Odd that you go so crazy in trying to create a situation where it is morally justified to swerve you had to presume that the person swerving is such an immoral asshole that if he hits a pedestrian who dove in front of his vehicle, he'll just drive off.
Actually, the person who DID NOT swerve is the immoral asshole who chose to run over an innocent child instead of swerve into an empty oncoming lane of traffic, and the one who did NOT swerve is the one who DID have the accident and must stop. He's the only one I talked about having to stop to maintain perfect adherence to the almighty traffic rules. That you didn't realize who I was talking about tells me you didn't read, or didn't comprehend, the hypothetical situation.
The moral, decent guy who chose to break a minor traffic law to save a life doesn't need to stop because there was no accident. The "hit and run" laws don't include "miss and run".
If you had time to swerve, you had time to stop.
From
this table, I see that the total stopping distance for a car going 30MPH is 109 feet. That's ten car lengths. There are many streets in my town that have onstreet parking with a 30MPH speed limit. Even with 0 reaction time, the physical distance is still 43 feet. That's four car lengths, about. If you cannot make a full change of lanes in less than ten car lengths, you don't know how to drive.
Even at 20 MPH, the stopping distance is 63 feet. Ditto changing lanes in six car lengths. But you don't have to make a full lane change, all you need to do is avoid hitting a four year old child.
So, sometimes you may be able to stop before you hit the child. Sometimes you won't be able to, and a sane, rational, ethical human being will chose a path that will save the child rather than simply run it over because someone told them the only proper thing to do was "keep going straight ahead."
There are not rows of parked cars on the freeway.
There aren't. But there are often culverts, ditches, or grassy areas close. And those animals which decide to cross sometimes think if they go fast enough they'll make it -- faster than you can stop. I've had such animals dart into my path from less than 10 feet away, much less that 109 feet I'd need to stop for them going at just 30 MPH. The table says that even with zero reaction time involved, I could go no faster than 15 MPH and I'd still hit that animal. If you think driving on I5 or I90 or any other highway at 15MPH is the right thing to do so you will never have to avoid hitting an animal by anything less than coming to a full stop, you're dangerous.
Streets that have lane-side parking have speed limits such that if you have time to turn the wheel to swerve, you'd have time to stop too.
Nope. Maybe on your planet, but not on planet Earth. "Time to turn the wheel" is milliseconds" and is for the most part "reaction time". "Time to stop" includes "reaction time" plus the physical stopping action, which can be a lot longer.
And if children are just popping randomly out from behind parked cars, and you can't see that kids are playing by the road as you approach, how the hell are you going to know if a bicycle just pulled out into the other lane and you didn't notice yet?
I see kids playing by the road all the time. Do you really stop for each and every group of them, just in case? No, you don't. Neither do I. And I'm not counting them continuously, so if one of them goes in between the parked cars I may not notice that specific detail, until they pop out into traffic.
That empty oncoming lane, if there is a bike rider in it, will be obvious. He will most likely be on the other side of the lane to begin with, and I don't need the whole lane to swerve around a child just appearing from between the cars.
So your idea of safe driving is to take the known, sure
You do realise that with every post like this you're broadcasting to the world what a terrible driver you are, right?
Why yes, because deer, possum, and skunks, and four year old children, only decide to run into the roadway in front of terrible drivers, and they all know not to do so in front of such good drivers as yourself.
Don't be stupid. I drive in the real world where the unpredictable is unpredictable, and where a change of course is sometimes the best solution to a potentially lethal situation. I drive in a world where we value the life of the four year old who doesn't know not to run out into traffic from hidden locations over the arbitrary traffic rules of yellow lines painted on a road, and where only a heartless moron would maintain a straight-ahead course knowing he's going to run over someone's baby when there is an empty lane he could move into with no effort at all.
I don't know where you drive that it is "good driving" to go only 10 MPH on a major highway because you might need to stop for a sudden obstacle, but please don't do it on any highway on planet Earth. You'll be the hazard in that case, not the solution.
If you have an Android tablet, get the Nook app. I don't think they can hide the files then.
Bzzzzt. Wrong. Thanks for playing the DRM game brought to you by Barnes & Noble, fine booksellers.
Sorry, that's just how really pathetic B&N are at customer relations. The latest Nook app for Android does not keep the content as files anywhere the normal user can find them. It keeps them IN THE APP. Yes, truly, when I updated to the latest app, the app grew to 150MB in size and the files for each book or magazine that were in someplace I could get them were gone. Vanished.
Not only that, but IIRC I picked up FOUR services running all the time, to replace the previous one service.
I don't recall the specifics because I immediately removed that version of the app and searched my backups for a copy of the previous version. That one does have content files, but they have meaningless names so you cannot look for any book by its name. If you're trying to get your most recent content into Calibre so you can use it somewhere else, you have to look by creation date on the file.
And, of course, they changed the DRM system to try to keep people from getting to their stuff anyway, but shouts to the people writing the import filters for Calibre.
Besides the downside of meaningless names for content files, the "previous" app has the amazing ability to keep turning on the "Show Notifications" flag for itself. I go into Settings/Applications and keep turning it off, and every time B&N wants me to know about a special deal it gets turned back on so I get the icon in the notification area.
If you think you're going to have a bunch of kids coming out of highschool who are the programming workforce of the future...
I think it is pretty clear from his comments about having to have his kids turn on the TV for him even after him having the basics, that he's not trying to create a high-school graduate programming workforce. It's obvious that he is smarter than that and knows, like we do, that it won't happen.
It seems like he's trying to create a baseline understanding of what a computer is and the things they do, by forcing everyone to know how to program something on one. That's not a bad idea, but it isn't "programming" and it isn't "computer science". It's a "life skill" issue, and many others here have already promoted that idea. Compound interest and "check into cash" knowledge, don't give out passwords, and other stuff that high school graduates ought to know but don't. One poster talked about doing it in a mandatory Algebra class, but "compound interest" is a topic that is significantly more important to most people than algebra will ever be, and math class is the wrong place to hide it.
It's a losing battle. There are too many "check into cash" companies and their advertisements, along with almost every other TV ad that shows people how much better their lives will be if they buy this product "for only six easy payments of...", or even better "buy now and we'll drop the first payment". Or the more insidious "no payments until 2016". Or car companies with "only $239/month" to lease a beautiful car, with the $2000 up-front payment and the fact that they don't get to keep the car after paying all that money for it hidden in the small print.
The people telling us this don't give a shit about your kids. They give a shit about driving down wages for their own profits.
Any businessman hiring one of these high-school wonder programmers (excluding those who really are wonder-programmers and would have learned it on their own anyway) is cutting his own throat, and they're smart than that. This isn't a conspiracy to drive down programmer wages.
What it will create is a new group of people who THINK they are wonder-programmers who will go into other parts of life thinking they know how to program. I run across these people, many of them who are scientists in other fields who decide to program their own stuff. I should say I've run across their CODE, which is awful. It wastes my time looking for bugs in trivial routines. For example, an input routine that doesn't handle a comment line properly because it is lacking the colon field delimiter and it tries to copy the input string from position -1 to 0 into the output variable. The author used a "friendly" fortran that spent a lot of time checking every parameter for every function. We are using the code for high-performance model runs on a highly parallel system, and that's when every piece of stupid code is uncovered. The one thing to learn from this is to NEVER assume that a bit of trivial code written by an esteemed professor was written correctly. THESE are the kinds of programmers Rahm will be producing.
It's now up to him to somehow solve the problem for all the self driving cars- and of course, they aren't in the market for the new vehicle, and they are established as fuck, so the new better vehicle simply never is allowed on the roads.
Software updates for autonomous vehicles will be possible from day one of them being released to the general public. It will be a simple matter for manufacturers to release upgrades that recognize the new kind of vehicle and make decisions that are right 100% of the time about those new vehicles.
Unfortunately, the update process will be through a wireless system using either the cellular data network or an adaptive mesh of short-range vehicle wireless data systems, or a combination of both.
And there will be no possibility of finding any means of hacking this global data system, just like it is impossible to control any functions of certain vehicles today using wireless data connections. The system will be perfectly safe, making perfect decisions perfectly always.
If you absolutely are going to be in an accident, and there is no way to avoid it; continue following the traffic rules. They were designed by traffic engineers with this in mind. Stay in your lane, and stop. Easy.
A child has jumped into the street without warning from between parked cars. I could move over into the empty lane beside me, but there is a double yellow no-passing stripe. I must follow the traffic rules and hit the child instead of breaking the law that says I cannot cross the double yellow.
Of course I must then stop, otherwise I will be committing the felony of hit-and-run, and I must obey all traffic rules -- even if the death of a child is the result. I can't say "an innocent child" because the child is the cause of its own demise and is not innocent as the result. I am, however, innocent, because Aighearach said so.
So you seriously think there could never be a situation where the world didn't behave as planned and it would have to make a choice between "Evil A" and "Evil B"?
Be calm, citizen. The autonomous vehicle will make all such choices for us, and the autonomous vehicle will get the answer right 100% of the time. You never again need to worry about what was right or prudent or safe, the decision will be made for you. People who think about this all day, every day, for a year will design and accurately code the correct responses to all such possibilities, and you cannot possibly know a better answer as a non-engineer.
Please enjoy your trip in comfort and forget about the outside world for the duration.
I was going to add that if you ever pondered or debated whether "Evil A" or "Evil B" was the better choice, you could simply set up Evil A, Evil B, and an autonomous vehicle and let it make the decision. Whichever it chooses is obviously right, 100% of the time.
They're confused into thinking this way because their driving practices are so dangerous, they actually plan ahead to swerve around an obstacle instead of stopping before hitting it.
Defensive driving requires thinking ahead of time what one would do when presented with a surprise on the road, such as a child popping out from between parked cars. You cannot say "I plan on stopping before hitting a child that does that" because you cannot plan on it happening far enough ahead of you that you could stop. The best drivers will ALWAYS think ahead far enough that they know "should I be unable to stop from hitting a child in the street, there is an open space I can use to avoid it."
It's called "giving yourself an out", and sometimes it does, indeed, mean you'd swerve into an empty lane to go around a sudden obstacle.
The dangerous ones are those who make statements like "autonomous vehicles will get it right 100% of the time."
a self-driving car that will follow the DMV mandate and stay in the same lane and stop before hitting anything.
Come drive in the real world and you might learn that DMV cannot mandate that you stop before hitting something that appears in your path without notice. DMV might be all powerful on your planet, but on Earth they are still limited by the laws of physics. In the real world, you will find that obstacles sometimes pop out of the underbrush on the side of the road and run straight into your path much faster than you can even see them, much less come to a complete stop to avoid them. I've had deer, possum, and even a skunk that decided that they want to cross the road RIGHT NOW and didn't care that there was something with big bright lights coming at them. For all except the deer, fortunately, I didn't have time to even really see what it was before it disappeared under the front of my car. The deer was fast enough to get across before being hit.
If you want to argue that simply hitting such an obstacle is the right answer, well, consider that small children can also decide they need to cross the road RIGHT NOW and often don't care that something big is already using that part of the road, or is about to. And they may not hide in the weeds along the road, they'll hide in between parked cars or behind other things.
Now, you might try to argue that traveling at 10MPH on a major US highway is the safest way to prevent that, but I think most people would disagree. Again, I pray that you have nothing to do with programming autonomous vehicles because you would have them all going at 10MPH on every road just in case they needed to stop suddenly.
The part you're getting wrong is that it is never appropriate to swerve.
Tell that to the mother of the child you've just run over because they stepped out from between parked cars and you didn't swerve over into the other lane, you just slammed on the brakes and ran them down.
Tell the mother of the child you just ran over that you didn't attempt to swerve because you might have dented the fender of the car in the next lane over.
If you had time to check that it is safe to do so, you'd have time to stop.
I'm sorry, but that's patently absurd. As a defensive driver, I see and keep track of vehicles coming my way in the other lane. I can't see a four year old child running into the street from between parked cars until they do it. It takes zero time to judge that it is safer for that child if I enter the oncoming empty traffic lane than if I attempt to continue straight ahead.
Now, I won't ALWAYS have time to determine that it is safer to change direction. I might be in a multi-lane highway where someone is approaching from the next lane over. There might be a curve I can't see around. But you said NEVER, so all I need to do to disprove your statement is show that it is possible.
If somebody steps into the crosswalk when you don't have time to stop, your duty is to brake as quickly as possible to reduce the speed before impact.
You're saying it is my DUTY to run them over instead of take evasive action? Wow. I hope you have nothing at all to do with programming these new wonderful autonomous vehicles.
If CEO of a corporation decides to donate corporate money (not his or her own, but the shareholder's money) to a political candidate, they are effectively speaking on behalf of all the employees and shareholders of the company.
In CU, the "CEO" was using "corporate money", which was provided to him by the shareholders explicitly for that use. If they hadn't wanted it used that way, they wouldn't have used it to form the company. In the case of trade unions, most, if not all states, have laws that say that union members who do not want their money used for political purposes can withhold that part of their dues used for political purposes. This ignores the huge social pressure put upon anyone who does so, and ignores the difficulty in accurately assigning union expenditures to political or non-political purposes. This should be a reason for those who oppose "corporate speech" to rail against unions that do this all the time, but few people who were leaping on the anti-corporate speech bandwagon dared oppose unions who do the same thing.
That makes a huge assumption that all the shareholders and employees agree with the CEO.
That's why there are already laws against such things. Those laws do not remove the rights of the individuals involved in corporations.
The car wants to make a left turn across traffic at a four-way intersection. So it advances into the intersection,
The car has just broken the traffic law. It has entered an intersection prior to having an ability to complete the action and leave the intersection. In some places this is made explicit (large cities, e.g.) by painting a box in the intersection and actually ticketing people who cause "gridlock".
Your autonomous vehicle will sit patiently at the stop line until traffic clears enough to be able to complete the left turn, even if that means it never completes the left turn. A human driver would do as you say because it is more efficient and carries little risk to anyone.
Sensors notice a semi coming up behind you, and not stopping. In front of you is an old person crossing the road. To your right is a kid on a bicycle. To your left is a stead stream of through traffic. Where do you go?
This dilemma is valid in any case. The only course of action for the autonomous car is to do nothing. A human might trust that a pedestrian will also notice the problem and jump out of the way, but an autonomous vehicle cannot predict such behavior. You're toast.
As a matter of fact, the computer will know about the problem long (hundreds of milliseconds) before you see it and will already be reacting.
Knowing about a problem hundreds of milliseconds before a human does doesn't mean the computer will have a better solution than the human would. At some point, there will be the problem of a person stepping into a crosswalk inappropriately at the same time a bike rider blows through a stop sign and becomes an obstacle. When the solution is "slam on the brakes" because there are other people where the car would choose to swerve, and there is no physical way of stopping before hitting one of the new obstacles, the car will have to choose, and the car will kill someone.
At that point, there will be one of two results (besides someone getting run over, which won't be avoidable). First, the human in charge will probably try to do something about the problem, even if the outcome is clear. Foot on brake, grab whatever wheel there might be, etc. The driver has interfered with the car's operation and is therefore accepting full liability for the result, and the car maker is off the hook.
Or second, the driver will hear an odd sounding "bong" noise, a small red icon on the dash will light up, and the car will have cancelled "autopilot" mode. (That's what happens when autopilots in aircraft turn themselves off. In an airplane it's called an annunciator and will probably be displaying "autopilot disengaged", but you have to know where to look for it.) At that point, the car is no longer driving, so the car company is off the hook again.
The idea that you could react faster or make a better critical decision than the computer is sort of funny actually.
The idea that computers can be programmed to include every possibility that a human might be able to imagine to solve a problem, and have the physical ability to carry any necessary preventative action to completion prior to an unfortunate result, would be sort of funny, were it not the baseline assumption of so many people pushing this technology. Perhaps it's just because I've read Risks Digest for so many years and deal with these perfect computers on a daily basis that I don't assume the robot overlords will be better for us?
What sort of response will the human make to machine organized traffic.
A more important question is how autonomous vehicles will respond to human drivers, and also how will they respond to a mass of other autonomous vehicles?
Emergent behaviour in simple automated systems is a wonderful field of study, and often results in postings in Risks Digest. It isn't always so easy to predict what a mass of simply programmed things will do, which is why it is called "emergent" behaviour and not "easily predictable".
Or a more peaceful driving experience,
Autonomous vehicles will be perfect machines, obeying traffic laws and having instantaneous reaction times. That means they will obey every law, even ones that are ridiculous and human drivers have learned to skirt to improve the efficiency of the system. For example, in a college town, traffic will come to a complete stop at class change time as pedestrians fill the crosswalks. Autonomous vehicles will obey the law that says they must stop when a pedestrian is "in the crosswalk"; most human drivers will take advantage of the gaps when one pedestrian has just left the crosswalk and the next one is on the other side of the road but not in danger.
I do predict that bike riders will be taught that THEY better obey the law, because autonomous vehicles will expect them, as vehicles, to do so, and if bike blows through a stop sign he's going to get his by the autonomous vehicle who is obeying the law and has the right of way. That, I say, is a good thing.
They will also behave in ways that take advantage of their reaction time, so that what humans would consider tailgating because their own reaction times would not allow it to be done safely autonomous vehicles will have no reason to avoid.
Corporations are people, except when it comes to criminal liability.
Right. Because you cannot put a corporation in jail, but corporate executives can and have been put in jail for corporate misdeeds. It is pretty easy to Google a list of high ranking CEO/etc corporate people who have gone to prison, or would have if they hadn't died before being convicted. Can we put to rest the canard that criminal liability is avoided by corporate "persons"?
"Corporations" have the right to free speech because the corporations are made up of people who do not abandon that right by forming a corporation. That's Citizen's United in a nutshell.
Car companies have a very poor track record when it comes to liability. They tend to fight responsibility for years.
That's absolutely true. Every company fights against liability suits. Just like most people who are sued fight back.
I see this as just another publicity stunt/spin tactic, and the result will be the answer "the driver is at fault for not taking control at the appropriate time", just as "pilot error" is the usual cause of aircraft accidents.
So that is why I always get the worst seat on the plane.
I have accessed your frequent flyer account and downloaded all your information. If you want to keep from being seated in stowage class, send one bitcoin within the next 48 hours to the following bitcoin address:
0292jqoij091j1f0[nu q0wu 1ru02ud091wudjwjqw
If you do not respond within 48 hours, the price goes up to two bitcoins. If you pay me, you will never hear from me again, I promise, double pinky swear.
By the way, here's a handy website where you can buy bitcoins at an inflated rate...
Maybe it is easier to automatically read large numbers of boarding passes if they have bar codes, rather than just text..
Well, D'oh! Why do you think they have the qcode (not barcode) readers at TSA security checkpoints and at the gates? So that the people can just slap the pass up against the glass and the computer reads the info, and nobody has to take the time to read the pass. It also allows online boarding passes where you show the face of your smart phone to the reader instead of having a piece of paper.
I have no idea what the presumed issue is here. If you don't want someone to use a q-code reader on your boarding pass -- DON'T SHOW IT TO THEM. Problem solved.
Otherwise it is just like swiping your credit card through a mag stripe reader.
Now, if the kerfluffle was because someone invented an RFID-like system that could read the data from your boarding pass while it was in your pocket without you knowing it, that would be something to worry about.
If you're at an airport and you try to use your phone as a mobile hotspot, the Boingo or iPass Wi-Fi routers in the airport will cause interference with your personal hotspot.
For God's sake, stop. Existing WiFi services don't deliberately interfere with each other by using a different protocol that doesn't LBT or uses a shorter transmit gap. Everyone's equal, but apparently Qualcomm wants us to believe that they are more equal than others and it's just peachy keen ok if Qualcomm uses a protocol that doesn't follow the same fairness rules that everyone else does in a license-free public frequency band.
If Boingo started putting up WiFi access points that grabbed as much bandwidth as they wanted without concern for other users, they'd get strong pushback, just like the hotel chains that tried to block WiFi other than the paid hotel version.
Are Boingo and iPass supposed to take down their Wi-Fi access points too?
We aren't talking about Qualcomm putting up WiFi access points, so your question is deliberately dishonest.
Any intentional RF radiator sold in the United States has to pass through FCC certification before it can be sold/bought/deployed.
I know that, and that's why I said the FCC should put its foot down to stop this.
LTE-U small cells will be certified under Part 15 rules.
And in other places you tell us that LTE-U is a combination of a licensed channel with an unlicensed one. How can it be Part 15 if it is using cellular licensed channels that are covered by Part 22? The story keeps changing.
And a Wi-Fi ISP like Boingo that blankets an airport with Wi-Fi access point is only trying to improve the UX for their own customers and not anyone else. So what's your point?
That Qualcomm -- YOU -- are creating a system that is deliberately incompatible with the existing WiFi users so that WiFi users are impacted to give your cell customers that wonderful "UX". That Qualcomm -- YOU -- make equipment that cell companies can install that use the private licensed frequencies for data, and now you want to jump into the unlicensed ones and act in a way that will degrade every other user's communications. I've already said that.
I'm almost at a loss for words here. The article is wrong.
Then you should have said that from the beginning, instead of give technobabble nonsense about how it is impossible for LTE-U to interfere with any existing WiFi and how Qualcomm doesn't have to care because the bands are so large.
Daneel Olivaw was a genius, Hari Seldon was a pawn, and you didn't finish the series. I was, frankly, really disappointed in that plot trick. That the most powerful robots could design more and more powerful positronic brains, and not be able to design an off-line data storage system so he wouldn't run out of memory, is ridiculous. He could form an entire planet of inanimate objects into a collective consciousness and modify humans to be part of that, but the concept of a USB memory stick to shove old, useless memories onto (or just FORGET them) was beyond his capabilities. But having him as the protagonist is just sad.
Then you want to pay a cellular provider for data to those devices, or just don't care about having data to them. Fine. That's how you want your life. I don't care.
Now ask me why you don't have 100 Gbps streaming in your house?
My house is irrelevant, but I'll answer anyway. I don't need 100Gbps "streaming" for anything I'll ever do. I also don't have a problem running a network wire to my TV, so we're not talking about my house to begin with.
I DO, however, have a problem running a CAT5e network cable to either of my cellphones, only one of which is on a cell service data plan, or to ANY of my tablet computers, none of which are on a cell service data plan. And yet it I find it convenient to have data available for all of them. WiFi is the only option for some of them; the preferred option for all.
So, that leaves us with the point I already made: RF data links are a two-way service and involve at least two devices. Only one of them is a wireless router sitting in a place where you can put a box with tinfoil insides and Hello Kitty stickers on the outside over the top of. The other is a small device where trying to paste tinfoil over the outside to limit interference is a stupid idea that it technologically ridiculous. And yet, to get rid of the interference from an outside source, you'd need to do that.
Huh? LTE-U will have to abide by the same Part 15 rules exactly. Did anyone claim anything different?
If it is to have any range at all and be useful in any way, it will have to use more power than Part 15 allows. Otherwise it will just be yet another short-range WiFi service, which we already have. Why should it replace WiFi? If it isn't supposed to replace it, then don't put it in the same frequencies.
Why would the user find his phone unusable?
You're right. The phone will tell the cell that it is having trouble and that will prompt a fix for the cell. It will be the WiFi and bluetooth users who are stuck. Or gosh, the cell will have some magic that figures out that the existing wireless users in the vicinity are having trouble with the LTE-U signal being there and it will tell the LTE-U cell to stop transmitting. Sure. Right.
The brilliant aspect of LTE-U is that it lets the network managed the user experience
Which is the highlight of the CELLULAR service and applies to the CELLULAR network. The cellular network has always managed itself, from the very early days of analog phones that would manage power levels. WiFi networks will be out of luck. Not only because they now must share a limited resource with a commercial cellular service that has lots of its own licensed bandwidth, but because the LTE-U service is designed to take first dibs on that spectrum and to ignore any existing users by not LBT. The goal is to improve the "UX", but only for cell users. The WiFi network will not benefit from the beautiful LTE-U network management.
Oh, but in other places you tell us how it will only be localized WiFi and other unlicensed users who are out of luck because these will be small cells. Just installed in congested areas where there is already a lot of WiFi to deal with network connections. Instead of simply using that WiFi, however, Qualcomm wants us to buy LTE services from a cellular company and pay for what we could have installed and used on our own. And they will DELIBERATELY interfere with the existing WiFi services in the process. (That's what using an incompatible "fairness" protocol is -- deliberate.)
Not going to use 2.4GHz.
From TFA:
The catch, of course, is that LTE-U's frequencies are already being used by every Wi-Fi access point in America,
And my access points are all 2.4GHz. I've found the 5GHz points to be few and far between. So much so that most of my devices don't have that built in. The statement can only mean it will use both 2.4G and 5G frequencies. Or should we ignore the obvious meaning of "every" and use instead the Qualcomm UX managed-experience definition?
I think I've stated this repeatedly in other replies
"Other replies" that were made after I made my comments, and were made by a paid Qualcomm employee who is actively trying to spin-control the discussion.
I could not care less why you would have WiFi on your TV.
Other people, however, make use of WiFi to connect their TV into the household network. It's easier and neater than running a wire. My TV, for example, can get weather and stock info off the net, as well as play streaming video and music. And it's the same reason that some PCs come with WiFi adapters built in -- to avoid having to run a wire.
The original discussion wasn't about a WiFi adapter on your TV, however, it was about someone you were telling to use tinfoil and a cardboard box and maybe pipe cleaners to filter out the interference from outside radio signals on his router, which completely ignores the part that the clients play in talking to a wireless router and that interference to the router will be interference for them, too.
Now ask me why you would want your cellphone, tablet, or PC to use WiFi.
It's saying that the fantasy team's membership can't be based on the membership of a current team.
Yes, I even quoted where it says that.
If you cannot pick Drew Brees as your fantasy quarterback unless he's a member of an existing NFL team, then your team roster is based on the membership of current NFL teams. It doesn't say you are exempt unless you are betting on a team as a whole.
The idea is to prevent people essentially from betting on the Red Sox to beat the Yankees by having a "fantasy" league where one team's members are the current Red Sox, and another's are the current Yankees, and so on.
As someone who is smart enough to avoid wasting money on this, I'll assume that your legal honest ethical fantasy sports betting -- I mean non-betting -- sites prohibit in some way picking a fantasy team composed of members of the same real-life team. Somehow I doubt that is true. Given that team rosters can change during a season, do any of them keep an eye out for fantasy teams that are "everyone except Joe Smith is from the Atlanta Goobers" and then Joe Smith is traded to the Atlanta Goobers?
But, the fact remains, if you cannot pick people except based on their current team membership, then they are not exempt under the part we both quoted.
It's a dumb law, but it's the law.
Well, maybe it's only dumb because it doesn't go far enough and contains enough wiggle-room to allegedly allow what should be illegal.
(ix) participation in any fantasy or simulation sports game or educational game or contest in which (if the game or contest involves a team or teams) no fantasy or simulation sports team is based on the current membership of an actual team that is a member of an amateur or professional sports organization (as those terms are defined in section 3701 of title 28) and that meets the following conditions
How is picking your NFL fantasy team members from the rosters of existing NFL teams not basing your team on the membership of an actual team? If Brees is on a team and the only reason you can pick him is because of that, then you've based your team on the membership of existing teams.
What this exclusion would apply to is a fantasy league where you can pick past players, like Johnny Unitas or Brett Hull (for NHL).
"Because they don't check for other users that are using the bandwidth first, [LTE-U transmitters] can have the effect of slowing or degrading other unlicensed traffic that's out there," Berenbroick told Network World. "We would like to see LTE-U observe Listen-Before-Talk."
"There is no requirement to share fairly in time, to avoid interrupting Wi-Fi transmissions mid-stream, or to adapt to different levels of Wi-Fi usage and traffic,"
The power limits are the same as for anyone else.
If I put my WiFi router at the top of a 100' cell tower, I would be amazed if I could connect to it even were I standing at the base of the tower. It wouldn't get off the cell site.
Since the goal is to put lte-u in e.g. indoor corporate environments, public venues etc where wifi is already required and much more important, every precaution is taken to not interfere with wifi.
You mean in places where WiFi can already be installed and provide service to the smart devices that would otherwise use the commercially provided LTE-U? It's a technology without a purpose, then. If there's already WiFi, then the smart devices can use that. How many LTE-capable devices exist that cannot also do WiFi, and if they have to be built to do LTE-U then why not just add standard WiFi and use existing, well-behaved technologies?
Is it because WiFi technology and use is in the hands of the public and can be used for free, while LTE-U will be a pay service of the cellular companies and they want to profit off of the unlicensed spectrum they'll be usurping? So you want to keep me from buying a refurbished Verizon tablet and then not paying Verizon for data service by using WiFi instead. Right.
Slashdot Mirror
Odd that you go so crazy in trying to create a situation where it is morally justified to swerve you had to presume that the person swerving is such an immoral asshole that if he hits a pedestrian who dove in front of his vehicle, he'll just drive off.
Actually, the person who DID NOT swerve is the immoral asshole who chose to run over an innocent child instead of swerve into an empty oncoming lane of traffic, and the one who did NOT swerve is the one who DID have the accident and must stop. He's the only one I talked about having to stop to maintain perfect adherence to the almighty traffic rules. That you didn't realize who I was talking about tells me you didn't read, or didn't comprehend, the hypothetical situation.
The moral, decent guy who chose to break a minor traffic law to save a life doesn't need to stop because there was no accident. The "hit and run" laws don't include "miss and run".
If you had time to swerve, you had time to stop.
From this table, I see that the total stopping distance for a car going 30MPH is 109 feet. That's ten car lengths. There are many streets in my town that have onstreet parking with a 30MPH speed limit. Even with 0 reaction time, the physical distance is still 43 feet. That's four car lengths, about. If you cannot make a full change of lanes in less than ten car lengths, you don't know how to drive.
Even at 20 MPH, the stopping distance is 63 feet. Ditto changing lanes in six car lengths. But you don't have to make a full lane change, all you need to do is avoid hitting a four year old child.
So, sometimes you may be able to stop before you hit the child. Sometimes you won't be able to, and a sane, rational, ethical human being will chose a path that will save the child rather than simply run it over because someone told them the only proper thing to do was "keep going straight ahead."
There are not rows of parked cars on the freeway.
There aren't. But there are often culverts, ditches, or grassy areas close. And those animals which decide to cross sometimes think if they go fast enough they'll make it -- faster than you can stop. I've had such animals dart into my path from less than 10 feet away, much less that 109 feet I'd need to stop for them going at just 30 MPH. The table says that even with zero reaction time involved, I could go no faster than 15 MPH and I'd still hit that animal. If you think driving on I5 or I90 or any other highway at 15MPH is the right thing to do so you will never have to avoid hitting an animal by anything less than coming to a full stop, you're dangerous.
Streets that have lane-side parking have speed limits such that if you have time to turn the wheel to swerve, you'd have time to stop too.
Nope. Maybe on your planet, but not on planet Earth. "Time to turn the wheel" is milliseconds" and is for the most part "reaction time". "Time to stop" includes "reaction time" plus the physical stopping action, which can be a lot longer.
And if children are just popping randomly out from behind parked cars, and you can't see that kids are playing by the road as you approach, how the hell are you going to know if a bicycle just pulled out into the other lane and you didn't notice yet?
I see kids playing by the road all the time. Do you really stop for each and every group of them, just in case? No, you don't. Neither do I. And I'm not counting them continuously, so if one of them goes in between the parked cars I may not notice that specific detail, until they pop out into traffic.
That empty oncoming lane, if there is a bike rider in it, will be obvious. He will most likely be on the other side of the lane to begin with, and I don't need the whole lane to swerve around a child just appearing from between the cars.
So your idea of safe driving is to take the known, sure
You do realise that with every post like this you're broadcasting to the world what a terrible driver you are, right?
Why yes, because deer, possum, and skunks, and four year old children, only decide to run into the roadway in front of terrible drivers, and they all know not to do so in front of such good drivers as yourself.
Don't be stupid. I drive in the real world where the unpredictable is unpredictable, and where a change of course is sometimes the best solution to a potentially lethal situation. I drive in a world where we value the life of the four year old who doesn't know not to run out into traffic from hidden locations over the arbitrary traffic rules of yellow lines painted on a road, and where only a heartless moron would maintain a straight-ahead course knowing he's going to run over someone's baby when there is an empty lane he could move into with no effort at all.
I don't know where you drive that it is "good driving" to go only 10 MPH on a major highway because you might need to stop for a sudden obstacle, but please don't do it on any highway on planet Earth. You'll be the hazard in that case, not the solution.
If you have an Android tablet, get the Nook app. I don't think they can hide the files then.
Bzzzzt. Wrong. Thanks for playing the DRM game brought to you by Barnes & Noble, fine booksellers.
Sorry, that's just how really pathetic B&N are at customer relations. The latest Nook app for Android does not keep the content as files anywhere the normal user can find them. It keeps them IN THE APP. Yes, truly, when I updated to the latest app, the app grew to 150MB in size and the files for each book or magazine that were in someplace I could get them were gone. Vanished.
Not only that, but IIRC I picked up FOUR services running all the time, to replace the previous one service.
I don't recall the specifics because I immediately removed that version of the app and searched my backups for a copy of the previous version. That one does have content files, but they have meaningless names so you cannot look for any book by its name. If you're trying to get your most recent content into Calibre so you can use it somewhere else, you have to look by creation date on the file.
And, of course, they changed the DRM system to try to keep people from getting to their stuff anyway, but shouts to the people writing the import filters for Calibre.
Besides the downside of meaningless names for content files, the "previous" app has the amazing ability to keep turning on the "Show Notifications" flag for itself. I go into Settings/Applications and keep turning it off, and every time B&N wants me to know about a special deal it gets turned back on so I get the icon in the notification area.
If you think you're going to have a bunch of kids coming out of highschool who are the programming workforce of the future ...
I think it is pretty clear from his comments about having to have his kids turn on the TV for him even after him having the basics, that he's not trying to create a high-school graduate programming workforce. It's obvious that he is smarter than that and knows, like we do, that it won't happen.
It seems like he's trying to create a baseline understanding of what a computer is and the things they do, by forcing everyone to know how to program something on one. That's not a bad idea, but it isn't "programming" and it isn't "computer science". It's a "life skill" issue, and many others here have already promoted that idea. Compound interest and "check into cash" knowledge, don't give out passwords, and other stuff that high school graduates ought to know but don't. One poster talked about doing it in a mandatory Algebra class, but "compound interest" is a topic that is significantly more important to most people than algebra will ever be, and math class is the wrong place to hide it.
It's a losing battle. There are too many "check into cash" companies and their advertisements, along with almost every other TV ad that shows people how much better their lives will be if they buy this product "for only six easy payments of...", or even better "buy now and we'll drop the first payment". Or the more insidious "no payments until 2016". Or car companies with "only $239/month" to lease a beautiful car, with the $2000 up-front payment and the fact that they don't get to keep the car after paying all that money for it hidden in the small print.
The people telling us this don't give a shit about your kids. They give a shit about driving down wages for their own profits.
Any businessman hiring one of these high-school wonder programmers (excluding those who really are wonder-programmers and would have learned it on their own anyway) is cutting his own throat, and they're smart than that. This isn't a conspiracy to drive down programmer wages.
What it will create is a new group of people who THINK they are wonder-programmers who will go into other parts of life thinking they know how to program. I run across these people, many of them who are scientists in other fields who decide to program their own stuff. I should say I've run across their CODE, which is awful. It wastes my time looking for bugs in trivial routines. For example, an input routine that doesn't handle a comment line properly because it is lacking the colon field delimiter and it tries to copy the input string from position -1 to 0 into the output variable. The author used a "friendly" fortran that spent a lot of time checking every parameter for every function. We are using the code for high-performance model runs on a highly parallel system, and that's when every piece of stupid code is uncovered. The one thing to learn from this is to NEVER assume that a bit of trivial code written by an esteemed professor was written correctly. THESE are the kinds of programmers Rahm will be producing.
It's now up to him to somehow solve the problem for all the self driving cars- and of course, they aren't in the market for the new vehicle, and they are established as fuck, so the new better vehicle simply never is allowed on the roads.
Software updates for autonomous vehicles will be possible from day one of them being released to the general public. It will be a simple matter for manufacturers to release upgrades that recognize the new kind of vehicle and make decisions that are right 100% of the time about those new vehicles.
Unfortunately, the update process will be through a wireless system using either the cellular data network or an adaptive mesh of short-range vehicle wireless data systems, or a combination of both.
And there will be no possibility of finding any means of hacking this global data system, just like it is impossible to control any functions of certain vehicles today using wireless data connections. The system will be perfectly safe, making perfect decisions perfectly always.
If you absolutely are going to be in an accident, and there is no way to avoid it; continue following the traffic rules. They were designed by traffic engineers with this in mind. Stay in your lane, and stop. Easy.
A child has jumped into the street without warning from between parked cars. I could move over into the empty lane beside me, but there is a double yellow no-passing stripe. I must follow the traffic rules and hit the child instead of breaking the law that says I cannot cross the double yellow.
Of course I must then stop, otherwise I will be committing the felony of hit-and-run, and I must obey all traffic rules -- even if the death of a child is the result. I can't say "an innocent child" because the child is the cause of its own demise and is not innocent as the result. I am, however, innocent, because Aighearach said so.
So you seriously think there could never be a situation where the world didn't behave as planned and it would have to make a choice between "Evil A" and "Evil B"?
Be calm, citizen. The autonomous vehicle will make all such choices for us, and the autonomous vehicle will get the answer right 100% of the time. You never again need to worry about what was right or prudent or safe, the decision will be made for you. People who think about this all day, every day, for a year will design and accurately code the correct responses to all such possibilities, and you cannot possibly know a better answer as a non-engineer.
Please enjoy your trip in comfort and forget about the outside world for the duration.
I was going to add that if you ever pondered or debated whether "Evil A" or "Evil B" was the better choice, you could simply set up Evil A, Evil B, and an autonomous vehicle and let it make the decision. Whichever it chooses is obviously right, 100% of the time.
They're confused into thinking this way because their driving practices are so dangerous, they actually plan ahead to swerve around an obstacle instead of stopping before hitting it.
Defensive driving requires thinking ahead of time what one would do when presented with a surprise on the road, such as a child popping out from between parked cars. You cannot say "I plan on stopping before hitting a child that does that" because you cannot plan on it happening far enough ahead of you that you could stop. The best drivers will ALWAYS think ahead far enough that they know "should I be unable to stop from hitting a child in the street, there is an open space I can use to avoid it."
It's called "giving yourself an out", and sometimes it does, indeed, mean you'd swerve into an empty lane to go around a sudden obstacle.
The dangerous ones are those who make statements like "autonomous vehicles will get it right 100% of the time."
a self-driving car that will follow the DMV mandate and stay in the same lane and stop before hitting anything.
Come drive in the real world and you might learn that DMV cannot mandate that you stop before hitting something that appears in your path without notice. DMV might be all powerful on your planet, but on Earth they are still limited by the laws of physics. In the real world, you will find that obstacles sometimes pop out of the underbrush on the side of the road and run straight into your path much faster than you can even see them, much less come to a complete stop to avoid them. I've had deer, possum, and even a skunk that decided that they want to cross the road RIGHT NOW and didn't care that there was something with big bright lights coming at them. For all except the deer, fortunately, I didn't have time to even really see what it was before it disappeared under the front of my car. The deer was fast enough to get across before being hit.
If you want to argue that simply hitting such an obstacle is the right answer, well, consider that small children can also decide they need to cross the road RIGHT NOW and often don't care that something big is already using that part of the road, or is about to. And they may not hide in the weeds along the road, they'll hide in between parked cars or behind other things.
Now, you might try to argue that traveling at 10MPH on a major US highway is the safest way to prevent that, but I think most people would disagree. Again, I pray that you have nothing to do with programming autonomous vehicles because you would have them all going at 10MPH on every road just in case they needed to stop suddenly.
The part you're getting wrong is that it is never appropriate to swerve.
Tell that to the mother of the child you've just run over because they stepped out from between parked cars and you didn't swerve over into the other lane, you just slammed on the brakes and ran them down.
Tell the mother of the child you just ran over that you didn't attempt to swerve because you might have dented the fender of the car in the next lane over.
If you had time to check that it is safe to do so, you'd have time to stop.
I'm sorry, but that's patently absurd. As a defensive driver, I see and keep track of vehicles coming my way in the other lane. I can't see a four year old child running into the street from between parked cars until they do it. It takes zero time to judge that it is safer for that child if I enter the oncoming empty traffic lane than if I attempt to continue straight ahead.
Now, I won't ALWAYS have time to determine that it is safer to change direction. I might be in a multi-lane highway where someone is approaching from the next lane over. There might be a curve I can't see around. But you said NEVER, so all I need to do to disprove your statement is show that it is possible.
If somebody steps into the crosswalk when you don't have time to stop, your duty is to brake as quickly as possible to reduce the speed before impact.
You're saying it is my DUTY to run them over instead of take evasive action? Wow. I hope you have nothing at all to do with programming these new wonderful autonomous vehicles.
If CEO of a corporation decides to donate corporate money (not his or her own, but the shareholder's money) to a political candidate, they are effectively speaking on behalf of all the employees and shareholders of the company.
In CU, the "CEO" was using "corporate money", which was provided to him by the shareholders explicitly for that use. If they hadn't wanted it used that way, they wouldn't have used it to form the company. In the case of trade unions, most, if not all states, have laws that say that union members who do not want their money used for political purposes can withhold that part of their dues used for political purposes. This ignores the huge social pressure put upon anyone who does so, and ignores the difficulty in accurately assigning union expenditures to political or non-political purposes. This should be a reason for those who oppose "corporate speech" to rail against unions that do this all the time, but few people who were leaping on the anti-corporate speech bandwagon dared oppose unions who do the same thing.
That makes a huge assumption that all the shareholders and employees agree with the CEO.
That's why there are already laws against such things. Those laws do not remove the rights of the individuals involved in corporations.
The car wants to make a left turn across traffic at a four-way intersection. So it advances into the intersection,
The car has just broken the traffic law. It has entered an intersection prior to having an ability to complete the action and leave the intersection. In some places this is made explicit (large cities, e.g.) by painting a box in the intersection and actually ticketing people who cause "gridlock".
Your autonomous vehicle will sit patiently at the stop line until traffic clears enough to be able to complete the left turn, even if that means it never completes the left turn. A human driver would do as you say because it is more efficient and carries little risk to anyone.
Sensors notice a semi coming up behind you, and not stopping. In front of you is an old person crossing the road. To your right is a kid on a bicycle. To your left is a stead stream of through traffic. Where do you go?
This dilemma is valid in any case. The only course of action for the autonomous car is to do nothing. A human might trust that a pedestrian will also notice the problem and jump out of the way, but an autonomous vehicle cannot predict such behavior. You're toast.
As a matter of fact, the computer will know about the problem long (hundreds of milliseconds) before you see it and will already be reacting.
Knowing about a problem hundreds of milliseconds before a human does doesn't mean the computer will have a better solution than the human would. At some point, there will be the problem of a person stepping into a crosswalk inappropriately at the same time a bike rider blows through a stop sign and becomes an obstacle. When the solution is "slam on the brakes" because there are other people where the car would choose to swerve, and there is no physical way of stopping before hitting one of the new obstacles, the car will have to choose, and the car will kill someone.
At that point, there will be one of two results (besides someone getting run over, which won't be avoidable). First, the human in charge will probably try to do something about the problem, even if the outcome is clear. Foot on brake, grab whatever wheel there might be, etc. The driver has interfered with the car's operation and is therefore accepting full liability for the result, and the car maker is off the hook.
Or second, the driver will hear an odd sounding "bong" noise, a small red icon on the dash will light up, and the car will have cancelled "autopilot" mode. (That's what happens when autopilots in aircraft turn themselves off. In an airplane it's called an annunciator and will probably be displaying "autopilot disengaged", but you have to know where to look for it.) At that point, the car is no longer driving, so the car company is off the hook again.
The idea that you could react faster or make a better critical decision than the computer is sort of funny actually.
The idea that computers can be programmed to include every possibility that a human might be able to imagine to solve a problem, and have the physical ability to carry any necessary preventative action to completion prior to an unfortunate result, would be sort of funny, were it not the baseline assumption of so many people pushing this technology. Perhaps it's just because I've read Risks Digest for so many years and deal with these perfect computers on a daily basis that I don't assume the robot overlords will be better for us?
What sort of response will the human make to machine organized traffic.
A more important question is how autonomous vehicles will respond to human drivers, and also how will they respond to a mass of other autonomous vehicles?
Emergent behaviour in simple automated systems is a wonderful field of study, and often results in postings in Risks Digest. It isn't always so easy to predict what a mass of simply programmed things will do, which is why it is called "emergent" behaviour and not "easily predictable".
Or a more peaceful driving experience,
Autonomous vehicles will be perfect machines, obeying traffic laws and having instantaneous reaction times. That means they will obey every law, even ones that are ridiculous and human drivers have learned to skirt to improve the efficiency of the system. For example, in a college town, traffic will come to a complete stop at class change time as pedestrians fill the crosswalks. Autonomous vehicles will obey the law that says they must stop when a pedestrian is "in the crosswalk"; most human drivers will take advantage of the gaps when one pedestrian has just left the crosswalk and the next one is on the other side of the road but not in danger.
I do predict that bike riders will be taught that THEY better obey the law, because autonomous vehicles will expect them, as vehicles, to do so, and if bike blows through a stop sign he's going to get his by the autonomous vehicle who is obeying the law and has the right of way. That, I say, is a good thing.
They will also behave in ways that take advantage of their reaction time, so that what humans would consider tailgating because their own reaction times would not allow it to be done safely autonomous vehicles will have no reason to avoid.
Corporations are people, except when it comes to criminal liability.
Right. Because you cannot put a corporation in jail, but corporate executives can and have been put in jail for corporate misdeeds. It is pretty easy to Google a list of high ranking CEO/etc corporate people who have gone to prison, or would have if they hadn't died before being convicted. Can we put to rest the canard that criminal liability is avoided by corporate "persons"?
"Corporations" have the right to free speech because the corporations are made up of people who do not abandon that right by forming a corporation. That's Citizen's United in a nutshell.
Car companies have a very poor track record when it comes to liability. They tend to fight responsibility for years.
That's absolutely true. Every company fights against liability suits. Just like most people who are sued fight back.
I see this as just another publicity stunt/spin tactic, and the result will be the answer "the driver is at fault for not taking control at the appropriate time", just as "pilot error" is the usual cause of aircraft accidents.
So that is why I always get the worst seat on the plane.
I have accessed your frequent flyer account and downloaded all your information. If you want to keep from being seated in stowage class, send one bitcoin within the next 48 hours to the following bitcoin address:
0292jqoij091j1f0[nu q0wu 1ru02ud091wudjwjqw
If you do not respond within 48 hours, the price goes up to two bitcoins. If you pay me, you will never hear from me again, I promise, double pinky swear.
By the way, here's a handy website where you can buy bitcoins at an inflated rate ...
Maybe it is easier to automatically read large numbers of boarding passes if they have bar codes, rather than just text..
Well, D'oh! Why do you think they have the qcode (not barcode) readers at TSA security checkpoints and at the gates? So that the people can just slap the pass up against the glass and the computer reads the info, and nobody has to take the time to read the pass. It also allows online boarding passes where you show the face of your smart phone to the reader instead of having a piece of paper.
I have no idea what the presumed issue is here. If you don't want someone to use a q-code reader on your boarding pass -- DON'T SHOW IT TO THEM. Problem solved. Otherwise it is just like swiping your credit card through a mag stripe reader.
Now, if the kerfluffle was because someone invented an RFID-like system that could read the data from your boarding pass while it was in your pocket without you knowing it, that would be something to worry about.
If you're at an airport and you try to use your phone as a mobile hotspot, the Boingo or iPass Wi-Fi routers in the airport will cause interference with your personal hotspot.
For God's sake, stop. Existing WiFi services don't deliberately interfere with each other by using a different protocol that doesn't LBT or uses a shorter transmit gap. Everyone's equal, but apparently Qualcomm wants us to believe that they are more equal than others and it's just peachy keen ok if Qualcomm uses a protocol that doesn't follow the same fairness rules that everyone else does in a license-free public frequency band.
If Boingo started putting up WiFi access points that grabbed as much bandwidth as they wanted without concern for other users, they'd get strong pushback, just like the hotel chains that tried to block WiFi other than the paid hotel version.
Are Boingo and iPass supposed to take down their Wi-Fi access points too?
We aren't talking about Qualcomm putting up WiFi access points, so your question is deliberately dishonest.
Any intentional RF radiator sold in the United States has to pass through FCC certification before it can be sold/bought/deployed.
I know that, and that's why I said the FCC should put its foot down to stop this.
LTE-U small cells will be certified under Part 15 rules.
And in other places you tell us that LTE-U is a combination of a licensed channel with an unlicensed one. How can it be Part 15 if it is using cellular licensed channels that are covered by Part 22? The story keeps changing.
And a Wi-Fi ISP like Boingo that blankets an airport with Wi-Fi access point is only trying to improve the UX for their own customers and not anyone else. So what's your point?
That Qualcomm -- YOU -- are creating a system that is deliberately incompatible with the existing WiFi users so that WiFi users are impacted to give your cell customers that wonderful "UX". That Qualcomm -- YOU -- make equipment that cell companies can install that use the private licensed frequencies for data, and now you want to jump into the unlicensed ones and act in a way that will degrade every other user's communications. I've already said that.
I'm almost at a loss for words here. The article is wrong.
Then you should have said that from the beginning, instead of give technobabble nonsense about how it is impossible for LTE-U to interfere with any existing WiFi and how Qualcomm doesn't have to care because the bands are so large.
Hari Seldon was a genius.
Daneel Olivaw was a genius, Hari Seldon was a pawn, and you didn't finish the series. I was, frankly, really disappointed in that plot trick. That the most powerful robots could design more and more powerful positronic brains, and not be able to design an off-line data storage system so he wouldn't run out of memory, is ridiculous. He could form an entire planet of inanimate objects into a collective consciousness and modify humans to be part of that, but the concept of a USB memory stick to shove old, useless memories onto (or just FORGET them) was beyond his capabilities. But having him as the protagonist is just sad.
I don't.
Then you want to pay a cellular provider for data to those devices, or just don't care about having data to them. Fine. That's how you want your life. I don't care.
Now ask me why you don't have 100 Gbps streaming in your house?
My house is irrelevant, but I'll answer anyway. I don't need 100Gbps "streaming" for anything I'll ever do. I also don't have a problem running a network wire to my TV, so we're not talking about my house to begin with.
I DO, however, have a problem running a CAT5e network cable to either of my cellphones, only one of which is on a cell service data plan, or to ANY of my tablet computers, none of which are on a cell service data plan. And yet it I find it convenient to have data available for all of them. WiFi is the only option for some of them; the preferred option for all.
So, that leaves us with the point I already made: RF data links are a two-way service and involve at least two devices. Only one of them is a wireless router sitting in a place where you can put a box with tinfoil insides and Hello Kitty stickers on the outside over the top of. The other is a small device where trying to paste tinfoil over the outside to limit interference is a stupid idea that it technologically ridiculous. And yet, to get rid of the interference from an outside source, you'd need to do that.
Next non-sequitor, please?
Huh? LTE-U will have to abide by the same Part 15 rules exactly. Did anyone claim anything different?
If it is to have any range at all and be useful in any way, it will have to use more power than Part 15 allows. Otherwise it will just be yet another short-range WiFi service, which we already have. Why should it replace WiFi? If it isn't supposed to replace it, then don't put it in the same frequencies.
Why would the user find his phone unusable?
You're right. The phone will tell the cell that it is having trouble and that will prompt a fix for the cell. It will be the WiFi and bluetooth users who are stuck. Or gosh, the cell will have some magic that figures out that the existing wireless users in the vicinity are having trouble with the LTE-U signal being there and it will tell the LTE-U cell to stop transmitting. Sure. Right.
The brilliant aspect of LTE-U is that it lets the network managed the user experience
Which is the highlight of the CELLULAR service and applies to the CELLULAR network. The cellular network has always managed itself, from the very early days of analog phones that would manage power levels. WiFi networks will be out of luck. Not only because they now must share a limited resource with a commercial cellular service that has lots of its own licensed bandwidth, but because the LTE-U service is designed to take first dibs on that spectrum and to ignore any existing users by not LBT. The goal is to improve the "UX", but only for cell users. The WiFi network will not benefit from the beautiful LTE-U network management.
Oh, but in other places you tell us how it will only be localized WiFi and other unlicensed users who are out of luck because these will be small cells. Just installed in congested areas where there is already a lot of WiFi to deal with network connections. Instead of simply using that WiFi, however, Qualcomm wants us to buy LTE services from a cellular company and pay for what we could have installed and used on our own. And they will DELIBERATELY interfere with the existing WiFi services in the process. (That's what using an incompatible "fairness" protocol is -- deliberate.)
Not going to use 2.4GHz.
From TFA:
And my access points are all 2.4GHz. I've found the 5GHz points to be few and far between. So much so that most of my devices don't have that built in. The statement can only mean it will use both 2.4G and 5G frequencies. Or should we ignore the obvious meaning of "every" and use instead the Qualcomm UX managed-experience definition?
I think I've stated this repeatedly in other replies
"Other replies" that were made after I made my comments, and were made by a paid Qualcomm employee who is actively trying to spin-control the discussion.
Why would I have Wi-Fi on my TV?
I could not care less why you would have WiFi on your TV.
Other people, however, make use of WiFi to connect their TV into the household network. It's easier and neater than running a wire. My TV, for example, can get weather and stock info off the net, as well as play streaming video and music. And it's the same reason that some PCs come with WiFi adapters built in -- to avoid having to run a wire.
The original discussion wasn't about a WiFi adapter on your TV, however, it was about someone you were telling to use tinfoil and a cardboard box and maybe pipe cleaners to filter out the interference from outside radio signals on his router, which completely ignores the part that the clients play in talking to a wireless router and that interference to the router will be interference for them, too.
Now ask me why you would want your cellphone, tablet, or PC to use WiFi.
It's saying that the fantasy team's membership can't be based on the membership of a current team.
Yes, I even quoted where it says that.
If you cannot pick Drew Brees as your fantasy quarterback unless he's a member of an existing NFL team, then your team roster is based on the membership of current NFL teams. It doesn't say you are exempt unless you are betting on a team as a whole.
The idea is to prevent people essentially from betting on the Red Sox to beat the Yankees by having a "fantasy" league where one team's members are the current Red Sox, and another's are the current Yankees, and so on.
As someone who is smart enough to avoid wasting money on this, I'll assume that your legal honest ethical fantasy sports betting -- I mean non-betting -- sites prohibit in some way picking a fantasy team composed of members of the same real-life team. Somehow I doubt that is true. Given that team rosters can change during a season, do any of them keep an eye out for fantasy teams that are "everyone except Joe Smith is from the Atlanta Goobers" and then Joe Smith is traded to the Atlanta Goobers?
But, the fact remains, if you cannot pick people except based on their current team membership, then they are not exempt under the part we both quoted.
It's a dumb law, but it's the law.
Well, maybe it's only dumb because it doesn't go far enough and contains enough wiggle-room to allegedly allow what should be illegal.
(ix) participation in any fantasy or simulation sports game or educational game or contest in which (if the game or contest involves a team or teams) no fantasy or simulation sports team is based on the current membership of an actual team that is a member of an amateur or professional sports organization (as those terms are defined in section 3701 of title 28) and that meets the following conditions
How is picking your NFL fantasy team members from the rosters of existing NFL teams not basing your team on the membership of an actual team? If Brees is on a team and the only reason you can pick him is because of that, then you've based your team on the membership of existing teams.
What this exclusion would apply to is a fantasy league where you can pick past players, like Johnny Unitas or Brett Hull (for NHL).
Lte-u uses listen before talk.
The power limits are the same as for anyone else.
If I put my WiFi router at the top of a 100' cell tower, I would be amazed if I could connect to it even were I standing at the base of the tower. It wouldn't get off the cell site.
Since the goal is to put lte-u in e.g. indoor corporate environments, public venues etc where wifi is already required and much more important, every precaution is taken to not interfere with wifi.
You mean in places where WiFi can already be installed and provide service to the smart devices that would otherwise use the commercially provided LTE-U? It's a technology without a purpose, then. If there's already WiFi, then the smart devices can use that. How many LTE-capable devices exist that cannot also do WiFi, and if they have to be built to do LTE-U then why not just add standard WiFi and use existing, well-behaved technologies?
Is it because WiFi technology and use is in the hands of the public and can be used for free, while LTE-U will be a pay service of the cellular companies and they want to profit off of the unlicensed spectrum they'll be usurping? So you want to keep me from buying a refurbished Verizon tablet and then not paying Verizon for data service by using WiFi instead. Right.