Its commonly claimed (usually with little in the way of statistics) that what qualifies as broadband in the USA would not be considered broadband in other countries.
(Usually the comparison countries are European, where there is a strong state funded telecom authority.)
There's only one method I'm aware of which has been proven to reduce the number of people running red lights: increasing the duration of the amber light.
The scrap iron industry in north america is bigger than the iron mining industry.
Further, Re-emerging civilizations would be free to re-use the metal in buildings, ships, rails, or anything else they didn't need or which was no longer operational.
In addition, garbage dumps contain metals, plastics, and even glass which will last forever all concentrated in a small area.
You seem to have a very defeatist view of human ingenuity.
We've been thru this before. We survived. Doesn't matter what the death toll is in the long run. Humans will survive anything that doesn't kill them within one generation.
A simple change of civilization does not un-invent the drill, the reactor, or the tractor. It does not make people forget how to read a blueprint, where they can find an i-beam, and how to run a hydro-electric plant. You really can't unring the bell unless you kill all the bell ringers.
But Bringing it back to the topic at hand:
An planet cut off from its colonizing civilization would continue to survive if they were nearly self sufficient in the first place. There is no reason to assume a civilization collapse means a species extinction.
Never the less, as you yourself have conceded, the "chain reaction to the bottom" has happened many times before.
In each case the indigenous population just carried on as before. The Fall of the Roman empire, the fall of the Mayan empire, implosion of the Soviet Union, the fall of the Third Reich.
Farmers still farm. Shop keepers still buy from them and sell to customers.
The oil company can still sell the oil, they will still man the platforms, pump the oil, and hire private security.
Society is far more robust than you think. Somalia has stores, farmers, consumers, and nothing but thugs for government. Everybody needs to put food in their belly, and that drive sends a suburbanite out to plant his lawn, cooperate with neighbors, buy a cow or two.
But a new civilization on earth does not begin at ground zero.
It begins with the technology at hand at the instant the prior civilization collapses.
If All earth governments, the rule of law, civil institutions suddenly collapse, perhaps due to the invention of telepathy or the creation of a total new world structure, as yet unimaginable, the current inhabitants of earth still have oil wells, mines, nuclear reactors, etc.
You seem to be equating civilization collapse with total de-population. (Virus wiping out humans or something). But that is something totally different, and I'm not convinced its the topic under discussion.
You see this so much in (what passes for) journalism.
It is so obvious to the reader. But the author, (even with the best of intentions, which in this case I doubt), is so focused on stringing two facts together totally forgets that one fact is Oranges and the other is Codfish.
I can't tell if its a bored reporter assigned to make sense of some dull numbers, or intentional juxtaposition of facts to weight one side of the equation.
But again, you assume collapse due to material exhaustion, which, even for a very OLD civilization would not universally be the case, especially one that migrated to other planets.
Why would a planet be colonized in the first place if there were insufficient materials for self support?
By the way: There is no exhaustion of copper or metals, as any gaze into a junk yard will reveal. In fact we make mining significantly easier for future generations by concentrating all of our waste materials. And any civilization capable of interplanetary migration would be been off hydro-carbons as a primary energy source for eons.
We're probably just the first advanced civilization in our galaxy. No Fermi paradox, no odd extinction events, no improbably rare Earth.
Perhaps, but what basis is there for that assumption?
If you assume on-planet origination of life is the norm, than most civilizations in any given galaxy will be of approximately the same age.
This is not a planet where any given species of animal has totally different mechanisms used for encoding genetics. (AFAIK). Everything seems to use DNA. This suggests local origin, and we are stuck with the geological record to determine timelines.
But for civilizations expanding off-world to other planets this might not be the case.
A re-emerging species of a collapsed civilization might find themselves wondering why their genetic encoding mechanism was so radically different than the animals around them, and, after religious explanations are dealt with over the ages, come to the conclusion they originated elsewhere.
The bit quoted as "Eventually die out and go dark" apparently comes from this quote in the second link:
Their approach is to imagine that civilisations form at a certain rate, grow to fill a certain volume of space and then collapse and die. They even go as far as to suggest that civilisations have a characteristic life time, which limits how big they can become.
However, this deals only with civilizations and not intelligent beings. The Civilization may collapse, after expanding to multiple worlds, but that does not mean that everyone on these planets dies. The would live on to create new civilizations.
Using an admittedly imperfect Earth analogy, the collapse of the Roman or Mayan empires din not lead to the extinction of humans, merely a pause in the development of civilization among that species, (us).
So EVEN if the basic assumption is correct, you would still expect to see many inhabited worlds, populated with remnant people having "arrival myths".
They may have once held knowledge of how to build ships, but deciding instead simply to sit tight, and not draw attention to themselves for a long enough period for any ship building knowledge or desire to wane. But new civilizations and technology would sooner or later arrive on these worlds.
When you start with a flawed and pessimistic assumption, it seems natural that you might arrive at a dismal conclusion.
If the publish the numbers, everyone would flock to the highest emitters, in the hope of maintaining a connection. The law would have the opposite affect than you might think.
But I have to ask, instead of shotgunning a google search at us, why not just find one un-refuted peer reviewed study showing harm?
After all, there is no convincing evidence for a lot of things in life, yet we do not ban or document every single aspect of every thing that touches our life so that people can make a choice. Apply your standard to Oranges, shoe laces, or seat belts. Each of those kill more people than cell phones every year.
That's the GOOD thing about the law in SF. It bans nothing. It limits nothing. It doesn't even require new testing. It just requires that they post a specific measurement that they already have to know for their FCC filing. That's all.
One wonders just why the manufacturers are so against informed consumers that they're willing to spend a pile of cash to avoid informing them.
Well first you force publishing then you restrict power in the city. Kind of like saturated fats in NYC. Only based on voodoo instead of any real studied.
Second, is Joe Sixpack capable of deciphering SAR test results and transmission tests in general? Or would it be dumbed down to the point of meaningless numbers?
But I still don't understand why they fight so hard, because as long as they meet FCC regulations the high power ratings, far from driving customers away, would attract them like flies. Especially in the SF market (where tower growth is fought fiercely).
Everyone would want the highest power possible. The law would have the opposite affect of its promoters.
And that is precisely why the hype and doom scenario in this story is utterly silly.
Does the fact that I can search for and buy something with Google checkout, absolve either the seller or the shipper or the credit card companies of their respective obligations under the law?
Its just an information service. Yes, they will probably add ticketing, hotel reservations, car rental somewhere along the way. Bring it on! If anything, Google would be more forthcoming about hidden fees and costs than the travel industry.
Federal regulators are already starting to make noise about cracking down on the nickel-and-dime fees which often double the ticket price, and nothing could be more welcome. And those regulations would apply to Google's service as well.
The summary argues that ticket-sales by obscurity, obfuscation and legwork is better than than being able to pick from a list or a customized list tailored to the individual.
I get better service from Google than my Airline. Google never lost my bag or bumped me from a flight booked months in advance.
The problem is of course collecting the material to run through such a machine. If you wanted to clean a bucket of oily water - that's you solution. A spill at sea is different though. You obviously can't run the entire ocean through his machine - so it's a matter of collecting the right "parts" to do so.
Exactly so.
There is no imaginable scale-up of this technology that could handle a spill of even a 10th this size in the open ocean, or even Prince William Sound.
Currents disperse oil in sub-surface layers. You have to be able to intake water at various and sometimes extreme depths, in changing conditions.
10 thousand small versions of these couldn't begin to do the job, and gargantuan scale ups wouldn't be nimble enough.
These are best targeted toward protecting closed bays, river systems, marshes.
And they need to burn the oil they salvage as fuel, otherwise the cost of running them would be prohibitive.
I'm guessing that they managed to coax the potatoes into maintaining their normal osmotic balance when watered with brackish water.
And guessing is all you can do here.
How does a one paragraph blurb in an obscure website warrant a slash dot post. (And no, I'm not exactly new here.)
There isn't a shred of attribution, no backup data, no contact information, nothing there but an assertion that potatoes were picked. Even the exif info was stripped from the photo.
I did read my link. But thanks for pointing out what I presumed most readers would have discovered by themselves.
That apple gives you 90 days but ATT only gives you 30 means you are stuck with AT&T after returning you iPhone unless you do it RIGHT NOW. Tick Tock Tick Tock.
Stuck with a carrier you may have only accepted BECAUSE of the iPhone.
You could still get the 3GS for 99 bucks from AT&T to fulfill your contract with, but then you are stuck on a two year contract with last years phone.
And no "Droid(tm)" on At&T, although the Captivate is an excellent phone, and it will drop a lot less calls than any version of iPhone. Reviews I've read suggest the Captivate is great Android phone.
But not to make too much of it, I suspect most iP4 users will take the bumper and live with it.
Furthermore, Apple does not admit the antenna is defective and does not intend to fix it.
Its not defective if you cover it with plastic like everybody else in the handset industry.;-)
And thats exactly the "Solution" Apple has adopted with the bumpers. Bandaid over a Bad design.
But shouldn't phones get better with each release?
These external segmented antennas cause one ADDITIONAL call drop in every 100 calls vs the 3Gs iphone.
Apple is saying See: Only One ADDITIONAL drop per Hundred!
I'm saying: You STILL measure call drops over a Hundred calls?
Bad enough they admit their newer phone is worse than their old phone, but then to admit they are still seeing multiple call drops in 100 calls.
My Nexus One has a full call log and not one call drop. It was a replacement for a iPhone 3G which dropped a few calls per month. Same carrier, Same area. Zero drops since I left Apple.
Slashdot Mirror
What constitutes broadband in China?
Its commonly claimed (usually with little in the way of statistics) that what qualifies as broadband in the USA would not be considered broadband in other countries.
(Usually the comparison countries are European, where there is a strong state funded telecom authority.)
There's only one method I'm aware of which has been proven to reduce the number of people running red lights: increasing the duration of the amber light.
[Citation Needed]
The scrap iron industry in north america is bigger than the iron mining industry.
Further, Re-emerging civilizations would be free to re-use the metal in buildings, ships, rails, or anything else they didn't need or which was no longer operational.
In addition, garbage dumps contain metals, plastics, and even glass which will last forever all concentrated in a small area.
How does javascript constitute monitoring?
You seem to have a very defeatist view of human ingenuity.
We've been thru this before. We survived. Doesn't matter what the death toll is in the long run. Humans will survive anything that doesn't kill them within one generation.
But we have this technology.
A simple change of civilization does not un-invent the drill, the reactor, or the tractor. It does not make people forget how to read a blueprint, where they can find an i-beam, and how to run a hydro-electric plant. You really can't unring the bell unless you kill all the bell ringers.
But Bringing it back to the topic at hand:
An planet cut off from its colonizing civilization would continue to survive if they were nearly self sufficient in the first place. There is no reason to assume a civilization collapse means a species extinction.
Never the less, as you yourself have conceded, the "chain reaction to the bottom" has happened many times before.
In each case the indigenous population just carried on as before. The Fall of the Roman empire, the fall of the Mayan empire, implosion of the Soviet Union, the fall of the Third Reich.
Farmers still farm. Shop keepers still buy from them and sell to customers.
The oil company can still sell the oil, they will still man the platforms, pump the oil, and hire private security.
Society is far more robust than you think. Somalia has stores, farmers, consumers, and nothing but thugs for government.
Everybody needs to put food in their belly, and that drive sends a suburbanite out to plant his lawn, cooperate with neighbors, buy a cow or two.
As you said, its happened many times before.
But a new civilization on earth does not begin at ground zero.
It begins with the technology at hand at the instant the prior civilization collapses.
If All earth governments, the rule of law, civil institutions suddenly collapse, perhaps due to the invention of telepathy or the creation of a total new world structure, as yet unimaginable, the current inhabitants of earth still have oil wells, mines, nuclear reactors, etc.
You seem to be equating civilization collapse with total de-population. (Virus wiping out humans or something). But that is something totally different, and I'm not convinced its the topic under discussion.
How does one compare these statistics?
You see this so much in (what passes for) journalism.
It is so obvious to the reader. But the author, (even with the best of intentions, which in this case I doubt), is so focused on stringing two facts together totally forgets that one fact is Oranges and the other is Codfish.
I can't tell if its a bored reporter assigned to make sense of some dull numbers, or intentional juxtaposition of facts to weight one side of the equation.
But again, you assume collapse due to material exhaustion, which, even for a very OLD civilization would not universally be the case, especially one that migrated to other planets.
Why would a planet be colonized in the first place if there were insufficient materials for self support?
By the way: There is no exhaustion of copper or metals, as any gaze into a junk yard will reveal. In fact we make mining significantly easier for future generations by concentrating all of our waste materials. And any civilization capable of interplanetary migration would be been off hydro-carbons as a primary energy source for eons.
We're probably just the first advanced civilization in our galaxy. No Fermi paradox, no odd extinction events, no improbably rare Earth.
Perhaps, but what basis is there for that assumption?
If you assume on-planet origination of life is the norm, than most civilizations in any given galaxy will be of approximately the same age.
This is not a planet where any given species of animal has totally different mechanisms used for encoding genetics. (AFAIK). Everything seems to use DNA. This suggests local origin, and we are stuck with the geological record to determine timelines.
But for civilizations expanding off-world to other planets this might not be the case.
A re-emerging species of a collapsed civilization might find themselves wondering why their genetic encoding mechanism was so radically different than the animals around them, and, after religious explanations are dealt with over the ages, come to the conclusion they originated elsewhere.
The bit quoted as "Eventually die out and go dark" apparently comes from this quote in the second link:
Their approach is to imagine that civilisations form at a certain rate, grow to fill a certain volume of space and then collapse and die. They even go as far as to suggest that civilisations have a characteristic life time, which limits how big they can become.
However, this deals only with civilizations and not intelligent beings. The Civilization may collapse, after expanding to multiple worlds, but that does not mean that everyone on these planets dies. The would live on to create new civilizations.
Using an admittedly imperfect Earth analogy, the collapse of the Roman or Mayan empires din not lead to the extinction of humans, merely a pause in the development of civilization among that species, (us).
So EVEN if the basic assumption is correct, you would still expect to see many inhabited worlds, populated with remnant people having "arrival myths".
They may have once held knowledge of how to build ships, but deciding instead simply to sit tight, and not draw attention to themselves for a long enough period for any ship building knowledge or desire to wane. But new civilizations and technology would sooner or later arrive on these worlds.
When you start with a flawed and pessimistic assumption, it seems natural that you might arrive at a dismal conclusion.
The already have a choice. Don't buy.
If the publish the numbers, everyone would flock to the highest emitters, in the hope of maintaining a connection. The law would have the opposite affect than you might think.
But I have to ask, instead of shotgunning a google search at us, why not just find one un-refuted peer reviewed study showing harm?
After all, there is no convincing evidence for a lot of things in life, yet we do not ban or document every single aspect of every thing that touches our life so that people can make a choice. Apply your standard to Oranges, shoe laces, or seat belts. Each of those kill more people than cell phones every year.
That's the GOOD thing about the law in SF. It bans nothing. It limits nothing. It doesn't even require new testing. It just requires that they post a specific measurement that they already have to know for their FCC filing. That's all.
One wonders just why the manufacturers are so against informed consumers that they're willing to spend a pile of cash to avoid informing them.
Well first you force publishing then you restrict power in the city. Kind of like saturated fats in NYC. Only based on voodoo instead of any real studied.
Second, is Joe Sixpack capable of deciphering SAR test results and transmission tests in general? Or would it be dumbed down to the point of meaningless numbers?
But I still don't understand why they fight so hard, because as long as they meet FCC regulations the high power ratings, far from driving customers away, would attract them like flies. Especially in the SF market (where tower growth is fought fiercely).
Everyone would want the highest power possible. The law would have the opposite affect of its promoters.
And that is precisely why the hype and doom scenario in this story is utterly silly.
Does the fact that I can search for and buy something with Google checkout, absolve either the seller or the shipper or the credit card companies of their respective obligations under the law?
Its just an information service. Yes, they will probably add ticketing, hotel reservations, car rental somewhere along the way. Bring it on! If anything, Google would be more forthcoming about hidden fees and costs than the travel industry.
Federal regulators are already starting to make noise about cracking down on the nickel-and-dime fees which often double the ticket price, and nothing could be more welcome. And those regulations would apply to Google's service as well.
The summary argues that ticket-sales by obscurity, obfuscation and legwork is better than than being able to pick from a list or a customized list tailored to the individual.
I get better service from Google than my Airline. Google never lost my bag or bumped me from a flight booked months in advance.
The problem is of course collecting the material to run through such a machine. If you wanted to clean a bucket of oily water - that's you solution. A spill at sea is different though. You obviously can't run the entire ocean through his machine - so it's a matter of collecting the right "parts" to do so.
Exactly so.
There is no imaginable scale-up of this technology that could handle a spill of even a 10th this size in the open ocean, or even Prince William Sound.
Currents disperse oil in sub-surface layers. You have to be able to intake water at various and sometimes extreme depths, in changing conditions.
10 thousand small versions of these couldn't begin to do the job, and gargantuan scale ups wouldn't be nimble enough.
These are best targeted toward protecting closed bays, river systems, marshes.
And they need to burn the oil they salvage as fuel, otherwise the cost of running them would be prohibitive.
This seems largely for show. Even the few live testers were forced to hide the phones in bumpers and the missed the finger of death.
Further, they contract out all of their FCC certification runs.
I'm guessing that they managed to coax the potatoes into maintaining their normal osmotic balance when watered with brackish water.
And guessing is all you can do here.
How does a one paragraph blurb in an obscure website warrant a slash dot post. (And no, I'm not exactly new here.)
There isn't a shred of attribution, no backup data, no contact information, nothing there but an assertion that potatoes were picked. Even the exif info was stripped from the photo.
Further, its not particularly newsworthy. Its been studied before by the USDA. http://www.springerlink.com/content/x217188337503232/
AT&T has Already denied this.
But the Captivate is a better phone than the iPhone4 so most people returning a iPhone4 have a ready upgrade at hand.
I did read my link. But thanks for pointing out what I presumed most readers would have discovered by themselves.
That apple gives you 90 days but ATT only gives you 30 means you are stuck with AT&T after returning you iPhone unless you do it RIGHT NOW. Tick Tock Tick Tock.
Stuck with a carrier you may have only accepted BECAUSE of the iPhone.
You could still get the 3GS for 99 bucks from AT&T to fulfill your contract with, but then you are stuck on a two year contract with last years phone.
And no "Droid(tm)" on At&T, although the Captivate is an excellent phone, and it will drop a lot less calls than any version of iPhone. Reviews I've read suggest the Captivate is great Android phone.
But not to make too much of it, I suspect most iP4 users will take the bumper and live with it.
Oh, and about that refund for 90 days.....
Good luck getting out of your ATT contract.
http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2366601,00.asp
The tests were not LIVE, they were staged and taped.
Further, nobody ever demonstrated a call drop on any other phone by touching the phone with ONE FINGER while it was sitting on the desk.
Yet there are videos showing this exact thing with the iP4.
Hi Dan...
Furthermore, Apple does not admit the antenna is defective and does not intend to fix it.
Its not defective if you cover it with plastic like everybody else in the handset industry. ;-)
And thats exactly the "Solution" Apple has adopted with the bumpers. Bandaid over a Bad design.
But shouldn't phones get better with each release?
These external segmented antennas cause one ADDITIONAL call drop in every 100 calls vs the 3Gs iphone.
Apple is saying See: Only One ADDITIONAL drop per Hundred!
I'm saying: You STILL measure call drops over a Hundred calls?
Bad enough they admit their newer phone is worse than their old phone, but then to admit they are still seeing multiple call drops in 100 calls.
My Nexus One has a full call log and not one call drop. It was a replacement for a iPhone 3G which dropped a few calls per month. Same carrier, Same area. Zero drops since I left Apple.
An arrest warrant against an IP address?
You need to catch someone with the device first. Out of state cops can't do that. Only the cops in the city where the laptop is found can do that.
You guys watch way too much tv.
I stand by my statement and encourage you to reread it .
Cops in the theft jurisdiction, absent hot persuit, can not enter another state to make an arrest.