To pointificate: according to all sources I have read, AMPS started comemrcial service in 1983. That was when the "first ceremonial phone-call" was made. Even Wikipedia backs me up on this one.:-)
Sweden (not Denmark, but close) did start an analog cell phone network in 1981: the NMT system. The system was standardised to be the same within the nordic countries, of which Denmark is one. (Japan started even earlier, in 1979) It is not always correct to assume that USA is on the edge of technology development and deployment.
So why then do you need the notability criterion in addition to the verifiability? It takes care of all things in Wikipedia beign "true". The search engine takes care of finding the article you are looking for. (There could be a problem of several people having the same name, but a ranking score could solve that.)
Verifieable how? Websearches exlusivly? In published works? In any language? Or verifiable by interviewing the subject?
Which the definition of verifiability are you arguing? The band can easily pass the Wipipedia definition and still get removed, if all the articles are published locally in Ottawa and not available on the web, as the US editors will find nothing about them in their local newspapers. But they may very well still have a verifiable existance.
OK. Point taken. Lets remove the outright lies, and only keep the things that are verifiable. That will let existing rock bands keep their pages. Where is the problem then? (I am not arguing against neutral point of view.)
And I have never had a Wikipedia article about myself. But please tell me: what is the harm if I would put up an article about my (hypothetical) cat, filled with lies? As the cat does not exist, it would not really matter. And very few, if any, would find and read the article. And any outrageous claims that would surface to the general knowledge, could easily be corrected by other editors.
Exactly! The removal of "non-notable" articles makes Wikipedia less usable, not more. (And to argue that the non-notable information is available on the internet anyway is strange: in that case we don't need Wikipedia at all, as we have Gooogle.)
I do not see the need for the stringent notability criterion on Wikipedia: it is not as that the book will be to thick and expensive to sell if every article would be allowed to stay. (Bandwidth-costs must outweigh the cost for harddisks as it is mainly text.) What would be the harm of being a repisotory of every article that somebody had the energy to write? Still keeping the wiki methid: anybody can correct any article at any time. (I do not see the reason for necessarily keeping the articles short, either. A long article is better than a short one, just make sure that there is a good summary in the beginning. This would also allow for giving opposing theories some space.)
I am very interested in the theoretical basis of your assertion that the quantisation errors in a CD are small enough to be unnoticable by the human ear, and that they are smaller than the errors introduced by a record player.
The only problem is that Nyquist-Shannon sampling demands perfect sampling, i.e. no quantisation. But when doing a analog-to-digital conversion, you do two things: the first is sampling, the second is quantization. And the quantisation leads to information loss, even within the bandwidth given by the Nyquist rate. To summarise: The digitaal sampled representation of a Nyquist-bandwith limited signal does not have enough information to do a perfect reconstrution of the original, analog, signal.
You mess up in more than one way: 16 million colours is by 24 bits, or 3*8, not 256^3. The same mistake goes for a lot of the calculations in the replies on this page.
If we have a paper of size 8.5 x 11 inch, a resolution of 300 dpi, and a colour depth of 24 bts (giving 16.8 million colours, we get a total information content of:
8.5 x 11 x 300 x 300 x 24 = 20196Mbit. Nothing more, nothing less. Shapes etc. is forms of redundancy, or error correcing codes, and reduces the amount of information carried, as measured in bits, and not the other way around.
Simpler only if you take as a given that architecture in the metric system should be based on structures being exactly 1, 2, 3 etc meters. But instead, if you base architecture on a unit of 60 cm, you get the benefit of both the metric system and at the same time the benefit of the simple divisions you like so much. And that is the way it is done in Europe, by the way.
But concept cars still work. They have four wheels and an engine. They are possible to drive. They are prime examples of industrial design. The examples in the article where just "artistic design", which can not ever work, at least not if implemented using the air interfaces that we usually attribute to the concept of "cell phones". They are more like what you get when artist try to make houses: they have a tendency to forget about some boring stuff like rain and wind...
An industrial designer makes forms that follows function and is within the possibilities of engineering. The design you are talking about is the same as art and SciFi-movie prop design. The things presented in the article are scifi-designs, which have very little base in reality... (i.e no account is taken for batteries or antennas.)
And a phone with a larger antenna will have better reception, it follows from Maxwells equations. But the current market does rather accept so-so reception than an antenna. But you are right in part: The lower antenna performance can to some degree be compensated with a better network.
The problem is not so much the date, as the claims themselves...
#1 Coffe: Mythically attrributed to a Kalif. Plant origin in Ethiopia. Introduced in Yemen in the 15th century. Outlawed in Mecca in 1511. But nobody knowss who made the first cup.
#2: Camera: see discussion about word roots elsewhere in thread. It is greek, not arabic.
#3: Chess: Invented in India, modified in arabia. How this makes it of Islamic origin beats me. Modiification yes, not origin.
#4: Flight: Seems OK. Interesting to note that hte attempt was made in Cordoba, spain.
#5: Soap: Of egyptian origin. From wikipedia: "A formula for soap consisting of water, alkali and cassia oil was written on a Babylonian clay tablet around 2200 BC."
#6: Distillation: From Encyclopedia Brittanica "Aristotle (384-322 BC) mentioned that pure water is made by the evaporation of seawater. Pliny the Elder (AD 23-79) described a primitive method of condensation in which the oil obtained by heating rosin is collected on wool placed in the upper part of an apparatus known as a still."
Etc. Not to rain on anybodys parade, but the list seems to have a large part of political agenda behind it. Sadly enough. There is enough that we really have from the middle-east without having to exaggerate things.
I know that you are joking, but just for the benefit of the curious: A pacemaker implant operation is done under local anasthetic (sp?), takes about half an hour, and the patient is awake and talking teh whole time. The patient walks into the hopsital in the morning, and walks out in the afternoon after initial checkups that all is OK.
You could possible fry it, the same way you can fry any radio reciever. But the problem is that due to the reflection of the radio wave at the body surface, and the high attenuation of the body tissues, you would have to generate a very high power signal at the transmitter. That transmitter would not be small, and would probably generate other biological hazards too. And even if you did fry the radio reciever, the inductive link, which is the common one in use today, would still work. And if that one is also broken, pacemakers have a security fallback using permanent magnetic fields. (That is one of the reasons why pacemaker patients should take care with magnets/electronics.)
The largest risk to get killed in an airplane is during and a few minutes after takeoff, and during landing. The highest risk is at taxing (or at least it was a couple of years ago, if you compared to total numer of people killed)
And btw,you have evidence that at one time nothing did happen. The chance for something happenig can still be 1 in 10. Please read up in statistics and probability before you start a career in safety engineering!
Numbers on risk for being "seriously wounded" are from Folksam, one of the larger insurance companies in Sweden. It is taken from their yearly report 2003. This seems to be unavailable form their homepage, only the 2005 report is available. (It does not present the data in the same form, though.) http://www.folksam.se/forskning/index.htm
The data on lethal collision speeds are from Vägverket, the swedish agency for roads and road safety: http://www.vagverket.se/
So we should all drive 30km/h (18mph!) any time there's a remote chance of someone being in the road?
Your conclusion, not mine. You are the one who wrote "Folks- speed doesn't kill,..." Speed does not generate accidents in itself, but it do influence the results of the accidents. If you have time to react and brake you will of course decrease the risk. But the fact is that accidents do happen, even as all cars are equipped with brakes. The reaction time of humans have not been improved along with the performance of the cars.
The mistake is in my line: You probably survive if you have a frontal collision at 65-70km/h in a modern car. You will probaly die in the same collision if you go 150km/h.
It should have said: You probably survive if you have a frontal collision at 65-70km/h in a modern car. You will probaly die in the same collision if you go 90km/h.
The statistics for seriously wounded can be approximated as a piece-wise linear curve. If you drive in a new car (1997-) it looks like this:
20km/h 0% risk
50km/h 30% risk
80km/h 100% risk
The speeds are speed differentials in the collision. The numbers are from actual accidents.
Most people survive being hit by a car going 30km/h. Most people die being hit by a car going 50km/h.
You probably survive if you have a frontal collision at 65-70km/h in a modern car. You will probaly die in the same collision if you go 150km/h.
These are the facts, taken from accident statistics.
Slashdot Mirror
To pointificate: according to all sources I have read, AMPS started comemrcial service in 1983. That was when the "first ceremonial phone-call" was made. Even Wikipedia backs me up on this one. :-)
Sweden (not Denmark, but close) did start an analog cell phone network in 1981: the NMT system. The system was standardised to be the same within the nordic countries, of which Denmark is one. (Japan started even earlier, in 1979)
It is not always correct to assume that USA is on the edge of technology development and deployment.
Correlation does not imply causation.
So why then do you need the notability criterion in addition to the verifiability? It takes care of all things in Wikipedia beign "true". The search engine takes care of finding the article you are looking for. (There could be a problem of several people having the same name, but a ranking score could solve that.)
Verifieable how? Websearches exlusivly? In published works? In any language? Or verifiable by interviewing the subject? Which the definition of verifiability are you arguing? The band can easily pass the Wipipedia definition and still get removed, if all the articles are published locally in Ottawa and not available on the web, as the US editors will find nothing about them in their local newspapers. But they may very well still have a verifiable existance.
OK. Point taken. Lets remove the outright lies, and only keep the things that are verifiable. That will let existing rock bands keep their pages. Where is the problem then? (I am not arguing against neutral point of view.)
And I have never had a Wikipedia article about myself. But please tell me: what is the harm if I would put up an article about my (hypothetical) cat, filled with lies? As the cat does not exist, it would not really matter. And very few, if any, would find and read the article. And any outrageous claims that would surface to the general knowledge, could easily be corrected by other editors.
Exactly! The removal of "non-notable" articles makes Wikipedia less usable, not more.
(And to argue that the non-notable information is available on the internet anyway is strange: in that case we don't need Wikipedia at all, as we have Gooogle.)
I do not see the need for the stringent notability criterion on Wikipedia: it is not as that the book will be to thick and expensive to sell if every article would be allowed to stay. (Bandwidth-costs must outweigh the cost for harddisks as it is mainly text.) What would be the harm of being a repisotory of every article that somebody had the energy to write? Still keeping the wiki methid: anybody can correct any article at any time. (I do not see the reason for necessarily keeping the articles short, either. A long article is better than a short one, just make sure that there is a good summary in the beginning. This would also allow for giving opposing theories some space.)
I am very interested in the theoretical basis of your assertion that the quantisation errors in a CD are small enough to be unnoticable by the human ear, and that they are smaller than the errors introduced by a record player.
The only problem is that Nyquist-Shannon sampling demands perfect sampling, i.e. no quantisation. But when doing a analog-to-digital conversion, you do two things: the first is sampling, the second is quantization. And the quantisation leads to information loss, even within the bandwidth given by the Nyquist rate. To summarise: The digitaal sampled representation of a Nyquist-bandwith limited signal does not have enough information to do a perfect reconstrution of the original, analog, signal.
You mess up in more than one way: 16 million colours is by 24 bits, or 3*8, not 256^3. The same mistake goes for a lot of the calculations in the replies on this page. If we have a paper of size 8.5 x 11 inch, a resolution of 300 dpi, and a colour depth of 24 bts (giving 16.8 million colours, we get a total information content of: 8.5 x 11 x 300 x 300 x 24 = 20196Mbit. Nothing more, nothing less. Shapes etc. is forms of redundancy, or error correcing codes, and reduces the amount of information carried, as measured in bits, and not the other way around.
Once more: 2.45 GHz is NOT the resonance frequency of liquid water, this is a myth.
Simpler only if you take as a given that architecture in the metric system should be based on structures being exactly 1, 2, 3 etc meters. But instead, if you base architecture on a unit of 60 cm, you get the benefit of both the metric system and at the same time the benefit of the simple divisions you like so much. And that is the way it is done in Europe, by the way.
But concept cars still work. They have four wheels and an engine. They are possible to drive. They are prime examples of industrial design. The examples in the article where just "artistic design", which can not ever work, at least not if implemented using the air interfaces that we usually attribute to the concept of "cell phones". They are more like what you get when artist try to make houses: they have a tendency to forget about some boring stuff like rain and wind...
An industrial designer makes forms that follows function and is within the possibilities of engineering. The design you are talking about is the same as art and SciFi-movie prop design. The things presented in the article are scifi-designs, which have very little base in reality... (i.e no account is taken for batteries or antennas.) And a phone with a larger antenna will have better reception, it follows from Maxwells equations. But the current market does rather accept so-so reception than an antenna. But you are right in part: The lower antenna performance can to some degree be compensated with a better network.
The problem is not so much the date, as the claims themselves... #1 Coffe: Mythically attrributed to a Kalif. Plant origin in Ethiopia. Introduced in Yemen in the 15th century. Outlawed in Mecca in 1511. But nobody knowss who made the first cup. #2: Camera: see discussion about word roots elsewhere in thread. It is greek, not arabic. #3: Chess: Invented in India, modified in arabia. How this makes it of Islamic origin beats me. Modiification yes, not origin. #4: Flight: Seems OK. Interesting to note that hte attempt was made in Cordoba, spain. #5: Soap: Of egyptian origin. From wikipedia: "A formula for soap consisting of water, alkali and cassia oil was written on a Babylonian clay tablet around 2200 BC." #6: Distillation: From Encyclopedia Brittanica "Aristotle (384-322 BC) mentioned that pure water is made by the evaporation of seawater. Pliny the Elder (AD 23-79) described a primitive method of condensation in which the oil obtained by heating rosin is collected on wool placed in the upper part of an apparatus known as a still." Etc. Not to rain on anybodys parade, but the list seems to have a large part of political agenda behind it. Sadly enough. There is enough that we really have from the middle-east without having to exaggerate things.
Bill Gates is funding a large initiative against Malaria: http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2001/05/05 31_wiremalaria.html
So the trickle down seems to work fairly well...
I know that you are joking, but just for the benefit of the curious: A pacemaker implant operation is done under local anasthetic (sp?), takes about half an hour, and the patient is awake and talking teh whole time. The patient walks into the hopsital in the morning, and walks out in the afternoon after initial checkups that all is OK.
You could possible fry it, the same way you can fry any radio reciever. But the problem is that due to the reflection of the radio wave at the body surface, and the high attenuation of the body tissues, you would have to generate a very high power signal at the transmitter. That transmitter would not be small, and would probably generate other biological hazards too. And even if you did fry the radio reciever, the inductive link, which is the common one in use today, would still work. And if that one is also broken, pacemakers have a security fallback using permanent magnetic fields. (That is one of the reasons why pacemaker patients should take care with magnets/electronics.)
The largest risk to get killed in an airplane is during and a few minutes after takeoff, and during landing. The highest risk is at taxing (or at least it was a couple of years ago, if you compared to total numer of people killed) And btw,you have evidence that at one time nothing did happen. The chance for something happenig can still be 1 in 10. Please read up in statistics and probability before you start a career in safety engineering!
Nuclear pacemakers have been manufactured and used. They stopped being produced mainly due to public image problems. The patients also have to be tracked and monitored;- comm/info-notices/1998/in98012.html
http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/gen
Numbers on risk for being "seriously wounded" are from Folksam, one of the larger insurance companies in Sweden. It is taken from their yearly report 2003. This seems to be unavailable form their homepage, only the 2005 report is available. (It does not present the data in the same form, though.) http://www.folksam.se/forskning/index.htm
The data on lethal collision speeds are from Vägverket, the swedish agency for roads and road safety: http://www.vagverket.se/
So we should all drive 30km/h (18mph!) any time there's a remote chance of someone being in the road?
Your conclusion, not mine. You are the one who wrote "Folks- speed doesn't kill,..." Speed does not generate accidents in itself, but it do influence the results of the accidents. If you have time to react and brake you will of course decrease the risk. But the fact is that accidents do happen, even as all cars are equipped with brakes. The reaction time of humans have not been improved along with the performance of the cars.
The mistake is in my line:
You probably survive if you have a frontal collision at 65-70km/h in a modern car. You will probaly die in the same collision if you go 150km/h.
It should have said:
You probably survive if you have a frontal collision at 65-70km/h in a modern car. You will probaly die in the same collision if you go 90km/h.
The statistics for seriously wounded can be approximated as a piece-wise linear curve. If you drive in a new car (1997-) it looks like this:
20km/h 0% risk
50km/h 30% risk
80km/h 100% risk
The speeds are speed differentials in the collision. The numbers are from actual accidents.
Most people survive being hit by a car going 30km/h. Most people die being hit by a car going 50km/h.
You probably survive if you have a frontal collision at 65-70km/h in a modern car. You will probaly die in the same collision if you go 150km/h.
These are the facts, taken from accident statistics.