The link at the bottom of the main page has a lot more info, but it seems to be saying that they've developed a means of modulating signals at higher frequencies than has been possible before by using only silicon devices. They've stuck it all on one chip for signal generation and one chip for signal detection. If they can get it working in a high volume fab plant then they'll get faster input/output from their chips.
Practical uses: faster bus/interconnects. If they can make it cheap enough. And get it working. And...
Anyway... interesting...
Re:How about an IT *Design* test?
on
IT Literacy Test
·
· Score: 1
Yeah, got something going for it. Better than the Games section. *switches tabs* Aargh! My eyes!
Oh come on! That's basic pseudo-science! EVERYONE knows the old energy of a tennis serve unit! Just like it's obvious that asteroids come in fixed basketball, Volkswagon and Texas sizes.
The aircraft thing is probably a good idea - depends how the coating responds to extremes of cold. The last thing you want is for your windows suddenly to turn opaque at 30000 feet. But, y'know, if it passes this basic test...
Plastic windows on your car... probably not such a great idea - the problem with car windows is that they are designed to shatter into tiny pieces rather than large jagged chunks that can rupture organs and generally shred the passengers in the event of a crash. Glass is cheap and does the job well. Cool as it would be to have wrap around windows, I reckon the auto companies will be unlikely to shell out the development cash.
Let's be honest, it's not exactly cruel compared to old style mousetraps that snap the little blighters backs now is it?
Hmmn... if you want to make it cruel AND make it fun... exchange the bucket for the feeding mechanism of a tennis ball launcher! Now that's cruel. AND fun!
Might not be fun for the mouse but install enough of them on your farm and the fields will be alive with the sight of airbourne rodents this summer!!!...I'm a bad bad person. ^_^
Yeah, should be totally safe. It's a laser where the intention is that the beam will exit the device - they're not gonna be allowed to use more than a weak class I laser. It'll be safer than most laser pointers and the only way to damage someone with one of those is to shine it directly in their eyes and prevent them from blinking. Well, I guess there are more ways but they require a bit of ingenuity.
Kids will be safe. Adults with a penchant for overclocking... well, better get a desk with good optical and thermal dissipation is all I'm sayin'...
Alternatively, any asymmetric acceleration of mass will do for signal generation. Take a couple of neutron stars, arrange them in a binary configuration and modulate the speed at which they spin around each other - simple! Now all we need are some super powered tractor beams and we're set!
Damn, we need a detector too. See original story for details...
Oh, didn't you get them memo? We remade the universe with a few modifications over lunch - we didn't like some of the old physical parameters so we changed them a bit.
You can't just deploy nuclear weapons on a whim like that. And it WOULD be a whim unless the investigation you speak of so highly turns up solid proof. It gets investigated by the UN. Not the US. Inspectors would be sent in. International law would be adhered to. A report would be published. Action would be taken on that report. You can't just go on gut feeling here - we're treading on the world stage and have to walk softly or someone in the audience will start throwing rotten fruit.
If the report doesn't find conclusive proof then you're gonna be back to square one. OK, maybe 1.5, but without hard evidence that the entire population of a third world dictatorship/"ahem, democracy" is in cahoots with the terrorists who set off the bomb, you're not going to be allowed to turn their country into so much glowing silica. This is how we start the war that ends the continued human presence on this planet. Bye bye to one country is bye bye to all.
Unless of course you can wipe out the country without anyone finding out it was you.
And suppose they HAVE reported it stolen to the UN. You're back to square one - you know where the material came from, but unless you know who stole it then you've got no-one to attack in retaliation.
The decision whether or not to scythe a nation from the face of the earth when a minority of their citizenry was aiding and abetting terrorists is never simple. For starters you've got to decide whether to call heads or tails, and then do you do best of three or what?
Sadly, I suspect you're correct. Shoot first, ask questions if we really have to seems to be the way of it these days.
But I'm not really saying turn the other cheek either. If we do that then others think they can walk all over us. It's the problem with being one of the good guys - you have to BE good all the time. Not just when it's convenient. But just what is a proportional response in that sort of situation?
Whew! The view from up on this high horse is amazing.
"You gave those people material to make a nuclear weapon!" "No we didn't." "Yes, you did! We traced the signiture back to this facility!" "Oh yeah, it came from here alright, but that stuff was stolen a couple of years ago. We're just a poor country with lax security." "Um..."
'Course we could destroy them utterly anyway. Just for kicks, y'know?
I reckon that's unlikely. The moment you start answering nukes with nukes you're in serious overkill trouble. Who's to say whether a reactionary neighbouring country that HAS WMDs won't take umbrage at your setting off some nuclear weapons next door. Retaliation leads to retaliation and so on and so forth.
A patron nation will contain innocents. Because a small group of people (and I mean small in the same way that a football stadium full of people is small compared to the population of a country) perpetrate an act that kills thousands, doesn't mean you can go and nuke thousands of innocents in a patron nation. Will it make you feel better? Maybe, yeah. Will it all end in tears? Well, probably a big firey death for all concerned but, yeah.
Sure, terrorism is wrong. I don't think anyone here would seriously dispute that. But it doesn't give us the right to commit acts of terror in retribution. We're meant to be better than that.
"Being ruled under dictatorship is one thing. But fearing an unknown and all-powerful god is another. I mean, how CAN you argue against such a belief among your fellow pears without being burned at the stake?"
Sounds to me like you're trying to compare apples and oranges. Gettit? 'Peers' and 'pears'? Huh? Please yourselves. ^_^
Sorry, sorry. Don't mind my twisted sense of humour. ^_^
Oh, and back to the point - I pretty much agree with the opinion.
As far as I could interpret the article, the issue wasn't that the weight of one side made it heavier, but rather that no matter how much force you use to flip the coin you may not actually flip it - or something. That's a bit vague but it seems to be that there are two extremes: perfectly symmetrical flip of the coin around its central axis, and flip where the coin stays flat (ie doesn't flip at all). The first is unbiased and the second is fully biased. The research seems to have shown that any flip where the coin is not flipped perfectly symmetrically is slightly biased - ie any flip where the axis around which the coin is flipped is off centre or that it doesn't actually flip but is precessing around an axis.
I think the idea is that all flips are a combination of these two states. Then the sum over the possibile flips gives a slight bias to the initial state.
I could have read it wrong though. Mind you, I'd guess that for proper research into this they wouldn't have just started with the same side up each time. Instead they'd have to note which way up the coin was before they started to get a random sampling of heads and tails results.
Yeah. You could be right. Can't remember where I first heard it - feels like a Readers Digest joke, but I'm sure there are many and multifarious variants... substitute your own numbers and dialogue as required. ~_^
A traveling salesman stops by a farm and in the process of trying to sell his wares becomes aware of something strange out in the yard. It's a tiny newborn chick - with eight legs.
The farmer notices him staring and decides to explain. The idea is that when people buy a chicken, everyone wants a leg but since there are only two legs someone always misses out. So, what the farmer has done is to breed chickens with more legs.
The salesman leaves shaking his head and doesn't think any more about it, until two years later he's in the same area and decides to go back to the farm. When he gets there he sees the farm is in disrepair, overrun with eight-legged chickens and the farmer looks starved and poor.
"What's happened?" asks the salesman. "The last time I was here you looked like you were onto a good thing breeding eight-legged chickens."
"Ah," replies the farmer, "the breeding program was a great success. The problem is we can't catch them!"
Here's the part of the original post where the request for information comes in:
"I want to know how and what I should buy, to provide wireless access through out the whole building, so we can all share one connection. There are 6 double-room apartments on each side, and we only have four floors. I'll hopefully have access to the elevator shaft, in case I need it. Will $7,000 be enough?" How cheaply could you do something like this, assuming you had access to much of the building? What would be the best way to set up the access points to guarantee the best coverage for the whole building?"
In no part of this does he ask for financial advice. You can take from this that he has $7000 of cash to spend on the personal project of his choice. HIS CHOICE. Not saying I agree with it. Just that I don't have the right to diss it.
Oh, and before I get onto the rest of the rant, I'd be thinking a bunch of wireless cards and one (or maybe two access points/repeaters) per floor for reasonable coverage.
"Um. Seems pretty clear: we know he lives in an apartment, and thinks $7000 is a lot of money."
Not sure what you're trying to say here. That apartment living is for the poor? It all depends on where the flat is and whether he owns it or rents it and what the communal tenancy agreement/factoring arrangements are and many other factors too. All we know is that he got left $7000 and has decided to up his hardware levels.
"Want to play the game some more? He is probably young, else he would not have mentioned the great aunt's death as a novelty. He seems to be unable to scope and budget a wireless network despite being "into computers." He probably has no savings, none, because otherwise he'd have considered this project earlier."
The first part I might be inclined to agree with. On the other hand, I would consider a great aunt's death a novelty since I don't have many of them and they're unlikely to leave me money. Scope and budgeting for a wireless network? Fair enough, but give him some credit - he's asking for advice on it. And it's possible he's finally got to the stage of being comfortable where he is - maybe he's bought his apartment, just been promoted within the company, slowly working his way up the corporate ladder and just got himself a little dog named snuffles - we just don't know. Maybe up until now he's been spending his extra cash looking after his great aunt in her twilight years. He might just want a new project.
Now, I've had my rant. I have to say, you have my every sympathy for having difficult relatives. Not everyone is like them though. Give the guy a chance, y'know?
Slashdot Mirror
Fair point. I've never been accused of being easily understood. Just glad to note that there are other people out there that read before posting.
Yeah, I was thinking that.
The link at the bottom of the main page has a lot more info, but it seems to be saying that they've developed a means of modulating signals at higher frequencies than has been possible before by using only silicon devices. They've stuck it all on one chip for signal generation and one chip for signal detection. If they can get it working in a high volume fab plant then they'll get faster input/output from their chips.
Practical uses: faster bus/interconnects. If they can make it cheap enough. And get it working. And...
Anyway... interesting...
Yeah, got something going for it. Better than the Games section. *switches tabs* Aargh! My eyes!
Your head glows red for a moment.
"Does the electric chair make prisoners enlightened just before it cooks them?"
Well... it's supposed to teach them a lesson they'll never forget, so...
Oh come on! That's basic pseudo-science! EVERYONE knows the old energy of a tennis serve unit! Just like it's obvious that asteroids come in fixed basketball, Volkswagon and Texas sizes.
The aircraft thing is probably a good idea - depends how the coating responds to extremes of cold. The last thing you want is for your windows suddenly to turn opaque at 30000 feet. But, y'know, if it passes this basic test...
Plastic windows on your car... probably not such a great idea - the problem with car windows is that they are designed to shatter into tiny pieces rather than large jagged chunks that can rupture organs and generally shred the passengers in the event of a crash. Glass is cheap and does the job well. Cool as it would be to have wrap around windows, I reckon the auto companies will be unlikely to shell out the development cash.
Best use I've found for AOL CDs is to put them in the microwave for around 15 seconds. Fun, safe(ish) sparkly light show.
Aaanyway...
Let's be honest, it's not exactly cruel compared to old style mousetraps that snap the little blighters backs now is it?
...I'm a bad bad person. ^_^
Hmmn... if you want to make it cruel AND make it fun... exchange the bucket for the feeding mechanism of a tennis ball launcher! Now that's cruel. AND fun!
*squeek* *squeek* nibble nibb.. slide scrabble pause... Thwump! Wheee!
Might not be fun for the mouse but install enough of them on your farm and the fields will be alive with the sight of airbourne rodents this summer!!!
Yeah, should be totally safe. It's a laser where the intention is that the beam will exit the device - they're not gonna be allowed to use more than a weak class I laser. It'll be safer than most laser pointers and the only way to damage someone with one of those is to shine it directly in their eyes and prevent them from blinking. Well, I guess there are more ways but they require a bit of ingenuity.
Kids will be safe. Adults with a penchant for overclocking... well, better get a desk with good optical and thermal dissipation is all I'm sayin'...
Alternatively, any asymmetric acceleration of mass will do for signal generation. Take a couple of neutron stars, arrange them in a binary configuration and modulate the speed at which they spin around each other - simple! Now all we need are some super powered tractor beams and we're set!
Damn, we need a detector too. See original story for details...
Oh, didn't you get them memo? We remade the universe with a few modifications over lunch - we didn't like some of the old physical parameters so we changed them a bit.
You can't just deploy nuclear weapons on a whim like that. And it WOULD be a whim unless the investigation you speak of so highly turns up solid proof. It gets investigated by the UN. Not the US. Inspectors would be sent in. International law would be adhered to. A report would be published. Action would be taken on that report. You can't just go on gut feeling here - we're treading on the world stage and have to walk softly or someone in the audience will start throwing rotten fruit.
If the report doesn't find conclusive proof then you're gonna be back to square one. OK, maybe 1.5, but without hard evidence that the entire population of a third world dictatorship/"ahem, democracy" is in cahoots with the terrorists who set off the bomb, you're not going to be allowed to turn their country into so much glowing silica. This is how we start the war that ends the continued human presence on this planet. Bye bye to one country is bye bye to all.
Unless of course you can wipe out the country without anyone finding out it was you.
And suppose they HAVE reported it stolen to the UN. You're back to square one - you know where the material came from, but unless you know who stole it then you've got no-one to attack in retaliation.
The decision whether or not to scythe a nation from the face of the earth when a minority of their citizenry was aiding and abetting terrorists is never simple. For starters you've got to decide whether to call heads or tails, and then do you do best of three or what?
Sadly, I suspect you're correct. Shoot first, ask questions if we really have to seems to be the way of it these days.
But I'm not really saying turn the other cheek either. If we do that then others think they can walk all over us. It's the problem with being one of the good guys - you have to BE good all the time. Not just when it's convenient. But just what is a proportional response in that sort of situation?
Whew! The view from up on this high horse is amazing.
Nah. I can see it now:
"You gave those people material to make a nuclear weapon!"
"No we didn't."
"Yes, you did! We traced the signiture back to this facility!"
"Oh yeah, it came from here alright, but that stuff was stolen a couple of years ago. We're just a poor country with lax security."
"Um..."
'Course we could destroy them utterly anyway. Just for kicks, y'know?
I reckon that's unlikely. The moment you start answering nukes with nukes you're in serious overkill trouble. Who's to say whether a reactionary neighbouring country that HAS WMDs won't take umbrage at your setting off some nuclear weapons next door. Retaliation leads to retaliation and so on and so forth.
A patron nation will contain innocents. Because a small group of people (and I mean small in the same way that a football stadium full of people is small compared to the population of a country) perpetrate an act that kills thousands, doesn't mean you can go and nuke thousands of innocents in a patron nation. Will it make you feel better? Maybe, yeah. Will it all end in tears? Well, probably a big firey death for all concerned but, yeah.
Sure, terrorism is wrong. I don't think anyone here would seriously dispute that. But it doesn't give us the right to commit acts of terror in retribution. We're meant to be better than that.
"Being ruled under dictatorship is one thing. But fearing an unknown and all-powerful god is another. I mean, how CAN you argue against such a belief among your fellow pears without being burned at the stake?"
Sounds to me like you're trying to compare apples and oranges. Gettit? 'Peers' and 'pears'? Huh? Please yourselves. ^_^
Sorry, sorry. Don't mind my twisted sense of humour. ^_^
Oh, and back to the point - I pretty much agree with the opinion.
*SNAP*
Oh well, that settles that one then. Rematch?
Ever been on holiday and had that nagging feeling that you've left the cooker on? Well, now you can phone up to check and it won't cost you a thing!
Amazing what runs through your head when you're this tired, eh?
It doesn't say he didn't record the results. It just says he didn't record which way up the coin waseach time before he flipped it.
As far as I could interpret the article, the issue wasn't that the weight of one side made it heavier, but rather that no matter how much force you use to flip the coin you may not actually flip it - or something. That's a bit vague but it seems to be that there are two extremes: perfectly symmetrical flip of the coin around its central axis, and flip where the coin stays flat (ie doesn't flip at all). The first is unbiased and the second is fully biased. The research seems to have shown that any flip where the coin is not flipped perfectly symmetrically is slightly biased - ie any flip where the axis around which the coin is flipped is off centre or that it doesn't actually flip but is precessing around an axis.
I think the idea is that all flips are a combination of these two states. Then the sum over the possibile flips gives a slight bias to the initial state.
I could have read it wrong though. Mind you, I'd guess that for proper research into this they wouldn't have just started with the same side up each time. Instead they'd have to note which way up the coin was before they started to get a random sampling of heads and tails results.
Yeah. You could be right. Can't remember where I first heard it - feels like a Readers Digest joke, but I'm sure there are many and multifarious variants... substitute your own numbers and dialogue as required. ~_^
A traveling salesman stops by a farm and in the process of trying to sell his wares becomes aware of something strange out in the yard. It's a tiny newborn chick - with eight legs.
The farmer notices him staring and decides to explain. The idea is that when people buy a chicken, everyone wants a leg but since there are only two legs someone always misses out. So, what the farmer has done is to breed chickens with more legs.
The salesman leaves shaking his head and doesn't think any more about it, until two years later he's in the same area and decides to go back to the farm. When he gets there he sees the farm is in disrepair, overrun with eight-legged chickens and the farmer looks starved and poor.
"What's happened?" asks the salesman. "The last time I was here you looked like you were onto a good thing breeding eight-legged chickens."
"Ah," replies the farmer, "the breeding program was a great success. The problem is we can't catch them!"
Here's the part of the original post where the request for information comes in:
"I want to know how and what I should buy, to provide wireless access through out the whole building, so we can all share one connection. There are 6 double-room apartments on each side, and we only have four floors. I'll hopefully have access to the elevator shaft, in case I need it. Will $7,000 be enough?" How cheaply could you do something like this, assuming you had access to much of the building? What would be the best way to set up the access points to guarantee the best coverage for the whole building?"
In no part of this does he ask for financial advice. You can take from this that he has $7000 of cash to spend on the personal project of his choice. HIS CHOICE. Not saying I agree with it. Just that I don't have the right to diss it.
Oh, and before I get onto the rest of the rant, I'd be thinking a bunch of wireless cards and one (or maybe two access points/repeaters) per floor for reasonable coverage.
"Um. Seems pretty clear: we know he lives in an apartment, and thinks $7000 is a lot of money."
Not sure what you're trying to say here. That apartment living is for the poor? It all depends on where the flat is and whether he owns it or rents it and what the communal tenancy agreement/factoring arrangements are and many other factors too. All we know is that he got left $7000 and has decided to up his hardware levels.
"Want to play the game some more? He is probably young, else he would not have mentioned the great aunt's death as a novelty. He seems to be unable to scope and budget a wireless network despite being "into computers." He probably has no savings, none, because otherwise he'd have considered this project earlier."
The first part I might be inclined to agree with. On the other hand, I would consider a great aunt's death a novelty since I don't have many of them and they're unlikely to leave me money. Scope and budgeting for a wireless network? Fair enough, but give him some credit - he's asking for advice on it. And it's possible he's finally got to the stage of being comfortable where he is - maybe he's bought his apartment, just been promoted within the company, slowly working his way up the corporate ladder and just got himself a little dog named snuffles - we just don't know. Maybe up until now he's been spending his extra cash looking after his great aunt in her twilight years. He might just want a new project.
Now, I've had my rant. I have to say, you have my every sympathy for having difficult relatives. Not everyone is like them though. Give the guy a chance, y'know?