMAX isn't expected to be what you use to hit the 'hotspots' with your notebook. It is expected to feed the hotspots... it *is* the backhaul. Naturally it must have it's own, land-based backhaul, but that's no sweat for guys who'll be rolling this out.
The idea of 'free' zones will largely pass when the people with the money to make wireless internet work finally get the tech and the business model worked out. Yes, I said *business*. Sure, there will be people, organizations and towns who'll foot the bill for small hotspots, but to make it work, to make it ubiquitous such that you *expect* it to work, will be require a commercial model. 802.16a is the first major technological step toward this model's feasibility.
Go to wimaxforum for technical info.
So don't share, sell. See if you can work out a bandwidth reselling agreement from an ISP in your area, get a fat pipe, go to town.
Obviously it's not just that easy, but if you can work up a business plan, get a willing ISP partner, and 802.11x partners around town, you could sign people up for wireless... Which is what 802.16a is for anyway.
You reckon those (possibly overabundant and overfunded) WiFi startups are in on this?
It would be par for the course for a newer technology to lay waste to grand entrepeneurial visions... but since this standard was approved in January, hopefully some of those startups have it 802.16a in their sights.
Ahh, but developers are always going to get bitched at by their users, even if their program works pretty well.
And compensation? Nobody does squat without compensation in some form or another. If not money, then maybe for fun, for public recognition, for personal use that other people use too... any combination of the above.
"...assuming that OSS developers code for his personal benefit"
Seems like a pretty valid assumption to me. If I write an application and make available to the world at large, I have to assume that anyone who uses it is doing so for their personal benefit, therefore I coded it for their personal benefit. And you know what? If they don't like it, they will bitch and/or stop using it.
That's just a problem with the C standard library. Tweak that a bit and the code works for the blind (assuming you could get it to compile as written).
Back on topic: I have to agree with the jist of the editorial. His is a call to head OSS and Linux apps in general in a common direction for the good of the platform's usability... with *focus*. But, he kinda skims over a couple of points that may be very critical here:
a) OSS apps are generally developed by a group of programmers who are less tightly knit than an equivilent group in a commercial evironment. This could lead to a diluted concept of the project's goal.
b) Since OSS developers are generally not being paid for there work there may be (1) less incentive to treat the project seriously, (2) less desire to heed the project leader's desires, (3) the opportunity to have a developer's ego stroked by public recognition as the primary incentive.
You can pontificate all week long about how OSS developers are doing their work for the good of the community or to break certain monopolies or similar goals, but the truth is that that environment may not be able to provide the proper focus and incentive for a large number (not necessarily a majority) of OSS developers to rapidly (or any time soon) converge to a complete and competitive application.
Just my 2 pence.
Gak!
Your assembly teacher is being pedantic on a non-issue. OTOH, it is akin to the big endian/little endian holy wars of past which were never won... the combatants simply tired of the fight.
If it is written out as 11001010001, then natives to non-asian/eastern languages will naturally tend to read it from left to right, starting with "one, one..." As long as the right people know which bit is most significant, it's OK.
Your instructor is distracting you with a rule which is linguistically invalid and therefore technically false. Tell them I said so. I have 14 years experience programming in asm, how about your teacher?
None of the related articles I've read address what I assume is the largest hindrance to this process being economically viable: the laws of thermodynamics.
I've not been able to find scientific data regarding the efficiency of the process... it wouldn't be terribly effective if you had to burn 1 unit of fossil fuels to gain 2 units of 'accelerated fossil' fuels.
As I understand it, many or most deseases are the result of misfunctioning genes, not genes that are superfluous and inherently counter-life.
For example, the symptoms of diseases similar to Alzheimer's are caused by 'prions' which are protiens that are too long and/or with an incorrect structure such that they fold strangely and tend to clump together between the cells in the brain, interfering with neural signalling. Some of these prions are [most likely all?] caused by genes which are the script to manufacture a needed protien but contains unnecessarily long repititions of alleles (repeating amino acid sequences) that result in malformed protiens.
It stands to reason that trimming out portions of these repeating sequences, as apposed to simplying zapping a whole gene, would result in the correct form of the desired protien. Could the techinique described in the article be applied in that manner? Too bad I'm not a subscriber to Nature.
At the risk of losing more karma [of arguable value anyway], I've reposted my message. It was moderated 'overrated'. The original message was not *rated* in any way... twas just a message. However, it is also an informed opinion; if one finds fault in the assertions above, please reply and set the me straight.
..."you can take a machine gun to it"... and cause the top and bottom layers of alumimum conductor to short out the entire array.
I don't buy into the idea that this method is inherently more immune to functional degradation due to physical damage. In fact, I believe the design must include specific measures (read: extra manufacturing cost) to enable either manually or (less likely) automatically bypassing areas of damage that would likely result in a short circuit in order to make it usable in real-world apps.
Imagine using this stuff on a roof and a hailstorm hits. You've seen what golfball sized and larger hailstones can to to a car? Imagine every 3 or 4 square feet of your unprotected "Spheral Solar" sheets having been hit by fast-moving chunks of ice. Do really think it'll survive? They do not address the question of the effects of impact and penetration of their product and I suspect that additional protection (glass/plastic) will be required.
Sure... just about every conference on software that doesn't have "Open Source" in its title. That's almost all of them.
Try this google search
I'm pretty certain (without even checking) that OSS leaders have already spoken at many such. Please remember that "Closed Source" was around as soon as someone could make money selling software to end-users and is the defacto standard. OSS is the new kid on the block, but that doesn't exclude him from software conferences.
Personally, I'd love to be there to witness the heckling, if nothing else.
But if Microsoft pulls off a good presentation on "Shared Source", it should be of interest to all. There are the elements of competition (did I say that in the same sentence as Microsoft?) and commerce in software. Coders must earn a living too and I don't think the OSS [business] model has gelled yet.
Dare I say it, perhaps microsoft could offer some insight on how too make money with open (or "shared") source? I'm certain the topic has been bothering them for some time now, so I'm sure they've some thoughts on it.
"Is it the 550Hz sampling rate?" No. It's the 40KHz sample rate and 550Hz update rate (updating the actuators). I imagine they do some heavy shit math on the 40KHz data between each update of the outputs.
The mil scope has active [vibration only?] cancellation where the civvy model has a unique on-scope mirror which is reshaped to compensate for vibration and atmospheric conditions. BTW, the link you cite says the mirror for the mil job was made by the U of A... I think they've one-upped the air force.
Yahoo is suing NCR, saying that Yahoo! is not violating NCR patents.
Wow!
As a person who's spent about 15 years working with closed-loop controls in computer systems, my mind boggles at the thought of the quantity and variety of feedback devices required to pull this off.
Accelerometers and strain transducers for wind forces, ground vibration and thermal effects on structures at the very least (and multitudes of them, all calibrated with respect to their location, etc). What I'm really having trouble with is how they are managing the thermal and atmospheric compensations.
OTOH, this is an acedemic project and the statement "we have the *potential* to get images that are three times sharper than the Hubble" (my emphesis added) from the article doesn't inspire great confidence in what they may *really* have.
Anyway, I'm off to look for answers at this link to the Center for Astronomical Adaptive Optics at the University of Arizona, the folks doing this work.
Has the rapid growth of the Internet of the last few years caused it to reach the status of an immovable object?
IPv6, which includes security, ummm, mechanisms that could be utilized to curtail spoofing, some forms of DDOS and net abuses in general, but rolling it out seems too be gracial.
New RFC's could be authored that extend, modify or replace those upon which our present mail server's are based, but would... could anyone get them pushed through? Or is the Internet infrastructure so massive that any major advances in concept run smack into the issue of interoperability?
My understanding is that, in an organism, removing the RB gene causes the retinoblastoma cells do continue to divide uncontrolled such that they do cause tumors. The term 'immortal' is a stretch that (I think) scientists chose more for hype than accuracy. It's only related to mortality in reference to the normal senescence mechanisms which cause cells to stop replicating after just so many divisions.
I think regulation of the senescence mechanisms, not removal of them, might be the answer to longevity.
As I understand it, many or most deseases are the result of misfunctioning genes, not genes that are superfluous and inherently counter-life.
For example, the symptoms of diseases similar to Alzheimer's are caused by 'prions' which are protiens that are too long and/or with an incorrect structure such that they fold strangely and tend to clump together between the cells in the brain, interfering with neural signalling. Some of these prions are [most likely all?] caused by genes which are the script to manufacture a needed protien but contains unnecessarily long repititions of alleles (repeating amino acid sequences) that result in malformed protiens.
It stands to reason that trimming out portions of these repeating sequences, as apposed to simplying zapping a whole gene, would result in the correct form of the desired protien. Could the techinique described in the article be applied in that manner? Too bad I'm not a subscriber to Nature.