No, it's not worth lofting 3-4 birds in a circumpolar orbit separated by 90 to 120 degrees. But that's only my opinion.
I'll respect your point of view, if you respect mine, so if you think it is worth it, get a some of your friends together and put in a $million or so each, and go for it. I won't try to stop you.
"How can a new method be more accurate than the method we use to define time?"
Because the current definition, based on a hyperfine transition of electrons in the Cesium atom, cannot be practically realized. The "definition refers to a caesium atom at rest at a temperature of 0 K." Neither of those conditions can be realized in the real world (there's gravity, and electromagnetic fields, etc.), and corrections are imperfect.
The new method discussed in the article, allows one to realize a better performing timebase. There are already ones which perform better, but the definition of the second hasn't changed.
"Stacking any two clocks on top of each other would cause them to drift due to relativistic effects."
It depends on where their timebase is. If you have a clock which receives time/frequency from GPS or WWV*, or the AC power line, for example, it won't matter.
That might bring up the definition of "clock." I supposed one might argue that a clock must be self-contained, but most people would agree that their clocks are clocks, and many are driven by the AC powerline.
It's not looking them up, it's having the majority of the traveling population blocked/delayed at the checkpoint, the resulting logistics, and the political fallout.
Innumeracy runs rampant. You're off by a factor of 1000. 10,000,000 (that's 10 million, since you apparently can't parse digits) is a very significant fraction of the (frequently) flying public.
The more citizens who fight the system, the harder it is for them to do any of that. What happens if/when there are 10,000,000 names on the Do Not Fly list?
Whatever happened to the principles the US was founded on? "Live Free or Die," "Don't Tread On Me," "Liberty or Death?" We've become a country of Bread and Circuses consuming, Entitlement gratified proles.
BTW, you can't guarantee 700 ns transit times across 10G, unless you somehow guarantee all traffic is undersized. A full size Ethernet frame has a serialization delay of ~1.5 us on 10G. Closer to 10 us if jumbo frames are in use. No one (?) makes a cut through switch anymore.
I assume the timer starts when the packet is handed off to the protocol stack. Serialization delay for a full sized Ethernet frame is ~1.5 ms on 10 Mb Ethernet. If the outbound ping packet has to get in line behind a large frame to be transmitted, start with 1.5 ms. Assuming both devices are connected to the same L2 switch. Add another 1.5 ms for the ping to get sent out from the switch (same reason). Now double that for the return trip, and add whatever processing delay there might be to respond to the ping. You can be at 6 ms+, with the network working perfectly.
Serialization delay is the time from when the first bit of a frame starts to be sent and the last bit is completed. For instance, a large Ethernet frame might be 1500 bytes = 12000 bits. Across 10 Mb Ethernet, it would take 12000/10000000 =.0012 S = 1.2 ms to get the entire frame "on the wire." That's the serialization delay.
Aw, hell. You don't need to go back 20 years to find bugs in Intel processors, just look at the errata for any current one. Same for almost ANY significantly complex processor.
For example, a simple Google for "intel i7 errata" produces a link to this document, which has a whole errata section. First one:
A single Data Translation Look Aside Buffer (DTLB) error can incorrectly set the Overflow (bit [62]) in the MCi_Status register. A DTLB error is indicated by MCA error code (bits [15:0]) appearing as binary value, 000x 0000 0001 0100, in the MCi_Status register.
Implication: Due to this erratum, the Overflow bit in the MCi_Status register may not be an accurate indication of multiple occurrences of DTLB errors. There is no other impact to normal processor functionality.
Workaround: None identified.
Status: For the steppings affected, see the Summary Table of Changes.
There are others that are more severe in their effects ("processor hangs"). AMD has similar errata, that's not news. Processors have bugs. The FDIV one just happens to be the most well known because it came along at the right time (as personal computers were becoming widely used) to make the general public aware that computers aren't perfect. That's what makes it a candidate for comparison.
For example, let's imagine a thought experiment: if a company is selling 100,000 copies of some digital media product and then piracy comes along and now 1 million people are pirating it and only 50,000 copies are being sold. We could say that piracy halved the sales - causing a "loss" of 50,000 sales. However, since there are 1 million people pirating it, we could calculate that 95% of them (950,000/1,000,000) wouldn't have bought it.
Now, let's suppose they're selling 100,000. Piracy comes along, 1 million pirating, and they're selling 200,000. We could say that piracy doubled the sales, causing a "gain" of 100,000 sales. This is fun! Complete and utter bullshit, but fun!
You quoted, but ignored their explicit admission that the copies provided to the patent office are not a subject of the action: "Apart from the copying of plaintiffs' works accompanying the patent filings described above, this internal copying infringes plaintiffs' copyrights." They do not claim the patent filings were infringing, only that they were unauthorized (and hence only allowable under an exception such as fair use).
They're asking for discovery to see who, other than the patent office, may have received copies of the patent filings. Presumably, they may not consider these additional copies, if any, to be allowed by fair use.
Whether or not such copies fall under fair use or not, the summary remains inaccurate - the suit is not about the copies which were part of the patent filing.
No one is being sued because they included copyrighted material in a patent application, as the summary claims.
From the article, "Earlier this year, the US Patent Office issued a memo indicating its belief that copying and submitting copyrighted documents should be considered a non-actionable fair use."
The plaintiffs agree. Their complaint is that law firms make and distribute multiple copies of the copyrighted works used in the patent applications: "The crux of what our case deals with is the internal copying by the law firms after they have one copy in their hand. . . . Those copies are not licensed, and the patent office didn't take a position on whether or not fair use would apply to those copies."
I was running a Fidonet NEC node, exchanging 100's of KB of messages nightly (at 1200 bps, so typically an hour or more of connect time) with other NECs who would otherwise be long distance calls. Echomail was much like usenet newsgroups. Some were moderated, some not. Not the same thing as one user accessing a local BBS.
This is the problem with many things voting related. I don't want "voter registration drives," or "easier access."
If people can't put out the effort to register on their own or get to a voting booth, how likely are they to put out the effort to learn about the candidates and issues, and make an informed choice? Making it easier for idiots to vote is a _bad_ thing.
It didn't compete with Bell 212A 1200 bps modems (which are 600 baud, BTW). The $20/month (AIR) service (which did offer 1200 bps dialin) competed with $200/month long distance phone bills.
Wireless carriers don't promise any particular bandwidth, it's always stated in relative terms ("faster than before/the competition", "up to x"). Unlimited doesn't mean what you think it means. Compare it to a limited plan, where you either get cut off completely, or pay more when you exceed a threshold.
" no one would agree that unlimited data at 1 Kbps"
I used to have unlimited data at 300 bps. And, I walked 5 miles, through snow, uphill, both ways to school. Now, get off my lawn.
They can and do. But there are practical limits (political, geographic, technical, zoning, time to build) to doing so. I'm not sure how well a phone would work if it had to do handoffs every 2 seconds while driving through a metro area.
Slashdot Mirror
As one of the comments points out:
No, it's not worth lofting 3-4 birds in a circumpolar orbit separated by 90 to 120 degrees. But that's only my opinion.
I'll respect your point of view, if you respect mine, so if you think it is worth it, get a some of your friends together and put in a $million or so each, and go for it. I won't try to stop you.
"publishing trustworthy, referable papers is not cheap."
So, don't pay for it, since it doesn't have much value anyway.
A supposed scientific paper, which is claimed to prove a negative.
"How can a new method be more accurate than the method we use to define time?"
Because the current definition, based on a hyperfine transition of electrons in the Cesium atom, cannot be practically realized. The "definition refers to a caesium atom at rest at a temperature of 0 K." Neither of those conditions can be realized in the real world (there's gravity, and electromagnetic fields, etc.), and corrections are imperfect.
The new method discussed in the article, allows one to realize a better performing timebase. There are already ones which perform better, but the definition of the second hasn't changed.
"Stacking any two clocks on top of each other would cause them to drift due to relativistic effects."
It depends on where their timebase is. If you have a clock which receives time/frequency from GPS or WWV*, or the AC power line, for example, it won't matter.
That might bring up the definition of "clock." I supposed one might argue that a clock must be self-contained, but most people would agree that their clocks are clocks, and many are driven by the AC powerline.
/. is a US site, and 10.000.000 is a version of software, not a number.
"Never the less, a properly maintained DB and app will still render the numbers largely irrelevant."
DB=Delayed Boarding, and you're wrong.
"They get a bigger server farm?"
Whoosh.
It's not looking them up, it's having the majority of the traveling population blocked/delayed at the checkpoint, the resulting logistics, and the political fallout.
"10k names is a small number to search against."
Innumeracy runs rampant. You're off by a factor of 1000. 10,000,000 (that's 10 million, since you apparently can't parse digits) is a very significant fraction of the (frequently) flying public.
The more citizens who fight the system, the harder it is for them to do any of that. What happens if/when there are 10,000,000 names on the Do Not Fly list?
Whatever happened to the principles the US was founded on? "Live Free or Die," "Don't Tread On Me," "Liberty or Death?" We've become a country of Bread and Circuses consuming, Entitlement gratified proles.
BTW, you can't guarantee 700 ns transit times across 10G, unless you somehow guarantee all traffic is undersized. A full size Ethernet frame has a serialization delay of ~1.5 us on 10G. Closer to 10 us if jumbo frames are in use. No one (?) makes a cut through switch anymore.
It's perfectly accurate, math-tard.
I assume the timer starts when the packet is handed off to the protocol stack. Serialization delay for a full sized Ethernet frame is ~1.5 ms on 10 Mb Ethernet. If the outbound ping packet has to get in line behind a large frame to be transmitted, start with 1.5 ms. Assuming both devices are connected to the same L2 switch. Add another 1.5 ms for the ping to get sent out from the switch (same reason). Now double that for the return trip, and add whatever processing delay there might be to respond to the ping. You can be at 6 ms+, with the network working perfectly.
Serialization delay is the time from when the first bit of a frame starts to be sent and the last bit is completed. For instance, a large Ethernet frame might be 1500 bytes = 12000 bits. Across 10 Mb Ethernet, it would take 12000/10000000 = .0012 S = 1.2 ms to get the entire frame "on the wire." That's the serialization delay.
For example, a simple Google for "intel i7 errata" produces a link to this document, which has a whole errata section. First one:
There are others that are more severe in their effects ("processor hangs"). AMD has similar errata, that's not news. Processors have bugs. The FDIV one just happens to be the most well known because it came along at the right time (as personal computers were becoming widely used) to make the general public aware that computers aren't perfect. That's what makes it a candidate for comparison.
Now, let's suppose they're selling 100,000. Piracy comes along, 1 million pirating, and they're selling 200,000. We could say that piracy doubled the sales, causing a "gain" of 100,000 sales. This is fun! Complete and utter bullshit, but fun!
"Unauthorized" != "infringing."
You quoted, but ignored their explicit admission that the copies provided to the patent office are not a subject of the action: "Apart from the copying of plaintiffs' works accompanying the patent filings described above, this internal copying infringes plaintiffs' copyrights." They do not claim the patent filings were infringing, only that they were unauthorized (and hence only allowable under an exception such as fair use).
They're asking for discovery to see who, other than the patent office, may have received copies of the patent filings. Presumably, they may not consider these additional copies, if any, to be allowed by fair use.
Whether or not such copies fall under fair use or not, the summary remains inaccurate - the suit is not about the copies which were part of the patent filing.
No one is being sued because they included copyrighted material in a patent application, as the summary claims.
From the article, "Earlier this year, the US Patent Office issued a memo indicating its belief that copying and submitting copyrighted documents should be considered a non-actionable fair use."
The plaintiffs agree. Their complaint is that law firms make and distribute multiple copies of the copyrighted works used in the patent applications: "The crux of what our case deals with is the internal copying by the law firms after they have one copy in their hand. . . . Those copies are not licensed, and the patent office didn't take a position on whether or not fair use would apply to those copies."
I was running a Fidonet NEC node, exchanging 100's of KB of messages nightly (at 1200 bps, so typically an hour or more of connect time) with other NECs who would otherwise be long distance calls. Echomail was much like usenet newsgroups. Some were moderated, some not. Not the same thing as one user accessing a local BBS.
This is the problem with many things voting related. I don't want "voter registration drives," or "easier access."
If people can't put out the effort to register on their own or get to a voting booth, how likely are they to put out the effort to learn about the candidates and issues, and make an informed choice? Making it easier for idiots to vote is a _bad_ thing.
It didn't compete with Bell 212A 1200 bps modems (which are 600 baud, BTW). The $20/month (AIR) service (which did offer 1200 bps dialin) competed with $200/month long distance phone bills.
Wireless carriers don't promise any particular bandwidth, it's always stated in relative terms ("faster than before/the competition", "up to x"). Unlimited doesn't mean what you think it means. Compare it to a limited plan, where you either get cut off completely, or pay more when you exceed a threshold.
" no one would agree that unlimited data at 1 Kbps"
I used to have unlimited data at 300 bps. And, I walked 5 miles, through snow, uphill, both ways to school. Now, get off my lawn.
"AT&T selling more than they can deliver is impacting users"
You're right. They should just cancel the contracts for those who go over. Would that make you happy?
They can and do. But there are practical limits (political, geographic, technical, zoning, time to build) to doing so. I'm not sure how well a phone would work if it had to do handoffs every 2 seconds while driving through a metro area.