The problem is all your examples are very short-sighted:
It's easier to not pay taxes (less forms to fill in)
If you don't pay taxes, that's less money towards schools, infrastructure maintenance, police/firefighter salaries, etc -- all of society loses, including you.
Furthermore, if you don't pay taxes, you'll probably get audited, fined, and maybe even jailed.
It's easier to not follow the street lights (you get there faster, if at all)
If you don't follow streetlights, you risk getting into a car crash, possibly injuring or killing yourself, other drivers, or even innocent bystanders (e.g. children walking to school) -- all of society loses, including you.
Furthermore, if you run streetlights, you'll probably get pulled over, fined, and maybe even jailed.
It's easier not to care about others (less worries)
If you don't care about others, they are less likely to care about you. If you act like an ass to others, they're more likely to act like an ass towards you -- both parties lose (unless you like being treated like crap).
If everyone in society didn't care about anyone else, then all of society would lose.
So tell me, who do I hurt if I pay once for a CD or DVD, then rip or pirate it and play the unlocked files on any/every device I own? Who do I hurt when I lend my copy to a friend (who, if he finds he likes it, may even purchase his own copy)?
The answer is no one -- the artists and businessmen who made and sold the product were fairly compensated, and I get to enjoy their work. What DRM does is help the businessmen charge me once for each device I want to play it on, and that hurts _me_
If one is "high all the time," then that state becomes the normal state, and anytime they aren't "high" means they are in a "low state." Both psychologically and physiologically, one can become tolerant or adjusted to certain states.
If something is special, doing it all the time detracts from its appeal.
You're probably right that they won't make the hardware -- at most they'll probably contract HTC to do it...
The real question is if Google is going to find a way into the cell phone service-provider business... be it on the physical infrastructure side (unlikely), or on the communications service side
There's been some past/. discussion on this, and what I gathered from it was that Google will put themselves at odds with the infrastructure owners (e.g. AT&T, T-Mobile, Verizon, etc) by forcing them into a data-provider role rather their current communications-provider role (which is much more lucrative -- e.g. charging $0.10 for a 160-byte text message).
The speculation stems from the Google Voice service, but I think they can get away with that because they're still making use of the cell providers' telephone network, and not turning everything into "just data". I can't see the current monopolies being particularly happy if Google takes any further steps in this direction, though. Then again, the cell phone service-providers sorely need a competitor to force them to provide better service (e.g. AT&T no longer investing in their oversold 3G network because they're focusing on 4G planning).
But those lower level programmers are not getting the experience that turns them into good programmers.
I assume you mean 'those new programmers'... lower-level programmers would be working with ASM, or even C in this context, not perl.
I disagree anyways -- there have always been bad programmers, and there always will be. The lower level languages have even more potential areas for insecure programming, and that fact will not stop people from writing bad code, nor will it make them understand the underworkings of the computer. Just because a good programmer must know more about the computer architecture, doesn't stop bad programmers from not caring and writing code anyways. In fact, the steeper learning curve of lower-level languages may even provide more of an incentive to copy-and-paste, rather than spending more effort to learn the underworkings than it would to learn the essentials for proper coding in higher-level languages.
I'm trusting the language designer to write a good _compiler_ to write small utilities, well written, rather than presenting every programmer with that stunning mass of debris I find coming out of places like CPAN.
CPAN is not the perl interpreter. You object to perl as a language or higher-level languages as a concept, because there are people who write poor code, there are people who decide to use prewritten poor code, and there are websites that provide easy access to all this prewritten poor code? I hope you realize that this has nothing to do with perl, and that a parallel exists with every language at every level of abstraction from the machine level. There are certainly many, many pieces of assembly and C/C++ which are poorly written and yet are copied-and-pasted by others... if anything, it's harder to become a good lower-level programmer since there are more issues and technicalities to consider. Those that don't become good lower-level programmers will not necessarily stop programming, they'll just continue writing bad code.
We should resist toolboxes that include that many slightly different hammers, many of which are liable to break and many of which have handles likely to slip in the grip of a normal user, sending a large and spinning object flying towards anyone working near them.
So then we shouldn't use nail guns, because they don't require the carpenter to repetitively practice the skill of hammering in a nail like a hammer would? Yes, it's a lot easier to hurt yourself with a nail gun... but it also makes building many houses a much more feasible task, and allows the carpenter to concentrate on the fact that they're building a house, rather than the fact that each nail must be driven properly. Under the pressures of common job timetables and the monotony of hammering each nail, they may even accidentally screw up the overall design without realizing it -- accidentally not seeing the whole picture as they are too concentrated on the tedious and repetitive details. There are invariably construction workers who will use the nail gun improperly and hurt themselves or others -- so you get out of the way and refuse to work with them or hire them, rather than not permitting anyone to use the nail guns.
I'm afraid I've been that person near them and struck with those handles too many times in the last five years, and from observation, far too many of the scripting language authors need to go back and be _mentored_ in how to do efficient or even safe code, because they certainly didn't learn it dealing with Perl.
If they can't, won't, or haven't learned efficient/safe coding practices in perl, what makes you think they'll learn them in C, which requires far more details and studying?
It sounds to me like you shouldn't have been using amateurs' code, regardless of language, for essential or business purposes... you can hardly blame the language for that. If anything, you or whoever made the decision to use the poor cod
So? A higher level language makes the job easier for experienced programmers who understand how the interpreter works at the machine-level.
If you really do have a good understand of how it works, you can avoid most security and performance issues; you can dictate efficiency boosts like specific typing, precompiled regular expressions, etc; and you can still embed C and/or assembly when appropriate. You also gain all the advantages and lack of other common low-level security flaws, like buffer overflows. Basically, you're trusting the language designers to write a robust interpreter to avoid the common C security issues so you don't have to -- sounds a lot like using C/C++ instead of assembly, just replace 'interpreter' with 'compiler'.
Why should we resist new tools that help good programmers create good code more efficiently, just because bad programmers can also use them to create bad code more efficiently?
It's much easier to replicate manufacturing base than it is to replicate the bleeding edge research and development for microprocessors, new materials, etc...
There are many countries with cheap labor and resources that would love the ability to get a huge influx in technology -- because obviously any technology that is manufactured there is essentially transferred there (at very least, there's easy access for local reverse engineers; at very most, they directly gain the formula for implementing a particular technology). Additionally, easy access to local high-tech manufacturing would definitely catalyze local R&D efforts.
I doubt too many countries would be put off by the US defaulting on debt if China called it all in at once. The answer is to not call in the debt, but rather to continue to benefit from each other for as long as possible -- that's where the real gain is. In fact, China's electronics and manufacturing sector has exploded in large part due to the excessive demand from the US, and they are definitely better off because of it even if they don't get any of their US$ loans back. Many other countries would like the same situation for themselves.
Say what you want about the US... though we don't manufacture many products anymore, we certainly still manufacture a whole lot of technology design, code, etc... all of which falls under the category of IP. It's just that it's a lot harder to quantify those exports, since they're much more subjective than "X quantity of materials valued at $Y each." I'm not so stupid as to think the US is special -- any country could do the same given the resources and conditions we have. The US just happened to do the "right" things at the right time, and that is still the case when it comes to technology R&D (though this could change if our education system continues to deteriorate).
That's not to say that the rest of the world can't do the same, but the US certainly is still a leader in technology research and development.
Anyways, I never said I'm in favor of The Way Things Are(tm)... but that doesn't change the facts.
Even in a highly-globalized environment, I think you'll find that most citizens of any given country still focus on their local lives, their profession, their hobbies, etc, and have very little say in their country's economic strategies. I don't think any of the letters I've ever written to my government representatives have ever made a significant impact. All we can really do is observe, focus on our interests, try to alter our behavior to reflect how we think the world should be, and not get that involved unless things start to go really, really wrong.
Not quite... They own $1 trillion of our virtual currency
In exchange we got a lot of their material goods
If they abruptly ended the relationship one day and called in our debt, we would just default and they'd be left with nothing.
What option would they be left with? Go to war? Fat chance -- wars nowadays are fought with technology, not numbers of soldiers... and we spend almost as much as the rest of the world *combined* on defense (we spend $600 billion a year on military, whereas China is the 2nd highest with under $90 billion a year)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_military_expenditures#Stockholm_International_Peace_Research_Institute_figures
In the meantime, we would still have their manufactured items, and we'd just take our IP (read: engineering designs) to Malaysia or some other place (e.g. Mexico) for our manufacturing needs.
They don't "own us" -- it's a mutually beneficial relationship that requires both parties to take part.
Every country that plays the "globalization" game gets the benefits from and the dependency on every other player. As it stands now, they depend on us just like we depend on them. That could change, but it'd likely be a gradual change, or else a painful change for *both* sides.
A quick google search turned up the following for Starcraft. You probably want to do a bit of in-depth research before running these binaries... they may be buggy, fake, etc
It seems like future rovers should have instrumentation to sense the composition of the ground they are about to tread over, as well as extra limbs that can be used to repair the rover (even just a brush to clean the solar panels) or assist its movement (grappling hook?)
Say what you will about NASA's large budgets or sometimes questionable research efforts... when put to the task, they can produce some remarkable feats of engineering
The longevity of the Mars rovers never ceases to amaze me. Just the fact that we are controlling robots we landed on Mars is cool enough, but that they lasted 22 times longer than their intended 90-day lifetime in the harsh Mars environment, is truly an example of quality engineering.
Of course, their over-engineering of human risk-related matters leaves something to be desired. Anyone exploring uncharted territories has to accept the risks involved, including the possibility of a one way trip. Is that really such a bad thing though? There are plenty of risk-takers who thrive on this, and plenty of them would love to make history as part of the first colonization team on the moon (for example).
Instead of focusing resources on ensuring safe return, we should spend those resources on setting up permanent, sustainable facilities on the moon, so that we can slowly reduce our need to continually send materials. Is shipping miniature mining and production robot/facility to the moon that unimaginable? Once you can harvest and produce key materials on the moon, the task of setting up long-term human habitats becomes at least slightly easier.
I really hope the commercialization of space travel is the catalyst needed to accelerate the development of space colonization, and I hope that the excessive human-risk aversion policies that arguably held NASA back are not forced upon the participating private companies of the new space era.
On yet another mildly-unrelated note:
I'd love to see more development on the Launch Loop concept, which seems WAY more feasible than the space elevators... no science/technology breakthroughs are required, just a lot of energy and money;)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Launch_loop
Here are some more details from the abstract of a relevent paper:
A high-throughput on-chip imaging platform that can rapidly monitor and characterize various cell types within a heterogeneous solution over a depth-of-field of ~4mm and a field-of-view of ~10 cm^2 is introduced. This powerful system can rapidly image/monitor multiple layers of cells, within a volume of ~4 mL all in parallel without the need for any lenses, microscope-objectives or any mechanical scanning.
In this high-throughput lensless imaging scheme, the classical diffraction pattern (i.e., the shadow) of each micro-particle within the entire sample volume is detected in less than a second using an opto-electronic sensor chip. The acquired shadow image is then digitally processed using a custom developed ‘‘decision algorithm’’ to enable both the identification of the particle location in 3D and the characterization of each micro-particle type within the sample volume.
Through experimental results, we show that different cell types (e.g., red blood cells, fibroblasts, etc.) or other micro-particles all exhibit uniquely different shadow patterns and therefore can be rapidly identified without any ambiguity using the developed decision algorithm, enabling high-throughput characterization of a heterogeneous solution.
Long runs of RCA will definitely act as giant antennas, and the noise picked-up will be amplified (as opposed to sending an already-amplified, powerful signal that's much larger than the received noise).
Unfortunately coaxial cable is sometimes not enough... the shield conductor in the coaxial wire is part of the signal transmitting system; any power that is sent on the signal wire will be returned through the shield. Therefore, noise that is received by the shield will end up affecting the signal.
The best simple solution is to use differential signalling (balanced audio), wherein you add a second signal wire that carries the inverse of the first signal wire. The two signal wires are coupled tightly (e.g. twisted), so any noise will be picked up on both. At the receiver, the balun subtracts the two signal wires, resulting in just the original signal remaining and the noise cancelling out. The twisted pair of signal wires should also be shielded with ground, so there is still some possibility for noise, but it's much better than just coaxial.
Balanced audio is standard for professional grade audio, microphones, etc... particularly for long runs
If you compare the percentage of poorly-written perl code (versus well-written code) to the percentage of poorly-written C/C++ code, I bet you won't find a statistically significant difference.
Perl just makes it really easy to publish a module in a centralized location (CPAN), whereas C/C++ code is spread all over the place.
Just because it's in CPAN, doesn't mean it's quality, nor that it's been tested and is production-worthy.
Please don't judge perl based on some bad code you've read. It takes a good programmer to write good code -- perl just is less strict about how you must write code, and so the programmers must keep themselves to a proper set of standards. A good programmer can utilize perl's flexibility to produce some very simple and powerful code, without sacrificing quality or maintainability.
It's pretty pathetic and negligent that software that controls explosive missles was not tested for over 100 hours of operation. That's a standard Quality Assurance procedure for even the simplest low-budget hardware...
It's also pretty pathetic that the system designers implemented a broken design and did not foresee this problem. High-resolution timekeeping has been accomplished pretty successfully already...
I wonder how much time and money was spent in research and development for this thing
It doesn't seem like we're getting a quality product for the likely huge sum that was paid for it...
Wouldn't it be reasonable to use wire conductors? If we will be able to build the support lines that can span from the earth to orbit, why couldn't we also make a couple of smaller ones inside the main one for carrying power? Or why not just use the support lines themselves to provide power (assuming there are multiple support lines for redundancy)?
Can anyone provide some more insight into this? I haven't been able to find a decent explanation
Music Player Daemon (mpd) has the right idea: separate the playing backend and the user interface. The result is an easily-interfaceable (many, many clients for all platforms, web, etc) and reliable player that rarely (never for me) crashes, and will continue to play even if X dies (which makes repairing X a little more enjoyable).
My favorite client is QMPDClient, which is cross-platform and has a good user interface for easily switching between the Library view (3-section Artist/Album/Songs), the Directories view (which shows the Music directory as a folder tree), and the Playlist view (for saving or loading playlists). The directory view is the big selling point for me, because I have my music folder well organized by genre, artist, album, but not necessarily well organized as far as ID3 tags go.
I think the OP was referring to data transfer bandwidth (the throughput, or data rate), rather than the traditional electronics use of "bandwidth" (referring to the width of the transmitted signal in the frequency spectrum; though "channel width" is a more exact term).
Of course higher carrier frequencies don't have a higher bandwidth, because bandwidth is a property of the whole system, including the data signal and modulation method. You can make the bandwidth as big or small as your system's constraints allow (e.g. one constraint might be to keep most of your transmitted power inside the allocated bandwidth).
If your data signal is modulated in the exact same manner regardless of the carrier, varying the frequency of the carrier will not affect the transmitted signal's bandwidth. The carrier frequency imposes the upper limit on the data signal's frequency, and thus a higher carrier frequency will theoretically allow for a high data rate.
Practically, however, the data signal is almost always much smaller than the carrier signal, and the transmitted frequency is subject to many other important factors such as noise, signal propagation through the environment, etc... In the case of 2.4GHz vs. 800MHz carrier frequencies, there is no practical gain in potential data rate.
This is all based on my limited understanding of communication theory. Please correct me and/or provide further details if possible!
Seriously, this video plays like a bad science ficition movie... they say "let us monitor everything and we'll magically know when crimes are committed," without saying exactly *how* they plan on sorting through the incredible amount of data and coming up with "crime X being committed right now" in a timely manner.
I knew someone would bring up cellphones. However, it's relatively hard for it to capture much useful video from inside my pocket...
Also, my phone belongs to me, not my phone company, and it's open source. Meaning, it's pretty unlikely someone will actually use it to snoop on me. If they can, it'd certainly be a targeted attack, not a broad monitor-every-driver-always situation like we're discussing here. It's next to impossible to defend against a targeted attack, especially when it comes to computers (e.g. cell phones)... but that's not the issue here.
I will never put a camera in my car that wirelessly transmits to anyone. I think a lot of people would have problems with this...
However, I've always thought it would be a good a idea to put small cameras in my own car (probably hooked up to a car pc), set to record on motion and store the past few days of video. These would be for my own use only -- I'd never allow a third party unrestricted access, but it might be useful if there's ever any question about what happened in an accident.
They're introducing this product by initially marketing it for teens... as if it is somehow more acceptable to spy on them than anyone else. I'm sure this product will eventually be marketed towards all drivers, but if they introduced it initially like that, it might not get as favorable a response (maybe)...
As for "computer engineers are most likely to crash"... correlation does not imply causation
What if the patrons you mention aren't just a few rich people, but a bunch of fans which can now follow and contribute to their favorite artists with the internet?
Plus, what about all the artists who refuse to give up creative control to anyone?
You do realize that many artists have second jobs to pay for their living expenses, while their art is their hobby?
While that situation may be possible, I'd bet that there are enough university researchers studying this area who would not be silenced by whomever stands to lose profits. The whole point of tenure is so that professors are immune or at least buffered from the effects of current politics (e.g. the desires of the "well-heeled corporations" you mention).
Besides, we wouldn't just get rid of all radio communications. Instead, there would be a huge drive to find and implement non-harmful radio techniques. That would require a lot of research, a lot of investment in new infrastructure, etc... Imagine replacing every radio transmitter and receiver with a more complicated version... You're telling me *that* isn't profitable? Wherever someone is making profit, there will be others waiting to steal that profit-making opportunity for themselves (i.e..... capitalism).
Not to mention that at 1700KHz (the upper end of AM medium wave radio), the ideal quarter-wavelength antenna is around 144 feet long.
Ignoring the fact that we aren't very good conductors... at 5-6 feet tall, I doubt the human body can effectively absorb a lot of this relatively very-long-wavelength radiation.
Does anyone have actual data or methods to predict this kind of effect on human bodies?
I'm from Jamaica, the show-me island. So show me you're blowing it out your fanny!
(obligatory Futurama reference)
I wonder if any of these ELF people understand physics... Radio behaves according to the inverse square law; in effect, your cellphone exposes you to much more power than all the cell towers around you, simply due to it being much closer. Similarly, any local transmitter you have (e.g. microwave ovens, CRTs, wifi APs, high-speed digital circuitry, etc) will expose you to more power than those far-away broadcast towers. Unless the AM radio tower is in your backyard, you are probably not in tremendous danger...
...well maybe your home intercom *is* in danger... won't someone please think of the intercoms?!?
Slashdot Mirror
It's easier to not pay taxes (less forms to fill in)
If you don't pay taxes, that's less money towards schools, infrastructure maintenance, police/firefighter salaries, etc -- all of society loses, including you.
Furthermore, if you don't pay taxes, you'll probably get audited, fined, and maybe even jailed.
It's easier to not follow the street lights (you get there faster, if at all)
If you don't follow streetlights, you risk getting into a car crash, possibly injuring or killing yourself, other drivers, or even innocent bystanders (e.g. children walking to school) -- all of society loses, including you.
Furthermore, if you run streetlights, you'll probably get pulled over, fined, and maybe even jailed.
It's easier not to care about others (less worries)
If you don't care about others, they are less likely to care about you. If you act like an ass to others, they're more likely to act like an ass towards you -- both parties lose (unless you like being treated like crap).
If everyone in society didn't care about anyone else, then all of society would lose.
So tell me, who do I hurt if I pay once for a CD or DVD, then rip or pirate it and play the unlocked files on any/every device I own? Who do I hurt when I lend my copy to a friend (who, if he finds he likes it, may even purchase his own copy)?
The answer is no one -- the artists and businessmen who made and sold the product were fairly compensated, and I get to enjoy their work. What DRM does is help the businessmen charge me once for each device I want to play it on, and that hurts _me_
If one is "high all the time," then that state becomes the normal state, and anytime they aren't "high" means they are in a "low state." Both psychologically and physiologically, one can become tolerant or adjusted to certain states.
If something is special, doing it all the time detracts from its appeal.
You're probably right that they won't make the hardware -- at most they'll probably contract HTC to do it...
/. discussion on this, and what I gathered from it was that Google will put themselves at odds with the infrastructure owners (e.g. AT&T, T-Mobile, Verizon, etc) by forcing them into a data-provider role rather their current communications-provider role (which is much more lucrative -- e.g. charging $0.10 for a 160-byte text message).
The real question is if Google is going to find a way into the cell phone service-provider business... be it on the physical infrastructure side (unlikely), or on the communications service side
There's been some past
The speculation stems from the Google Voice service, but I think they can get away with that because they're still making use of the cell providers' telephone network, and not turning everything into "just data". I can't see the current monopolies being particularly happy if Google takes any further steps in this direction, though. Then again, the cell phone service-providers sorely need a competitor to force them to provide better service (e.g. AT&T no longer investing in their oversold 3G network because they're focusing on 4G planning).
But those lower level programmers are not getting the experience that turns them into good programmers.
I assume you mean 'those new programmers'... lower-level programmers would be working with ASM, or even C in this context, not perl.
I disagree anyways -- there have always been bad programmers, and there always will be. The lower level languages have even more potential areas for insecure programming, and that fact will not stop people from writing bad code, nor will it make them understand the underworkings of the computer. Just because a good programmer must know more about the computer architecture, doesn't stop bad programmers from not caring and writing code anyways. In fact, the steeper learning curve of lower-level languages may even provide more of an incentive to copy-and-paste, rather than spending more effort to learn the underworkings than it would to learn the essentials for proper coding in higher-level languages.
I'm trusting the language designer to write a good _compiler_ to write small utilities, well written, rather than presenting every programmer with that stunning mass of debris I find coming out of places like CPAN.
CPAN is not the perl interpreter. You object to perl as a language or higher-level languages as a concept, because there are people who write poor code, there are people who decide to use prewritten poor code, and there are websites that provide easy access to all this prewritten poor code? I hope you realize that this has nothing to do with perl, and that a parallel exists with every language at every level of abstraction from the machine level. There are certainly many, many pieces of assembly and C/C++ which are poorly written and yet are copied-and-pasted by others... if anything, it's harder to become a good lower-level programmer since there are more issues and technicalities to consider. Those that don't become good lower-level programmers will not necessarily stop programming, they'll just continue writing bad code.
We should resist toolboxes that include that many slightly different hammers, many of which are liable to break and many of which have handles likely to slip in the grip of a normal user, sending a large and spinning object flying towards anyone working near them.
So then we shouldn't use nail guns, because they don't require the carpenter to repetitively practice the skill of hammering in a nail like a hammer would? Yes, it's a lot easier to hurt yourself with a nail gun... but it also makes building many houses a much more feasible task, and allows the carpenter to concentrate on the fact that they're building a house, rather than the fact that each nail must be driven properly. Under the pressures of common job timetables and the monotony of hammering each nail, they may even accidentally screw up the overall design without realizing it -- accidentally not seeing the whole picture as they are too concentrated on the tedious and repetitive details. There are invariably construction workers who will use the nail gun improperly and hurt themselves or others -- so you get out of the way and refuse to work with them or hire them, rather than not permitting anyone to use the nail guns.
I'm afraid I've been that person near them and struck with those handles too many times in the last five years, and from observation, far too many of the scripting language authors need to go back and be _mentored_ in how to do efficient or even safe code, because they certainly didn't learn it dealing with Perl.
If they can't, won't, or haven't learned efficient/safe coding practices in perl, what makes you think they'll learn them in C, which requires far more details and studying?
It sounds to me like you shouldn't have been using amateurs' code, regardless of language, for essential or business purposes... you can hardly blame the language for that. If anything, you or whoever made the decision to use the poor cod
So? A higher level language makes the job easier for experienced programmers who understand how the interpreter works at the machine-level.
If you really do have a good understand of how it works, you can avoid most security and performance issues; you can dictate efficiency boosts like specific typing, precompiled regular expressions, etc; and you can still embed C and/or assembly when appropriate. You also gain all the advantages and lack of other common low-level security flaws, like buffer overflows. Basically, you're trusting the language designers to write a robust interpreter to avoid the common C security issues so you don't have to -- sounds a lot like using C/C++ instead of assembly, just replace 'interpreter' with 'compiler'.
Why should we resist new tools that help good programmers create good code more efficiently, just because bad programmers can also use them to create bad code more efficiently?
It's much easier to replicate manufacturing base than it is to replicate the bleeding edge research and development for microprocessors, new materials, etc...
There are many countries with cheap labor and resources that would love the ability to get a huge influx in technology -- because obviously any technology that is manufactured there is essentially transferred there (at very least, there's easy access for local reverse engineers; at very most, they directly gain the formula for implementing a particular technology). Additionally, easy access to local high-tech manufacturing would definitely catalyze local R&D efforts.
I doubt too many countries would be put off by the US defaulting on debt if China called it all in at once. The answer is to not call in the debt, but rather to continue to benefit from each other for as long as possible -- that's where the real gain is. In fact, China's electronics and manufacturing sector has exploded in large part due to the excessive demand from the US, and they are definitely better off because of it even if they don't get any of their US$ loans back. Many other countries would like the same situation for themselves.
Say what you want about the US... though we don't manufacture many products anymore, we certainly still manufacture a whole lot of technology design, code, etc... all of which falls under the category of IP. It's just that it's a lot harder to quantify those exports, since they're much more subjective than "X quantity of materials valued at $Y each." I'm not so stupid as to think the US is special -- any country could do the same given the resources and conditions we have. The US just happened to do the "right" things at the right time, and that is still the case when it comes to technology R&D (though this could change if our education system continues to deteriorate).
That's not to say that the rest of the world can't do the same, but the US certainly is still a leader in technology research and development.
Anyways, I never said I'm in favor of The Way Things Are(tm)... but that doesn't change the facts.
Even in a highly-globalized environment, I think you'll find that most citizens of any given country still focus on their local lives, their profession, their hobbies, etc, and have very little say in their country's economic strategies. I don't think any of the letters I've ever written to my government representatives have ever made a significant impact. All we can really do is observe, focus on our interests, try to alter our behavior to reflect how we think the world should be, and not get that involved unless things start to go really, really wrong.
Not quite... They own $1 trillion of our virtual currency
In exchange we got a lot of their material goods
If they abruptly ended the relationship one day and called in our debt, we would just default and they'd be left with nothing.
What option would they be left with? Go to war? Fat chance -- wars nowadays are fought with technology, not numbers of soldiers... and we spend almost as much as the rest of the world *combined* on defense (we spend $600 billion a year on military, whereas China is the 2nd highest with under $90 billion a year)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_military_expenditures#Stockholm_International_Peace_Research_Institute_figures
In the meantime, we would still have their manufactured items, and we'd just take our IP (read: engineering designs) to Malaysia or some other place (e.g. Mexico) for our manufacturing needs.
They don't "own us" -- it's a mutually beneficial relationship that requires both parties to take part.
Every country that plays the "globalization" game gets the benefits from and the dependency on every other player. As it stands now, they depend on us just like we depend on them. That could change, but it'd likely be a gradual change, or else a painful change for *both* sides.
A quick google search turned up the following for Starcraft. You probably want to do a bit of in-depth research before running these binaries... they may be buggy, fake, etc
One way might be to play Starcraft in windowed mode:
http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=72621
Or use a "high resolution" mod. There seem to be a lot of defunct mods like this that probably never worked too well, but the first link might be worth a shot:
http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=97122
http://www.widescreengamingforum.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=16643
http://freenet-homepage.de/ToiletGame/download.html
http://www.gamethreat.net/forums/user-downloads/38147-resolution-hack-release-4-0-a.html
It seems like future rovers should have instrumentation to sense the composition of the ground they are about to tread over, as well as extra limbs that can be used to repair the rover (even just a brush to clean the solar panels) or assist its movement (grappling hook?)
;)
Say what you will about NASA's large budgets or sometimes questionable research efforts... when put to the task, they can produce some remarkable feats of engineering
The longevity of the Mars rovers never ceases to amaze me. Just the fact that we are controlling robots we landed on Mars is cool enough, but that they lasted 22 times longer than their intended 90-day lifetime in the harsh Mars environment, is truly an example of quality engineering.
Of course, their over-engineering of human risk-related matters leaves something to be desired. Anyone exploring uncharted territories has to accept the risks involved, including the possibility of a one way trip. Is that really such a bad thing though? There are plenty of risk-takers who thrive on this, and plenty of them would love to make history as part of the first colonization team on the moon (for example).
Instead of focusing resources on ensuring safe return, we should spend those resources on setting up permanent, sustainable facilities on the moon, so that we can slowly reduce our need to continually send materials. Is shipping miniature mining and production robot/facility to the moon that unimaginable? Once you can harvest and produce key materials on the moon, the task of setting up long-term human habitats becomes at least slightly easier.
I really hope the commercialization of space travel is the catalyst needed to accelerate the development of space colonization, and I hope that the excessive human-risk aversion policies that arguably held NASA back are not forced upon the participating private companies of the new space era.
On yet another mildly-unrelated note:
I'd love to see more development on the Launch Loop concept, which seems WAY more feasible than the space elevators... no science/technology breakthroughs are required, just a lot of energy and money
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Launch_loop
Does anyone have reliable info about when the GSM version of the Motorola Droid will be release?
And what will it be called? Sholes? Milestone? etc?
The Motorola Milestone is supposedly launching in Germany... can we import that and use it with T-Mobile or AT&T in the US?
A high-throughput on-chip imaging platform that can rapidly monitor and characterize various cell types within a heterogeneous solution over a depth-of-field of ~4mm and a field-of-view of ~10 cm^2 is introduced. This powerful system can rapidly image/monitor multiple layers of cells, within a volume of ~4 mL all in parallel without the need for any lenses, microscope-objectives or any mechanical scanning.
In this high-throughput lensless imaging scheme, the classical diffraction pattern (i.e., the shadow) of each micro-particle within the entire sample volume is detected in less than a second using an opto-electronic sensor chip. The acquired shadow image is then digitally processed using a custom developed ‘‘decision algorithm’’ to enable both the identification of the particle location in 3D and the characterization of each micro-particle type within the sample volume.
Through experimental results, we show that different cell types (e.g., red blood cells, fibroblasts, etc.) or other micro-particles all exhibit uniquely different shadow patterns and therefore can be rapidly identified without any ambiguity using the developed decision algorithm, enabling high-throughput characterization of a heterogeneous solution.
http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/journal/121401991/abstract
http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/cgi-bin/fulltext/121401991/PDFSTART
This topic was also covered a few months ago -- with better results, but using actual lenses instead of just the bare CCD sensor:
http://science.slashdot.org/story/09/07/24/1440227/Use-Your-Cell-Phone-To-Diagnose-Blood-Diseases
Long runs of RCA will definitely act as giant antennas, and the noise picked-up will be amplified (as opposed to sending an already-amplified, powerful signal that's much larger than the received noise).
Unfortunately coaxial cable is sometimes not enough... the shield conductor in the coaxial wire is part of the signal transmitting system; any power that is sent on the signal wire will be returned through the shield. Therefore, noise that is received by the shield will end up affecting the signal.
The best simple solution is to use differential signalling (balanced audio), wherein you add a second signal wire that carries the inverse of the first signal wire. The two signal wires are coupled tightly (e.g. twisted), so any noise will be picked up on both. At the receiver, the balun subtracts the two signal wires, resulting in just the original signal remaining and the noise cancelling out. The twisted pair of signal wires should also be shielded with ground, so there is still some possibility for noise, but it's much better than just coaxial.
Balanced audio is standard for professional grade audio, microphones, etc... particularly for long runs
If you compare the percentage of poorly-written perl code (versus well-written code) to the percentage of poorly-written C/C++ code, I bet you won't find a statistically significant difference.
Perl just makes it really easy to publish a module in a centralized location (CPAN), whereas C/C++ code is spread all over the place.
Just because it's in CPAN, doesn't mean it's quality, nor that it's been tested and is production-worthy.
Please don't judge perl based on some bad code you've read. It takes a good programmer to write good code -- perl just is less strict about how you must write code, and so the programmers must keep themselves to a proper set of standards. A good programmer can utilize perl's flexibility to produce some very simple and powerful code, without sacrificing quality or maintainability.
It's pretty pathetic and negligent that software that controls explosive missles was not tested for over 100 hours of operation. That's a standard Quality Assurance procedure for even the simplest low-budget hardware...
It's also pretty pathetic that the system designers implemented a broken design and did not foresee this problem. High-resolution timekeeping has been accomplished pretty successfully already...
I wonder how much time and money was spent in research and development for this thing
It doesn't seem like we're getting a quality product for the likely huge sum that was paid for it...
Why must we beam the power to a space elevator?
Wouldn't it be reasonable to use wire conductors? If we will be able to build the support lines that can span from the earth to orbit, why couldn't we also make a couple of smaller ones inside the main one for carrying power? Or why not just use the support lines themselves to provide power (assuming there are multiple support lines for redundancy)?
Can anyone provide some more insight into this? I haven't been able to find a decent explanation
Music Player Daemon (mpd) has the right idea: separate the playing backend and the user interface. The result is an easily-interfaceable (many, many clients for all platforms, web, etc) and reliable player that rarely (never for me) crashes, and will continue to play even if X dies (which makes repairing X a little more enjoyable).
My favorite client is QMPDClient, which is cross-platform and has a good user interface for easily switching between the Library view (3-section Artist/Album/Songs), the Directories view (which shows the Music directory as a folder tree), and the Playlist view (for saving or loading playlists). The directory view is the big selling point for me, because I have my music folder well organized by genre, artist, album, but not necessarily well organized as far as ID3 tags go.
Here's a screenshot: http://dump.bitcheese.net/images/batidij/qmpdclient-win32.png
It's definitely worth a try...
MPD: http://mpd.wikia.com/
QMPDClient: http://bitcheese.net/wiki/QMPDClient
Other MPD Clients: http://mpd.wikia.com/wiki/Clients
I think the OP was referring to data transfer bandwidth (the throughput, or data rate), rather than the traditional electronics use of "bandwidth" (referring to the width of the transmitted signal in the frequency spectrum; though "channel width" is a more exact term).
Of course higher carrier frequencies don't have a higher bandwidth, because bandwidth is a property of the whole system, including the data signal and modulation method. You can make the bandwidth as big or small as your system's constraints allow (e.g. one constraint might be to keep most of your transmitted power inside the allocated bandwidth).
If your data signal is modulated in the exact same manner regardless of the carrier, varying the frequency of the carrier will not affect the transmitted signal's bandwidth. The carrier frequency imposes the upper limit on the data signal's frequency, and thus a higher carrier frequency will theoretically allow for a high data rate.
Practically, however, the data signal is almost always much smaller than the carrier signal, and the transmitted frequency is subject to many other important factors such as noise, signal propagation through the environment, etc... In the case of 2.4GHz vs. 800MHz carrier frequencies, there is no practical gain in potential data rate.
This is all based on my limited understanding of communication theory. Please correct me and/or provide further details if possible!
Whenever I see facial recognition enhancement, I think of this:
http://www.phdcomics.com/comics.php?n=1156
Turns out... it's theoretically impossible!
Seriously, this video plays like a bad science ficition movie... they say "let us monitor everything and we'll magically know when crimes are committed," without saying exactly *how* they plan on sorting through the incredible amount of data and coming up with "crime X being committed right now" in a timely manner.
I knew someone would bring up cellphones. However, it's relatively hard for it to capture much useful video from inside my pocket...
Also, my phone belongs to me, not my phone company, and it's open source. Meaning, it's pretty unlikely someone will actually use it to snoop on me. If they can, it'd certainly be a targeted attack, not a broad monitor-every-driver-always situation like we're discussing here. It's next to impossible to defend against a targeted attack, especially when it comes to computers (e.g. cell phones)... but that's not the issue here.
I will never put a camera in my car that wirelessly transmits to anyone. I think a lot of people would have problems with this...
... correlation does not imply causation
However, I've always thought it would be a good a idea to put small cameras in my own car (probably hooked up to a car pc), set to record on motion and store the past few days of video. These would be for my own use only -- I'd never allow a third party unrestricted access, but it might be useful if there's ever any question about what happened in an accident.
They're introducing this product by initially marketing it for teens... as if it is somehow more acceptable to spy on them than anyone else. I'm sure this product will eventually be marketed towards all drivers, but if they introduced it initially like that, it might not get as favorable a response (maybe)...
As for "computer engineers are most likely to crash"
What if the patrons you mention aren't just a few rich people, but a bunch of fans which can now follow and contribute to their favorite artists with the internet?
Plus, what about all the artists who refuse to give up creative control to anyone? You do realize that many artists have second jobs to pay for their living expenses, while their art is their hobby?
While that situation may be possible, I'd bet that there are enough university researchers studying this area who would not be silenced by whomever stands to lose profits. The whole point of tenure is so that professors are immune or at least buffered from the effects of current politics (e.g. the desires of the "well-heeled corporations" you mention).
.... capitalism).
Besides, we wouldn't just get rid of all radio communications. Instead, there would be a huge drive to find and implement non-harmful radio techniques. That would require a lot of research, a lot of investment in new infrastructure, etc... Imagine replacing every radio transmitter and receiver with a more complicated version... You're telling me *that* isn't profitable? Wherever someone is making profit, there will be others waiting to steal that profit-making opportunity for themselves (i.e.
Not to mention that at 1700KHz (the upper end of AM medium wave radio), the ideal quarter-wavelength antenna is around 144 feet long.
Ignoring the fact that we aren't very good conductors... at 5-6 feet tall, I doubt the human body can effectively absorb a lot of this relatively very-long-wavelength radiation.
Does anyone have actual data or methods to predict this kind of effect on human bodies?
AM radio causes cancer?
...well maybe your home intercom *is* in danger... won't someone please think of the intercoms?!?
I'm from Jamaica, the show-me island. So show me you're blowing it out your fanny!
(obligatory Futurama reference)
I wonder if any of these ELF people understand physics... Radio behaves according to the inverse square law; in effect, your cellphone exposes you to much more power than all the cell towers around you, simply due to it being much closer. Similarly, any local transmitter you have (e.g. microwave ovens, CRTs, wifi APs, high-speed digital circuitry, etc) will expose you to more power than those far-away broadcast towers. Unless the AM radio tower is in your backyard, you are probably not in tremendous danger...
Microwave ovens tend to have a lot of emissions in the 2.4GHz band, the same frequencies that most Wi-Fi uses.
If he were really allergic to Wi-Fi, wouldn't he have an extreme allergic reaction to microwave ovens too?