Sure, the trouble is that support for tethering at the service provider end varies greatly*, and AT&T/O2/whatever offering it for the iPhone would lead to the rivals racing to provide it on their own networks.
*Some networks reserve the right to pull the plug if they see you're apparently downloading iTunes shows on your £50 Nokia, for example, regardless of your mobile data limit.
Not just because it's absolutely awesome to download horror films in a field somewhere and watch them on a real screen, but because it would force mobile phone service providers to offer it as a consumerland option. It beats the hell out of a seperate USB-stick mobile broadband package, even at £5 extra per month. And it would mean that you finally have a mobile broadband option for your Macbook.
Actually, resonant processes are the ones that depend absolutely upon the photon energy, and the energy of a microwave photon is too low to do anything interesting. Microwaves can do work by a nonresonant, thermal process, but that's it.
A resonant process is one in which the photon has the right energy to trigger a particular transition. Ionising radiation (UV, x-rays, etc.) works by a resonant process, and depends on the quantum of radiation having enough energy to eject an electron from the molecule. As you go down in energy from there, you have enough energy per photon to resonantly electronically excite molecules (visual light, used in the eyes to detect light) or vibrationally excite (IR), or down at the bottom, to rotationally (microwave), and then translationally excite molecules.
Correspondingly, it gets harder and harder to cause any chemistry with those photons. It's trivial to break up a molecule by shifting its electrons around or ejecting them altogether, or to a lesser extent it's possible to chop something up by exciting a particular molecular stretching vibration such that the bond(s) dissociate(s). However it's a serious challenge to cleave a bond with a rotational excitation alone.
So, how could a microwave do any chemistry, and thus damage, to your tissues? It's a simple thermal process. When you rotationally excite a molecule, in the gas phase, the molecule, or part of it, changes its rotational motion in some way. There are couplings between rotational and vibrational motions, and upwards to electronic excitations. In the solution or solid phase, there are also couplings to the translational motion of the molecules, meaning that ultimately the energy from the microwave can end up speeding up the molecule's motion, which is plain old heating.
So the energy you dump in with the microwaves becomes "thermalised", spreading over the whole range of states evenly, with a pretty huge chunk of it going into heating up the material. That heat lets you do old-fashioned collision-activated chemistry. What the anti-EM movement don't want you to think about is that this thermal process is entirely dependent on your exposure. It's like standing next to a furnace. A foot away, you're toast. Six feet away, you're warm. One hundred feet away, you don't know it exists.
In summary, it is not possible for radio to cause you thermal damage because the exposure is simply too low. No non-thermal, resonant process for damage has been shown to exist, and trivial physical chemistry makes it clear that one probably never will be found.
I thought web advertisers moved on from charging per-click a long time ago anyway, in much the same way as they moved on from charging per-page-impression.
Actually English, Scots, and US law do distinguish between performing the same act (actus reus) with different intent (mens rea). It's a common lay misconception that "doing X" is illegal. In fact, traditionally "doing X" with one intent is usually a particular crime, while "doing X" with a different intent is a lesser crime, or not illegal at all. A simple example would be injuring another human being. Firstly, the law distinguishes between a deliberate or accidental act. Further, the law distinguishes deliberate injury with the intent to defend oneself from injury, accidental injury through deliberate negligence of safety standards, etc. etc.
I'm not sure what the mens rea is on cyber-crime in any legal system that uses the concept, mind you. And it seems that legal systems are reworking mens rea into "circumstances" to eliminate the human part of the equation, i.e. in some legal systems if you're in situation X and you do Y, that is always illegal, regardless of intent. It's likely that, given their youth, cyber-crime laws in the UK are worded as such.
Some of their materials chemistry in the theoretical background there is a bit iffy, but the main thing that jumps out at me is that they reckon they're reducing bromine compounds (bromine oxides, which are brown) by converting them to hydrobromic acid. Of course I've not worked out the whole scheme yet, it's possible they're just forming bromate salts in practice, and it's tiny amounts anyway, but I'm curious as to how much (or little) hydrolysis of the polymer you get from that in the long run.
In what way is it an Orwellian usage of the term? It's a legal Act which forces organisations of any type (from businesses to governments) to yeild information when a request is made, and to ensure the information is kept in such a way that it would be available if such a request ever materialised in the future. The only sinister thing about it is that it's not got more teeth.
It was accepted as part of a vast body of email evidence in an (admittedly only tangentally-related) lawsuit a while back. So I'd say it's of some veracity.
So, we have a story which implies Windows would be better if its architects used it more often and were therefore aware of its crappiness. And it's being duped, because Slashdot's editors don't read Slashdot often enough to notice they're reposting a really popular story. There's a lesson there somewhere.
No, no, this is deliberate. After posting a story which wasn't really news for nerds, they decided to post a story which is for nerds, but isn't actually news. They're giving up errors for lent and are trying to get them all out of their system first.
I don't believe there's anything on statute which entitles you to a refund for not liking something, no matter what merchendise. If it's faulty or broken, sure, and there are many outlets which would give you a refund on a perfectly good product out of good will, but you don't have any legal right to take (for example) an iPod back just because you've decided that you dislike iTunes, or return "Click" on DVD just because it's a complete waste of time.
And to be completely honest, I'm glad the situation's changed with games, because nine times out of ten I was getting someone else's returned game as my "new" purchase when I walked into the shop. Often with some sort of damage to the disk or manual, or some cheapskate's completed save game on the cart. If I'm unsure about a game, I rent it. That gives me a couple of days for about ten percent the cost of the game. If I'm really unsure, I wait until it's cheap.
My favourite feature of the HP updater is that it installed a program for a feature my system does not possess and which it later turned out had a massive security flaw which was removed in an update. Thanks, HP!
I imagine that it will only change when MS or Apple release an API that allows apps to update themselves through Windows Update/Software Update, by providing some sort of trusted repository. It's one of the best features in Linux and short of self-updating applications like Firefox I can't think of a good alternative.
Google's high-detail imagery isn't by satellite, but by aircraft. I grew up in a region that's only covered by satellite and it looks like it's only resolving objects 250m or so across, which as you point out, is of little more use than a map you buy in the gas station. So really, if you're isolated enough, it may be that there will never be particularly well imaged because you're out of photo-plane range of the airfields.
Bonjour is a "discovery service", like the thing in Windows that detects what printers, computers etc. are on your network. It's probably needed for iTunes' media sharing functions.
Not LOCK, close. In my case, my office door also latches when it closes for security, but the actual exit route doors just self-close as a fire prevention measure. YMMV, this is in the UK.
I imagine that if it's like most university buildings, the doors have spring-loaded closers that simply weren't drawn in the map. Certainly I can't walk more than 5 yards before I find I've forgotten my keys and been locked out by the malevolent springy arms.
For a troll with a supposed interest in history you don't seem to get that "limey" is an insult you'd use against an Englishman, and that England is a subset of Britain, not the whole. So you manage to fail basic trolling, basic geography, basic social history, and by implication would fail basic politics. That's an astounding failure rate for someone who takes so much time out of his day for lofty proclaimations and trolling on Slashdot. You'd think that you'd pick some of the basics up by osmosis if nothing else.
Slashdot Mirror
Sure, the trouble is that support for tethering at the service provider end varies greatly*, and AT&T/O2/whatever offering it for the iPhone would lead to the rivals racing to provide it on their own networks.
*Some networks reserve the right to pull the plug if they see you're apparently downloading iTunes shows on your £50 Nokia, for example, regardless of your mobile data limit.
Not just because it's absolutely awesome to download horror films in a field somewhere and watch them on a real screen, but because it would force mobile phone service providers to offer it as a consumerland option. It beats the hell out of a seperate USB-stick mobile broadband package, even at £5 extra per month. And it would mean that you finally have a mobile broadband option for your Macbook.
Not "no chance", but I'd put the odds about the same as the magical wizard Endocrenes appearing behind me and cursing my testicles with evil runes.
Actually, resonant processes are the ones that depend absolutely upon the photon energy, and the energy of a microwave photon is too low to do anything interesting. Microwaves can do work by a nonresonant, thermal process, but that's it.
A resonant process is one in which the photon has the right energy to trigger a particular transition. Ionising radiation (UV, x-rays, etc.) works by a resonant process, and depends on the quantum of radiation having enough energy to eject an electron from the molecule. As you go down in energy from there, you have enough energy per photon to resonantly electronically excite molecules (visual light, used in the eyes to detect light) or vibrationally excite (IR), or down at the bottom, to rotationally (microwave), and then translationally excite molecules.
Correspondingly, it gets harder and harder to cause any chemistry with those photons. It's trivial to break up a molecule by shifting its electrons around or ejecting them altogether, or to a lesser extent it's possible to chop something up by exciting a particular molecular stretching vibration such that the bond(s) dissociate(s). However it's a serious challenge to cleave a bond with a rotational excitation alone.
So, how could a microwave do any chemistry, and thus damage, to your tissues? It's a simple thermal process. When you rotationally excite a molecule, in the gas phase, the molecule, or part of it, changes its rotational motion in some way. There are couplings between rotational and vibrational motions, and upwards to electronic excitations. In the solution or solid phase, there are also couplings to the translational motion of the molecules, meaning that ultimately the energy from the microwave can end up speeding up the molecule's motion, which is plain old heating.
So the energy you dump in with the microwaves becomes "thermalised", spreading over the whole range of states evenly, with a pretty huge chunk of it going into heating up the material. That heat lets you do old-fashioned collision-activated chemistry. What the anti-EM movement don't want you to think about is that this thermal process is entirely dependent on your exposure. It's like standing next to a furnace. A foot away, you're toast. Six feet away, you're warm. One hundred feet away, you don't know it exists.
In summary, it is not possible for radio to cause you thermal damage because the exposure is simply too low. No non-thermal, resonant process for damage has been shown to exist, and trivial physical chemistry makes it clear that one probably never will be found.
Good point, I'd just assumed there had to be some better way of doing it.
I thought web advertisers moved on from charging per-click a long time ago anyway, in much the same way as they moved on from charging per-page-impression.
Actually English, Scots, and US law do distinguish between performing the same act (actus reus) with different intent (mens rea). It's a common lay misconception that "doing X" is illegal. In fact, traditionally "doing X" with one intent is usually a particular crime, while "doing X" with a different intent is a lesser crime, or not illegal at all. A simple example would be injuring another human being. Firstly, the law distinguishes between a deliberate or accidental act. Further, the law distinguishes deliberate injury with the intent to defend oneself from injury, accidental injury through deliberate negligence of safety standards, etc. etc.
I'm not sure what the mens rea is on cyber-crime in any legal system that uses the concept, mind you. And it seems that legal systems are reworking mens rea into "circumstances" to eliminate the human part of the equation, i.e. in some legal systems if you're in situation X and you do Y, that is always illegal, regardless of intent. It's likely that, given their youth, cyber-crime laws in the UK are worded as such.
You lost me at "simple". Sorry. I'm afraid I don't grok what a null reference is to begin with, which may be an issue.
Some of their materials chemistry in the theoretical background there is a bit iffy, but the main thing that jumps out at me is that they reckon they're reducing bromine compounds (bromine oxides, which are brown) by converting them to hydrobromic acid. Of course I've not worked out the whole scheme yet, it's possible they're just forming bromate salts in practice, and it's tiny amounts anyway, but I'm curious as to how much (or little) hydrolysis of the polymer you get from that in the long run.
Whoops, conflated the FoIA and the DPA there. The former applies to the public sector, the latter to the private.
In what way is it an Orwellian usage of the term? It's a legal Act which forces organisations of any type (from businesses to governments) to yeild information when a request is made, and to ensure the information is kept in such a way that it would be available if such a request ever materialised in the future. The only sinister thing about it is that it's not got more teeth.
It was accepted as part of a vast body of email evidence in an (admittedly only tangentally-related) lawsuit a while back. So I'd say it's of some veracity.
So, we have a story which implies Windows would be better if its architects used it more often and were therefore aware of its crappiness. And it's being duped, because Slashdot's editors don't read Slashdot often enough to notice they're reposting a really popular story. There's a lesson there somewhere.
No, no, this is deliberate. After posting a story which wasn't really news for nerds, they decided to post a story which is for nerds, but isn't actually news. They're giving up errors for lent and are trying to get them all out of their system first.
I don't believe there's anything on statute which entitles you to a refund for not liking something, no matter what merchendise. If it's faulty or broken, sure, and there are many outlets which would give you a refund on a perfectly good product out of good will, but you don't have any legal right to take (for example) an iPod back just because you've decided that you dislike iTunes, or return "Click" on DVD just because it's a complete waste of time.
And to be completely honest, I'm glad the situation's changed with games, because nine times out of ten I was getting someone else's returned game as my "new" purchase when I walked into the shop. Often with some sort of damage to the disk or manual, or some cheapskate's completed save game on the cart. If I'm unsure about a game, I rent it. That gives me a couple of days for about ten percent the cost of the game. If I'm really unsure, I wait until it's cheap.
I'm all for moving it to a less controversial, orbital location, but this feature creep is getting ridiculous.
My favourite feature of the HP updater is that it installed a program for a feature my system does not possess and which it later turned out had a massive security flaw which was removed in an update. Thanks, HP!
I imagine that it will only change when MS or Apple release an API that allows apps to update themselves through Windows Update/Software Update, by providing some sort of trusted repository. It's one of the best features in Linux and short of self-updating applications like Firefox I can't think of a good alternative.
Google's high-detail imagery isn't by satellite, but by aircraft. I grew up in a region that's only covered by satellite and it looks like it's only resolving objects 250m or so across, which as you point out, is of little more use than a map you buy in the gas station. So really, if you're isolated enough, it may be that there will never be particularly well imaged because you're out of photo-plane range of the airfields.
Bonjour is a "discovery service", like the thing in Windows that detects what printers, computers etc. are on your network. It's probably needed for iTunes' media sharing functions.
I dunno, I've always found bungling to be more prevalent and insidious.
Not LOCK, close. In my case, my office door also latches when it closes for security, but the actual exit route doors just self-close as a fire prevention measure. YMMV, this is in the UK.
I imagine that if it's like most university buildings, the doors have spring-loaded closers that simply weren't drawn in the map. Certainly I can't walk more than 5 yards before I find I've forgotten my keys and been locked out by the malevolent springy arms.
For a troll with a supposed interest in history you don't seem to get that "limey" is an insult you'd use against an Englishman, and that England is a subset of Britain, not the whole. So you manage to fail basic trolling, basic geography, basic social history, and by implication would fail basic politics. That's an astounding failure rate for someone who takes so much time out of his day for lofty proclaimations and trolling on Slashdot. You'd think that you'd pick some of the basics up by osmosis if nothing else.
I should correct myself here, it's only overseas students which are affected right now. So I'm not in line quite yet.