Two video streams on a 6MHz channel is two video streams on a single 6MHz channel, not two video streams each with their own 3MHz channel.
That's not relevant.
What is relevant is that you can't squeeze blood out of a turnip.
If you are logically splitting the bandwidth with another broadcaster and you are broadcasting a show that uses 50% of the bandwidth, that only leaves 50% for the other broadcaster. If you want to broadcast a show that requires more bandwidth, such as a typical HD (1080p) television show, it can't do it unless the other broadcaster isn't trying to use more than the remaining bandwidth during that time period.
Assuming you can't get the other broadcaster to cooperate, you can't broadcast with the same "quality" (as defined by resolution and frequency-of-scene-changes) as you could if you controlled the entire 6MHz channel.
So two stations that were previously using 6 MHz bandwidth each, will now share one channel, presumably using 3 MHz each.... and so each will have a 50% drop in picture quality. How is this a good thing for the consumer?
You have no idea how "Digital" works do you?
If by "quality" the original poster meant "maximum picture quality" i.e. the combination of resolution and ability to change the image over time, he is correct. If by "quality" he meant things like noise/static, then for practical purposes you are correct.
A 6MHz channel can support 1 HD channel plus some leftover room, a 50/50 split of that channel cannot.
Modern digital television is on even higher frequencies.[than analog UHF]
Not true. Digital television frequencies are basically the same as the analog ones, with some channels either no longer used or no longer used except under special circumstances (e.g. grandfathered stations, low-power stations, etc.).
In practice, most US digital TV stations are UHF stations between channels 14 and 69.
In places like near the borders where the police routinely randomly pull people over to search, NOT consenting will give them every reason to detain, bother, and harass you on the possibly-still-statistically-valid (well, it used to be valid, I don't know if still is) assumption that people who refuse consent are more likely to be hiding something than those who do consent.
In these situations, where they plan on doing a cursory search of every random vehicle they pull over, consenting will almost always get you on your merry way in a reasonable period of time - less time than not consenting. Why? Because the police don't want to waste time with someone who "looks like a regular person" if doing so will let many more people - some of whom may be "up to no good" - get through without being pulled over.
Of course, if you've already given the police a reason to want to harass you even through no fault of your own, such as (hypothetically) having a bumper sticker promoting a sports team that the cop hates, or if you are just unlucky enough to get pulled over by a cop that is in a bad mood, you may be screwed whether you consent or not.
In principal, once something is digitized and stored on archival media in an un-encumbered (patent/etc.-free) published format, it will be available forever, without further degradation. Once the copyrights do expire (and except for rare exceptions like Peter Pan, the will), the digitized copies can be made available to the public.
Having digital copies also means you can have a second digital copy that is stored "offline and stored hundreds of km away," which is important if the item if the library burns down or if the city the library is in becomes a war zone and not only the library but other "local" locations that house the "offsite backups" are destroyed.
The deterioration due to time isn't going to be critical for most texts, but for photographs, paintings, and other material that may have been published on non-archival material, getting it scanned now sure beats waiting for the copyright to expire before scanning.
On this 9/11 anniversary, we have to remind ourselves of the loss that can happen when "the only copies" are destroyed: The photo archive of the construction of the World Trade Center was housed at the World Trade Center. There was no offsite backup. When the buildings were destroyed, so was this photo-archive.
If you are trying to copy a commercial tape or anything you recorded off-the-air, most places won't touch it without a copyright clearance.
Some may bend a bit if it's something that clearly has no commercial value, like a 20-year-old news clip showing your kid winning a high school football game. But don't count on it.
For/. readers who have the complete Tom Baker Dr. Who episodes complete with PBS pledge breaks showing a much-younger you manning the phone bank, good luck finding a company that will copy those for you. They *might* copy the pledge breaks but not the Dr. Who.
if (a = b) assigns the contents of b to a and executes the code following if b 0. Who the hell thought that would be a good idea?
If b is an expression that returns a reference to a newly allocated resource, such as fopen or malloc, this if statement represents trying to allocate a resource and then skipping the following compound statement if the allocation failed.
I think you are missing the point. The point is "Why use the '=' as the assignment operator instead of some other symbol, like Pascal's ':='?"
If I could go back and whisper something into K&R's ears, I would tell them to make "=" the comparison operator and pick something else as the assignment operator.
That used to be but these days it's frequently okay or even desirable to add functionality like input-parameter-validation rather than be concise and skip the validation, leaving a gaping security hole in kernel or other code which may run with privileges high enough to be dangerous.
Likewise, it may be desirable to have a larger piece of code that can test for the presence of hardware that may or may not be present and exploit it if it is there than to have smaller, simpler code that does things in a way that will work everywhere, but which will not take advantage of hardware that might be available.
Notice that I said "may be." Part of the art and science of engineering your code is knowing the trade-offs between "smaller, simpler, but less feature-rich" and "bigger, more complicated, but more feature-rich" and knowing the intended and possibly-un-intended uses of your code and how much time and effort you and others have to create the code and maintain it later, then make the correct engineering choice for your particular situation.
If I commit a crime and my shoes or other clothing contain evidence of my criminal act, is the clothing legally treated as if it's "part of me" or as if it's not?
Generally not. Think about all the crime dramas where dirt that is only found at the crime scene is found in the suspect's shoes, or where the dye from the exploding dye-pack was found on the suspect's clothing.
Much more likely to be a legal issue is the issue of how invasive the legal system can be to retrieve the evidence. A few years ago there was an alleged perpetrator who was shot during a crime. I don't remember how it all turned out but there were major court fights over whether the police could force the person to undergo non-life-threatening surgery to remove the bullet fragments on the grounds that they were evidence in a crime.
What Apple can do is require 2-factor authentication.
They can also provide individuals who want it - primarily high-profile individuals - stronger lock-downs such as only allowing registered devices to log in or require typing in a code that is texted to the person prior to completing the login, much like some banks already do.
If only there were an efficient way to store energy from the sun or wind and turn it into grid-power later that wasn't called a "battery." Perhaps some futuristic supercapacitor-based system or fuel-cell-with-re-formed-fuel system will meet this need. Or perhaps something we haven't even envisioned yet outside of the realm of science fiction will be the answer.
Can I have an ID card that is JUST and ID card, with a driver's license that is a separate piece of paper/plastic?
When I present my ID card to cash a check, clear airport security, etc. it's none of anyone's business if I have a driver's license.
After all, other government-issued licenses like concealed-handgun permits, hunting permits, and professional licenses (engineering, medical, etc.) typically aren't on the same piece of plastic as your state-issued ID card. My bank doesn't know or care if I have (or don't have) a gun permit, a fishing license, or an license to practice medicine, and that's A Good Thing.
Splitting the driver's license from the ID card would also be good for military families and college students who didn't have a previous driver's license but who want to keep their "legal residence" where they previously lived - it would allow the state where they actually live to issue them a driver's license (valid in all 50 states) without either forcing them to surrender their existing ID card or giving them a second state-issued ID card whose information (address, etc.) may conflict with the existing card.
It would also solve much of the "short-term visa/expired visa/illegal immigrant" problem at least with respect to immigrants who still possess a valid, recognized non-US-government-issued ID card such as one issued by a foreign Consulate: States would be able to ensure that people who are driving can pass a driver's test, are paying the appropriate drivers-license-related taxes/fees, and are properly insured without having to face the political heat that comes with issuing an official ID card that is valid for purposes other than proving you are legally qualified to drive. If "political heat" is a concern, the document can be stamped "Valid as a driver's license only. Not valid for any other reason. Only valid on days in which the person has a legal right to be in the United States of America [this is for frequent tourists who use non-contiguous successive short-term visas but who want to pay for a multi-year driver's license]. While driving licensee must posses a valid government-issued photo ID card recognized by the United States, the state of [state issuing the driver's license], or the state in which the person is operating a motor vehicle. Licensees not possessing ID cards issued by the US government or a US state government must possess a valid travel or residency document or proof of an exemption [e.g. an ID card issued by a government with a no-visa treaty with the United States] while driving. Not valid after [expiration date]."
Come to think of it, he can probably read it without pausing as it prints out on his 1980s fax machine, so I'm surprised he hasn't denounced everything faster as "unnecessary."
Organic matter decays over time, especially when it's not stored under "ideal conditions."
If you dug up 1500 people that had been dead and buried for 100 years, I bet you would have to work hard to get a sample of every stretch of the human DNA map. The only saving grace might be if the bodies were in a sealed casket or which were otherwise very well-preserved in a way that protected the DNA from decay.
On the other hand, if you stored 1500 freshly-dead people or birds today in a way to minimize DNA degradation and kept them that way for 100 years from now, our descendants in 2014 would have a much easier time with it, and that's not counting whatever technological advances come along over the next 100 years.
Here's hoping they can get enough nuclear DNA that whatever "Franken-bird" they create will be 100% carrier pigeon, at least DNA-wise.
As for the rest of the cell that starts the whole thing off, it will probably have to be a donor cell from a closely related bird. This probably means the result will have non-carrier-pigeon mitochondrial DNA.
On a related topic, if scientists figure out how to do this with birds then they replicate the process with humans, using human nuclear DNA, a non-human donor cell, and a non-human surrogate mother, will most countries of the world recognize the result as a "person" for legal reasons?
It was intentionally coupled to a specific device for legal/liability reasons related to medical devices.
Having to replace the entire arm is stupid though. Ideally, the arm should be able to be "re-paired" in a doctor's office or at the patient's home by a factory-authorized person such as his doctor or a technician. For legal/liability reasons, this might require replacing a chip but that should be no big deal.
In any case, the only reason I can think of for the arm to have to be replaced is if the company has gone through bankruptcy or is no longer in business, or if the arm has already exceeded its useful life as a medical device and as a result the company no longer supports it. This should not be the case for any adult prosthetic arm new enough to be controlled by an iPod.
$FUTURE_DATE: Citizen Lab released new research today on a targeted exploitation technique used by state actors involving "network injection appliances" installed at ISPs and with the possibly-coerced "cooperation" of https: web sites or the companies issuing https: certificates. These devices can target and intercept encrypted YouTube traffic and replace it with malicious code that gives the operator control over the system or installs a surveillance backdoor. One of the researchers writes, "many otherwise well-informed people think they have to do something wrong, or stupid, or insecure to get hacked - like visiting an unencrypted web site,...many of these commonly held beliefs are not necessarily true." This technique is largely designed for targeted attacks, so it's likely most of us will be safe for now - but just one more reminder to not trust the person on the other end to not cooperate with The Man in the middle. It is unknown how long such attacks have been happening but they might date to 2014 or earlier.
Everything you think as being "intuitive" is simply you being used to other software behaving in a similar way, or you expecting some icon to match the behavior / usage of a real-world item it kind of looks like. It's training, whether you realize it or not.
Thank you for making part of my point for me (new readers: see my earlier posts in this chain for context).
If you can depend on your users to have a certain skill - be it reading English, knowing how to use a telephone, knowing how to drive, or knowing how to use a computer with a very similar user interface to yours - then for all practical purposes those behaviors and any obvious variations of them can be considered "intuitive" as far as you and your customers are concerned. To put it another way: When I go buy a brand-new car, I don't have to be taught what to do with the big wheel that is a few inches in front of where I am sitting - I can "intuit" how to use it based on my knowledge of the very similar big wheel in my existing automobile.
Slashdot Mirror
Two video streams on a 6MHz channel is two video streams on a single 6MHz channel, not two video streams each with their own 3MHz channel.
That's not relevant.
What is relevant is that you can't squeeze blood out of a turnip.
If you are logically splitting the bandwidth with another broadcaster and you are broadcasting a show that uses 50% of the bandwidth, that only leaves 50% for the other broadcaster. If you want to broadcast a show that requires more bandwidth, such as a typical HD (1080p) television show, it can't do it unless the other broadcaster isn't trying to use more than the remaining bandwidth during that time period.
Assuming you can't get the other broadcaster to cooperate, you can't broadcast with the same "quality" (as defined by resolution and frequency-of-scene-changes) as you could if you controlled the entire 6MHz channel.
So two stations that were previously using 6 MHz bandwidth each, will now share one channel, presumably using 3 MHz each.... and so each will have a 50% drop in picture quality. How is this a good thing for the consumer?
You have no idea how "Digital" works do you?
If by "quality" the original poster meant "maximum picture quality" i.e. the combination of resolution and ability to change the image over time, he is correct. If by "quality" he meant things like noise/static, then for practical purposes you are correct.
A 6MHz channel can support 1 HD channel plus some leftover room, a 50/50 split of that channel cannot.
Modern digital television is on even higher frequencies.[than analog UHF]
Not true. Digital television frequencies are basically the same as the analog ones, with some channels either no longer used or no longer used except under special circumstances (e.g. grandfathered stations, low-power stations, etc.).
In practice, most US digital TV stations are UHF stations between channels 14 and 69.
In places like near the borders where the police routinely randomly pull people over to search, NOT consenting will give them every reason to detain, bother, and harass you on the possibly-still-statistically-valid (well, it used to be valid, I don't know if still is) assumption that people who refuse consent are more likely to be hiding something than those who do consent.
In these situations, where they plan on doing a cursory search of every random vehicle they pull over, consenting will almost always get you on your merry way in a reasonable period of time - less time than not consenting. Why? Because the police don't want to waste time with someone who "looks like a regular person" if doing so will let many more people - some of whom may be "up to no good" - get through without being pulled over.
Of course, if you've already given the police a reason to want to harass you even through no fault of your own, such as (hypothetically) having a bumper sticker promoting a sports team that the cop hates, or if you are just unlucky enough to get pulled over by a cop that is in a bad mood, you may be screwed whether you consent or not.
Physical good decay over time.
Physical goods, like the neurons in my brain, decay over time. Sorry about that folks.
There are probably other obvious clerical errors, but I trust you guys can figure out what I meant to say.
Physical good decay over time.
In principal, once something is digitized and stored on archival media in an un-encumbered (patent/etc.-free) published format, it will be available forever, without further degradation. Once the copyrights do expire (and except for rare exceptions like Peter Pan, the will), the digitized copies can be made available to the public.
Having digital copies also means you can have a second digital copy that is stored "offline and stored hundreds of km away," which is important if the item if the library burns down or if the city the library is in becomes a war zone and not only the library but other "local" locations that house the "offsite backups" are destroyed.
The deterioration due to time isn't going to be critical for most texts, but for photographs, paintings, and other material that may have been published on non-archival material, getting it scanned now sure beats waiting for the copyright to expire before scanning.
On this 9/11 anniversary, we have to remind ourselves of the loss that can happen when "the only copies" are destroyed: The photo archive of the construction of the World Trade Center was housed at the World Trade Center. There was no offsite backup. When the buildings were destroyed, so was this photo-archive.
If you are trying to copy a commercial tape or anything you recorded off-the-air, most places won't touch it without a copyright clearance.
Some may bend a bit if it's something that clearly has no commercial value, like a 20-year-old news clip showing your kid winning a high school football game. But don't count on it.
For /. readers who have the complete Tom Baker Dr. Who episodes complete with PBS pledge breaks showing a much-younger you manning the phone bank, good luck finding a company that will copy those for you. They *might* copy the pledge breaks but not the Dr. Who.
if (a = b) assigns the contents of b to a and executes the code following if b 0. Who the hell thought that would be a good idea?
If b is an expression that returns a reference to a newly allocated resource, such as fopen or malloc, this if statement represents trying to allocate a resource and then skipping the following compound statement if the allocation failed.
I think you are missing the point. The point is "Why use the '=' as the assignment operator instead of some other symbol, like Pascal's ':='?"
If I could go back and whisper something into K&R's ears, I would tell them to make "=" the comparison operator and pick something else as the assignment operator.
[kernel/library programmers] must be very concise
That used to be but these days it's frequently okay or even desirable to add functionality like input-parameter-validation rather than be concise and skip the validation, leaving a gaping security hole in kernel or other code which may run with privileges high enough to be dangerous.
Likewise, it may be desirable to have a larger piece of code that can test for the presence of hardware that may or may not be present and exploit it if it is there than to have smaller, simpler code that does things in a way that will work everywhere, but which will not take advantage of hardware that might be available.
Notice that I said "may be." Part of the art and science of engineering your code is knowing the trade-offs between "smaller, simpler, but less feature-rich" and "bigger, more complicated, but more feature-rich" and knowing the intended and possibly-un-intended uses of your code and how much time and effort you and others have to create the code and maintain it later, then make the correct engineering choice for your particular situation.
If I commit a crime and my shoes or other clothing contain evidence of my criminal act, is the clothing legally treated as if it's "part of me" or as if it's not?
Generally not. Think about all the crime dramas where dirt that is only found at the crime scene is found in the suspect's shoes, or where the dye from the exploding dye-pack was found on the suspect's clothing.
Much more likely to be a legal issue is the issue of how invasive the legal system can be to retrieve the evidence. A few years ago there was an alleged perpetrator who was shot during a crime. I don't remember how it all turned out but there were major court fights over whether the police could force the person to undergo non-life-threatening surgery to remove the bullet fragments on the grounds that they were evidence in a crime.
Well, mostly.
What Apple can do is require 2-factor authentication.
They can also provide individuals who want it - primarily high-profile individuals - stronger lock-downs such as only allowing registered devices to log in or require typing in a code that is texted to the person prior to completing the login, much like some banks already do.
Song inspired by real radioactive frogs (not turtles or slugs) near Oak Ridge, Tennessee, USA.
If only there were an efficient way to store energy from the sun or wind and turn it into grid-power later that wasn't called a "battery." Perhaps some futuristic supercapacitor-based system or fuel-cell-with-re-formed-fuel system will meet this need. Or perhaps something we haven't even envisioned yet outside of the realm of science fiction will be the answer.
Can I have an ID card that is JUST and ID card, with a driver's license that is a separate piece of paper/plastic?
When I present my ID card to cash a check, clear airport security, etc. it's none of anyone's business if I have a driver's license.
After all, other government-issued licenses like concealed-handgun permits, hunting permits, and professional licenses (engineering, medical, etc.) typically aren't on the same piece of plastic as your state-issued ID card. My bank doesn't know or care if I have (or don't have) a gun permit, a fishing license, or an license to practice medicine, and that's A Good Thing.
Splitting the driver's license from the ID card would also be good for military families and college students who didn't have a previous driver's license but who want to keep their "legal residence" where they previously lived - it would allow the state where they actually live to issue them a driver's license (valid in all 50 states) without either forcing them to surrender their existing ID card or giving them a second state-issued ID card whose information (address, etc.) may conflict with the existing card.
It would also solve much of the "short-term visa/expired visa/illegal immigrant" problem at least with respect to immigrants who still possess a valid, recognized non-US-government-issued ID card such as one issued by a foreign Consulate: States would be able to ensure that people who are driving can pass a driver's test, are paying the appropriate drivers-license-related taxes/fees, and are properly insured without having to face the political heat that comes with issuing an official ID card that is valid for purposes other than proving you are legally qualified to drive. If "political heat" is a concern, the document can be stamped "Valid as a driver's license only. Not valid for any other reason. Only valid on days in which the person has a legal right to be in the United States of America [this is for frequent tourists who use non-contiguous successive short-term visas but who want to pay for a multi-year driver's license]. While driving licensee must posses a valid government-issued photo ID card recognized by the United States, the state of [state issuing the driver's license], or the state in which the person is operating a motor vehicle. Licensees not possessing ID cards issued by the US government or a US state government must possess a valid travel or residency document or proof of an exemption [e.g. an ID card issued by a government with a no-visa treaty with the United States] while driving. Not valid after [expiration date]."
I imagine if Kang and Kodoss ate all the humans
See Drop Table People
Oh you meant "Eat table people". My bad.
Come to think of it, he can probably read it without pausing as it prints out on his 1980s fax machine, so I'm surprised he hasn't denounced everything faster as "unnecessary."
If birds were really smart, Chicken Run would be non-fiction.
Organic matter decays over time, especially when it's not stored under "ideal conditions."
If you dug up 1500 people that had been dead and buried for 100 years, I bet you would have to work hard to get a sample of every stretch of the human DNA map. The only saving grace might be if the bodies were in a sealed casket or which were otherwise very well-preserved in a way that protected the DNA from decay.
On the other hand, if you stored 1500 freshly-dead people or birds today in a way to minimize DNA degradation and kept them that way for 100 years from now, our descendants in 2014 would have a much easier time with it, and that's not counting whatever technological advances come along over the next 100 years.
Here's hoping they can get enough nuclear DNA that whatever "Franken-bird" they create will be 100% carrier pigeon, at least DNA-wise.
As for the rest of the cell that starts the whole thing off, it will probably have to be a donor cell from a closely related bird. This probably means the result will have non-carrier-pigeon mitochondrial DNA.
On a related topic, if scientists figure out how to do this with birds then they replicate the process with humans, using human nuclear DNA, a non-human donor cell, and a non-human surrogate mother, will most countries of the world recognize the result as a "person" for legal reasons?
Even if you never play them, if you have more than a few tabletop games and don't have these, your collection is incomplete.
It was intentionally coupled to a specific device for legal/liability reasons related to medical devices.
Having to replace the entire arm is stupid though. Ideally, the arm should be able to be "re-paired" in a doctor's office or at the patient's home by a factory-authorized person such as his doctor or a technician. For legal/liability reasons, this might require replacing a chip but that should be no big deal.
In any case, the only reason I can think of for the arm to have to be replaced is if the company has gone through bankruptcy or is no longer in business, or if the arm has already exceeded its useful life as a medical device and as a result the company no longer supports it. This should not be the case for any adult prosthetic arm new enough to be controlled by an iPod.
Available on YouTube.
Camden and a couple other black cities
This image shows it to be a mix of greens, whites, browns, blacks, and a few other colors.
I don't see what the the color of the buildings and pavement/concrete has to do with the city's literacy rate though. Please enlighten me.
--
Warning: Above message contains satire.
$FUTURE_DATE: Citizen Lab released new research today on a targeted exploitation technique used by state actors involving "network injection appliances" installed at ISPs and with the possibly-coerced "cooperation" of https: web sites or the companies issuing https: certificates. These devices can target and intercept encrypted YouTube traffic and replace it with malicious code that gives the operator control over the system or installs a surveillance backdoor. One of the researchers writes, "many otherwise well-informed people think they have to do something wrong, or stupid, or insecure to get hacked - like visiting an unencrypted web site, ...many of these commonly held beliefs are not necessarily true." This technique is largely designed for targeted attacks, so it's likely most of us will be safe for now - but just one more reminder to not trust the person on the other end to not cooperate with The Man in the middle. It is unknown how long such attacks have been happening but they might date to 2014 or earlier.
Everything you think as being "intuitive" is simply you being used to other software behaving in a similar way, or you expecting some icon to match the behavior / usage of a real-world item it kind of looks like. It's training, whether you realize it or not.
Thank you for making part of my point for me (new readers: see my earlier posts in this chain for context).
If you can depend on your users to have a certain skill - be it reading English, knowing how to use a telephone, knowing how to drive, or knowing how to use a computer with a very similar user interface to yours - then for all practical purposes those behaviors and any obvious variations of them can be considered "intuitive" as far as you and your customers are concerned. To put it another way: When I go buy a brand-new car, I don't have to be taught what to do with the big wheel that is a few inches in front of where I am sitting - I can "intuit" how to use it based on my knowledge of the very similar big wheel in my existing automobile.