You mean like the guy who ignores the speed limit then whines about getting a ticket because the road is obviously safe enough for faster travel?
No. I mean someone who resists when the government ignores the limits placed upon it by the constitution.
I do not believe they are
Please read the 4th amendment:
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
Now, please ask yourself how can you justify that the government has been granted the authority to search under any other conditions other than probable cause, oath or affirmation, specifics WRT who and what, and a warrant that lays this out.
neither does the courts
The courts have been rubber stamping constitutional violations for years now. I say they are part of the problem. They're being used to whitewash these violations. If you don't consider that this is the case, I see where your issue arises. I disagree emphatically.
BTW, has survived court challenges and is still on the books to this day.
Yes. This is part of the problem. You've come to the conclusion something along the lines that SCOTUS is pure and honorable, perhaps always correct. I have looked quite extensively at their actions over the last few decades, and I have extremely high confidence that this is not the case.
You're entitled to your opinion; I to mine. We're not on the same side of the issue, nor, I think, will we ever be.
Both incidents involve a citizen balking at wholly illegitimate government activity. The activities in question are different; the nature of the protest is not - therein lies the similarity.
I find it disingenuous and somewhat offensive comparing the two.
Perhaps that's because you're comparing different parts of the situation and ignoring, or missing, the key issue they have in common: An out of control government abusing its citizens by exercise of unauthorized and unreasonable force.
Airport screening is a straight-up violation of the 4th amendment of the constitution. These searches here have not even a shadow of the explicitly defined precursors required of the government before they are allowed to undertake a search.
When the government is as explicitly and extensively wrong as it is in these cases, resisting government malfeasance is the honorable and correct action.
I am saying that in the USA, resistance to tyrannical, unconstitutional, unauthorized, overweening government is legitimate whenever and wherever it occurs, with very few exceptions overall. This woman had every right to object to some government stooge putting his hands all over her, and her daughter, without probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, describing her specifically as the search target, and a judicial warrant that lays all this out. Citizens are absolutely entitled to not be interfered with by the government unless they have done something specific to justify reasonable suspicion: and simply wanting to fly from point A to point B doesn't qualify.
It doesn't matter in the least if her objection was poorly stated, inconveniently timed, not organized by a group, or otherwise imperfect or not as strong as it might be; otherwise we would be saying that only a few (if any) could object, and all others must submit, which is unmitigated bullshit. When the government is massively out of line, we all have every right to speak out, and to resist being abused if we can. And the government *is* massively out of line here. It has no probable cause, no witnesses, and no reason to suspect either the mother or the daughter. This is unauthorized government exercise of usurped powers -- powers that were never granted for it to wield, and further, in an area where there are explicitly emplaced limits on what government may do that have been significantly exceeded.
Finally, the child is under the woman's control and stewardship - not yours, not mine, not "the village's", and not the government's - as a minor and in the parent's care, there's no need for the mother to ask the child about its preferences at all.
Rosa Parks: She went to the front of the bus. What did she think would happen if she refused to go to the back of the bus?
Lesson: Just because it's law, doesn't mean it's right; just because it's law, doesn't mean that complying with it is the best choice; just because it's law, doesn't mean that an intelligent citizen writes someone off for a strict violation.
Some laws are simply wrong and arise only by malfeasance of legislators and those that encourage them down wrongful paths. This is unquestionably one of those cases.
It takes a strong belief (not faith) in your position to claim to be an atheist.
Atheist == without belief in a god or gods. So, no, it's not about belief. It's about lack of belief.
All it takes to be an atheist is an honest response of "no" to the question, "Do you harbor or hold any belief in a god or gods?"
Any position past that isn't definitive of atheism; it's definitive of something else. Because atheism is dead-simple: it's the state of lacking belief. No more, no less; there's no dogma, no catechism, no holy book, no structure, no leaders, no followers, no morals, no ethics, no laws. Any of that shows up, it can be directly attributed to something other than atheism. Which is fine. Where the problem arises is when someone looks at more than the no-belief state and then ascribes that issue to atheism.
Atheism is strictly a one trick pony. Anything other than a lack of belief in a god or gods is coming from somewhere else.
Rectifying nerd arrogance: Yer gonna need a nerd diode for that.
But watch out. Indiscriminate use of a bridge style rectifier will get ya 1.414 x the nerdiness. That can blow out yer nerd capacitors if you don't spec' 'em right.
When I got (built) my first real PC, it wasn't about "content." It was about doing things. I had BASIC (tiny), an assembler, an editor, and a way to store stuff. I wrote all manner of software. Simple stuff at first, then more crazed as I caught on to how things actually worked. As the years went by, I built or bought more powerful machines, and my library of stuff grew. Content became relevant as I could *create* it; I painted pictures, made music, wrote articles, books, wrote and received uncounted numbers of emails (and I still have them all. I was able to dig up a letter I wrote to my stepmother on my 6800 machine in 1975 last week, startled her a bit.:) I designed PC boards, all manner of hardware, even wrote PCB layout and schematic capture software. Games... not so much, although I did write a few, especially as the 80's arcade frenzy came and went and I was employed in that area. Computers were niche devices for people with special interests, really. When I started out hand-coding 8008 instructions, it's not like I was a member of a huge crowd.
Today, the start isn't the wowie-zowie of having "a real computer", it's just Other People's Content. You get a closed box like an iPad, it doesn't come with "hey write your own stuff", although you can add apps like that for cheap. You can add an editor (leaving out the PITA of that on screen kbd for real writing), a perfectly serviceable spreadsheet. On the desktop, developing stuff is still 100% possible, but again, that's not usually why people go after a machine; they want twitter, they want IM, they want to download music... for them, it is an appliance, and neither the environment that enthused me about computers (suddenly, you could have one, whereas before, you could not) or the vast unknown of "what can I do with this" really serves as the entryway or inspiration for most people.
True enough, the general purpose machine on my desk can address either type of person; me, or an inveterate content consumer. But the current market is the latter -- not me. In fact, I might not buy another machine -- I'm pretty happy with what's on my desk. 8 cores, 3 ghz, terabytes of storage, 6 monitors, USB widgets everywhere, LAN, WAN, WIFI, bluetooth, SD radio, MIDI, Logic Pro, all manner of dev languages... I feel pretty good about this puppy, frankly. If that's to be the pinnacle of personal computing... yeah, I'm good with that. Thing is crazy powerful, from my perspective.
I'm just not sure that the needs of us dinosaurs represent the needs of the marketplace today. That's really what I wanted to say, I'm just maybe way too windy about it.
So if the PC "dies", maybe that's ok. It'l die slow, and probably a niche market will arise again. The pendulum swings all the time, for just about everything. We'll be ok.
(why not down to 75 MHz for international FM broadcast band RX? Only need down to 87 or so in the USA..)
One thing about FM broadcast is that it's unusually wide-band compared to most signals, television excepted; many of the inexpensive SDR's can't provide that wide-band a signal. The FunCube, for instance, is good to 96 khz, which doesn't cut it. SDRs that are designed for SW or ham radio often provide even less bandwidth, as they're designed with 10 khz AM SW channels and 3 kHz sideband in mind. Or CW, which is just hundreds of hz in typical use.
So, again using the Funcube as an example, there's not a great deal of point in extending down to 75 MHz, as that stuff isn't really receivable.
That's an interesting range... but there isn't a huge amount of stuff up top, and you can buy an SDR for $100 or less that'll give you coverage from 50 mhz to about 2 GHz, if 2 GHz-plus hasn't got something of particular interest to you. The funcube dongle is one; there are others.
And if you're into ham radio, particularly the HF bands, and willing to build, take a look into the softrock.
Me, I use a Funcube for 50 mhz to 2 GHz, and an RFSPACE SDR-IQ, which is a high performance (almost)DC-to-30 MHz SDR that is a great deal of fun for me, as I'm both a ham radio op and a shortwave listener.
If I can't build a factory using my own money, I tend to think that perhaps I shouldn't build a factory. Just because I "want to" isn't much of a reason. Incurring huge debt and taking others along for a ride on my risks isn't fabulous either. I view debt as an extreme position, to be taken only when absolutely cornered.
Yes, under such a strategy I don't get to do things I cannot afford to do; I'm really ok with that. It's worked very well; I'm basically retired and pretty happy, though I maintain ownership of my various businesses. In the process, I faced some significant challenges — beat them, too.
My point is that this is a viable method; stock markets, etc. are not the only way one can build enterprises. It seems to me that many operations aim too high to start: they don't even have a product and they're building "headquarters", hiring "teams", etc. I see that kind of behavior and I just shake my head.
This is just me. You, of course, can do whatever you like.:o)
1 - Earn your own money working for others, without going into debt.
2 - Invest said monies in your business in a sensible fashion
3 - profit
4- goto 2
See how that doesn't involve stocks, investors, angels, debt, fake money, speculative markets? Nothing there but personal responsibility and effort. That's business with honor; that's also a business that can plan further than the next quarter.
The "movies" I am interested in are all martial arts patterns and isolated techniques, and I have a whole lot more than 100 of them. They're short (about 15 min each), but they're also high-res -- little details matter, slow-motion detail matters. They don't fit on my iPad with my other stuff. I would very much like it if they did. Between those, my photos, apps, and my music library, the iPad is woefully short of storage for my uses. That's all I'm saying. For me, for my use. I'd also *really* like an IR emitter for use as a home-theater and other kinds of remote, and I could go on and list some other additions to the current iPad design that would make me happy.
Now, I know perfectly well Apple isn't going to just go changing the iPad to meet my expectations, but on the other hand, when something hits the market that has the capacity to perhaps meet my needs better, I'm just not feeling all that brand-loyal. You dig?
Speaking as an iPad user since day one (and if not an Apple hater, at least someone who is annoyed with them), here's the value:
Built in storage -- stuff you permanently want on your machine (apps at least, but for me, also my music library)
Pluggable storage (which the iPad, suckily, does not have) movies, load of photos from the DSLR, music libraries, that sort of thing.
64 gb isn't that much if we're talking movies, and it isn't shite compared to the amount of RAW data I produce with my DSLR.
This is one of Apple's key iPad fuckups, and conversely, it's a very nice (and tempting to me) feature for MS's surface. Have to see what the app space ends up looking like.
Empty space tends to be perfectly aligned, lol. Yes, of course. But what this means in practical terms is a transceiver group needs alignment -- once, unless the building shifts, etc. If the building shifts, you have other problems. The *space* isn't going to move.
Yes, you want to keep dust out of there, otherwise you'll see error rates go up. The good news is everything benefits from this. Servers don't like dust either.
The first is not a problem; the second... should be solved. So I don't see these are serious roadblocks.
on / off is sufficient to give you more speed than the vast majority of machines actually need. Nothing fancy required. receivers can only see one transmitter; on/off is just as good in that context as it is within a wire, as long as you don't block the path.
Number of pairs isn't a challenge, really. Should be able to get the density up to about what cables give you as long as you use the short transmitter sleeve I described.
It's not a crossbar arrangement. it's point to point. Same as an ethernet cable, which it replaces. Switching is done by the usual culprits, if you're using the term as in switch, router. If you're using it as in 1,0... LEDs are fast enough already, you don't need to do anything special.
Methinks you're looking at it differently enough to miss the point.
LEDs can be switched in the sub-nanosecond range with a little effort, in the single-digit nanosecond range without any unusual trickery at all. 10...100 ns for an 8 bit word isn't horrible. I don't understand your use of "chill" in this context.
Also not quite sure what you mean by tight transceiver pairs. I envision a transmitter LED nested at the bottom of a flat black tube on one end (crops the easily detectable emission to a very narrow AOV), and a sensor with an integral lens on the other. The only way the sensor could see the transmitting LED is to be lined up with it; parallax would prevent it from seeing adjacent LEDs on the same spatial alleyway, as it were. All low tech. You could fit a *lot* of these on a flat plane representing the end cap of the data allyway.
Most machines in a data center don't have a lot of connections going to them. One for sure, maybe two. That heads off to switches, routers. Those connections could be all LED. The router / switch, if consolidating to a high-traffic line, could use something else. If going out to other machines, LED again. No reason you couldn't mix tech here.
Within a data center, you could use $1.00 LED emitters and receivers with integral lenses for short runs, precision (but still cheap) alignment fixtures and $0.10 mirrors. For long runs, LED laser emitters. You'd still beat $90/point by a huge margin. And as a plus, you'd have some extremely high speed connections. Power consumption... I dunno, you'd have to do an analysis. One thing that seems obvious is that for any line not sending data, the LED should be off the vast majority of the time.
Sorry but in the world I live in you cannot create 'new jobs' until you've replaced the ones you've lost already.
That's what we call a "fantasy world."
Larry is not in the job market. Fred is unemployed. Joe works alone in tiny Chinese restaurant. Jane works alone at tiny post office. Chinese restaurant closes, Joe loses job. Donut shop opens. Fred is hired by donut shop. One new job. One lost job. One job with continuity across these events. Specific, unique personal consequences in all three cases. Larry isn't playing. That's reality. It's how reality rolls. Note how the donut shop opening consists of a completely independent event from the chinese restaurant closing; that's why job creation is measured independently. Because it is independent.
Jobseekers, industries and jobs come and go; that's the nature of any economy. No industry is guaranteed that its methodology, sufficient today, will be sufficient tomorrow; or that its product, in demand now, will be in demand tomorrow. Again, that's just how things roll. But the government can step in, and, if it deems it worthwhile, it can backstop temporary issues (as with GM or the banks) that in its estimation will result in a better economic outcome.
Or, as Romney wanted to do, it could just let them fail and lose all those jobs. Luckily, we had Obama making that choice, so those jobs are still in our economy.
The fact is your job creation graph doesn't give the whole story.
Agreed. It tells a part of the jobs story where the administration can actually have an effect. It doesn't for instance, very well describe how republican policies nearly destroyed our economy, or involved us in a set of completely pointless, wrongheaded, un-financed pair of wars, or violated the constitution on citizen's issue after issue. It doesn't describe the insanity of Bush's "God told me to do it" claim, or the deception about the tubes manufactured in Africa. It doesn't describe how republican policies encouraged companies to move jobs offshore; it doesn't describe how "trickle-down" never materialized. It doesn't describe how more and more people were growing in need of medical care. It doesn't describe the losses to the oil companies in the form of completely unjustified giveaways and subsidies. It doesn't describe the republican whoring out to Halliburton, et al. It doesn't describe how the republicans have completely failed to pass any bill with a reasonable expectation of generating jobs. Yes, there's a whole bunch that graph doesn't describe.
But what it does describe is that job creation was negative and going further negative at a very high rate under republican policy, and that was reversed under Obama. This is independent of other factors. Which addresses the issue at hand.
I don't think you should assume all prostitution is consensual.
Innocent until proven guilty. The standard should be to assume no crime is committed until there is evidence there was a crime. Lack of consensuality is criminal in any sexual act. Exchange of funds for sex is prima facie evidence of consensuality unless you can show coercion by a third party.
That graph shows new job creation. When above the 0 line, that's a job gain. It's consistently been holding there all through Obama's term, once it was dug out of the republican mess it was in.
Yes, we'd like it to be higher -- a truly healthy economy would have it at a gain of 400k/month or better, because there's a normal rate of loss that it needs to serve as a counterforce for. We sure as heck don't want it looking like it did under republican policies, though. We *surely* don't want the catastrophe the republicans foisted off upon us.
The fact is, under the republicans, we had the normal job loss, the overseas-moved job loss, and the recession job loss, AND we had a negative number for jobs creation. Obama did better -- a LOT better.
The rich are very rich right now, and corporate coffers are very cash heavy. The rich get a huge tax break on earnings from investments. Case in point, look at Romney, paying only about 13% because he's all-investment income at this juncture. I pay a great deal more than that, and I sure as heck don't earn what he does, and I see zero justification for the difference. I don't want his 13%; I can afford my taxes. I want him to pay at the same rate I do, though: earnings are earnings, I don't care how you came by them.
The republicans claimed they got congress on a mandate about jobs. Over the time they've controlled the lower house, they've passed not even one jobs bill.
Thanks to asteroid impacts, comet impacts, super volcanos, solar outbursts, major biological insults, ice ages and other rare, but dependable catastrophic events, there is every need to find other planets to colonize.
Thanks to huge resources that become almost freely available to us once we definitively get out of the earth's gravity well, the financial case is, if long term, still quite clear.
Thanks to the lack of atmosphere and the availability of incomprehensibly long baselines, astronomy alone will benefit hugely from an actual presence in space, once / if we can pull it off.
The first sign of a complete failure to understand the world we live in is any urge to cut back on our ability to get to, stay in, do science in, and work in, space.
Slashdot Mirror
No. I mean someone who resists when the government ignores the limits placed upon it by the constitution.
Please read the 4th amendment:
Now, please ask yourself how can you justify that the government has been granted the authority to search under any other conditions other than probable cause, oath or affirmation, specifics WRT who and what, and a warrant that lays this out.
The courts have been rubber stamping constitutional violations for years now. I say they are part of the problem. They're being used to whitewash these violations. If you don't consider that this is the case, I see where your issue arises. I disagree emphatically.
Yes. This is part of the problem. You've come to the conclusion something along the lines that SCOTUS is pure and honorable, perhaps always correct. I have looked quite extensively at their actions over the last few decades, and I have extremely high confidence that this is not the case.
You're entitled to your opinion; I to mine. We're not on the same side of the issue, nor, I think, will we ever be.
Both incidents involve a citizen balking at wholly illegitimate government activity. The activities in question are different; the nature of the protest is not - therein lies the similarity.
Perhaps that's because you're comparing different parts of the situation and ignoring, or missing, the key issue they have in common: An out of control government abusing its citizens by exercise of unauthorized and unreasonable force.
Airport screening is a straight-up violation of the 4th amendment of the constitution. These searches here have not even a shadow of the explicitly defined precursors required of the government before they are allowed to undertake a search.
When the government is as explicitly and extensively wrong as it is in these cases, resisting government malfeasance is the honorable and correct action.
I am saying that in the USA, resistance to tyrannical, unconstitutional, unauthorized, overweening government is legitimate whenever and wherever it occurs, with very few exceptions overall. This woman had every right to object to some government stooge putting his hands all over her, and her daughter, without probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, describing her specifically as the search target, and a judicial warrant that lays all this out. Citizens are absolutely entitled to not be interfered with by the government unless they have done something specific to justify reasonable suspicion: and simply wanting to fly from point A to point B doesn't qualify.
It doesn't matter in the least if her objection was poorly stated, inconveniently timed, not organized by a group, or otherwise imperfect or not as strong as it might be; otherwise we would be saying that only a few (if any) could object, and all others must submit, which is unmitigated bullshit. When the government is massively out of line, we all have every right to speak out, and to resist being abused if we can. And the government *is* massively out of line here. It has no probable cause, no witnesses, and no reason to suspect either the mother or the daughter. This is unauthorized government exercise of usurped powers -- powers that were never granted for it to wield, and further, in an area where there are explicitly emplaced limits on what government may do that have been significantly exceeded.
Finally, the child is under the woman's control and stewardship - not yours, not mine, not "the village's", and not the government's - as a minor and in the parent's care, there's no need for the mother to ask the child about its preferences at all.
Rosa Parks: She went to the front of the bus. What did she think would happen if she refused to go to the back of the bus?
Lesson: Just because it's law, doesn't mean it's right; just because it's law, doesn't mean that complying with it is the best choice; just because it's law, doesn't mean that an intelligent citizen writes someone off for a strict violation.
Some laws are simply wrong and arise only by malfeasance of legislators and those that encourage them down wrongful paths. This is unquestionably one of those cases.
Atheist == without belief in a god or gods. So, no, it's not about belief. It's about lack of belief.
All it takes to be an atheist is an honest response of "no" to the question, "Do you harbor or hold any belief in a god or gods?"
Any position past that isn't definitive of atheism; it's definitive of something else. Because atheism is dead-simple: it's the state of lacking belief. No more, no less; there's no dogma, no catechism, no holy book, no structure, no leaders, no followers, no morals, no ethics, no laws. Any of that shows up, it can be directly attributed to something other than atheism. Which is fine. Where the problem arises is when someone looks at more than the no-belief state and then ascribes that issue to atheism.
Atheism is strictly a one trick pony. Anything other than a lack of belief in a god or gods is coming from somewhere else.
Rectifying nerd arrogance: Yer gonna need a nerd diode for that.
But watch out. Indiscriminate use of a bridge style rectifier will get ya 1.414 x the nerdiness. That can blow out yer nerd capacitors if you don't spec' 'em right.
When I got (built) my first real PC, it wasn't about "content." It was about doing things. I had BASIC (tiny), an assembler, an editor, and a way to store stuff. I wrote all manner of software. Simple stuff at first, then more crazed as I caught on to how things actually worked. As the years went by, I built or bought more powerful machines, and my library of stuff grew. Content became relevant as I could *create* it; I painted pictures, made music, wrote articles, books, wrote and received uncounted numbers of emails (and I still have them all. I was able to dig up a letter I wrote to my stepmother on my 6800 machine in 1975 last week, startled her a bit. :) I designed PC boards, all manner of hardware, even wrote PCB layout and schematic capture software. Games... not so much, although I did write a few, especially as the 80's arcade frenzy came and went and I was employed in that area. Computers were niche devices for people with special interests, really. When I started out hand-coding 8008 instructions, it's not like I was a member of a huge crowd.
Today, the start isn't the wowie-zowie of having "a real computer", it's just Other People's Content. You get a closed box like an iPad, it doesn't come with "hey write your own stuff", although you can add apps like that for cheap. You can add an editor (leaving out the PITA of that on screen kbd for real writing), a perfectly serviceable spreadsheet. On the desktop, developing stuff is still 100% possible, but again, that's not usually why people go after a machine; they want twitter, they want IM, they want to download music... for them, it is an appliance, and neither the environment that enthused me about computers (suddenly, you could have one, whereas before, you could not) or the vast unknown of "what can I do with this" really serves as the entryway or inspiration for most people.
True enough, the general purpose machine on my desk can address either type of person; me, or an inveterate content consumer. But the current market is the latter -- not me. In fact, I might not buy another machine -- I'm pretty happy with what's on my desk. 8 cores, 3 ghz, terabytes of storage, 6 monitors, USB widgets everywhere, LAN, WAN, WIFI, bluetooth, SD radio, MIDI, Logic Pro, all manner of dev languages... I feel pretty good about this puppy, frankly. If that's to be the pinnacle of personal computing... yeah, I'm good with that. Thing is crazy powerful, from my perspective.
I'm just not sure that the needs of us dinosaurs represent the needs of the marketplace today. That's really what I wanted to say, I'm just maybe way too windy about it.
So if the PC "dies", maybe that's ok. It'l die slow, and probably a niche market will arise again. The pendulum swings all the time, for just about everything. We'll be ok.
One thing about FM broadcast is that it's unusually wide-band compared to most signals, television excepted; many of the inexpensive SDR's can't provide that wide-band a signal. The FunCube, for instance, is good to 96 khz, which doesn't cut it. SDRs that are designed for SW or ham radio often provide even less bandwidth, as they're designed with 10 khz AM SW channels and 3 kHz sideband in mind. Or CW, which is just hundreds of hz in typical use.
So, again using the Funcube as an example, there's not a great deal of point in extending down to 75 MHz, as that stuff isn't really receivable.
That's an interesting range... but there isn't a huge amount of stuff up top, and you can buy an SDR for $100 or less that'll give you coverage from 50 mhz to about 2 GHz, if 2 GHz-plus hasn't got something of particular interest to you. The funcube dongle is one; there are others.
And if you're into ham radio, particularly the HF bands, and willing to build, take a look into the softrock.
Me, I use a Funcube for 50 mhz to 2 GHz, and an RFSPACE SDR-IQ, which is a high performance (almost)DC-to-30 MHz SDR that is a great deal of fun for me, as I'm both a ham radio op and a shortwave listener.
I use this as my operating software.
Guess that depends on how you define it. You are, of course, entitled to your opinion.
If I can't build a factory using my own money, I tend to think that perhaps I shouldn't build a factory. Just because I "want to" isn't much of a reason. Incurring huge debt and taking others along for a ride on my risks isn't fabulous either. I view debt as an extreme position, to be taken only when absolutely cornered.
Yes, under such a strategy I don't get to do things I cannot afford to do; I'm really ok with that. It's worked very well; I'm basically retired and pretty happy, though I maintain ownership of my various businesses. In the process, I faced some significant challenges — beat them, too.
My point is that this is a viable method; stock markets, etc. are not the only way one can build enterprises. It seems to me that many operations aim too high to start: they don't even have a product and they're building "headquarters", hiring "teams", etc. I see that kind of behavior and I just shake my head.
This is just me. You, of course, can do whatever you like. :o)
1 - Earn your own money working for others, without going into debt.
2 - Invest said monies in your business in a sensible fashion
3 - profit
4- goto 2
See how that doesn't involve stocks, investors, angels, debt, fake money, speculative markets? Nothing there but personal responsibility and effort. That's business with honor; that's also a business that can plan further than the next quarter.
The "movies" I am interested in are all martial arts patterns and isolated techniques, and I have a whole lot more than 100 of them. They're short (about 15 min each), but they're also high-res -- little details matter, slow-motion detail matters. They don't fit on my iPad with my other stuff. I would very much like it if they did. Between those, my photos, apps, and my music library, the iPad is woefully short of storage for my uses. That's all I'm saying. For me, for my use. I'd also *really* like an IR emitter for use as a home-theater and other kinds of remote, and I could go on and list some other additions to the current iPad design that would make me happy.
Now, I know perfectly well Apple isn't going to just go changing the iPad to meet my expectations, but on the other hand, when something hits the market that has the capacity to perhaps meet my needs better, I'm just not feeling all that brand-loyal. You dig?
Speaking as an iPad user since day one (and if not an Apple hater, at least someone who is annoyed with them), here's the value:
Built in storage -- stuff you permanently want on your machine (apps at least, but for me, also my music library)
Pluggable storage (which the iPad, suckily, does not have) movies, load of photos from the DSLR, music libraries, that sort of thing.
64 gb isn't that much if we're talking movies, and it isn't shite compared to the amount of RAW data I produce with my DSLR.
This is one of Apple's key iPad fuckups, and conversely, it's a very nice (and tempting to me) feature for MS's surface. Have to see what the app space ends up looking like.
Your network cards overheat?
You have other problems.
Empty space tends to be perfectly aligned, lol. Yes, of course. But what this means in practical terms is a transceiver group needs alignment -- once, unless the building shifts, etc. If the building shifts, you have other problems. The *space* isn't going to move.
Yes, you want to keep dust out of there, otherwise you'll see error rates go up. The good news is everything benefits from this. Servers don't like dust either.
The first is not a problem; the second... should be solved. So I don't see these are serious roadblocks.
on / off is sufficient to give you more speed than the vast majority of machines actually need. Nothing fancy required. receivers can only see one transmitter; on/off is just as good in that context as it is within a wire, as long as you don't block the path.
Number of pairs isn't a challenge, really. Should be able to get the density up to about what cables give you as long as you use the short transmitter sleeve I described.
It's not a crossbar arrangement. it's point to point. Same as an ethernet cable, which it replaces. Switching is done by the usual culprits, if you're using the term as in switch, router. If you're using it as in 1,0... LEDs are fast enough already, you don't need to do anything special.
Methinks you're looking at it differently enough to miss the point.
To your points:
LEDs can be switched in the sub-nanosecond range with a little effort, in the single-digit nanosecond range without any unusual trickery at all. 10...100 ns for an 8 bit word isn't horrible. I don't understand your use of "chill" in this context.
Also not quite sure what you mean by tight transceiver pairs. I envision a transmitter LED nested at the bottom of a flat black tube on one end (crops the easily detectable emission to a very narrow AOV), and a sensor with an integral lens on the other. The only way the sensor could see the transmitting LED is to be lined up with it; parallax would prevent it from seeing adjacent LEDs on the same spatial alleyway, as it were. All low tech. You could fit a *lot* of these on a flat plane representing the end cap of the data allyway.
Most machines in a data center don't have a lot of connections going to them. One for sure, maybe two. That heads off to switches, routers. Those connections could be all LED. The router / switch, if consolidating to a high-traffic line, could use something else. If going out to other machines, LED again. No reason you couldn't mix tech here.
Within a data center, you could use $1.00 LED emitters and receivers with integral lenses for short runs, precision (but still cheap) alignment fixtures and $0.10 mirrors. For long runs, LED laser emitters. You'd still beat $90/point by a huge margin. And as a plus, you'd have some extremely high speed connections. Power consumption... I dunno, you'd have to do an analysis. One thing that seems obvious is that for any line not sending data, the LED should be off the vast majority of the time.
Hey, let me Google that for you!
Nope, we were happily using it long before Biden popped up with it in the debate. :)
That's what we call a "fantasy world."
Larry is not in the job market. Fred is unemployed. Joe works alone in tiny Chinese restaurant. Jane works alone at tiny post office. Chinese restaurant closes, Joe loses job. Donut shop opens. Fred is hired by donut shop. One new job. One lost job. One job with continuity across these events. Specific, unique personal consequences in all three cases. Larry isn't playing. That's reality. It's how reality rolls. Note how the donut shop opening consists of a completely independent event from the chinese restaurant closing; that's why job creation is measured independently. Because it is independent.
Jobseekers, industries and jobs come and go; that's the nature of any economy. No industry is guaranteed that its methodology, sufficient today, will be sufficient tomorrow; or that its product, in demand now, will be in demand tomorrow. Again, that's just how things roll. But the government can step in, and, if it deems it worthwhile, it can backstop temporary issues (as with GM or the banks) that in its estimation will result in a better economic outcome.
Or, as Romney wanted to do, it could just let them fail and lose all those jobs. Luckily, we had Obama making that choice, so those jobs are still in our economy.
Agreed. It tells a part of the jobs story where the administration can actually have an effect. It doesn't for instance, very well describe how republican policies nearly destroyed our economy, or involved us in a set of completely pointless, wrongheaded, un-financed pair of wars, or violated the constitution on citizen's issue after issue. It doesn't describe the insanity of Bush's "God told me to do it" claim, or the deception about the tubes manufactured in Africa. It doesn't describe how republican policies encouraged companies to move jobs offshore; it doesn't describe how "trickle-down" never materialized. It doesn't describe how more and more people were growing in need of medical care. It doesn't describe the losses to the oil companies in the form of completely unjustified giveaways and subsidies. It doesn't describe the republican whoring out to Halliburton, et al. It doesn't describe how the republicans have completely failed to pass any bill with a reasonable expectation of generating jobs. Yes, there's a whole bunch that graph doesn't describe.
But what it does describe is that job creation was negative and going further negative at a very high rate under republican policy, and that was reversed under Obama. This is independent of other factors. Which addresses the issue at hand.
Innocent until proven guilty. The standard should be to assume no crime is committed until there is evidence there was a crime. Lack of consensuality is criminal in any sexual act. Exchange of funds for sex is prima facie evidence of consensuality unless you can show coercion by a third party.
Dude, explored != invented.
That graph shows new job creation. When above the 0 line, that's a job gain. It's consistently been holding there all through Obama's term, once it was dug out of the republican mess it was in.
Yes, we'd like it to be higher -- a truly healthy economy would have it at a gain of 400k/month or better, because there's a normal rate of loss that it needs to serve as a counterforce for. We sure as heck don't want it looking like it did under republican policies, though. We *surely* don't want the catastrophe the republicans foisted off upon us.
The fact is, under the republicans, we had the normal job loss, the overseas-moved job loss, and the recession job loss, AND we had a negative number for jobs creation. Obama did better -- a LOT better.
The rich are very rich right now, and corporate coffers are very cash heavy. The rich get a huge tax break on earnings from investments. Case in point, look at Romney, paying only about 13% because he's all-investment income at this juncture. I pay a great deal more than that, and I sure as heck don't earn what he does, and I see zero justification for the difference. I don't want his 13%; I can afford my taxes. I want him to pay at the same rate I do, though: earnings are earnings, I don't care how you came by them.
The republicans claimed they got congress on a mandate about jobs. Over the time they've controlled the lower house, they've passed not even one jobs bill.
What's going on here?
Thanks to asteroid impacts, comet impacts, super volcanos, solar outbursts, major biological insults, ice ages and other rare, but dependable catastrophic events, there is every need to find other planets to colonize.
Thanks to huge resources that become almost freely available to us once we definitively get out of the earth's gravity well, the financial case is, if long term, still quite clear.
Thanks to the lack of atmosphere and the availability of incomprehensibly long baselines, astronomy alone will benefit hugely from an actual presence in space, once / if we can pull it off.
The first sign of a complete failure to understand the world we live in is any urge to cut back on our ability to get to, stay in, do science in, and work in, space.