Wonder if bending light with a magnetic field is not moving the "rotating" light wave, but pulling/pushing on the double charged particles for the tiny time they exist.
There is an effect for bending light due to it splitting up into virtual pairs and interacting with a magnetic (or electric) field, but it only works on very extreme fields (near a nucleus, or near a pulsar) and the wavelength dependence is so strong you will only see it acting on high energy gamma rays. Still doesn't allow bending of light in vacuum with any more mundane magnetic or electric field (including ones many orders of magnitude higher than the strongest ever made human magnet), and it is not even bending but a scattering process. Otherwise, except for when passing through certain media, light is not bent by magnetic fields.
Hmm... but the charged particles WOULD be bent by magnetic fields. I'm not quite sure where to go with that observation though.
Now we just need to make every day objects MIDI instruments and your plant (via midi-enabled soil sensor) can write the code to turn on the tap to give it more water....
Yeah; that's about how far I got... but "statistical chance" is just a handwavy method of saying "we don't know the full mechanism, but we can predict the frequency of the results."
If it's purely a case of, for example, the Higgs field state at that moment, then it would follow that SOME photons would travel the entire distance, and we should be able to measure that. In fact, there should be a fairly even distribution that should be measurable, representing the specific probability curve. However, if it's flat, that implies a definite lack of chance and some other unknown factor influencing the time/energy/location relationship of a photon.
These are areas that will likely be explored ad-nausea now that the underlying observation has been made. I'm interested in the results without having to be the one to do the work:D
Based on this, I'd like to know what the distance spread is on the lifetime of a photon, and what affects this lifetime. Because we're obviously seeing state change as part of the energy transfer.
None of this is the issue; speed of light stays constant, as does distance measurements. What changes is the understanding of the stability of a photon of light in a vacuum and the effect of this instability on travel time while passing near a gravitational well.
So while it's a photon of light, it travels light speed. When the energy converts to kinetic energy for a breather, it is affected by the gravitational pull, in a manner significantly stronger than a neutrino is affected. When it then flops back to being a photon, it is once again traveling at the speed of light.
What intrigues me about this is that this will also have implications regarding relativity, as every time the light flips state, it is essentially anchoring itself to a location in space from which the next photon flop can take its bearing. My mind can't quite grasp the further implications of this right now, but it could really mess with observation of light from a moving point (which all points are).
The recalibration is mostly on how we project distances based on light measurements; it's now become significantly trickier, as we need to account for gravity at specific moments.
They never have to touch down; they could parachute the goods to the door.
Then you just get a rottie chewing up the book you ordered, and it's all your responsibility, as the book was delivered prior to mangling.
A bigger issue (as discussed before) would be dropping them out of the sky, either with a projectile, radio interference, or messing with the power supply. People could even order a book, track its flight and drop it before it gets to the destination... then do a chargeback and keep the book.
Unmanned deliveries have issues. Unmanned flight does too.
Thanks, you half answered my question, but not quite in the way I think you meant to.
The answer lies in
It's a stalemate until one side builds up more people (ie force) than the other side, this is usually the LEO's as they have an entire police force to call upon and other agencies if needed as well. If a show of force by manpower cannot be made by the LEO's that's greater than the opposing side, then they usually call in other forms of force as required, such as "air superiority" (helicopters), and ground superiority (SWAT tanks/and armored vehicles, and snipers with vantage points).
This means that if I want to get into law enforcement, I have to negotiate some sort of a deal with the existing structure, or provide a superior force.
So the question remains: how difficult is it to negotiate the deal? Some have suggested that all it takes is buying some land and then buying the votes of the surrounding people to elect you sheriff (in some US states). I don't think you even have to be a US citizen in the US to become a Sheriff -- definitely not to become a deputy (who also gets to play with the toys).
So probably the easiest way to become an LEO is to find some small-town department and get the Sheriff to deputize you. Then convince the FBI to further deputize you by using classified equipment and get someone to pull a FOIA. Suddenly, you move from being a foreign national to being a deputized member of the FBI with their resources at your back.
Woz is like me -- he lurked on here for years before he finally broke down in 2008 and got an account. Luckily SteveWoz was still available at the time:D
I am spinning up an offsite backup/archive company. I plan to offer annual data backup plans. I'll bill you and send you a flash device for your data, which will be loaded to a server that hashes it and uses some other processes to protect the data integrity.
I am considering offering an escrow service where data can be released to a third party when certain criteria are met. The site is empty now, but check back to find out more, http://www.o2ark.com./
First off: sounds like a good idea. Second: It's going to need a LOT of work. I'm not going to send some random person a flash device with my data on it, even in encrypted form. The service is going to require not just escrow but a pretty heavy bond; basically, you're going to have to set yourself up like a bank. Then there's the issue of jurisdiction. If you're in the US, there's no way I'm going to trust my data to your server, when it's been shown that government WILL step in and look at things just because they can. Other countries aren't much better; they just don't have a Snowden leak. to back things up. Compared to this, fully offline safety deposit boxes have a ton of legal precedent to prevent third party snoopers. Third: You're going to be competing with data protection behemoth Iron Mountain. Are you up for that?
Hmm... what does it take to become official law enforcement? I don't mean joining some current force, but if I set up my own "Em's Policing" and hired myself ut to some farmer in Nebraska, would I then be "law enforcement" and thus allowed to do all these things?
I'm serious: it seem that in some areas, the barrier to entry for becoming and continuing to be law enforcement isn't all that high.
Since Law Enforcement doesn't need any official/legal paperwork to use these things, that means they can use them however they like, as long as the general public doesn't find out and get upset enough to do something.
Oh my god, do you troglodytes live in a fucking bubble or what.
No, the troglodytes live in the basement. However, comparing the earth to a bubble is somewhat apt, based on how radio waves bounce off the atmosphere.
Both you and the "I should have the right to do this" crowd are missing a few details.
1) Everyone has the right to block radiation. They have the right to do so inside any space they control. 2) Jamming is not blocking. Blocking is sticking a cone of silence around someone (yourself or the emitter) to keep from hearing their senseless yammering. Jamming is shouting louder then they are and attempting to confuse them so they can't talk anymore (more like this SoundJammer.
So you're both right, and you're both oh so wrong.
Oh, for that matter: if you don't update your Will and associated documentation within 20 years, the contents are probably void anyway. Things change over time, and you need to keep that stuff current.
Otherwise, your wife and kids may be a bit upset that you left everything to your mother and some non-profit that doesn't even exist anymore.
Exactly -- I've come to realize that storage format doesn't really matter -- what matters is keeping it current. In my case, that 1TB drive doubles as my offsite backup; it gets swapped out about every 3 months. I've already changed actual medium used 3 times since I started this; at the start, it was only essential files on a thumb drive, as hard disks weren't small enough back then to fit in the box.
Another benefit of this is that even if my home computer gets scrubbed/sold/stolen/etc, all my passwords are stored on my keychain on that fully bootable drive. So the drive just needs a hardware-compatible computer to connect to and the appropriate password in order to access anything.
Sure, some TLA could force the bank to open my box, retrieve the drive, and have access to my entire life plus full identity theft privileges... but then most TLAs can already do that without the hassle of involving a bank.
This is the way to do it -- I've added one more step. My safety deposit box also includes a master password and a 1TB encrypted USB backup drive. Since the professional who wrote my will also advised leaving a copy in the box and registering that this is where the "official" notarized original is located, my executor will, by local laws, just have to provide proof of death and the copy of the will indicating they are the executor to access my box. Having the key (which they likely would) would help too.
You guys are thinking way to complicated. This is a standard, off-the-shelf sensor with electronic shutter. The innovation here is the system integration that turns this sensor into a scientific "camcorder" at a reasonable price. This is achieved by accepting video compression artifacts in the recorded streams. Existing high speed cameras are expensive not because of the sensors they use, but because of the vast amounts of memory and off-chip bandwidth they need to store the video uncompressed.
He could even be using slow cells, and taking advantage of the stroboscopic effect in software to approximate the actual potential any cell should have if its actual potential and those of nearby cells has not changed since the prior sample.
IOW, what I said, but without the fancy language:) My entire point was that he *could* be doing something fancy, but as we said, the sensors used aren't really what enables him to do this. It's the lossy method of dumping the data off-chip.
Apple Lisa: January 19, 1983: US$9,995 Macintosh 128k: January 24, 1984: US$2,495 Macintosh 512k: September 10, 1984: US$2,795 Macintosh XL: January 1, 1985: US$3,995 Macintosh Plus: January 16, 1986: US$2,599 Macintosh 512Ke: April 14, 1986: US$2,000 Macintosh SE: March 2, 1987: US$2,900 (dual floppy) US$3,900 (with 20 MB hard drive) Macintosh II: March 2, 1987: US$5,500 Macintosh IIx: September 19, 1988: US$7,800 Macintosh SE/30: January 19, 1989: US$6,500 Macintosh IIcx: March 7, 1989: US$5,369 Macintosh IIci: September 20, 1989: US$6,269 Macintosh IIfx: March 19, 1990: US$9,900 Macintosh Classic: October 15, 1990: US$999 Macintosh IIsi: October 15, 1990: US$2,999 Macintosh LC: October 15, 1990: USUS$2,500 (plus monitor) Macintosh Portable: February 11, 1991: US$6,500 Macintosh Classic II: October 21, 1991 (MCII): US$1,900 Powerbook 100: October 21, 1991: US$2,500 PowerBook 140: October 21, 1991: US$2,900 PowerBook 170: October 21, 1991: US$4,600 Macintosh Quadra 700: October 21, 1991: US$5,700 Macintosh Quadra 900: October 21, 1991: US$8,500 Macintosh LCII: March 1992: USUS$1,400 (plus monitor) Powerbook 145-180 + Duos: October 19, 1992: US$2,150 - USUS$3,870 Macintosh IIvx: October 19, 1992: US$2,950 Macintosh IIvi: October 19, 1992: US$3,000 Color Classic: February 10, 1993: US$1,400 Macintosh LCII: February 10, 1993: USUS$1,350 (plus monitor) Color Classic II: October 1, 1993: US$1,400 Too many to list: 1993: US$900 - US$5,900
I figured that would provide a useful summary of how prices on Macs were trending 30-20 years ago. These prices aren't adjusting for inflation. Notable standouts: Quadra 605 in 1993 for $900 (sans monitor) and Mac Classic in 1990 for $999 - the two dips below $1,000 for Apple. So compare prices: All-in-one 1994: $1200-$1700 All-in-one 2014: $1099-$2199 Laptop 1994: $1450-$5200 Laptop 2014: $899-$2799 Desktop 1994: $1280-$6700 Desktop 2014: $2999-$6999 Handheld Device 1994: $500-$600 Handheld Device 2014: $229-$929
Summary: more range/options for all-in-one, laptop and handhelds today, less for desktop.
This is totally untrue and unfair. Executive bonuses won't suffer; they'll lay off significant portions of their US workforce before they let that happen. And they'll only do that if they can't avoid putting that money into promised infrastructure upgrades that the government loaned them money to do 20 years ago Yes, the money that currently goes into the investment portfolio that pays off the annual executive bonuses..
More likely it's using cells as always on, and sampling the signal strength directly with a clocked chip. At that point, your sampling speeds depend on how quickly the cells can change state and how fast you can offload the sampled data.
Based on the product's name, he's probably also making use of stroboscopic properties in interpretation by the sampling software to minimize the amount of data required to be handled in the offloading process.
The cells he's using could be taking advantage of the kerr effect to increase the number of cells in a usable state at any given moment and thus increase the sampling speed accordingly, but he could also just be using fast cells, or use a holographic system, or any other number of methods of assigning cell sets per sample.
He could even be using slow cells, and taking advantage of the stroboscopic effect in software to approximate the actual potential any cell should have if its actual potential and those of nearby cells has not changed since the prior sample.
Interesting, no matter which method he used. And something that's actually worth patenting and licensing the patent for.
the ISP's are carrying over $100 billion in debt collectively because upgrades are paid for with bonds that are paid back over decades and we are still paying for upgrades done 20 years ago
[citations needed]
I was under the impression that most of those were already paid back, and that some of them were forgiven by the government? Also, those bonds were/are used as a tax shelter. They had a history of being traded around from BU to BU to prevent that unit from having to pay taxes (as their debt was greater than their profit).
Then there's the fact that those bonds were for proposed upgrades 20 years ago, most of which have never actually been completed. The majority were for FTTH upgrades and the upgrades of the switching/routing equipment required to support this. This was supposed to be done for rural and urban environments. What we're seeing is that the upgrades are being completed only in regions where it is both profitable and driven by competition, and *not all the switching/routing equipment was upgraded* with the ISPs instead preferring peering agreements where MORE money traded hands (traditionally, peering was purely contractual, not based on flowing money).
If they would label ISP's as common carriers none of this would be needed.
Then you get into the issue of "What is an ISP?"
The Internet, and IP (v4/v6) in particular, are designed to be fully routable, with one person's ISP being another person's client. Anyone with a router (meaning most people connected to the Internet) could be considered an ISP.
If you narrow the scope to "Commercial ISP" then that leaves out Freenets and the like, as well as open access points -- unless you define them as for-profit even though they are non-profit. In this case, an individual with an open AP could be considered a "Commercial ISP" too, and have to follow ALL the Common Carrier regulations.
The only way I can see it being worded that would make sense is to apply CC status to anyone with commercial peering agreements or IP-level routing equipment -- so it wouldn't *necessarily* apply to the local network provider, but it would if they were also trunking data and not just using some other ISP's trunking/peering services.
It's a sign that the FCC is entirely pointless if Congress has to order it to do every little thing
Making a former lobbyist for wireless and Cable the head of the FCC is a sign the FCC is entirely pointless.
Not necessarily -- such a person knows all the tricks, and is in a good position to smack current lobbyists down.
However, in THIS case, his cultural bias is pretty obvious, and it seems that his reason for leaving the lobby was not "I became disillusioned with the whole racket."
Slashdot Mirror
Wonder if bending light with a magnetic field is not moving the "rotating" light wave, but pulling/pushing on the double charged particles for the tiny time they exist.
There is an effect for bending light due to it splitting up into virtual pairs and interacting with a magnetic (or electric) field, but it only works on very extreme fields (near a nucleus, or near a pulsar) and the wavelength dependence is so strong you will only see it acting on high energy gamma rays. Still doesn't allow bending of light in vacuum with any more mundane magnetic or electric field (including ones many orders of magnitude higher than the strongest ever made human magnet), and it is not even bending but a scattering process. Otherwise, except for when passing through certain media, light is not bent by magnetic fields.
Hmm... but the charged particles WOULD be bent by magnetic fields. I'm not quite sure where to go with that observation though.
Now we just need to make every day objects MIDI instruments and your plant (via midi-enabled soil sensor) can write the code to turn on the tap to give it more water....
Yeah; that's about how far I got... but "statistical chance" is just a handwavy method of saying "we don't know the full mechanism, but we can predict the frequency of the results."
If it's purely a case of, for example, the Higgs field state at that moment, then it would follow that SOME photons would travel the entire distance, and we should be able to measure that. In fact, there should be a fairly even distribution that should be measurable, representing the specific probability curve. However, if it's flat, that implies a definite lack of chance and some other unknown factor influencing the time/energy/location relationship of a photon.
These are areas that will likely be explored ad-nausea now that the underlying observation has been made. I'm interested in the results without having to be the one to do the work :D
Based on this, I'd like to know what the distance spread is on the lifetime of a photon, and what affects this lifetime. Because we're obviously seeing state change as part of the energy transfer.
None of this is the issue; speed of light stays constant, as does distance measurements. What changes is the understanding of the stability of a photon of light in a vacuum and the effect of this instability on travel time while passing near a gravitational well.
So while it's a photon of light, it travels light speed. When the energy converts to kinetic energy for a breather, it is affected by the gravitational pull, in a manner significantly stronger than a neutrino is affected. When it then flops back to being a photon, it is once again traveling at the speed of light.
What intrigues me about this is that this will also have implications regarding relativity, as every time the light flips state, it is essentially anchoring itself to a location in space from which the next photon flop can take its bearing. My mind can't quite grasp the further implications of this right now, but it could really mess with observation of light from a moving point (which all points are).
The recalibration is mostly on how we project distances based on light measurements; it's now become significantly trickier, as we need to account for gravity at specific moments.
They never have to touch down; they could parachute the goods to the door.
Then you just get a rottie chewing up the book you ordered, and it's all your responsibility, as the book was delivered prior to mangling.
A bigger issue (as discussed before) would be dropping them out of the sky, either with a projectile, radio interference, or messing with the power supply. People could even order a book, track its flight and drop it before it gets to the destination... then do a chargeback and keep the book.
Unmanned deliveries have issues. Unmanned flight does too.
Thanks, you half answered my question, but not quite in the way I think you meant to.
The answer lies in
It's a stalemate until one side builds up more people (ie force) than the other side, this is usually the LEO's as they have an entire police force to call upon and other agencies if needed as well. If a show of force by manpower cannot be made by the LEO's that's greater than the opposing side, then they usually call in other forms of force as required, such as "air superiority" (helicopters), and ground superiority (SWAT tanks/and armored vehicles, and snipers with vantage points).
This means that if I want to get into law enforcement, I have to negotiate some sort of a deal with the existing structure, or provide a superior force.
So the question remains: how difficult is it to negotiate the deal? Some have suggested that all it takes is buying some land and then buying the votes of the surrounding people to elect you sheriff (in some US states). I don't think you even have to be a US citizen in the US to become a Sheriff -- definitely not to become a deputy (who also gets to play with the toys).
So probably the easiest way to become an LEO is to find some small-town department and get the Sheriff to deputize you. Then convince the FBI to further deputize you by using classified equipment and get someone to pull a FOIA. Suddenly, you move from being a foreign national to being a deputized member of the FBI with their resources at your back.
"Cast it into the fire! Destroy it!"
"No."
Who gets to wade in and bite off their fingers only to get pushed into the fire? Has to be someone who was fully corrupted by the system years ago.
Woz is like me -- he lurked on here for years before he finally broke down in 2008 and got an account. Luckily SteveWoz was still available at the time :D
I am spinning up an offsite backup/archive company. I plan to offer annual data backup plans. I'll bill you and send you a flash device for your data, which will be loaded to a server that hashes it and uses some other processes to protect the data integrity.
I am considering offering an escrow service where data can be released to a third party when certain criteria are met. The site is empty now, but check back to find out more, http://www.o2ark.com./
First off: sounds like a good idea.
Second: It's going to need a LOT of work. I'm not going to send some random person a flash device with my data on it, even in encrypted form. The service is going to require not just escrow but a pretty heavy bond; basically, you're going to have to set yourself up like a bank. Then there's the issue of jurisdiction. If you're in the US, there's no way I'm going to trust my data to your server, when it's been shown that government WILL step in and look at things just because they can. Other countries aren't much better; they just don't have a Snowden leak. to back things up. Compared to this, fully offline safety deposit boxes have a ton of legal precedent to prevent third party snoopers.
Third: You're going to be competing with data protection behemoth Iron Mountain. Are you up for that?
Hmm... what does it take to become official law enforcement? I don't mean joining some current force, but if I set up my own "Em's Policing" and hired myself ut to some farmer in Nebraska, would I then be "law enforcement" and thus allowed to do all these things?
I'm serious: it seem that in some areas, the barrier to entry for becoming and continuing to be law enforcement isn't all that high.
Since Law Enforcement doesn't need any official/legal paperwork to use these things, that means they can use them however they like, as long as the general public doesn't find out and get upset enough to do something.
Oh my god, do you troglodytes live in a fucking bubble or what.
No, the troglodytes live in the basement. However, comparing the earth to a bubble is somewhat apt, based on how radio waves bounce off the atmosphere.
Both you and the "I should have the right to do this" crowd are missing a few details.
1) Everyone has the right to block radiation. They have the right to do so inside any space they control.
2) Jamming is not blocking. Blocking is sticking a cone of silence around someone (yourself or the emitter) to keep from hearing their senseless yammering. Jamming is shouting louder then they are and attempting to confuse them so they can't talk anymore (more like this SoundJammer.
So you're both right, and you're both oh so wrong.
Oh, for that matter: if you don't update your Will and associated documentation within 20 years, the contents are probably void anyway. Things change over time, and you need to keep that stuff current.
Otherwise, your wife and kids may be a bit upset that you left everything to your mother and some non-profit that doesn't even exist anymore.
Exactly -- I've come to realize that storage format doesn't really matter -- what matters is keeping it current. In my case, that 1TB drive doubles as my offsite backup; it gets swapped out about every 3 months. I've already changed actual medium used 3 times since I started this; at the start, it was only essential files on a thumb drive, as hard disks weren't small enough back then to fit in the box.
Another benefit of this is that even if my home computer gets scrubbed/sold/stolen/etc, all my passwords are stored on my keychain on that fully bootable drive. So the drive just needs a hardware-compatible computer to connect to and the appropriate password in order to access anything.
Sure, some TLA could force the bank to open my box, retrieve the drive, and have access to my entire life plus full identity theft privileges... but then most TLAs can already do that without the hassle of involving a bank.
This is the way to do it -- I've added one more step. My safety deposit box also includes a master password and a 1TB encrypted USB backup drive. Since the professional who wrote my will also advised leaving a copy in the box and registering that this is where the "official" notarized original is located, my executor will, by local laws, just have to provide proof of death and the copy of the will indicating they are the executor to access my box. Having the key (which they likely would) would help too.
So much for my attempt at humor.
You guys are thinking way to complicated. This is a standard, off-the-shelf sensor with electronic shutter. The innovation here is the system integration that turns this sensor into a scientific "camcorder" at a reasonable price. This is achieved by accepting video compression artifacts in the recorded streams. Existing high speed cameras are expensive not because of the sensors they use, but because of the vast amounts of memory and off-chip bandwidth they need to store the video uncompressed.
IOW, what I said, but without the fancy language :) My entire point was that he *could* be doing something fancy, but as we said, the sensors used aren't really what enables him to do this. It's the lossy method of dumping the data off-chip.
Silly me; forgot the Mini. Change to this: ...and desktop has more range/options now too.
Desktop 1994: $1280-$6700
Destop 2014: $599-$6999
A walk down memory lane:
Macintosh 128k: January 24, 1984: US$2,495
Macintosh 512k: September 10, 1984: US$2,795
Macintosh XL: January 1, 1985: US$3,995
Macintosh Plus: January 16, 1986: US$2,599
Macintosh 512Ke: April 14, 1986: US$2,000
Macintosh SE: March 2, 1987: US$2,900 (dual floppy) US$3,900 (with 20 MB hard drive)
Macintosh II: March 2, 1987: US$5,500
Macintosh IIx: September 19, 1988: US$7,800
Macintosh SE/30: January 19, 1989: US$6,500
Macintosh IIcx: March 7, 1989: US$5,369
Macintosh IIci: September 20, 1989: US$6,269
Macintosh IIfx: March 19, 1990: US$9,900
Macintosh Classic: October 15, 1990: US$999
Macintosh IIsi: October 15, 1990: US$2,999
Macintosh LC: October 15, 1990: USUS$2,500 (plus monitor)
Macintosh Portable: February 11, 1991: US$6,500
Macintosh Classic II: October 21, 1991 (MCII): US$1,900
Powerbook 100: October 21, 1991: US$2,500
PowerBook 140: October 21, 1991: US$2,900
PowerBook 170: October 21, 1991: US$4,600
Macintosh Quadra 700: October 21, 1991: US$5,700
Macintosh Quadra 900: October 21, 1991: US$8,500
Macintosh LCII: March 1992: USUS$1,400 (plus monitor)
Powerbook 145-180 + Duos: October 19, 1992: US$2,150 - USUS$3,870
Macintosh IIvx: October 19, 1992: US$2,950
Macintosh IIvi: October 19, 1992: US$3,000
Color Classic: February 10, 1993: US$1,400
Macintosh LCII: February 10, 1993: USUS$1,350 (plus monitor)
Color Classic II: October 1, 1993: US$1,400
Too many to list: 1993: US$900 - US$5,900
I figured that would provide a useful summary of how prices on Macs were trending 30-20 years ago. These prices aren't adjusting for inflation.
Notable standouts: Quadra 605 in 1993 for $900 (sans monitor) and Mac Classic in 1990 for $999 - the two dips below $1,000 for Apple.
So compare prices:
All-in-one 1994: $1200-$1700
All-in-one 2014: $1099-$2199
Laptop 1994: $1450-$5200
Laptop 2014: $899-$2799
Desktop 1994: $1280-$6700
Desktop 2014: $2999-$6999
Handheld Device 1994: $500-$600
Handheld Device 2014: $229-$929
Summary: more range/options for all-in-one, laptop and handhelds today, less for desktop.
Meanwhile, AT&T says that strong net neutrality regulations will ruin the internet they have pitched to their shareholders .
There, fixed it.
This is totally untrue and unfair. Executive bonuses won't suffer; they'll lay off significant portions of their US workforce before they let that happen. And they'll only do that if they can't avoid putting that money into promised infrastructure upgrades that the government loaned them money to do 20 years ago Yes, the money that currently goes into the investment portfolio that pays off the annual executive bonuses..
More likely it's using cells as always on, and sampling the signal strength directly with a clocked chip. At that point, your sampling speeds depend on how quickly the cells can change state and how fast you can offload the sampled data.
Based on the product's name, he's probably also making use of stroboscopic properties in interpretation by the sampling software to minimize the amount of data required to be handled in the offloading process.
The cells he's using could be taking advantage of the kerr effect to increase the number of cells in a usable state at any given moment and thus increase the sampling speed accordingly, but he could also just be using fast cells, or use a holographic system, or any other number of methods of assigning cell sets per sample.
He could even be using slow cells, and taking advantage of the stroboscopic effect in software to approximate the actual potential any cell should have if its actual potential and those of nearby cells has not changed since the prior sample.
Interesting, no matter which method he used. And something that's actually worth patenting and licensing the patent for.
the ISP's are carrying over $100 billion in debt collectively because upgrades are paid for with bonds that are paid back over decades and we are still paying for upgrades done 20 years ago
[citations needed]
I was under the impression that most of those were already paid back, and that some of them were forgiven by the government? Also, those bonds were/are used as a tax shelter. They had a history of being traded around from BU to BU to prevent that unit from having to pay taxes (as their debt was greater than their profit).
Then there's the fact that those bonds were for proposed upgrades 20 years ago, most of which have never actually been completed. The majority were for FTTH upgrades and the upgrades of the switching/routing equipment required to support this. This was supposed to be done for rural and urban environments. What we're seeing is that the upgrades are being completed only in regions where it is both profitable and driven by competition, and *not all the switching/routing equipment was upgraded* with the ISPs instead preferring peering agreements where MORE money traded hands (traditionally, peering was purely contractual, not based on flowing money).
If they would label ISP's as common carriers none of this would be needed.
Then you get into the issue of "What is an ISP?"
The Internet, and IP (v4/v6) in particular, are designed to be fully routable, with one person's ISP being another person's client. Anyone with a router (meaning most people connected to the Internet) could be considered an ISP.
If you narrow the scope to "Commercial ISP" then that leaves out Freenets and the like, as well as open access points -- unless you define them as for-profit even though they are non-profit. In this case, an individual with an open AP could be considered a "Commercial ISP" too, and have to follow ALL the Common Carrier regulations.
The only way I can see it being worded that would make sense is to apply CC status to anyone with commercial peering agreements or IP-level routing equipment -- so it wouldn't *necessarily* apply to the local network provider, but it would if they were also trunking data and not just using some other ISP's trunking/peering services.
Making a former lobbyist for wireless and Cable the head of the FCC is a sign the FCC is entirely pointless.
Not necessarily -- such a person knows all the tricks, and is in a good position to smack current lobbyists down.
However, in THIS case, his cultural bias is pretty obvious, and it seems that his reason for leaving the lobby was not "I became disillusioned with the whole racket."