Little unknown detail: this not a phone even if it's a Nokia product. You can always use a Bluetooth mobile to keep the 3G/GPRS/GSM connection going. You can also keep waiting for a mobile that does everything you can do with the N800. It's your choice.
Even if currently unsupported, there seems to be a USB Host-able chip in the N800. You can read about it here. I can't find the original page right now, but Google is your friend.
Are you suggesting that 3G is not in an exclusive band?
I was, wrongly. Read 5Mhz, misunderstood 5Ghz.
Is it different from IPv6 over Avian Carriers...
Apples, oranges. Both 3G and 802.11a/b/g are wireless technologies (even if on different bands). Please make the effort to explain again the difference between the IP service available on WiFi and the IP service available on 3G. Is it on the physical level coding? Perhaps you want to factor in Bluetooth while you're at it.
Does that tower at 2 miles provide you with 3G already? At speeds near 384Kbps (3G maximum for mobile systems)?
On roaming experience, YMMV, of course. But I know it can work, since I'm taking advantage of it daily. You talk about handovers at the administrative limits, but forget that those handovers have been sorted time and time again (see standard cellular handovers between different commercial providers). Why shouldn't they now? And consider, also, that such handovers are less important when you get a city council to wire(?) a whole city. About range, please read again what I said about the 3G band range.
You'll take working service instead of spotty one. Good. But don't assume that, because current WiFi access is spotty, it will always be so. If I can get good WiFi access here in Spain for free, so can you in the US.
3G coverage, seamless? Methinks not, out of big cities at least. And yes, the 5GHz band allows for unlicenced use, so it's not exclusive (I'm starting to wonder if you really read my post): I can't fathom how 802.11a would be allowed otherwise.
I admit the current state of 2.4GHz WiFi leaves much to be desired, but in the US you already have 8002.11a, which works in the same band as 3G does, is already implemented and has less interference problems. And I still can't see how, suffering the same technical limitations, you can still say they are different products. Is IPv6 over 3G different from IPv6 over 802.11a WiFi? I just don't see it.
The range is ridiculous or requires big antennas,...
Range? Do you really think there's no cell tower at less than 100m from you? In San Francisco? Let me doubt it. Never mind these pesky new protocols (WiMax, for example, even if it's a braindead specification) who allow you to connect from kilometres away. On the antenna subject, a bigger antenna doesn't equal better reception.
...there is no handover mechanism that keeps connections...
...which must explain why I can keep my connections at the Faculty I work at while I walk about checking computers. Yeah, it must be a bitch having no handover there. Not to mention that IPv6 supports roaming, too.
...the total alotted bandwidth is a joke...
...compared to the humongous bandwidth (2Mbps for stationary systems, wow!) you get with 3G (well, you may get 3Mbps or a bit better with 3.5G).
... and in a band which is used by many other applications, including TV transmitters which use the whole available band.
Transmitters that, as we all know, cover every WiFi signal in... ten meters around, since they are usually inside houses?
It's a completely different product.
Which explains why 3G works on top of IPv6. Yeah, it must be a completely different product: it provides the same service, uses the same technology. The only difference is the frequency range: 3G works on the 5GHz band (which requires almost line of sight to work, so there goes your complaint about range).
Next time, please document yourself beforehand. It doesn't matter your being moderated Insightful when your post if actually off base.
...this guy had access to inside information, given by Sony, in exchange...
Please go read TFA before shooting your mouth. As I read it, Kotaku never worked on exclusive inside Sony information but on rumour (and called it a rumour up front) and published comments by Sony execs. It was Sony who asked them not to publish when asked about the matter, and I find no mention to Sony's giving any inside information.
If Kotaku isn't lying, some Sony execs decided to throw a tantrum about public information when they couldn't stop someone from drawing conclusions and publishing them. Whether Sony acted wrong I'll leave to Slashdoters to decide individually.
I think I made a mistake while adding up. I apologize to those I misled.
Well, the article states it produced approximately 90 percent more energy than it consumed. Strictly read, this means that 1.9 units are produced per consumed energy unit, since totals are mentioned.
As such, the energy efficiency would be 100*(1-1/2.9)%=65,51%. I don't know the usual efficiency of this kind of generator, but 65% seems to be far too much (since combustion is used in the process).
It seems a lot of people misunderstood. Saying it reaches an efficiency a bit over 47% would have been easier to understand. Now, that efficiency is quite good. For each 1.9 units of energy that the fuel provide, 1 is consumed and 0.9 comes out as electricity: this means the generator eats up 100/1.9% of the available energy, almost 53%, and the rest becomes electricity. Of course, the fuel used to start the generator should be factored in, but it is only required again if the generator runs out of waste to process, so it could be ignored in the long run.
As you state, there have been global temperature changes before. But never at this rate. It is statistically reasonable to think that this is not just a coincidence. It might even be that global temperature was changing on its own to begin with, but the high rate probably means we are speeding it up.
About doing "enough harm", I would be worried after seeing what be managed with just a few years of CFCs. Unfortunately, the "more research is needed" line would be good... if there wasn't so much research already done that points to us being the most probable cause of this high-speed heating.
I would have said "You must be new here", but you already wrote this was your first post. Welcome to Slashdot. May your contributions be productive.
There's an old saying: "You can't fool an honest person"
That saying is beautiful, simple... and wrong. Everybody can be fooled. Prosecuting people being scammed is akin to prosecuting assault victims for "walking on the wrong side of town", senseless.
Leaving the car door unlocked, again, is a flawed analogy. And so is the consequence you mention: there's a difference between not receiving insurance money and actually being prosecuted because you forgot to lock your car (it's so unusual, I can't fathom why carmakes have started to make it automatic).
OTOH if you pay someone who uses spammers' services but in that process spammer has no stakes, you are in clear. So, if your actual purchase indicates a spammer anyhow, you should be held responsible.
So, if I actually spam you and act as a middle-man, your purchase is legit? I somehow can't see the logic in that.
That is why it is recomended that police set up their own "agent provocateur"...
Great: in order to protect the law, they break it. Now that makes so much sense.
No, I'm not basically correcting you to anything. I'm saying your solution is wrong, and that you should try and find a better one. Please don't get so riled up about it: I know what the problem is firsthand, I'm the one over 300 people in a faculty go to when their mailboxes start to fill. Although that won't let me jump blindly at the first solution presented.
Why all of us must suffer mail servers' congestion because some bozo...
Why must any of us suffer being prosecuted because somebody else bought a car in our name?
From the beginning this has been a technical problem, and it must be sorted out by technical means. See how much good the current IP legislation has done to curtail copyrighted material downloads.
But if you persist on supporting and awarding network-clogging practices, prepare to be persecuted in magistrate court.
So if an invoice shows up with my name on it while cleaning up a spam operation, I'm automatically in trouble? If that were so, any buyer of stolen goods would automatically be an accomplice. Fortunately that is not so.
Of course, ignorance of the law is no excuse for infringing it. But notice I have said ignorance, not stupidity. And there still is a difference between manslaughter and murder, fortunately. You wouldn't want to be sentenced to death because you killed someone without trying to (knowing you did is, for most people, quite a punishment in itself).
Perhaps you should be prosecuted if you ever are scammed, even if you didn't know you were being scammed. Let's lay the blame on the victim, while we are at it, shall we? I think you don't really want to make this extreme point, but that's where you get in the end when you talk about "legislation against stupidity". It's a slippery slope.
Furthermore, those who buy goods offered thru spam should be persecuted.
Ok, so let's make being stupid illegal. Your post was, IMO, right on track up to this. It is not illegal to buy through mail, and it shouldn't be. If anything, it might be illegal to buy certain products, but then it is illegal because buying those products is illegal, not because you buy them through mail orders.
Your analogy on hunting prostitutes' clients is, IMO, flawed: that is a service, not a product, unless you know of any prostitute that can be wrapped in gift paper and taken home to keep stored;-)
Unsolicited direct marketing should be illegal, but... why should it be illegal that I want, say, my bank to inform me of new investment opportunities ASAP? Then again, most direct marketers would say their marketing was asked for. If so, then they should have some proof of it. If they don't, let the law fall heavily on them.
I dislike unwanted publicity (whatever the means) as much as anybody else, but I won't stand for having my ability to decide who can sell things to me restricted in the draconian way you propose, sorry.
Actually, there's up to four frequencies eye cones can be tuned to: the fourth one is tuned to orange (see here), and appears in about 32% of the population. If you add up the rods being tuned to yet another frequency (between blue and green), five frequencies would probably be needed to present colours that cover efficiently the eye range.
There's several different kinds of hemophilia. Besides the genetic caused ones (usually platelets will be scarce, nonfunctional or both), lack of certain elements in food intake (see vitamin K) will affect bleeding.
Well, unless my Google search fails me (no, I'm not a native English speaker, and I didn't know what platelets are), platelets are cells. As such, calling them "protein gel" is quite a stretch, since there happens to be more than proteins inside them. Besides, the idea is to stop bleeding quickly, and platelets aren't that fast.
Actually, the non-profit part of it is quite important in several European countries. (Spanish example) Instead of the "fair-use" clause used in the USA, there's a right to private copy that allows people to duplicate intellectual works subject to author rights (that means copyright and a few more things) unless it damages the author _and_ is done for profit. As long as it is done with no money gain intended, it is (last time I read) legal to do so.
Slashdot Mirror
Little unknown detail: this not a phone even if it's a Nokia product. You can always use a Bluetooth mobile to keep the 3G/GPRS/GSM connection going. You can also keep waiting for a mobile that does everything you can do with the N800. It's your choice.
Even if currently unsupported, there seems to be a USB Host-able chip in the N800. You can read about it here. I can't find the original page right now, but Google is your friend.
The intuition that we live in an Euclidean _universe_ held until Einstein. The world being round was already known, and the for it, too ;-)
Most VCRs aren't deadly weapons (beware of some TV programs, though:-). Assholes and agendas come in all kind of colours, as you have just proved.
I was, wrongly. Read 5Mhz, misunderstood 5Ghz.
Is it different from IPv6 over Avian Carriers...
Apples, oranges. Both 3G and 802.11a/b/g are wireless technologies (even if on different bands). Please make the effort to explain again the difference between the IP service available on WiFi and the IP service available on 3G. Is it on the physical level coding? Perhaps you want to factor in Bluetooth while you're at it.
On roaming experience, YMMV, of course. But I know it can work, since I'm taking advantage of it daily. You talk about handovers at the administrative limits, but forget that those handovers have been sorted time and time again (see standard cellular handovers between different commercial providers). Why shouldn't they now? And consider, also, that such handovers are less important when you get a city council to wire(?) a whole city. About range, please read again what I said about the 3G band range.
You'll take working service instead of spotty one. Good. But don't assume that, because current WiFi access is spotty, it will always be so. If I can get good WiFi access here in Spain for free, so can you in the US.
3G coverage, seamless? Methinks not, out of big cities at least. And yes, the 5GHz band allows for unlicenced use, so it's not exclusive (I'm starting to wonder if you really read my post): I can't fathom how 802.11a would be allowed otherwise.
I admit the current state of 2.4GHz WiFi leaves much to be desired, but in the US you already have 8002.11a, which works in the same band as 3G does, is already implemented and has less interference problems. And I still can't see how, suffering the same technical limitations, you can still say they are different products. Is IPv6 over 3G different from IPv6 over 802.11a WiFi? I just don't see it.
The range is ridiculous or requires big antennas,...
Range? Do you really think there's no cell tower at less than 100m from you? In San Francisco? Let me doubt it. Never mind these pesky new protocols (WiMax, for example, even if it's a braindead specification) who allow you to connect from kilometres away. On the antenna subject, a bigger antenna doesn't equal better reception.
Transmitters that, as we all know, cover every WiFi signal in... ten meters around, since they are usually inside houses?
It's a completely different product.
Which explains why 3G works on top of IPv6. Yeah, it must be a completely different product: it provides the same service, uses the same technology. The only difference is the frequency range: 3G works on the 5GHz band (which requires almost line of sight to work, so there goes your complaint about range).
Next time, please document yourself beforehand. It doesn't matter your being moderated Insightful when your post if actually off base.
Please go read TFA before shooting your mouth. As I read it, Kotaku never worked on exclusive inside Sony information but on rumour (and called it a rumour up front) and published comments by Sony execs. It was Sony who asked them not to publish when asked about the matter, and I find no mention to Sony's giving any inside information.
If Kotaku isn't lying, some Sony execs decided to throw a tantrum about public information when they couldn't stop someone from drawing conclusions and publishing them. Whether Sony acted wrong I'll leave to Slashdoters to decide individually.
Well, the article states it produced approximately 90 percent more energy than it consumed. Strictly read, this means that 1.9 units are produced per consumed energy unit, since totals are mentioned.
As such, the energy efficiency would be 100*(1-1/2.9)%=65,51%. I don't know the usual efficiency of this kind of generator, but 65% seems to be far too much (since combustion is used in the process).
Note: I probably am redundant already.
If this is correct, then I was mistaken.
About doing "enough harm", I would be worried after seeing what be managed with just a few years of CFCs. Unfortunately, the "more research is needed" line would be good... if there wasn't so much research already done that points to us being the most probable cause of this high-speed heating.
I would have said "You must be new here", but you already wrote this was your first post. Welcome to Slashdot. May your contributions be productive.
...and it will do so much to stop people downloading it from somewhere else.
That saying is beautiful, simple... and wrong. Everybody can be fooled. Prosecuting people being scammed is akin to prosecuting assault victims for "walking on the wrong side of town", senseless.
Leaving the car door unlocked, again, is a flawed analogy. And so is the consequence you mention: there's a difference between not receiving insurance money and actually being prosecuted because you forgot to lock your car (it's so unusual, I can't fathom why carmakes have started to make it automatic).
So, if I actually spam you and act as a middle-man, your purchase is legit? I somehow can't see the logic in that.
That is why it is recomended that police set up their own "agent provocateur"...
Great: in order to protect the law, they break it. Now that makes so much sense.
Why all of us must suffer mail servers' congestion because some bozo...
Why must any of us suffer being prosecuted because somebody else bought a car in our name?
From the beginning this has been a technical problem, and it must be sorted out by technical means. See how much good the current IP legislation has done to curtail copyrighted material downloads.
But if you persist on supporting and awarding network-clogging practices, prepare to be persecuted in magistrate court.
So if an invoice shows up with my name on it while cleaning up a spam operation, I'm automatically in trouble? If that were so, any buyer of stolen goods would automatically be an accomplice. Fortunately that is not so.
Perhaps you should be prosecuted if you ever are scammed, even if you didn't know you were being scammed. Let's lay the blame on the victim, while we are at it, shall we? I think you don't really want to make this extreme point, but that's where you get in the end when you talk about "legislation against stupidity". It's a slippery slope.
Ok, so let's make being stupid illegal. Your post was, IMO, right on track up to this. It is not illegal to buy through mail, and it shouldn't be. If anything, it might be illegal to buy certain products, but then it is illegal because buying those products is illegal, not because you buy them through mail orders.
Your analogy on hunting prostitutes' clients is, IMO, flawed: that is a service, not a product, unless you know of any prostitute that can be wrapped in gift paper and taken home to keep stored ;-)
Unsolicited direct marketing should be illegal, but... why should it be illegal that I want, say, my bank to inform me of new investment opportunities ASAP? Then again, most direct marketers would say their marketing was asked for. If so, then they should have some proof of it. If they don't, let the law fall heavily on them.
I dislike unwanted publicity (whatever the means) as much as anybody else, but I won't stand for having my ability to decide who can sell things to me restricted in the draconian way you propose, sorry.
Actually, there's up to four frequencies eye cones can be tuned to: the fourth one is tuned to orange (see here), and appears in about 32% of the population. If you add up the rods being tuned to yet another frequency (between blue and green), five frequencies would probably be needed to present colours that cover efficiently the eye range.
There's several different kinds of hemophilia. Besides the genetic caused ones (usually platelets will be scarce, nonfunctional or both), lack of certain elements in food intake (see vitamin K) will affect bleeding.
Btw, the doctor's last name (Azar) means "randomness"
Well, unless my Google search fails me (no, I'm not a native English speaker, and I didn't know what platelets are), platelets are cells. As such, calling them "protein gel" is quite a stretch, since there happens to be more than proteins inside them. Besides, the idea is to stop bleeding quickly, and platelets aren't that fast.
No. I state that MS is clean-cut (as in clear, easily perceptible), just not the way they intend us to believe.
I disagree. MS has a clean-cut attitude, IMO: they must win, competition, ethics and law notwithstanding ;-)
Actually, the non-profit part of it is quite important in several European countries. (Spanish example) Instead of the "fair-use" clause used in the USA, there's a right to private copy that allows people to duplicate intellectual works subject to author rights (that means copyright and a few more things) unless it damages the author _and_ is done for profit. As long as it is done with no money gain intended, it is (last time I read) legal to do so.