"I can't wait for some religious nutbar to claim that an "intelligent" gravity theory should be joined to any other existing theory in scientific discussion."
"Intelligent gravity" would be an oxymoron, since it's really comedy.
Here is a recent presentation from the FAA regarding the interference issues, which includes these findings:
Simulation results showed that completion of the Network of highpowered
base stations envisioned by LightSquared would result in
degradation or loss of GPS function (ranging, position) at standoff
distances of a few kilometers extending to space operations ... Certain applications, even with modification or complete redesign, would
still not be able to perform their current mission in the presence of such
a Network broadcasting directly adjacent to the GPS L1 band
"Senator Grassley's problem with the nomination of the new FCC chairman has nothing to do with that."
Unless he's concerned that the FCC is making decisions based on political pressures, and not unbiased technical data and public input.
Many people aren't aware of the criticality of the GPS system. In addition to the well known consumer navigation products, GPS is a critical part of a lot of other businesses. It's used for syncronizing timing across cell phone towers (and lots of other timing uses), the FAA is working on making GPS a more useful/critical component of aviation, modern surveying depends on GPS accuracy, etc. Specific to a Senator from Iowa, farmers use GPS to auto-navigate their implements to plant and harvest crops. And, of course, there's the military use, which is why it was created in the first place.
Lightsquared got an allocation for satellite frequencies, then a fast track allowance for using them terrestrially, in essence getting very cheap spectrum compared to LTE competitors who paid for spectrum which was always intended for terrestrial use.
Now, they're disingenuously claiming that the fault is in the GPS receivers. Radio devices are designed with filters to block adjacent channel interference. But, there is no perfect filter, and costs increase exponentially as you try to get closer to a sharp "brick wall" cutoff. GPS devices were designed with the understanding that adjacent frequencies were for satellite use (which they were at the time), so they were designed with filters to deal with those signal levels. That's not unreasonable. Lightsquared's terrestrial signals can be expected to be +60 dbm stronger (1,000,000 times the power) than a satellite signal.
Note that complaints about this allowance for Lightsquared are widespread, and not limited to Republicans.
"my understanding is this Lightsquared thing uses unused parts of the spectrum and won't bother GPS. "
Then your understanding would be wrong. Lightsquared wants to set up an LTE network, with nationwide coverage. They would use terrestrial stations transmitting on frequencies immediately adjacent to GPS frequencies. The terrestrial stations would cover areas of dense population, and rural areas would be covered by satellite.
These frequencies were formerly allotted solely to satellite use. Lightsquared got someone at the FCC to do a fast track (public comment period of only 7 business days after announcement, and across Thanksgiving holiday 2010) approval for also using these frequencies terrestrially.
The problem is, terrestrial signals are MUCH closer/stronger than satellite ones, and many/most GPS receivers were designed based on adjacent signals having a satellite-level strength, and therefore are subject to interference from Lightsquared's terrestrial signals.
This isn't so much a political thing (except perhaps how Lightsquared's approval got fast tracked), but a technical one.
Here's something describing the situation as GPS users see it, and another, which describes the fast tracking which was done:
The FCC turned up its nose at assertions by some that the entire process was conducted in near-stealth mode as well as on an admitted fast-track, filed during a period coinciding with Thanksgiving and winter holidays so that it would pass with little notice. "We conclude that the pleading cycle for LightSquared's request - in which the Comment Public Notice was issued on November 19, 2010, with comments due on December 2, 2010, and reply comments due on December 9, 2010 - is sufficient for the decisions we make herein."
"Hacking is hacking into remote targets. Cracking is cracking software on your local computer by reverse engineering and debugging it."
Absolutely wrong. "Hacker" is defined, and differentiated from "cracker," in RFC 1392:
cracker
A cracker is an individual who attempts to access computer systems
without authorization. These individuals are often malicious, as
opposed to hackers, and have many means at their disposal for
breaking into a system...
hacker
A person who delights in having an intimate understanding of the
internal workings of a system, computers and computer networks in
particular. The term is often misused in a pejorative context,
where "cracker" would be the correct term.
I've got an idea to solve that, which I'm going to patent.
You store the sequence as a chain of different types of molecules (I'll call them "base pairs") which can link together, that way the storage will take up really minimal space. You could even have a chemical process which replicated the original, to produce more of the original.
The major parties are the same. Their platforms can be summarized as:
1. Build and maintain government power. 2. The other party is evil. 3. The more we make people believe #2, the more they'll ignore that #1 is our real agenda.
"I think it is completely incorrect to say that everyone has a right to healthcare"
Everyone does have a right to healthcare. But, it's not a right which allows someone to demand that it be provided free, or that others pay for it. The right is that a government has no authority to prevent someone from receiving healthcare.
It's like the natural right to self defense - I can buy a firearm, but can't demand that the government give me one.
"If a doctor prescribes "generic lipitor equivalent" since he doesn't care about the brand and generics are generally cheaper, then the pharmacy provides a "generic" designated version and can't give brand name Lipitor even if the branded version is actually cheaper."
"Generic" doesn't mean what you think it means. "Generic lipitor equivalent" includes branded Lipitor, since it's the same drug (atorvastatin).
that the quoted David A. Balto is an anti-trust attorney, and from his statements likely working for a generic drug manufacturer(s). He argued for the ATT/T-Mobile merger, so one can tell he's not particular about which side he argues.
Most states have laws which require pharmacies to dispense less expensive generics, if requested. Some even require it:
Whenever a pharmacist receives a prescription for a brand name
drug, the pharmacist shall substitute a less expensive generically equivalent drug unless
requested otherwise by the purchaser or indicated otherwise by the prescriber.
Phizer has, no doubt, efficient large scale production processes in place for atorvastatin. If they can produce and sell it for less than companies which focus on generics, more power to them. How is this bad for the consumer?
Is meta-moderation random? I get top-of-page invitations to metamod, so assume that that's part of the formula, too - the higher your mods are meta-modded, the more likely you are to be able to both mod and meta-mod. The effect is users with "good" ratings get to do more of each, which overwhelms the randomness of giving most/all users an occasional chance.
doesn't the meta-moderation system essentially do what Google is talking about - I always assumed that if your mods got marked as appropriate in metamod, your chances of modding again improved, and vice-versa.
What makes your examples not-censorship? At the core, common definitions of censorship agree that it is the restriction of speech (communications). When (if) you avoid using "Fsck" in polite conversation, you're censoring yourself.
Slashdot Mirror
"I can't wait for some religious nutbar to claim that an "intelligent" gravity theory should be joined to any other existing theory in scientific discussion."
"Intelligent gravity" would be an oxymoron, since it's really comedy.
"It was good enough 2000 years ago, it should be good enough today."
So, no GPS or Lightsquared LTE, is that your point?
"Senator Grassley's problem with the nomination of the new FCC chairman has nothing to do with that."
Unless he's concerned that the FCC is making decisions based on political pressures, and not unbiased technical data and public input.
Many people aren't aware of the criticality of the GPS system. In addition to the well known consumer navigation products, GPS is a critical part of a lot of other businesses. It's used for syncronizing timing across cell phone towers (and lots of other timing uses), the FAA is working on making GPS a more useful/critical component of aviation, modern surveying depends on GPS accuracy, etc. Specific to a Senator from Iowa, farmers use GPS to auto-navigate their implements to plant and harvest crops. And, of course, there's the military use, which is why it was created in the first place.
Lightsquared got an allocation for satellite frequencies, then a fast track allowance for using them terrestrially, in essence getting very cheap spectrum compared to LTE competitors who paid for spectrum which was always intended for terrestrial use.
Now, they're disingenuously claiming that the fault is in the GPS receivers. Radio devices are designed with filters to block adjacent channel interference. But, there is no perfect filter, and costs increase exponentially as you try to get closer to a sharp "brick wall" cutoff. GPS devices were designed with the understanding that adjacent frequencies were for satellite use (which they were at the time), so they were designed with filters to deal with those signal levels. That's not unreasonable. Lightsquared's terrestrial signals can be expected to be +60 dbm stronger (1,000,000 times the power) than a satellite signal.
Note that complaints about this allowance for Lightsquared are widespread, and not limited to Republicans.
Then your understanding would be wrong. Lightsquared wants to set up an LTE network, with nationwide coverage. They would use terrestrial stations transmitting on frequencies immediately adjacent to GPS frequencies. The terrestrial stations would cover areas of dense population, and rural areas would be covered by satellite.
These frequencies were formerly allotted solely to satellite use. Lightsquared got someone at the FCC to do a fast track (public comment period of only 7 business days after announcement, and across Thanksgiving holiday 2010) approval for also using these frequencies terrestrially.
The problem is, terrestrial signals are MUCH closer/stronger than satellite ones, and many/most GPS receivers were designed based on adjacent signals having a satellite-level strength, and therefore are subject to interference from Lightsquared's terrestrial signals.
This isn't so much a political thing (except perhaps how Lightsquared's approval got fast tracked), but a technical one.
Here's something describing the situation as GPS users see it, and another, which describes the fast tracking which was done:
"It seems bafflingly weird that PR would provide a number so grossly wrong"
Not really.
Marketeer: How many transistors in the new chip?
Engineer: We're up over a billion now.
Marketeer: Ok, thanks. 2 billion.
If you don't want to pay $2, then just visit the /. "tourist attraction." timothy strikes again.
You must be new here - it's timothy.
Absolutely wrong. "Hacker" is defined, and differentiated from "cracker," in RFC 1392:
"they have insufficient affordable storage."
I've got an idea to solve that, which I'm going to patent.
You store the sequence as a chain of different types of molecules (I'll call them "base pairs") which can link together, that way the storage will take up really minimal space. You could even have a chemical process which replicated the original, to produce more of the original.
The major parties are the same. Their platforms can be summarized as:
1. Build and maintain government power.
2. The other party is evil.
3. The more we make people believe #2, the more they'll ignore that #1 is our real agenda.
"I think it is completely incorrect to say that everyone has a right to healthcare"
Everyone does have a right to healthcare. But, it's not a right which allows someone to demand that it be provided free, or that others pay for it. The right is that a government has no authority to prevent someone from receiving healthcare.
It's like the natural right to self defense - I can buy a firearm, but can't demand that the government give me one.
"If a doctor prescribes "generic lipitor equivalent" since he doesn't care about the brand and generics are generally cheaper, then the pharmacy provides a "generic" designated version and can't give brand name Lipitor even if the branded version is actually cheaper."
"Generic" doesn't mean what you think it means. "Generic lipitor equivalent" includes branded Lipitor, since it's the same drug (atorvastatin).
that the quoted David A. Balto is an anti-trust attorney, and from his statements likely working for a generic drug manufacturer(s). He argued for the ATT/T-Mobile merger, so one can tell he's not particular about which side he argues.
- Pennsylvania, for instance.
Phizer has, no doubt, efficient large scale production processes in place for atorvastatin. If they can produce and sell it for less than companies which focus on generics, more power to them. How is this bad for the consumer?
"fruit bats certainly are cute, I don't think they'll be very effective at eating mosquitoes. "
We just need mosquitoes which genetically altered to taste like mangos.
bring back Cyberdog, which made it easy for users to do their own web mashups.
Is meta-moderation random? I get top-of-page invitations to metamod, so assume that that's part of the formula, too - the higher your mods are meta-modded, the more likely you are to be able to both mod and meta-mod. The effect is users with "good" ratings get to do more of each, which overwhelms the randomness of giving most/all users an occasional chance.
doesn't the meta-moderation system essentially do what Google is talking about - I always assumed that if your mods got marked as appropriate in metamod, your chances of modding again improved, and vice-versa.
What makes your examples not-censorship? At the core, common definitions of censorship agree that it is the restriction of speech (communications). When (if) you avoid using "Fsck" in polite conversation, you're censoring yourself.
"Facebook is based in Ireland"
Huh? No, they're not, although they could certainly have a subsidiary incorporated there.
The location of their headquarters doesn't mean much. Facebook is legally incorporated in Delaware.
Phospho soda, no doubt.
"You and Thierry have something in common: you're both obviously top posters."
Fixed that.