I'm pretty sure that's from Solzenitzen's The First Circle. I'm reading it now - a great work that is very relevant for our authoritarian/socialist times.
Sort of like all web browsers are all EXACTLY THE SAME, right? Please.
Your argument is so ironic, you must be a cable company shill. The important part is not that web browsers use the same protocol, it's the fact that they are controlled by entities separate from the entities who produce and distribute web content.
Do you realize how much web browsing would suck if Yahoo controlled the design of all web browsers? Do you realize in that analogy, Yahoo would stand between all Internet traffic and the consumer?
You clearly have no interest in making sure the best technology gets a chance in the market. You are just defending the greed of an industry grown fat and lazy on the easy money from its government-enforced monopoly.
I do not fear for your fate, however, because I know in the long run, people just aren't going to put up with your shit. After decades of treating consumers like stupid monkeys, they are going to return the favor by flinging your box out the window and using some sort of satellite or wireless service that doesn't rely on your monopoly.
Subsidies are necessary, you're not thinking about how the world works.
Obviously you have never taken an economics class. Subsidies distort the market and reduce the total output that otherwise could be achieved in the presence of free trade.
What happens in case of war or political/trade fallout?
Do you think that people will forget how to grow food? I'm sure if it is the case that some section of the market becomes unavailable, then folks in this country will fill the demand for the food, now that it can be sold at a premium. Yes, there will be upheaval, but there is upheaval in every market all the time.
Creating a monopoly for just 'ONE COMPANY' to horde spectrum does not equal the free market.
It sure can, provided that the auction nets enough value for the asset being sold (spectrum in this case).
Well, I think the point the parent was making was that the government, being a government presiding over a capitalist society, would best serve its people by setting up a free market with the people's spectrum.
The value of any monopoly is never infinite so provided that the public receives a high enough price in the auction, exclusivity (i.e. monopoly) can be part of the deal. To see why check out the article on Present Value.
While I agree that the spectrum is SOLD on the free market, it will not be used to PROVIDE a free market to the people who OWN the spectrum. Purchasing the people's spectrum at a "free market price" that results in monopoly would not be the majority opinion of a free market.
When an sound engineer talks about "compression" he means compressing the dynamic range to make the music sound louder.
This is NOT the same thing as compressing sound to save disk space.
Actually, it is exactly the same thing. If the dynamic range of the signal is smaller than it used to be, then you need fewer bits per sample to represent it. This is equivalent to saying that you need less SNR to transmit the information, or that you have reduced the information content.
Granted most other "compressing sound to disk" methods use more complex techniques which exploit the limits of human perception, but that does not mean that simply reducing the dynamic range is not a form of compression.
Are you trolling? Yes, actually, it is. A meteorologist is someone who studies weather. It is an observational science. Weather is NOT climate
Al Gore's views have been backed almost unversally backed by experts in climate.
WTF?
By this logic, someone who calls plays in football is also unqualified to recruit players. Or about a billion other jobs that require thinking about more than one particular topic.
I know in the battle of "Doctorate with decades of real experience and a proven track record in weather historical research and prediction" vs. "Al Gore and his anonymous army of almost universally agreeing experts", well, I think you know who I would go with.
Just because someone sees something differently than the "almost universal" truth, does that mean they are automatically wrong AND evil?
I'm not denying that 1 Watt amplifiers are totally leagal, but doesn't that imply that the antenna is going to be low-gain in order to meet the field strength limits?
The FCC rules actually regulate by field strength, which is why my earlier post says "almost guarantee". It is possible that he is attenuating the signal such that the field strength meets limitations, but since he is most likely using antennas with gain, it is highly likely his system is transmitting at a field strength higher than 500 microvolts/meter at 3 meters from maximum gain.
The one watt amplifiers mentioned in the article almost guarantees that this device is operating outside the FCC part 15 rules.
I know everyone on/. hates the FCC, but consider how many nearby wireless networks might be effectively DoS'ed while he is trying to hack some schmuck's WEP key.
No, I don't consider wiretapping to be a violation of the fourth Amendment. Some court cases diagree with me, but I do not see how recording a telephone call is either a search or seizure.
Before you dismiss me as a crazy, think about arguments against piracy. Most people justify piracy in the fact that there is no harm directly done to anyone when someone pirates a CD.
In the same way, no one is directly harmed by a wiretap. Sure, information is copied to another individual, but that doesn't mean the first individual suffers harm.
Also, we wouldn't mind if the government paid an agent to listen to someone talk to someone else, and report back what he heard. It seems very arbitrary to think that telephone calls deserve protection beyond what is said or done in public. After all, when you are talking on the phone, you are using a public facility at some point, and that implies some form of public interest in regulation.
Your army of robot insects will be useless against my army of robot ninjas.
Everyone knows that robot ninjas can detect and grab insects out of the air at will. They would then proceed to eat them to gain more fuel in order to dominate you.
Funny, but I see your opinion every time I tune into Fox News.
Who is doing the group think?
I'm sorry, but you got way over-modded for what is nothing more than leftist group think. Can someone please tell me what merits this post +5 insightful for "Fox News teh SUX0rs! I am a middle extremist!"
We choose science or scinetific approach because the alternatives are much worse.
Assuming you agree with my earlier premise that science is silent w.r.t. ultimate truth, then I think your statement here is silly.
And science seems to actually work. Arguments of the form "I don't know, but I know this works" are fine, except when you realize that you could make arguments like "Hitler seems to actually build good roads" "The serial murderer seems to actually make good cookies" "Science seems to actually work"
My point is that just because something yields practical or economic benefit doesn't mean that irrelevent statements should also be trusted.
Given your comment and.sig, I think you probably have the same attitude. "We should get rid of the welfare state because capitalism seems to actually work"
I see this sort of attitude in our culture very often. For many reasons, people are more apt to accept the teachings of quarreling scientists rather than quarreling theologians.
I think the reasoning goes something like this:
1.) We live in a time with a very high standard of living for more people than ever in history.
2.) Some of this is due to the fact that engineers and scientists have invented machines to perform labour more efficiently.
3.) Therefore, scientists must also hold answers for ultimate truth.
Such logic is silly when stated in this way, but I think it is roughly what is going on here. Unsurprisingly, there are plenty of those who are specialists in science who are willing to speculate and "inform" the public on "scientific truth".
Along the same lines, people deride intelligent design, defy them to come up with a better explanation. The current scientific wisdom seems to be "life popped into existence, but since that sounds very silly, it must have happened very slowly".
religions insist you take things on faith rather than science and hard facts
I would urge you to consider taking a course in philosophy. The kinds of knowledge that you take to be "hard facts" are in fact neither hard nor nessicarily facts.
No scientist can reason from first principles, he can only assume certain things and attempt to show that they hold in a given setting. This is not a deductive proof, but an inductive one. In other words, even if gravity works for all time, it is possible that gravity was different at some point in time and space for a particular observer. Science can only ignore this evidence or attempt to integrate it into a new story about the world.
Placing all your faith in such an institution is like asking a blind man to tell you about how the world appears.
Umm, you are dead wrong. In America, your writings are in the Public Domain until Congress gives you permission to claim copyright.
If you don't believe me, read the Constitution, Article 8 Section 1: (enumeration of powers of Congress)
To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;
Since Congress has the power to decide not to grant the exclusive Right to authors, it is the case that your works are the govnerment's (ie the people's) property until they decide what to do with them.
At first this seems Orwellian, but if you think about it, it is the essence of free society. None of us are beholden to the arbitrary power of a King to decide what we can say and what we cannot. The Founding Fathers would have alot to say about the free content movements of this era.
Slashdot Mirror
Can you produce the link to said video? It would increase your credibility here.
I'm pretty sure that's from Solzenitzen's The First Circle. I'm reading it now - a great work that is very relevant for our authoritarian/socialist times.
Sort of like all web browsers are all EXACTLY THE SAME, right? Please.
Your argument is so ironic, you must be a cable company shill. The important part is not that web browsers use the same protocol, it's the fact that they are controlled by entities separate from the entities who produce and distribute web content.
Do you realize how much web browsing would suck if Yahoo controlled the design of all web browsers? Do you realize in that analogy, Yahoo would stand between all Internet traffic and the consumer?
You clearly have no interest in making sure the best technology gets a chance in the market. You are just defending the greed of an industry grown fat and lazy on the easy money from its government-enforced monopoly.
I do not fear for your fate, however, because I know in the long run, people just aren't going to put up with your shit. After decades of treating consumers like stupid monkeys, they are going to return the favor by flinging your box out the window and using some sort of satellite or wireless service that doesn't rely on your monopoly.
Subsidies are necessary, you're not thinking about how the world works.
Obviously you have never taken an economics class. Subsidies distort the market and reduce the total output that otherwise could be achieved in the presence of free trade.
What happens in case of war or political/trade fallout?
Do you think that people will forget how to grow food? I'm sure if it is the case that some section of the market becomes unavailable, then folks in this country will fill the demand for the food, now that it can be sold at a premium. Yes, there will be upheaval, but there is upheaval in every market all the time.
Creating a monopoly for just 'ONE COMPANY' to horde spectrum does not equal the free market.
It sure can, provided that the auction nets enough value for the asset being sold (spectrum in this case).
Well, I think the point the parent was making was that the government, being a government presiding over a capitalist society, would best serve its people by setting up a free market with the people's spectrum.
The value of any monopoly is never infinite so provided that the public receives a high enough price in the auction, exclusivity (i.e. monopoly) can be part of the deal. To see why check out the article on Present Value.
While I agree that the spectrum is SOLD on the free market, it will not be used to PROVIDE a free market to the people who OWN the spectrum. Purchasing the people's spectrum at a "free market price" that results in monopoly would not be the majority opinion of a free market.
So, do you work at or are paid for by Verizon?
Would you please tell me what is communist about large corperations controlling the airwaves? I think you've got somthing confused.
There are many ways of looking at this. I think that you might have your thinking confused.
Simply replace "Verizon Wireless" with "The People's Cell Phone Service" and the communist bit becomes obvious.
It is my understanding that recording a telephone conversation is against the law in most states, without notifying the other parties on the line.
Thus, a practical device for this patent would most likely be illegal.
When an sound engineer talks about "compression" he means compressing the dynamic range to make the music sound louder.
This is NOT the same thing as compressing sound to save disk space.
Actually, it is exactly the same thing. If the dynamic range of the signal is smaller than it used to be, then you need fewer bits per sample to represent it. This is equivalent to saying that you need less SNR to transmit the information, or that you have reduced the information content.
Granted most other "compressing sound to disk" methods use more complex techniques which exploit the limits of human perception, but that does not mean that simply reducing the dynamic range is not a form of compression.
Well actually,
Every driver for FedEx is actually a subcontractor working for a seperate company, not an employee.
So yes, in fact, every time they get a new van they are making a new spin-off company.
Are you trolling?
Yes, actually, it is. A meteorologist is someone who studies weather. It is an observational science. Weather is NOT climate
Al Gore's views have been backed almost unversally backed by experts in climate.
WTF?
By this logic, someone who calls plays in football is also unqualified to recruit players. Or about a billion other jobs that require thinking about more than one particular topic.
I know in the battle of "Doctorate with decades of real experience and a proven track record in weather historical research and prediction" vs. "Al Gore and his anonymous army of almost universally agreeing experts", well, I think you know who I would go with.
Just because someone sees something differently than the "almost universal" truth, does that mean they are automatically wrong AND evil?
No, he is just a moron. It's butt here as well.
I'm not denying that 1 Watt amplifiers are totally leagal, but doesn't that imply that the antenna is going to be low-gain in order to meet the field strength limits?
The FCC rules actually regulate by field strength, which is why my earlier post says "almost guarantee". It is possible that he is attenuating the signal such that the field strength meets limitations, but since he is most likely using antennas with gain, it is highly likely his system is transmitting at a field strength higher than 500 microvolts/meter at 3 meters from maximum gain.
The one watt amplifiers mentioned in the article almost guarantees that this device is operating outside the FCC part 15 rules.
/. hates the FCC, but consider how many nearby wireless networks might be effectively DoS'ed while he is trying
I know everyone on
to hack some schmuck's WEP key.
That sounds like the most annoying news-reading experience I can conjure in my imagination.
Minority Report annoyed me because it reminded me how annoying the future is going to be.
someonoe
Not only do I declare you a grammar Nazi, I also declare you a spelling Frenchman.
No, I don't consider wiretapping to be a violation of the fourth Amendment. Some court cases diagree with me, but I do not see how recording a telephone call is either a search or seizure.
Before you dismiss me as a crazy, think about arguments against piracy. Most people justify piracy in the fact that there is no harm directly done to anyone when someone pirates a CD.
In the same way, no one is directly harmed by a wiretap. Sure, information is copied to another individual, but that doesn't mean the first individual suffers harm.
Also, we wouldn't mind if the government paid an agent to listen to someone talk to someone else, and report back what he heard. It seems very arbitrary to think that telephone calls deserve protection beyond what is said or done in public. After all, when you are talking on the phone, you are using a public facility at some point, and that implies some form of public interest in regulation.
You missed the point. The value of NULL is 0, but what is a NULL reference?
Conventional C programmers (not C++) define NULL as (void *) 0x0.
Your army of robot insects will be useless against my army of robot ninjas.
Everyone knows that robot ninjas can detect and grab insects out of the air at will. They would then proceed to eat them to gain more fuel in order to dominate you.
I am not part of the group think
Funny, but I see your opinion every time I tune into Fox News.
Who is doing the group think?
I'm sorry, but you got way over-modded for what is nothing more than leftist group think. Can someone please tell me what merits this post +5 insightful for "Fox News teh SUX0rs! I am a middle extremist!"
We choose science or scinetific approach because the alternatives are much worse.
.sig, I think you probably have the same attitude.
Assuming you agree with my earlier premise that science is silent w.r.t. ultimate truth,
then I think your statement here is silly.
And science seems to actually work.
Arguments of the form "I don't know, but I know this works" are fine,
except when you realize that you could make arguments like
"Hitler seems to actually build good roads"
"The serial murderer seems to actually make good cookies"
"Science seems to actually work"
My point is that just because something yields practical or economic
benefit doesn't mean that irrelevent statements should also be trusted.
Given your comment and
"We should get rid of the welfare state because capitalism seems to actually work"
Thanks for the compliments.
I see this sort of attitude in our culture very often. For many reasons, people are more apt to accept the teachings of quarreling scientists rather than quarreling theologians.
I think the reasoning goes something like this:
1.) We live in a time with a very high standard of living for more people than ever in history.
2.) Some of this is due to the fact that engineers and scientists have invented machines to perform labour more efficiently.
3.) Therefore, scientists must also hold answers for ultimate truth.
Such logic is silly when stated in this way, but I think it is roughly what is going on here. Unsurprisingly, there are plenty of those who are specialists in science who are willing to speculate and "inform" the public on "scientific truth".
Along the same lines, people deride intelligent design, defy them to come up with a better explanation. The current scientific wisdom seems to be "life popped into existence, but since that sounds very silly, it must have happened very slowly".
religions insist you take things on faith rather than science and hard facts
I would urge you to consider taking a course in philosophy. The kinds of knowledge that you take to be "hard facts" are in fact neither hard nor nessicarily facts.
No scientist can reason from first principles, he can only assume certain things and attempt to show that they hold in a given setting. This is not a deductive proof, but an inductive one. In other words, even if gravity works for all time, it is possible that gravity was different at some point in time and space for a particular observer. Science can only ignore this evidence or attempt to integrate it into a new story about the world.
Placing all your faith in such an institution is like asking a blind man to tell you about how the world appears.
New ideas are all well and good, but you have to be reasonable about the tax dollars.
Is it really fair to taxpayers to ask them, under duress, to give their income to crazy mad scientists who think about "new ways of moving"?
Umm, you are dead wrong. In America, your writings are in the Public Domain until Congress gives you permission to claim copyright.
If you don't believe me, read the Constitution, Article 8 Section 1: (enumeration of powers of Congress)
To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;
Since Congress has the power to decide not to grant the exclusive Right to authors, it is the case that your works are the govnerment's (ie the people's) property until they decide what to do with them.
At first this seems Orwellian, but if you think about it, it is the essence of free society. None of us are beholden to the arbitrary power of a King to decide what we can say and what we cannot. The Founding Fathers would have alot to say about the free content movements of this era.