You don't get it - IPv6 itself is a misengineered piece of crap.
Never heard that before. On what do you base such a determination?
From what I've seen of IPv6, if fixes much of the insanity which was IPv4. So if IPv6 is a "piece of crap", it seems like a foregone conclusion IPv4 is completely unusable. So it seems your argument, if anything, impresses a sense of urgency for the migration to IPv6.
Those artifacts might enable us to learn something about their culture, about their skills, about their beliefs.
This can't be stressed enough. There are literally massive examples of fairly advanced technology which we still have absolutely no idea how it was achieved. Furthermore, lots would be extremely difficult even using modern technology. A tiny subset,, while not beyond our current technology, is beyond our current tools; meaning specialized and truly massive cranes and tools would need to be created to imitate.
Many archaeologists believe there is knowledge to be learned by studying our past - and the evidence seems to support such notions.
"Contributing to the problem" is one odd fucking way of spelling "using the service she is paying for". Do you work for verizon or just shill for free?
Nice troll. Even scarier is that someone modded you up.
Are you sure that's the "service she is paying for?" According to the service provider, you're wrong. Period. So who's correct here? The service provider and/or common sense, or you? My best is on the service provider.
Now then, that's now to say she shouldn't be able to demand a higher level of service, but then again, they should be able to demand a higher service fee. Oddly enough, they seem to have a free structure to accommodate her; to wit she is likely, currently not paying.
I think you under estimate the complexity and even economics of tower location or how the technology works. And what seems to be a surprise to you, handsets in general do play a major role in infrastructure effectiveness. And all of that ignores the pragmatic realities of cost models, resource allocation, rights of way, so on and so on.
To say you're being unrealistic is an understatement.
So once again, no matter how you slice it, there are ABSOLUTE, FINITE LIMITS. PERIOD.
No, what I'm saying is you can't use the fact I broke Facebook's TOS against me as a crime, when the only thing I did was break the FB TOS.
Absolutely, factually, incorrect. ANYTHING you say can be used against you. Period. At the very least, you proved to the court you're a dishonest person by posting lies. Worse, you can't even uphold a legally binding contract. You must be a terrible, terrible person of very poor character. Understand?
So please allow me to stress and say it again. ANYTHING you say can be used against you. Period. This is why any good lawyer will ALWAYS tell you to never answer anything to the police. All too often, even the simple, honest, truth is used to legally persecute you; err, I mean prosecute.
The whole point is how finely you can slice it. You must have thought by "transcievers" I meant handsets, but I was referring to the infrastructure. And yes, that does make it possible to support more handsets in a given area.
No, I didn't think that at all. My point is completely correct. They have specifications to which they must comply and ever increasing bandwidth demands. As I originally stated, now matter how you slice it, there are extremely finite limits. Creating smaller slices (channels, time slice, or whatever the particular protocol is based on), in of itself, typically creates yet additional limits and technical hurdles. And even if it didn't, it absolutely does not change the fact that resources absolutely are finite. There is only so much bandwidth available in the air at one time and likewise once it starts its land based back haul.
That's fine when you're a private company or even a publicly traded corporation - but not when you're a government entity; especially at the city level.
No. Its the exception rather than the rule when a politician is beholden to the public. Politicians are all too frequently beholden to corporations and the uber wealthy rather than the general public. In fact, if you've ever heard a politician speak, you can clearly hear they say anything and everything, specifically to avoid being held accountable for anything they might say at some point in the future.
No matter how you slice it, there is only so much bandwidth to go around. Adding more phones doesn't magically transform RF capabilities to allow for more bandwidth.
There are many different limits and you seem to be conflating them all.
My comments were of the sarcastic variety. I didn't mean to imply that we coined the phrase. My comment means the use was already in the standard vernacular long before Apple started using it. I absolutely did not create the phrase. It existed long ago.
My primary point being, this is idiocy coined by Apple fan-boys attempting to revise history.
Even if i could i don't think i would get a PE licence - too much liability on what you sign off on.
The real problem here is, the PE in question is now liable if he fails to properly investigate and refute the report. Its an ego play because he doesn't want to be in a position where he's beholden to the public for failing to do his job.
An easier method for aiming is the one currently used for aiming signaling mirrors today. Take an object and place it in front of the mirror. Visually aim the object at the target. Now aim your mirror, centering your easily visible light at your targeting reticle. You are now hitting the target on which you've aimed.
For signaling mirrors, its recommended you use two fingers and aim using the web between your fingers. Now signal the mirror and you'll see the light on your fingers, which is aimed at whatever you are targeting.
You're right, and IMOHO, it all started with Sun - not Apple. People got tired of saying, "Applet", and started calling them "apps". Then Apple came a long and said, "we should call them that." And seemingly, they did. And yet even before that, the word, "app", was being used as an abreviated form of "application" for just about anything, ranging from small, tiny apps (java applets) to desktop apps.
I honestly fail to see what connection Apple has to this in any way other than attempting to, seemingly, inappropriately, fanboy Apple. And if my account isn't valid, then seemingly Apple stole dozens of friends, family, and co-worker's thunder years after the fact. Where's my money...
That's one way of viewing it, and obviously the way MS is spinning it. On the other hand, once you look deeper, MS' account actually validates Google's account and makes Bing look like a total piece of crap. Furthermore, once you actually critically review what Microsoft is say, they are in fact confirm Bing is a total piece of shit without farming Google.
Google notices Bing providing Google's results. Google investigates and sets up a sting. Google validates Bing is stealing Google's results, including rank significance. Microsoft fires back with details which attempt to ignore the fact that are taking Google's results as their own; including rank significance which is the most significant element of a modern search engine. Ultimately, it doesn't matter how MS got the data, its the fact that they are reproducing Google's results by using Google's results. No matter how you slice it, that's cheating. Period. Which basically confirms - Bing is absolute shit and is only better than shit when they are farming other search engines. Which, if you think about it, Microsoft is absolutely confirming all other search engines are better than Bing - otherwise they'd never have a need to farm everyone else.
Basically, you have two choices, you can turn your brain off and accept Microsoft's account, or you can dig a little deeper and see that Google is NOT annoyed by Bing, rather they are annoyed by Bing stealing and reproducing Google's hard work and claiming its Bing's own. Basically, Microsoft is actually confirming Bing is a piece of shit and that they only way they can produce good results is to farm their competition. Which in turn means, your conclusion is 180-degrees wrong. Basically, Google and Microsoft are concurrently confirming how good Google is and confirming how bad Bing works without farming their competitors. Again, no matter how you slice it, Microsoft confirm Bing is a piece of shit and that they farm their competitors results and claim them as their own.
Google has every right to be annoyed, but its impossible to presume their annoyance is validation so long as you apply any brain power to your analysis. When in fact, its Microsoft who is absolutely affirming Google's superiority to that of Bing.
Realistically a trained squad can aim and keep aimed around 40-80. Probably a 100 tops. That is more than enough to blind _ANYONE_ on the attacking ship in the days before sunglasses. I doubt that this would have been enough to set it on fire though. In any case, with the captain, skipper and most of the crew blind while facing catapults throwing burning tar buckets and 1m diameter stone balls the ship was as good as burning anyway.
I personally believe that you're hitting spot on. I believe they used the mirrors to blind people and allow for easier approach and application of Greek Fire. Then, the survivors simply saw mirrors being used, likely felt the heat and the temporary blindness, saw fire everywhere from the chaos, and assumed they were cause and effect. Likely those who were close enough to know the truth were too crispy to refute the new found myth.
I had to follow up with an example that shows their stupidity.
Bimp burns. Bimp with hydrogen burns fast. Bimp with thermite burns slower than just hydrogen but still burns considerably faster than simple material. Bimp burns super faster with hydrogen + thermite, which accurately reproduces historic tragedy. The conclusion of intelligent people is hardly surprising; accelerent do exactly that and thermite clearly works as an accelerent with hydrogen (likely the extra O being provided).Their conclusion - busted. WTF!?!?! But if you ignore their stupidity which is their "conclusion", the reality is, they absolutely "confirmed" the myth, which was thermite (their coating) played a significant role in the speed of destruction. Its literally impossible to view the material with any other conclusion and yet they believe they busted it. Seemingly, they came to a conclusion which isn't even remotely supported by the available material or their tests. WTF?!?
"if the right set of circumstances happen at the right time and everything goes as wrong as possible..."
Right, but that's one of the things they consistently screw up. They can't even maintain their own objective metric from show to show. All too often, things they manage to confirm they say, "busted", when in fact, its, "plausible". Furthermore, they've even had a few conclusions which they confirmed when in reality they showed it was busted. Its as if they don't even understand the material they've supposedly spent time demonstrating.
Furthermore, when there is a lots of real world, documented examples, and their conclusion is "busted", when in fact its extremely, "plausible" and well documented.
The truth is, using their own metric, they've clearly documented they have no clue what the hell, "busted", "plausible", and, "confirmed", mean. Perhaps for next Christmas, people should send them dictionaries.
Only so long as they want a democratic form of governance. Statistically speaking, there is a very clear causation that democracy translates to peace and prosperity with the likelihood of war being dramatically reduced - especially with another democratic government.
So basically, factually, statistically speaking, its better for the Egyptian people and the rest of the world if they have some form of a democratic government. Period.
And as the middle east's long history proves, any other form of government is well established to create instability and stomp of human rights. So regardless of what they want, everyone is worse off if they don't get a democracy.
You seem to forget that not everyone's opinion is of equal weight. The simple fact is, if they want anything short of a democracy or republic, its because they are ignorant and brain washed. History is full of tales of the ignorant and brainwashed getting what they wished for only to find out they and the rest of the world will suffer for their stupidity and ignorance, arrogance. Unfortunately, that's the basic tale of the whole of the middle east as well as many other parts of the world.
Sometimes when you're completely ignorant, you have no clue as to what you need. And what you want, frequently has absolutely nothing to do with what you need.
Besides, the global population has very clearly spoken. Anyone who isn't brainwashed, absolutely prefers some form of governance which allows for a voice of the people; which largely means a democracy or republic. Likewise, those who tend to not like that form of governance are almost universally brainwashed with some form of theocracy.
So yes, regardless of what they want - I absolutely hope they are plagued with the burdens of freedom, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, which can almost only be provided by democracy or a republic.
Roughly a year or two ago Google made it known they've long been searching the subject and have long had plans to bring this to market.
Suddenly both Apple and Microsoft are constantly trailing Google. You can say what you want about the three companies, but clearly both Apple and Microsoft have fallen behind Google as so far as real tech companies go. I'll leave it as a reader exercise to determine if its Apple or Microsoft which claims position two or three.
I would like to congratulate you for proving you stand head and shoulders above most other slashdotters. Seriously.
1) You attempt to confirm your understanding of the parents statements. 2) You did not antagonize or attempt to inflame based on your own ignorance. 3) You show a willingness to perform your own research of a subject which is originating from a non-authoritative source. 4) You did not show contempt for for a non-authoritative source offering a non-authoritative piece of information. 5) Even better, your ego isn't so huge such that you demand homework of others (demand they do your research), whom you've never met, who are otherwise willing to rectify your ignorance. 6) Best of all, you did not sound like an absolute idiot by say, "Citation needed."
You are quit possibly one of the smartest slashdot readers to roam the site in ages. In all seriousness, congratulations.
Not only that, but they are blatantly copying Google and Android. This is absolutely not a case of Apple paving a path but rather one of Apple falling in behind. But regardless, who gives a crap. I sure don't want my wallet to be so easily lost or worse, susceptible to viruses, trojans, and the usual application exploit crap.
Personally I think its a really dumb idea. Seemingly, the only real benefit is to allow Google, and now Apple, to know exactly where you shop and which products you purchase. Is carrying a credit card, of gasp!, cash really that hard?
Slashdot Mirror
You don't get it - IPv6 itself is a misengineered piece of crap.
Never heard that before. On what do you base such a determination?
From what I've seen of IPv6, if fixes much of the insanity which was IPv4. So if IPv6 is a "piece of crap", it seems like a foregone conclusion IPv4 is completely unusable. So it seems your argument, if anything, impresses a sense of urgency for the migration to IPv6.
Those artifacts might enable us to learn something about their culture, about their skills, about their beliefs.
This can't be stressed enough. There are literally massive examples of fairly advanced technology which we still have absolutely no idea how it was achieved. Furthermore, lots would be extremely difficult even using modern technology. A tiny subset,, while not beyond our current technology, is beyond our current tools; meaning specialized and truly massive cranes and tools would need to be created to imitate.
Many archaeologists believe there is knowledge to be learned by studying our past - and the evidence seems to support such notions.
"Contributing to the problem" is one odd fucking way of spelling "using the service she is paying for". Do you work for verizon or just shill for free?
Nice troll. Even scarier is that someone modded you up.
Are you sure that's the "service she is paying for?" According to the service provider, you're wrong. Period. So who's correct here? The service provider and/or common sense, or you? My best is on the service provider.
Now then, that's now to say she shouldn't be able to demand a higher level of service, but then again, they should be able to demand a higher service fee. Oddly enough, they seem to have a free structure to accommodate her; to wit she is likely, currently not paying.
I think you under estimate the complexity and even economics of tower location or how the technology works. And what seems to be a surprise to you, handsets in general do play a major role in infrastructure effectiveness. And all of that ignores the pragmatic realities of cost models, resource allocation, rights of way, so on and so on.
To say you're being unrealistic is an understatement.
So once again, no matter how you slice it, there are ABSOLUTE, FINITE LIMITS. PERIOD.
No, what I'm saying is you can't use the fact I broke Facebook's TOS against me as a crime, when the only thing I did was break the FB TOS.
Absolutely, factually, incorrect. ANYTHING you say can be used against you. Period. At the very least, you proved to the court you're a dishonest person by posting lies. Worse, you can't even uphold a legally binding contract. You must be a terrible, terrible person of very poor character. Understand?
So please allow me to stress and say it again. ANYTHING you say can be used against you. Period. This is why any good lawyer will ALWAYS tell you to never answer anything to the police. All too often, even the simple, honest, truth is used to legally persecute you; err, I mean prosecute.
She owns an MP3 player; she has an iPod Touch.
Worth noting, the same device she's using to stream music is in itself an MP3 player. Devices such as an iPod are an anachronism with modern phones.
The whole point is how finely you can slice it. You must have thought by "transcievers" I meant handsets, but I was referring to the infrastructure. And yes, that does make it possible to support more handsets in a given area.
No, I didn't think that at all. My point is completely correct. They have specifications to which they must comply and ever increasing bandwidth demands. As I originally stated, now matter how you slice it, there are extremely finite limits. Creating smaller slices (channels, time slice, or whatever the particular protocol is based on), in of itself, typically creates yet additional limits and technical hurdles. And even if it didn't, it absolutely does not change the fact that resources absolutely are finite. There is only so much bandwidth available in the air at one time and likewise once it starts its land based back haul.
You want a job with us, you don't badmouth us.
That's fine when you're a private company or even a publicly traded corporation - but not when you're a government entity; especially at the city level.
You mean like most politicians?
No. Its the exception rather than the rule when a politician is beholden to the public. Politicians are all too frequently beholden to corporations and the uber wealthy rather than the general public. In fact, if you've ever heard a politician speak, you can clearly hear they say anything and everything, specifically to avoid being held accountable for anything they might say at some point in the future.
No matter how you slice it, there is only so much bandwidth to go around. Adding more phones doesn't magically transform RF capabilities to allow for more bandwidth.
There are many different limits and you seem to be conflating them all.
I don't think so, for one I think the term
My comments were of the sarcastic variety. I didn't mean to imply that we coined the phrase. My comment means the use was already in the standard vernacular long before Apple started using it. I absolutely did not create the phrase. It existed long ago.
My primary point being, this is idiocy coined by Apple fan-boys attempting to revise history.
Even if i could i don't think i would get a PE licence - too much liability on what you sign off on.
The real problem here is, the PE in question is now liable if he fails to properly investigate and refute the report. Its an ego play because he doesn't want to be in a position where he's beholden to the public for failing to do his job.
An easier method for aiming is the one currently used for aiming signaling mirrors today. Take an object and place it in front of the mirror. Visually aim the object at the target. Now aim your mirror, centering your easily visible light at your targeting reticle. You are now hitting the target on which you've aimed.
For signaling mirrors, its recommended you use two fingers and aim using the web between your fingers. Now signal the mirror and you'll see the light on your fingers, which is aimed at whatever you are targeting.
You're right, and IMOHO, it all started with Sun - not Apple. People got tired of saying, "Applet", and started calling them "apps". Then Apple came a long and said, "we should call them that." And seemingly, they did. And yet even before that, the word, "app", was being used as an abreviated form of "application" for just about anything, ranging from small, tiny apps (java applets) to desktop apps.
I honestly fail to see what connection Apple has to this in any way other than attempting to, seemingly, inappropriately, fanboy Apple. And if my account isn't valid, then seemingly Apple stole dozens of friends, family, and co-worker's thunder years after the fact. Where's my money...
That's one way of viewing it, and obviously the way MS is spinning it. On the other hand, once you look deeper, MS' account actually validates Google's account and makes Bing look like a total piece of crap. Furthermore, once you actually critically review what Microsoft is say, they are in fact confirm Bing is a total piece of shit without farming Google.
Google notices Bing providing Google's results. Google investigates and sets up a sting. Google validates Bing is stealing Google's results, including rank significance. Microsoft fires back with details which attempt to ignore the fact that are taking Google's results as their own; including rank significance which is the most significant element of a modern search engine. Ultimately, it doesn't matter how MS got the data, its the fact that they are reproducing Google's results by using Google's results. No matter how you slice it, that's cheating. Period. Which basically confirms - Bing is absolute shit and is only better than shit when they are farming other search engines. Which, if you think about it, Microsoft is absolutely confirming all other search engines are better than Bing - otherwise they'd never have a need to farm everyone else.
Basically, you have two choices, you can turn your brain off and accept Microsoft's account, or you can dig a little deeper and see that Google is NOT annoyed by Bing, rather they are annoyed by Bing stealing and reproducing Google's hard work and claiming its Bing's own. Basically, Microsoft is actually confirming Bing is a piece of shit and that they only way they can produce good results is to farm their competition. Which in turn means, your conclusion is 180-degrees wrong. Basically, Google and Microsoft are concurrently confirming how good Google is and confirming how bad Bing works without farming their competitors. Again, no matter how you slice it, Microsoft confirm Bing is a piece of shit and that they farm their competitors results and claim them as their own.
Google has every right to be annoyed, but its impossible to presume their annoyance is validation so long as you apply any brain power to your analysis. When in fact, its Microsoft who is absolutely affirming Google's superiority to that of Bing.
Realistically a trained squad can aim and keep aimed around 40-80. Probably a 100 tops. That is more than enough to blind _ANYONE_ on the attacking ship in the days before sunglasses. I doubt that this would have been enough to set it on fire though. In any case, with the captain, skipper and most of the crew blind while facing catapults throwing burning tar buckets and 1m diameter stone balls the ship was as good as burning anyway.
I personally believe that you're hitting spot on. I believe they used the mirrors to blind people and allow for easier approach and application of Greek Fire. Then, the survivors simply saw mirrors being used, likely felt the heat and the temporary blindness, saw fire everywhere from the chaos, and assumed they were cause and effect. Likely those who were close enough to know the truth were too crispy to refute the new found myth.
I had to follow up with an example that shows their stupidity.
Bimp burns.
Bimp with hydrogen burns fast.
Bimp with thermite burns slower than just hydrogen but still burns considerably faster than simple material.
Bimp burns super faster with hydrogen + thermite, which accurately reproduces historic tragedy. The conclusion of intelligent people is hardly surprising; accelerent do exactly that and thermite clearly works as an accelerent with hydrogen (likely the extra O being provided).Their conclusion - busted. WTF!?!?! But if you ignore their stupidity which is their "conclusion", the reality is, they absolutely "confirmed" the myth, which was thermite (their coating) played a significant role in the speed of destruction. Its literally impossible to view the material with any other conclusion and yet they believe they busted it. Seemingly, they came to a conclusion which isn't even remotely supported by the available material or their tests. WTF?!?
"if the right set of circumstances happen at the right time and everything goes as wrong as possible..."
Right, but that's one of the things they consistently screw up. They can't even maintain their own objective metric from show to show. All too often, things they manage to confirm they say, "busted", when in fact, its, "plausible". Furthermore, they've even had a few conclusions which they confirmed when in reality they showed it was busted. Its as if they don't even understand the material they've supposedly spent time demonstrating.
Furthermore, when there is a lots of real world, documented examples, and their conclusion is "busted", when in fact its extremely, "plausible" and well documented.
The truth is, using their own metric, they've clearly documented they have no clue what the hell, "busted", "plausible", and, "confirmed", mean. Perhaps for next Christmas, people should send them dictionaries.
Shouldn't it be about want Egyptians want?
Only so long as they want a democratic form of governance. Statistically speaking, there is a very clear causation that democracy translates to peace and prosperity with the likelihood of war being dramatically reduced - especially with another democratic government.
So basically, factually, statistically speaking, its better for the Egyptian people and the rest of the world if they have some form of a democratic government. Period.
And as the middle east's long history proves, any other form of government is well established to create instability and stomp of human rights. So regardless of what they want, everyone is worse off if they don't get a democracy.
You seem to forget that not everyone's opinion is of equal weight. The simple fact is, if they want anything short of a democracy or republic, its because they are ignorant and brain washed. History is full of tales of the ignorant and brainwashed getting what they wished for only to find out they and the rest of the world will suffer for their stupidity and ignorance, arrogance. Unfortunately, that's the basic tale of the whole of the middle east as well as many other parts of the world.
Sometimes when you're completely ignorant, you have no clue as to what you need. And what you want, frequently has absolutely nothing to do with what you need.
Besides, the global population has very clearly spoken. Anyone who isn't brainwashed, absolutely prefers some form of governance which allows for a voice of the people; which largely means a democracy or republic. Likewise, those who tend to not like that form of governance are almost universally brainwashed with some form of theocracy.
So yes, regardless of what they want - I absolutely hope they are plagued with the burdens of freedom, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, which can almost only be provided by democracy or a republic.
Microsoft Research is found to be copying Google.
Roughly a year or two ago Google made it known they've long been searching the subject and have long had plans to bring this to market.
Suddenly both Apple and Microsoft are constantly trailing Google. You can say what you want about the three companies, but clearly both Apple and Microsoft have fallen behind Google as so far as real tech companies go. I'll leave it as a reader exercise to determine if its Apple or Microsoft which claims position two or three.
I would like to congratulate you for proving you stand head and shoulders above most other slashdotters. Seriously.
1) You attempt to confirm your understanding of the parents statements.
2) You did not antagonize or attempt to inflame based on your own ignorance.
3) You show a willingness to perform your own research of a subject which is originating from a non-authoritative source.
4) You did not show contempt for for a non-authoritative source offering a non-authoritative piece of information.
5) Even better, your ego isn't so huge such that you demand homework of others (demand they do your research), whom you've never met, who are otherwise willing to rectify your ignorance.
6) Best of all, you did not sound like an absolute idiot by say, "Citation needed."
You are quit possibly one of the smartest slashdot readers to roam the site in ages. In all seriousness, congratulations.
Not only that, but they are blatantly copying Google and Android. This is absolutely not a case of Apple paving a path but rather one of Apple falling in behind. But regardless, who gives a crap. I sure don't want my wallet to be so easily lost or worse, susceptible to viruses, trojans, and the usual application exploit crap.
Personally I think its a really dumb idea. Seemingly, the only real benefit is to allow Google, and now Apple, to know exactly where you shop and which products you purchase. Is carrying a credit card, of gasp!, cash really that hard?
Its called a pilot license. I not only have one, but they are well documented. In other words, you're full of shit.
and a flying car.
A little thing called, "facts", clearly suggest otherwise.
Because most accidents on the ground are fairly minor, resulting in minor or no injury.