I've yet to see a browser pull off a decent smooth scrolling feature. I want to use it, but it just doesn't work very well... in that it just winds up making scrolling slower. But, I guess it's like all the kids that want fancy menu animations, whereas I just want the damn menu to open NOW. No, don't "slide" or "fade" open. Just OPEN. NOW!
Considering the MASSIVE javascript speed improvements Mozilla have achieved using "hotpath" techniques, I think it's unlikely (these improvements are not yet in stable release). On the other hand, the description of V8 from the Google Comic seem to indicate that they do something along the same lines, by dynamically compiling parts of the script to "machine code" (as they say). Without specifics, it's difficult to compare the approaches, though...
And, by the way, this optimizing is also why there is "IE32" and "ARM" specific code in Chrome. There has to be. That's integral to how hotpath-type techniques work.
Select something, press middle mouse button (default). This isn't hijacked, although the ctrl-c, ctrl-v clipboard is.
I wonder what happens if you're using a clipboard manager. I seem to recall running something once under KDE, but now that I run GNOME, I've been weened off my need to customize anything (cough)...
Some people need to learn that a hardhack is not the same as a difficult hack or a hack that involves something running on hardware. If that were the case, all hacking could be considered a hardhack.
Assuming that is indeed correct, and I have no reason to believe one way or the other, why is Apple using a BLACKLIST for restricting applications' access to CoreLocation? Wouldn't a WHITELIST be much more appropriate?
Default Deny is a good security maxim and would seem to be very appropriate in this case.
(Not that it would prevent someone from spoofing the site in question)
the fact that the shadow of the Earth on the moon is always round
Try working through that argument again in your head.
Ever seen the Sun and the Moon in the sky at the same time?
Where is the Sun when you have a full Moon? New Moon?
Try wikipedia if you give up.
This chap was a very good humanities/history teacher. He had all sorts of ways to bring alive one of the more boring subjects (at least for teenagers who won't figure out for another decade or two why it's one of the most important subjects).
Ahhh, you think humanies/history is one of the most important subjects? That explains it...
I predict that when Google comes crashing down (and it will - anyone who has seen the ridiculous excess of the Google campus cannot help but realize this)
It's unlikely that this new search engine even approaches Google in its comprehensiveness, or ever will
What mechanism will bring about this Google crash? Unlike the famous companies in the.com bubble, Google is actually making money. And lots of it. More than a billion dollars a quarter, to go along with their $12 billion in cash and zero debt.
This is not to say that Google will remain eternally dominant, of course not, but the rules of the game favor the incumbent, especially in a lobbyist economy.
You say Google will come crashing down, yet you also say no one will "ever" be as good in search. So I ask again, what mechanism or event do you foresee in your crystal ball to bring about such an unlikely crash?
Unless you know of some security vulnerability in Win 9x's TCP/IP stack, I'm not sure what would be the problem in running Opera 9.51 on Windows 9x. Should you use outdated flash plugins, java plugins, etc?
Didn't Opera used to come with a custom Java build? From their site it appears that's no longer the case, but I'm fairly sure it used to be.
Opera still doesn't use a Java PLUGIN, however. It uses the JRE. I'm not sure what Sun's Win9x support is like, but it might be better for the JRE than the plugin.
The dual-slit single photon experiment shows an interference pattern on the "wall" behind the two slits (when the "hits" of many photons, one at a time, are summed). The emitter sits in front of the two slits. The place on the wall that any given photon hits is random (with a fixed probability distribution, resulting in the aforementioned interference pattern).
Why on Earth wouldn't BT just do this on their side of the connection? EVERYTHING that the user gets goes through their pipes, their routers. Just install some monitoring hardware+software and be done with it. There doesn't seem to be any logical reason to do this on a users computer. That's just plain stupid.
The only difference is that you don't have access to encrypted data and "other applications" installed by the user. The stuff they claim to have logged and analyzed is more easily obtainable from their own side.
I tried it, but it just says my Flash isn't supported and redirects me to Macromedia.com, which then directs me back to to adobe.com for a new flash download.
Flash 9.0 r48, Firefox, Ubuntu Gutsy 64bit.
Not sure if it REALLY wants a newer version of Flash or if the 64bit-ness is confusing it.
OK, so plasma is not very close to an ideal black body, but regardless you still get some wide spectrum emissions with a peak near that of a corresponding black body. In this case (6000 Kelvin), that's a pretty nice white.
Seriously, that's the main reason I use it. After having used various 'nix flavors at university (no, not a single public terminal had Windows), I finally switched one day when I tried running a web and database server on my dorm Windows computer.
Turned out, Win2K (and later XP Pro) couldn't run a web server and a database server and still provide a usable computer. Sure, my system wasn't exactly fast back then (a lowly 700MHz K7 with just half a gig of memory). Still, even when I wasn't using the web server, my system had slowed to a crawl.
Since I was developing websites at the time, a web server was a huge advantage. I tried installing Linux (SuSE, I think) on a spare drive and everything just worked.
That's why I use Linux. And, no, being "exclusive" doesn't play into it. Heck, I use Ubuntu today, not exactly the most "exclusive" distro around... again, because it works.
In all honesty, I actually have XP installed on my primary system as well (dual-boot), but I haven't booted into it yet this year. I keep thinking I might have to do it, just to get it patched up-to-date, but I haven't gotten around to it yet.
Well, I'm running a 64-bit OS. I do have a chrooted 32-bit environment for my online banking, but keeping the chrooted environment up-to-date is a hassle.
If you think that *memory* is the sole raison d'etre for 64-bit, you are mistaken. AMD64 is a new instruction set with many advantages. In fact, almost everything I run is 10-70% faster in 64-bit and this has nothing to do with memory limits.
We were glad about the existence of Firefox, until Mozilla got greedy and sold out to corporate interests. I'm just waiting for the day that Mozilla decides to reinvent itself as a company with a profit interest as opposed to an non-profit company, which it really is now in name only.
I don't care whether Mozilla is "a company with a profit interest" or not. What I care about is the product - if some people are making money, well, good for them. This isn't Communism, you know... (yeah, that's gonna cost me).
One of the many things that make Open Source Software so great is that you can just fork it if you don't like the direction the product is headed in.
I seriously don't understand the animosity towards Mozilla for becoming a "real" company. It's enabling them to do a lot of great things that they wouldn't have been able to do otherwise.
Seriously, I cannot stand looking at Trinitons. I cannot concentrate on anything but the two little lines.
As for image quality... I quite liked the high end of Samsung's SyncMaster range (the "black matrix" invar shadow mask kind). I still use one as the display on my secondary box. Not that it's used much these days, though...
As for the "image quality" compared to that of other quality CRTs (like the Samsungs), I disagree that there was much of a difference. I spend an inordinate amount of time choosing my purchases and I viewed several Trinitons and several non-Trinitons under various lighting conditions. I must admit that I couldn't tell much of a difference, in contrast, "clarity" and color quality, between high-end Samsungs and Trinitons.
Two things to remember when comparing image quality on CRTs:
- Input: There's a HUGE difference between a low-grade 15-pin VGA cable from a poor DAC and a set of coaxial cables from a quality card. - Color calibration: Very, very few CRTs I found were even remotely well-calibrated. I was usually able to get the guys in small computer shops to let me calibrate the CRTs, at least roughly. And if I came by in the morning, I had good luck in getting them to move the displays around for better lighting conditions.
I actually *did* check the manual (same exact link, oddly enough), just to be sure...
If you look at the specs, this is what it says:
--------------------- Screen type Aluminized tri-color phosphor dot trio with black matrix.
Anti-doming invar shadow mask.
Multi-layer coated with anti-static ---------------------
Under Dot Pitch, it does indeed say Uni-pitch Aperture Grill.
If you say it has the two lines across, it basically has to be an Aperture Grille... even though it claims to be an invar shadow mask.
I never understood why so many people loved their shiny Triniton monitors. Don't get me wrong, the technology made for GREAT televisions, at least at standard PAL and NTSC resolutions (and typical viewing distances), but as a high-resolution monitor, the two lines(*) across totally spoil it for me. It's like buying a shiny new LCD and having not just one bunch A LOT of dead pixels right smack in the middle third of the display.
I've accidentally ruined the experience for at least a few new Triniton owners who had not previously noticed the lines. When someone points them out to you, it's apparently quite hard to ignore them again. For me, the lines were always just too much of an annoyance.
(*)For anyone interesting in knowing *why* there are these fine lines across a Triniton display, but not on most other conventional CRTs... go read up on aperture grille vs shadow mask. I was going to whore myself for some informative karma, but the Wikipedia article with images shows it better than I can tell it, so go read: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aperture_grille
The fine lines are shadows cast by "tension wires", necessary to stabilize the hundreds of vertical wires that make up the aperture grille. Shadow mask CRTs don't require these tension wires because they don't have the vertical wires (or strips). Instead, basically a bunch of holes are made in a sheet. This results in:
- More stable display (sheet with holes in it versus wires or thin strips).
- Slightly more accurate geometry (greater symmetry)
- Less overall brightness (the sheet with holes blocks more of the electron beam, resulting in a "duller" image).
- No shadows from tensioning wires
The last point is, of course, the kicker... and the reason why Trinitons make for awesome TVs. In a computer monitor, however, the brightness isn't needed and the drawbacks of Triniton technology outweigh the benefits, IMNSHO anyway.
In a Triniton TV, the tension wires are basically impossible to spot from a normal viewing distance. On a large Triniton computer monitor with high resolution and a good graphics card (good DAC), the wires are basically impossible NOT to see.
He violated a clear written policy. The guy is stupid for thinking work published on an internet blog doesn't count as writing.
He what now?
Clear? You call that policy CLEAR?!
If the part in quotes is actually a quote, "non-CNN outlet", then it is indeed very far from clear. If anything, I would argue that it's clearer that a blog *shouldn't* count, since a personal blog is not an "outlet" in the context used (CNN). If he had written the blog for the NY Times, then sure, by all means...
Fuck Comcast. If I could get ANYONE else, even Qwest, I'm gone...
Yeah, you're SOL if you live in the wrong place.
The whole notion of "competition between technologies" is bogus. OK, maybe "incredibly insufficient" is a better phrasing. At any given moment, there's usually one technology that just makes a lot more sense than the others, so while competition between technologies is A Good Thing, it doesn't necessarily translate into end user benefits NOW.
Where I live, I have the choice between a handful of ADSL ISPs (at least 5, the fastest maxing out at 20/2), plus at least one cable and one WiMax ISP. Living in an apartment building, however, I would have to convince the rest of the building to switch cable operators to get access to more cable ISPs. Similarly, to get access to fiber-to-the-home, I would have to get the rest of the building to agree to get wired up (although they wouldn't necessarily have to sign up).
There's just no two ways about it. Throttling *selectively* is censorship.
Comcast unilaterally decides that some content is good and some bad - and that should just plain be illegal.
I know many are opposed, but I don't mind the actual *throttling* itself, if it were just protocol-neutral. I cannot accept, however, that Comcast gets to decide that I can't use the rated capacity of my line (you know, the number they tout in their PR) to download Ubuntu with a bittorrent client, while my neighbor can max out his identical connection downloading movies over HTTP or FTP.
(And, no, the actual *content* shouldn't matter either, of course, that's just a feeble attempt at highlighting the inherent stupidity of the method).
Requiring an ISP to have enough capacity to enable ALL its customers to max out their connections would be monumentally wasteful, no question. However...
What Comcast, and any other ISP should do, is actually tell you what you are buying, up front, so that it's possible to make an informed purchasing decision. E.g.:
6Mbps down, 1Mbps up. Rated bandwidth available at least 90% of the time. Minimum bandwidth of1Mbps down, 256kbps up (except in case of equipment failure).
The ISP can then throttle users with this connection in times of peak load, but still protocol (and content) neutral!
If they wanted to get really advanced, they could give their users the ability to use some kind of QoS feature, so that e.g. a user could choose to prioritize http and ftp over, say, bittorrent. Or to prioritize whatever port #s the user's favorite multiplayer game uses, so that using the internet connection for other stuff introduces a minimum of lag on gaming.
In any event, there's just no justification for saying that my downloading Ubuntu or whatever should be throttled in favor of some idiot streaming porn over HTTP. (OK, maybe if it's porn... bad example... you get my drift, though)
However, at night time, when you're in orbit, if you're pointing towards earth, you'll be pointing towards the sun, too.
Thus, if the face pointed towards earth is black, at earth night time, it'll be black-side-of-the-satellite daytime--and thus, electronics cooking time.
How high an orbit do you propose to send these (low orbit) satellites into?;-)
Seriously, the distance between the earth and the satellite is *tiny* compared to the distance of the earth from the sun. Thus, the satellite is practically always going to be in the earth shadow when on the "night side".
Only when it's in the sunrise or sunset part of its orbit will it be exposed to the sun - and only from an oblique angle, so unless you're planning to place the satellite in a geosynchronous orbit above the Lalamatine district of Ursa Minor Beta, you shouldn't have a problem.
Slashdot Mirror
I've yet to see a browser pull off a decent smooth scrolling feature. I want to use it, but it just doesn't work very well... in that it just winds up making scrolling slower. But, I guess it's like all the kids that want fancy menu animations, whereas I just want the damn menu to open NOW. No, don't "slide" or "fade" open. Just OPEN. NOW!
Considering the MASSIVE javascript speed improvements Mozilla have achieved using "hotpath" techniques, I think it's unlikely (these improvements are not yet in stable release). On the other hand, the description of V8 from the Google Comic seem to indicate that they do something along the same lines, by dynamically compiling parts of the script to "machine code" (as they say). Without specifics, it's difficult to compare the approaches, though...
And, by the way, this optimizing is also why there is "IE32" and "ARM" specific code in Chrome. There has to be. That's integral to how hotpath-type techniques work.
Select something, press middle mouse button (default). This isn't hijacked, although the ctrl-c, ctrl-v clipboard is.
I wonder what happens if you're using a clipboard manager. I seem to recall running something once under KDE, but now that I run GNOME, I've been weened off my need to customize anything (cough)...
Some people need to learn that a hardhack is not the same as a difficult hack or a hack that involves something running on hardware. If that were the case, all hacking could be considered a hardhack.
Assuming that is indeed correct, and I have no reason to believe one way or the other, why is Apple using a BLACKLIST for restricting applications' access to CoreLocation? Wouldn't a WHITELIST be much more appropriate?
Default Deny is a good security maxim and would seem to be very appropriate in this case.
(Not that it would prevent someone from spoofing the site in question)
Try working through that argument again in your head.
Ever seen the Sun and the Moon in the sky at the same time?
Where is the Sun when you have a full Moon? New Moon?
Try wikipedia if you give up.
Ahhh, you think humanies/history is one of the most important subjects? That explains it...
What mechanism will bring about this Google crash? Unlike the famous companies in the .com bubble, Google is actually making money. And lots of it. More than a billion dollars a quarter, to go along with their $12 billion in cash and zero debt.
This is not to say that Google will remain eternally dominant, of course not, but the rules of the game favor the incumbent, especially in a lobbyist economy.
You say Google will come crashing down, yet you also say no one will "ever" be as good in search. So I ask again, what mechanism or event do you foresee in your crystal ball to bring about such an unlikely crash?
Didn't Opera used to come with a custom Java build? From their site it appears that's no longer the case, but I'm fairly sure it used to be.
Opera still doesn't use a Java PLUGIN, however. It uses the JRE. I'm not sure what Sun's Win9x support is like, but it might be better for the JRE than the plugin.
The subject really says it all.
The dual-slit single photon experiment shows an interference pattern on the "wall" behind the two slits (when the "hits" of many photons, one at a time, are summed). The emitter sits in front of the two slits. The place on the wall that any given photon hits is random (with a fixed probability distribution, resulting in the aforementioned interference pattern).
"which classification of triangle has all angles less than 90 degrees."
No, none of the answers were "open triangle", "none", "stupid" or anything like that.
Why on Earth wouldn't BT just do this on their side of the connection? EVERYTHING that the user gets goes through their pipes, their routers. Just install some monitoring hardware+software and be done with it. There doesn't seem to be any logical reason to do this on a users computer. That's just plain stupid.
The only difference is that you don't have access to encrypted data and "other applications" installed by the user. The stuff they claim to have logged and analyzed is more easily obtainable from their own side.
I tried it, but it just says my Flash isn't supported and redirects me to Macromedia.com, which then directs me back to to adobe.com for a new flash download.
Flash 9.0 r48, Firefox, Ubuntu Gutsy 64bit.
Not sure if it REALLY wants a newer version of Flash or if the 64bit-ness is confusing it.
OK, so plasma is not very close to an ideal black body, but regardless you still get some wide spectrum emissions with a peak near that of a corresponding black body. In this case (6000 Kelvin), that's a pretty nice white.
Seriously, that's the main reason I use it. After having used various 'nix flavors at university (no, not a single public terminal had Windows), I finally switched one day when I tried running a web and database server on my dorm Windows computer.
Turned out, Win2K (and later XP Pro) couldn't run a web server and a database server and still provide a usable computer. Sure, my system wasn't exactly fast back then (a lowly 700MHz K7 with just half a gig of memory). Still, even when I wasn't using the web server, my system had slowed to a crawl.
Since I was developing websites at the time, a web server was a huge advantage. I tried installing Linux (SuSE, I think) on a spare drive and everything just worked.
That's why I use Linux. And, no, being "exclusive" doesn't play into it. Heck, I use Ubuntu today, not exactly the most "exclusive" distro around... again, because it works.
In all honesty, I actually have XP installed on my primary system as well (dual-boot), but I haven't booted into it yet this year. I keep thinking I might have to do it, just to get it patched up-to-date, but I haven't gotten around to it yet.
Why I need a 64-bit version of Firefox????
Well, I'm running a 64-bit OS. I do have a chrooted 32-bit environment for my online banking, but keeping the chrooted environment up-to-date is a hassle.
If you think that *memory* is the sole raison d'etre for 64-bit, you are mistaken. AMD64 is a new instruction set with many advantages. In fact, almost everything I run is 10-70% faster in 64-bit and this has nothing to do with memory limits.
I don't care whether Mozilla is "a company with a profit interest" or not. What I care about is the product - if some people are making money, well, good for them. This isn't Communism, you know... (yeah, that's gonna cost me).
One of the many things that make Open Source Software so great is that you can just fork it if you don't like the direction the product is headed in.
I seriously don't understand the animosity towards Mozilla for becoming a "real" company. It's enabling them to do a lot of great things that they wouldn't have been able to do otherwise.
And, if you don't like it, fork it!
No trolling intended.
Seriously, I cannot stand looking at Trinitons. I cannot concentrate on anything but the two little lines.
As for image quality... I quite liked the high end of Samsung's SyncMaster range (the "black matrix" invar shadow mask kind). I still use one as the display on my secondary box. Not that it's used much these days, though...
As for the "image quality" compared to that of other quality CRTs (like the Samsungs), I disagree that there was much of a difference. I spend an inordinate amount of time choosing my purchases and I viewed several Trinitons and several non-Trinitons under various lighting conditions. I must admit that I couldn't tell much of a difference, in contrast, "clarity" and color quality, between high-end Samsungs and Trinitons.
Two things to remember when comparing image quality on CRTs:
- Input: There's a HUGE difference between a low-grade 15-pin VGA cable from a poor DAC and a set of coaxial cables from a quality card.
- Color calibration: Very, very few CRTs I found were even remotely well-calibrated. I was usually able to get the guys in small computer shops to let me calibrate the CRTs, at least roughly. And if I came by in the morning, I had good luck in getting them to move the displays around for better lighting conditions.
You may be right...
I actually *did* check the manual (same exact link, oddly enough), just to be sure...
If you look at the specs, this is what it says:
---------------------
Screen type Aluminized tri-color phosphor dot trio with black matrix.
Anti-doming invar shadow mask.
Multi-layer coated with anti-static
---------------------
Under Dot Pitch, it does indeed say Uni-pitch Aperture Grill.
If you say it has the two lines across, it basically has to be an Aperture Grille... even though it claims to be an invar shadow mask.
Considering that the story here is the demise of Triniton, it's a bit funny that you think your SyncMaster is an aperture grille CRT.
Trinitons are aperture grille.
Samsung uses an invar shadow mask CRT in the SyncMaster 959NF (as well as all the other recent SyncMasters I've come into contact with).
That's why you SyncMaster doesn't have two nasty lines across it like your Sony does (which is a Triniton)
I never understood why so many people loved their shiny Triniton monitors. Don't get me wrong, the technology made for GREAT televisions, at least at standard PAL and NTSC resolutions (and typical viewing distances), but as a high-resolution monitor, the two lines(*) across totally spoil it for me. It's like buying a shiny new LCD and having not just one bunch A LOT of dead pixels right smack in the middle third of the display.
I've accidentally ruined the experience for at least a few new Triniton owners who had not previously noticed the lines. When someone points them out to you, it's apparently quite hard to ignore them again. For me, the lines were always just too much of an annoyance.
(*)For anyone interesting in knowing *why* there are these fine lines across a Triniton display, but not on most other conventional CRTs... go read up on aperture grille vs shadow mask. I was going to whore myself for some informative karma, but the Wikipedia article with images shows it better than I can tell it, so go read: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aperture_grille
The fine lines are shadows cast by "tension wires", necessary to stabilize the hundreds of vertical wires that make up the aperture grille. Shadow mask CRTs don't require these tension wires because they don't have the vertical wires (or strips). Instead, basically a bunch of holes are made in a sheet. This results in:
- More stable display (sheet with holes in it versus wires or thin strips).
- Slightly more accurate geometry (greater symmetry)
- Less overall brightness (the sheet with holes blocks more of the electron beam, resulting in a "duller" image).
- No shadows from tensioning wires
The last point is, of course, the kicker... and the reason why Trinitons make for awesome TVs. In a computer monitor, however, the brightness isn't needed and the drawbacks of Triniton technology outweigh the benefits, IMNSHO anyway.
In a Triniton TV, the tension wires are basically impossible to spot from a normal viewing distance. On a large Triniton computer monitor with high resolution and a good graphics card (good DAC), the wires are basically impossible NOT to see.
He what now?
Clear? You call that policy CLEAR?!
If the part in quotes is actually a quote, "non-CNN outlet", then it is indeed very far from clear. If anything, I would argue that it's clearer that a blog *shouldn't* count, since a personal blog is not an "outlet" in the context used (CNN). If he had written the blog for the NY Times, then sure, by all means...
The LEDs in products like this are either blue or UV LEDs coated with a phosphorous (not entirely unlike fluorescent bulbs).
Since this particular lamp emits too much blue, I would wager that it uses a blue indium-gallium-nitride LED.
Increasing the phosphorous coating would make the resulting color more yellow and thus negate any need to wait 15 years.
The most commonly used phosphorous emits in the 580nm range (yellow), while the blue diode itself emits light at around 470nm (blue, surprisingly).
Yeah, you're SOL if you live in the wrong place.
The whole notion of "competition between technologies" is bogus. OK, maybe "incredibly insufficient" is a better phrasing. At any given moment, there's usually one technology that just makes a lot more sense than the others, so while competition between technologies is A Good Thing, it doesn't necessarily translate into end user benefits NOW.
Where I live, I have the choice between a handful of ADSL ISPs (at least 5, the fastest maxing out at 20/2), plus at least one cable and one WiMax ISP. Living in an apartment building, however, I would have to convince the rest of the building to switch cable operators to get access to more cable ISPs. Similarly, to get access to fiber-to-the-home, I would have to get the rest of the building to agree to get wired up (although they wouldn't necessarily have to sign up).
There's just no two ways about it. Throttling *selectively* is censorship.
Comcast unilaterally decides that some content is good and some bad - and that should just plain be illegal.
I know many are opposed, but I don't mind the actual *throttling* itself, if it were just protocol-neutral. I cannot accept, however, that Comcast gets to decide that I can't use the rated capacity of my line (you know, the number they tout in their PR) to download Ubuntu with a bittorrent client, while my neighbor can max out his identical connection downloading movies over HTTP or FTP.
(And, no, the actual *content* shouldn't matter either, of course, that's just a feeble attempt at highlighting the inherent stupidity of the method).
Requiring an ISP to have enough capacity to enable ALL its customers to max out their connections would be monumentally wasteful, no question. However...
What Comcast, and any other ISP should do, is actually tell you what you are buying, up front, so that it's possible to make an informed purchasing decision. E.g.:
6Mbps down, 1Mbps up. Rated bandwidth available at least 90% of the time. Minimum bandwidth of1Mbps down, 256kbps up (except in case of equipment failure).
The ISP can then throttle users with this connection in times of peak load, but still protocol (and content) neutral!
If they wanted to get really advanced, they could give their users the ability to use some kind of QoS feature, so that e.g. a user could choose to prioritize http and ftp over, say, bittorrent. Or to prioritize whatever port #s the user's favorite multiplayer game uses, so that using the internet connection for other stuff introduces a minimum of lag on gaming.
In any event, there's just no justification for saying that my downloading Ubuntu or whatever should be throttled in favor of some idiot streaming porn over HTTP. (OK, maybe if it's porn... bad example... you get my drift, though)
How high an orbit do you propose to send these (low orbit) satellites into? ;-)
Seriously, the distance between the earth and the satellite is *tiny* compared to the distance of the earth from the sun. Thus, the satellite is practically always going to be in the earth shadow when on the "night side".
Only when it's in the sunrise or sunset part of its orbit will it be exposed to the sun - and only from an oblique angle, so unless you're planning to place the satellite in a geosynchronous orbit above the Lalamatine district of Ursa Minor Beta, you shouldn't have a problem.