I was clearly addressing "countries without infrastructure" - while you claimed the parent poster, who simply described how satphones don't make sense for vast majority of people (hence the fantasies of pushing this solution to them are pointless), "has no idea what he talks about"...pot/kettle much?
What do those niche uses got to with things said? How they are applicable to general populations, also in "countries without infrastructure"? (which demonstrably adopt terrestrial tech en masse - and where they don't, they sure as hell couldn't adopt satphones)
How many people live in uninhabitable areas? Are systems geared for low-fidelity voice handheld satphones optimal on ships or airplanes? (and how many of the explorers could do better with inexpensive system created with text/short data messages in mind...)
I also wonder about the levels of electromagnetic radiation. Now, don't get me wrong, I fully agree that cellular mobile phones are almost certainly completely safe.
But satphones must have quite a bit higher power...
I know you're joking, but - those damned Russians never occupied your part of the woods (obviously Alaska doesn't quite fit "occupation"), while the opposite (Commonwealth (among other) forces active on their soil) was true less than a century ago. Generally, Russians had foreign forces descending on them quite regularly throughout history - probably partly why they prefer to have buffer-states around. And hey, no way to do that on the side of their Northern border other than by...;)
Considering there are 5 billion cellular mobile subscribers now, many of them very much in "countries without infrastructure"... (large part of the rest either too young or too old; or can't afford even $20 (without contract) GSM phone)
I'm pretty sure virtually all of the uptake in Indonesia happens via terrestrial cellular networks... (which don't need "cable through the ground" as long as the tips of the towers mostly see each other)
Russian launches cost less for some time now, and commercial operators don't have an issue with using them (in fact, Iridium sats were largely launched by them; also by Chinese)
With 10^4 in similar orbits, you pretty much have to assume some will bang into each other (producing more debris of course). BTW, there might be ways for even simpler launchers (even if OTRAG would turn out to be not feasible after all, SpaceX launchers at the least trade some simplicity for partial reusability; Zenit might well remain cheaper, then there's NK-33 engine; but yeah, comparable; OTOH...;) (yes, quite limited solution))
Not saying that what AC proposes (a Kessler syndrome, basically) isn't rubbish. Also because it would require insane signal processing capabilities, which I don't quite see in microsats for a long time. And the best part: terrestrial installations would benefit from those capabilities much more easily.
Large part of "here to stay" uses seem to be of emergency kind (to a lesser or greater degree), where beacon and/or text message would be enough; probably more efficient to implement if not bothering with voice. In fact, aren't there such networks already?
How many cell phone users are there. Well lets see. A billion+?
While, technically, saying "billion+" gives a wide margin of error;) - the actual number is 5+ billion
As it is now, developing countries can afford moderately decent cellular networks and large part of their population can afford to use them. Comparable coverage with satphones would probably cost trillions...
That said, I guess a bit more than 1000-2000 people might need satphone coverage. After all, the business plan for Iridium was basically "1) go bankrupt building a network which, in the meantime, gets appreciated by gov/military, 2) get bailed out"
You really don't get it how, with lower population density, proportionally smaller number of people pays for each of those miles? (kilometers in the case of Finland, more likely;) ) And FYI it's not "thousands" when there are people in between, too (which also pay their share)
All cities in Finland are clustered, no population centers in the north of the country, really? Plus - what do you not understand in the concept of internet as an international network? (which for Finland means any notable connections are across the sea) And, again, in the concept of population density - one of two parts of it is area being covered.
It would be an embarrassment if you COULDN'T fully cover a country that tiny.
A country in which there is 2 times less people to pay for each proportional part of the infrastructure. What do you not understand in the concept of "lower population density"?
I'm genuinely curious - nobody at your place figured out yet (and during urban road works spanning last few decades) how it is good to place cables of various kinds inside flexible plastic pipes of small diameter? Heck, nobody noticed that there are machines able to, more or less, drill horizontally when some cable needs to cross road surface without damaging it? (and where mentioned previously pipe is not available prior to it)
That doesn't fit well with how the broadband and wireless situation basically mirror each other in the US. With wireless being essentially rebuilt few times; and at least GSM and UMTS installations not first in line - which apparently doesn't matter much for wireless anyway, because places which were among the first have fabulous coverage, also as a function of population densities.
(more for highways than is already the case would mean more subsidies for car and oil industries BTW)
Finland has almost exactly half the population density. And Norway ~2.5 times lower (it's BTW fascinating to me how the other Nordic places are still very nice despite not having tons of oil (or mostly gas, IIRC? Either way...) - that almost suggests Norway is horribly wasteful;) )
a majority of the land mass in the U.S. is difficult to give proper broadband to since there such low population density over such a large area
US has 1.5x higher population density than Sweden, two times higher than Finland, and 2.5x higher than Norway. Around 10 times higher than Iceland or Canada (the last three actually have less than the planet, including oceans)
Arguably it was here, was moved away, what with 9/11 et al. And generally the thing is how the attacks are "direct" only in loose sense of the word - not exactly suicide as long as the results further nurture the ideology behind them (plus, funnily enough - both of them, also greed/etc. one)
But to what degree the expansion of military activity masks a decline? When the producers and creditors will get tired enough of the consumer?
That line there seemed more about portability of Qt itself. Vs. how some (presumably) hobbyists do mostly working ports left and right. And at least quite a few new Symbian apps do use it (as well as ongoing changes to the OS); quick search finds a few non-Nokia examples (+GENIVI Alliance...) / I'm not sure how much more portable other largely hobbyist & non-universally supported projects can be...
More precisely, Germany was mostly allowed to recover. Drilling countries to be staunchly pro-West tends to have "unintended consequences" - best example, in context, would be CIA supported 1953 coup d'etat in Iran and its long-term results... (well, there's nothing bad per se with an Iranian policy of opposing foreign influences in the region and actively pursuing relations with unaligned states...) We can only hope such efforts to always result in a situation comparable to mostly friendly relations with S. American countries (after all the coups, supporting drug lords (hm, Afghanistan?), or Operation Condor - they would be well justified to have different position). I don't think any poll at any point has shown that Iraqis don't want us the hell out.
But hey, we were useful few times to Saudis/etc. in settling their regional grudges...
...though Symbian phones have a bit more RAM than 4 or 8 megs for some time now (and mostly standardized batteries) - still supposedly often of a type which helped with power consumption, so not going overboard with amounts could be good.
At least it looks like it might get quite nice again (it was initially, IMHO, in times when carrying over UI from S40 was a sensible thing to do - but it outgrew that UI paradigm); considering it's always mostly about a certain core level of functionality being good, it should get there at some point...
Yeah, quite popular (it should sort by popularity - but curious what and how is promoted at the "first" position outside the table) - though 1616 (etc.) possibly at the planetary top?;) (most likely still far from installed base of 1100...oh well, at least it's all Nokia?;) )
Slashdot Mirror
It's just businesses enjoying really free (even if in an informal way) market...
And BTW, from where do you think people in the "government" come from? Values of which society do they reflect?
"Creating" them would be only the result of not managing to protect itself from their influence. Not proactive enough.
Remembering how, ultimately, the prevalent style of governance and its interaction with businesses is a reflection of their society.
I was clearly addressing "countries without infrastructure" - while you claimed the parent poster, who simply described how satphones don't make sense for vast majority of people (hence the fantasies of pushing this solution to them are pointless), "has no idea what he talks about"...pot/kettle much?
What do those niche uses got to with things said? How they are applicable to general populations, also in "countries without infrastructure"? (which demonstrably adopt terrestrial tech en masse - and where they don't, they sure as hell couldn't adopt satphones)
How many people live in uninhabitable areas? Are systems geared for low-fidelity voice handheld satphones optimal on ships or airplanes? (and how many of the explorers could do better with inexpensive system created with text/short data messages in mind...)
I also wonder about the levels of electromagnetic radiation. Now, don't get me wrong, I fully agree that cellular mobile phones are almost certainly completely safe.
But satphones must have quite a bit higher power...
I know you're joking, but - those damned Russians never occupied your part of the woods (obviously Alaska doesn't quite fit "occupation"), while the opposite (Commonwealth (among other) forces active on their soil) was true less than a century ago. Generally, Russians had foreign forces descending on them quite regularly throughout history - probably partly why they prefer to have buffer-states around. And hey, no way to do that on the side of their Northern border other than by... ;)
Considering there are 5 billion cellular mobile subscribers now, many of them very much in "countries without infrastructure"... (large part of the rest either too young or too old; or can't afford even $20 (without contract) GSM phone)
I'm pretty sure virtually all of the uptake in Indonesia happens via terrestrial cellular networks... (which don't need "cable through the ground" as long as the tips of the towers mostly see each other)
Russian launches cost less for some time now, and commercial operators don't have an issue with using them (in fact, Iridium sats were largely launched by them; also by Chinese)
With 10^4 in similar orbits, you pretty much have to assume some will bang into each other (producing more debris of course). BTW, there might be ways for even simpler launchers (even if OTRAG would turn out to be not feasible after all, SpaceX launchers at the least trade some simplicity for partial reusability; Zenit might well remain cheaper, then there's NK-33 engine; but yeah, comparable; OTOH... ;) (yes, quite limited solution))
Not saying that what AC proposes (a Kessler syndrome, basically) isn't rubbish. Also because it would require insane signal processing capabilities, which I don't quite see in microsats for a long time. And the best part: terrestrial installations would benefit from those capabilities much more easily.
Large part of "here to stay" uses seem to be of emergency kind (to a lesser or greater degree), where beacon and/or text message would be enough; probably more efficient to implement if not bothering with voice. In fact, aren't there such networks already?
How many cell phone users are there. Well lets see. A billion+?
While, technically, saying "billion+" gives a wide margin of error ;) - the actual number is 5+ billion
As it is now, developing countries can afford moderately decent cellular networks and large part of their population can afford to use them. Comparable coverage with satphones would probably cost trillions...
That said, I guess a bit more than 1000-2000 people might need satphone coverage. After all, the business plan for Iridium was basically "1) go bankrupt building a network which, in the meantime, gets appreciated by gov/military, 2) get bailed out"
You really don't get it how, with lower population density, proportionally smaller number of people pays for each of those miles? (kilometers in the case of Finland, more likely ;) ) And FYI it's not "thousands" when there are people in between, too (which also pay their share)
All cities in Finland are clustered, no population centers in the north of the country, really? Plus - what do you not understand in the concept of internet as an international network? (which for Finland means any notable connections are across the sea) And, again, in the concept of population density - one of two parts of it is area being covered.
It would be an embarrassment if you COULDN'T fully cover a country that tiny.
A country in which there is 2 times less people to pay for each proportional part of the infrastructure. What do you not understand in the concept of "lower population density"?
I'm genuinely curious - nobody at your place figured out yet (and during urban road works spanning last few decades) how it is good to place cables of various kinds inside flexible plastic pipes of small diameter? Heck, nobody noticed that there are machines able to, more or less, drill horizontally when some cable needs to cross road surface without damaging it? (and where mentioned previously pipe is not available prior to it)
And, you know, they need to connect with the rest of Europe (and the world) - via an undersea cable to boot.
And generally it doesn't matter - proportionally lower population (not only of lower density) has to pay for said infrastructure.
That doesn't fit well with how the broadband and wireless situation basically mirror each other in the US. With wireless being essentially rebuilt few times; and at least GSM and UMTS installations not first in line - which apparently doesn't matter much for wireless anyway, because places which were among the first have fabulous coverage, also as a function of population densities.
(more for highways than is already the case would mean more subsidies for car and oil industries BTW)
Finland has almost exactly half the population density. And Norway ~2.5 times lower (it's BTW fascinating to me how the other Nordic places are still very nice despite not having tons of oil (or mostly gas, IIRC? Either way...) - that almost suggests Norway is horribly wasteful ;) )
a majority of the land mass in the U.S. is difficult to give proper broadband to since there such low population density over such a large area
US has 1.5x higher population density than Sweden, two times higher than Finland, and 2.5x higher than Norway. Around 10 times higher than Iceland or Canada (the last three actually have less than the planet, including oceans)
Implants don't have to be filled with saline? And a fabulous motivation for, uhm, bigger explosions.
Arguably it was here, was moved away, what with 9/11 et al. And generally the thing is how the attacks are "direct" only in loose sense of the word - not exactly suicide as long as the results further nurture the ideology behind them (plus, funnily enough - both of them, also greed/etc. one)
But to what degree the expansion of military activity masks a decline? When the producers and creditors will get tired enough of the consumer?
That line there seemed more about portability of Qt itself. Vs. how some (presumably) hobbyists do mostly working ports left and right. And at least quite a few new Symbian apps do use it (as well as ongoing changes to the OS); quick search finds a few non-Nokia examples (+GENIVI Alliance...) / I'm not sure how much more portable other largely hobbyist & non-universally supported projects can be...
More precisely, Germany was mostly allowed to recover. Drilling countries to be staunchly pro-West tends to have "unintended consequences" - best example, in context, would be CIA supported 1953 coup d'etat in Iran and its long-term results... (well, there's nothing bad per se with an Iranian policy of opposing foreign influences in the region and actively pursuing relations with unaligned states...) We can only hope such efforts to always result in a situation comparable to mostly friendly relations with S. American countries (after all the coups, supporting drug lords (hm, Afghanistan?), or Operation Condor - they would be well justified to have different position). I don't think any poll at any point has shown that Iraqis don't want us the hell out.
But hey, we were useful few times to Saudis/etc. in settling their regional grudges...
...though Symbian phones have a bit more RAM than 4 or 8 megs for some time now (and mostly standardized batteries) - still supposedly often of a type which helped with power consumption, so not going overboard with amounts could be good.
At least it looks like it might get quite nice again (it was initially, IMHO, in times when carrying over UI from S40 was a sensible thing to do - but it outgrew that UI paradigm); considering it's always mostly about a certain core level of functionality being good, it should get there at some point...
Yeah, quite popular (it should sort by popularity - but curious what and how is promoted at the "first" position outside the table) - though 1616 (etc.) possibly at the planetary top? ;) (most likely still far from installed base of 1100...oh well, at least it's all Nokia? ;) )