So you really don't realize that most accidents involve some amount of breaking before impact? Initial speed greatly influences what the brakes will be able to do & the speed at the exact moment of impact.
Within 5-10 years 80+% should be easily achievable. 70+% shouldn't raise eyebrows already; available data suggest this number of subscribers is just a simple fact of life. Curious how people have a hard time accepting it.
That just means you and your sister are not a very typical mobile phone subscribers. For example - I'm guessing you have a contract / majority of people in your place have one?
Well, thats quite rare in places with largest growth dynamics. People use prepaid; they own their phones and use them much longer. It's not a "this month's tech" - it's a utlity / often the first & only easy way of communication.
And the UN report explicitly says about 5 billion individual subscribers, as in active accounts, not mobile phones sold (with 1+ billion sold annualy for 4 years, the number would be strangely low)
The UN report talks about the number of people, individual subscribers. The number of mobile phones in use.
With the number of mobile phones sold annually, all of them could be replaced after 4 years; and people often do use them longer - especially since owning your phone & prepaid are a standard pracrise in many developing places.
They are nowhere near over-engineered in few crucial places where it matters. Merging lanes are notoriously too short for example, even for present speed limits; doesn't help when people don't know how to merge, won't help when there will be some regular speeding nearby.
How did you manage to suddenly jump to the s-word? So scary lately?
The idea with mature socialism is about a certain minimum (which is required for abilities & liberties to unfold BTW; it enhances indidvidual autonomy)
But in any super poor country, pretty much everything costing more than $10 in the U.S. is going to be some 100x or 1000x multiple of the median local income.
More than that, when it comes to imports / technology / et al., its price will also be a result of multiplying at least few times those $10, even before getting into buying power of median local income.
In countries without devastating poverty, but still so called "developing", high technology is also typically quite expensive... (and that often includes "more expensive in absolute price" - in a given extreme example of Central African Republic, broadband appears to cost significantly more than 1000 USD per month; would you get it with such prices in the place you live?)
The lack of basics is not a problem in all of developed world - why do you think people there are universally starving, naked, illiterate and without shelter?!
But technology is universally too expensive - and not only relative to local per capita income; it's typically very expensive when compared to absolute prices in developed world, too.
Though to be fair: if a given place is developing, impoverished, et al. - it is, in a way, somewhat more likely to have renewable, self sustained sources of food (how they are often not enough is another issue)
In fact, your place is quite likely far from that ideal - agricultures of developed world rely to tremendous degree on hectares taken from the past (via energy stored in fossil fuels) and borrowed from the future (via spoiling the natural balance of surroundings)
Prices in a given place, in relation to the average monthtly income, is all that matters to the poeple in the end...
But even if you want to look at absolute numbers - apparently the average monthly income is in the range of tens of USD. You certainly wouldn't buy broadband at close to 40x of that amount, too. "High tech" stuff, of various kind, is typically most expensive at such places by all conceivable measures..
Though the carrier issue is also quite often (probably more often) dealt with by carrying more than one simcard & one phone... Then there are dualsim handsets.
Those mobile phones (and mostly so called "feature phones") are also increasingly a way of accessing the web (conveniently, last three reports are about Southeast Asia, Africa and Latin America) - IIRC already close to 30% of Facebook usage is from mobiles. After looking at State of the Mobile Web reports from Opera (which include most popular sites per country), it's quite possible that some notable part of those ~30% is from places where it's often the only frequent method of access. And despite a lot of those users being rather frugal with the amount of browsing / data transferred, Opera Mini is still the #1 mobile web browser by worldwide website stats.
At the end of 2007, the world had 3.2 billion mobile subscribers (that's the metric used here, active numbers - it's damn easy to determine); at the end of 2009 - 4.6 billion. It's quite plausible there would be 5 by now.
Also, while indeed some people have more than one number / some places more than 100% penetration - in many developing ones a group of poeple (say, a family) shares one mobile phone. That's an explicitly stated reason why Nokia puts, into their lowest end (on S30 - 1202, 1280, 1616, etc.) mobile phones, few separate / switchable contact lists & cost trackers. The above two factors cancel each other out a bit; I wouldn't be even too surprised if an actual number of people using mobile phones was slightly higher than the number of accounts.
One can't help but wonder why "3D" photography, at 1.5 century old (just slightly younger than "normal" one), using the same techniques (just for static images obviously - which means it is, for a long time, much easier to make & view), sees only niche usage...
Plus even at the sweet spot, you can't get realistic depth anyway; you can't refocus your eyes (so also no natural changes of parallax) - and worse, you have to keep it focused at the screen, while the footage constantly changes its own focus & parallax; might be disorienting.
Re:The "sweet spot" problem and the "edge" problem
on
The Joke Known As 3D TV
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
Though with audio it generally just sounds a bit different / giving effect in the direction of "lower" standard; not terribly obvious when not in the sweet spot.
With "3D" it's just more wrong (sweet spot is pretty wrong in itself...), not really in the direction of discarding "3D" & appearing flat.
Yeah, 1960's, around the time when one of the earlier "films in 3D!" movements took place. And mostly died out. Heck, why limit ourselves to discussing only moving images? Stereoscopy, the "3D" sister of photography, is only a few years younger of the two; both close to one and a half of a century. With "3D" effect in photos quite easy to achieve & display for a long, long time.
And, apart from few small & temporary crazes, also ignored.
PS. This all might very well be because we're not really discussing 3D here, just "3D" - a cheat which, while providing a bit more cues, still obviously can't accomodate refocusing at will and usual changes of parallax happening during it; another unnatural way to process images (while we're very used to "2D" ones), sometimes even irritatingly closer to reality...but not quite.
Even in the setting of Avatar photographs were "analogue" and the only display with appreciable levels of 3D was used for in-setting CGI/etc.
Slashdot Mirror
Now is also a good time to mention how 80-90% of drivers consider themselves to be above average.
Trucks typically have their own, separate speed limits.
...
So you really don't realize that most accidents involve some amount of breaking before impact? Initial speed greatly influences what the brakes will be able to do & the speed at the exact moment of impact.
Thriving local economy often of the "salvage and sell valuables" kind - a problem less suffered by wireless communication.
Within 5-10 years 80+% should be easily achievable. 70+% shouldn't raise eyebrows already; available data suggest this number of subscribers is just a simple fact of life. Curious how people have a hard time accepting it.
That just means you and your sister are not a very typical mobile phone subscribers. For example - I'm guessing you have a contract / majority of people in your place have one?
Well, thats quite rare in places with largest growth dynamics. People use prepaid; they own their phones and use them much longer. It's not a "this month's tech" - it's a utlity / often the first & only easy way of communication.
And the UN report explicitly says about 5 billion individual subscribers, as in active accounts, not mobile phones sold (with 1+ billion sold annualy for 4 years, the number would be strangely low)
The UN report talks about the number of people, individual subscribers. The number of mobile phones in use.
With the number of mobile phones sold annually, all of them could be replaced after 4 years; and people often do use them longer - especially since owning your phone & prepaid are a standard pracrise in many developing places.
They are nowhere near over-engineered in few crucial places where it matters. Merging lanes are notoriously too short for example, even for present speed limits; doesn't help when people don't know how to merge, won't help when there will be some regular speeding nearby.
How did you manage to suddenly jump to the s-word? So scary lately?
The idea with mature socialism is about a certain minimum (which is required for abilities & liberties to unfold BTW; it enhances indidvidual autonomy)
Of course it does - "the results depend on abilities / capital (also human one)"; which is similar BS in the end.
But in any super poor country, pretty much everything costing more than $10 in the U.S. is going to be some 100x or 1000x multiple of the median local income.
More than that, when it comes to imports / technology / et al., its price will also be a result of multiplying at least few times those $10, even before getting into buying power of median local income.
In countries without devastating poverty, but still so called "developing", high technology is also typically quite expensive... (and that often includes "more expensive in absolute price" - in a given extreme example of Central African Republic, broadband appears to cost significantly more than 1000 USD per month; would you get it with such prices in the place you live?)
The lack of basics is not a problem in all of developed world - why do you think people there are universally starving, naked, illiterate and without shelter?!
But technology is universally too expensive - and not only relative to local per capita income; it's typically very expensive when compared to absolute prices in developed world, too.
You merely describe one of the extremes...
In many so called developing places basics are covered decently.
Though to be fair: if a given place is developing, impoverished, et al. - it is, in a way, somewhat more likely to have renewable, self sustained sources of food (how they are often not enough is another issue)
In fact, your place is quite likely far from that ideal - agricultures of developed world rely to tremendous degree on hectares taken from the past (via energy stored in fossil fuels) and borrowed from the future (via spoiling the natural balance of surroundings)
Since July.
Only "communism"?
Prices in a given place, in relation to the average monthtly income, is all that matters to the poeple in the end...
But even if you want to look at absolute numbers - apparently the average monthly income is in the range of tens of USD. You certainly wouldn't buy broadband at close to 40x of that amount, too. "High tech" stuff, of various kind, is typically most expensive at such places by all conceivable measures..
This number is about subscribers
Though the carrier issue is also quite often (probably more often) dealt with by carrying more than one simcard & one phone... Then there are dualsim handsets.
Those mobile phones (and mostly so called "feature phones") are also increasingly a way of accessing the web (conveniently, last three reports are about Southeast Asia, Africa and Latin America) - IIRC already close to 30% of Facebook usage is from mobiles. After looking at State of the Mobile Web reports from Opera (which include most popular sites per country), it's quite possible that some notable part of those ~30% is from places where it's often the only frequent method of access. And despite a lot of those users being rather frugal with the amount of browsing / data transferred, Opera Mini is still the #1 mobile web browser by worldwide website stats.
At the end of 2007, the world had 3.2 billion mobile subscribers (that's the metric used here, active numbers - it's damn easy to determine); at the end of 2009 - 4.6 billion. It's quite plausible there would be 5 by now.
Also, while indeed some people have more than one number / some places more than 100% penetration - in many developing ones a group of poeple (say, a family) shares one mobile phone. That's an explicitly stated reason why Nokia puts, into their lowest end (on S30 - 1202, 1280, 1616, etc.) mobile phones, few separate / switchable contact lists & cost trackers.
The above two factors cancel each other out a bit; I wouldn't be even too surprised if an actual number of people using mobile phones was slightly higher than the number of accounts.
One can't help but wonder why "3D" photography, at 1.5 century old (just slightly younger than "normal" one), using the same techniques (just for static images obviously - which means it is, for a long time, much easier to make & view), sees only niche usage...
Plus even at the sweet spot, you can't get realistic depth anyway; you can't refocus your eyes (so also no natural changes of parallax) - and worse, you have to keep it focused at the screen, while the footage constantly changes its own focus & parallax; might be disorienting.
Though with audio it generally just sounds a bit different / giving effect in the direction of "lower" standard; not terribly obvious when not in the sweet spot.
With "3D" it's just more wrong (sweet spot is pretty wrong in itself...), not really in the direction of discarding "3D" & appearing flat.
Yeah, 1960's, around the time when one of the earlier "films in 3D!" movements took place. And mostly died out. Heck, why limit ourselves to discussing only moving images? Stereoscopy, the "3D" sister of photography, is only a few years younger of the two; both close to one and a half of a century. With "3D" effect in photos quite easy to achieve & display for a long, long time.
And, apart from few small & temporary crazes, also ignored.
PS. This all might very well be because we're not really discussing 3D here, just "3D" - a cheat which, while providing a bit more cues, still obviously can't accomodate refocusing at will and usual changes of parallax happening during it; another unnatural way to process images (while we're very used to "2D" ones), sometimes even irritatingly closer to reality...but not quite.
Even in the setting of Avatar photographs were "analogue" and the only display with appreciable levels of 3D was used for in-setting CGI/etc.