But if you have enough towers, then you can dedicate a nearly unlimited number of channels to every single user.
No, you can't. Bandwidth has nothing to do with the number of towers. The modern use of the term bandwidth are a consequence of Claude Shannon's work in information theory. Before Shannon proved the Nyquist Sampling theorem, bandwidth referred only to particular regions in the electromagnetic spectrum. The Nyquist Sampling theorem justified the intuition that a large swath of the spectrum could carry more information than a small one, and in fact gives an upper bound on how much information a channel can carry in terms of its bandwidth.
Now consider what happens in the physical case of two towers broadcasting distinct signals on the same band -- we can think of each signal as a channel. Note that this would be required for your scheme to work. For simplicity, assume that they are broadcasting omnidirectionally. Fourier analysis (and experimental evidence) assure us that the signals are going to interfere with each other. The point being that unless you figure out some way to keep the two signals from interfering with each other, what you think are two channels are in fact one very noisy channel. This is possible (using special antennae and the like) but very difficult in practice.
Since there isn't much spectrum left to be used anyway, your suggestion just can't work. Note that under these conditions, a wired solution would provide far more bandwidth. Interference between cables is negligible, so each cable could be considered a distinct channel. So even if a single cable provides less bandwidth than the airwaves, we can connect two nodes with multiple channels. There is still a theoretical limit to my suggestion, since there will still be intra-cable interference. An analysis of communication across noisy channels is a beyond the scope of a/. post, but take it from me: the difference in entropy makes a difference of orders of magnitude.
You claim that Democrats have any more foresight than the Republicans? As much as I hate Republicanism (and it's a lot), I must say that you're a fool if you believe that. Thus you've made a fool of yourself twice: first by assuming that I'm politically conservative and naive, and then by showing your own naivete regarding the Democrats' motives.
The Democrats love the political currency the gun control issue gives them, and (for all their possibly good intentions) nothing more. Gun control will not stop violent crime. It will not stop murder. For one, the best we can hope for is drastically curbing these behaviors. But gun control won't do even that. The only way to do that is to eliminate the social conditions that lead people to commit violent crime en masse. Neither the Democrats nor the Republicans are interested in doing that, though they both make half-hearted attempts at looking like they're doing something to keep people safe.
Who are the pricks who modded me -1 Troll? Asking for a torrent was obviously a joke. Christ on a cracker, go fuck yourselves, you humorless right wing son of a bitch bloggers.
Well, remember, if you have enough "towers", bandwidth is essentially unlimited.
Uhhhh... not really. Turn in your geek card. You failed to take advantage of this opportunity to apply the Nyquist Sampling theorem. I suggest you read books on Fourier Analysis and Information theory before spouting off such nonsense.
Blah. Business is just that: business. It's no secret that the people who work for the MPAA are ardent Democrats of the sleazy civil trial lawyer variety. Hell, Jack Valenti was a "Special Assistant" to Lyndon B. Johnson. I'm sure the MPAA has no official position regarding gun control, but you won't find any of its employees saying they're against it.
The MPAA is painfully liberal -- and not in the good, freedom loving way. They're about the last people who would ever say that guns don't kill people.
So the kid comes home and watches TV, gets to see Janet Jacksons tit, the whore from Desperate Houswifes get bannged by a black, and every nutjob with a gripe a venue on TV.
Sure, but that isn't as pleasing to the ear. They've already done a multi-stage focus group process in an attempt to synergize their vocalizations of market shaping conceptual schemes with the dominant user paradigm.
Get your hands on titles from the Criterion Collection. They don't do any of that mumbo jumbo advertising. And they only distribute the best titles they can find. They're extremely picky.
It might make committing a crime more ATTRACTIVE, but nobody can make anybody else do anything. I don't care how bad your situation is: You always CHOOSE to do good or do wrong.
Tell that to someone who hasn't eaten in a week. They're still responsible for what they do, in some strange Stoic sense of responsibility. But they lost they are compelled to do whatever it takes to eat by biological need.
Fine. Google Small pox infected blankets. Illegal wars against Northern Africa (i.e., the "Barbary Pirates"). Slave labor and the slave trade. Native American genocide. The CIVIL FREAKING WAR. Government sanctioned strike busting. Do any of those ring a bell?
Whatever China, Japan, and India have done is irrelevant to the claim that the US has historically held human life as valuable. That claim is incredibly naive.
I trust the US a lot more than 3 cultures with a contiued history of placing a low value on human life.
You're really naive.
I suggest reading a history book or two. Look up Cambodia, Vietnam, Laos, Panama, Nicaragua, Chile, East Timor. Read about the lives of Henry Kissinger, Alexander Haig, Richard Nixon, George G.W. Bush, Robert McNamara.
MPlayer is a good video player, but even though it can decode the newer real media formats, its much, much slower than Real Player. I caved a few weeks ago and got Real. (I know I'm really off topic, but you're new to the mac, and a college boy, so I figured I'd help you watch those old Simpsons episodes on your school's network with a minimum of frustration)
Yep. All you have to do is submit 51% of a bill or coin. If it's obviously more than 51%, they'll trade with you. Otherwise it goes to their forensices lab, where people actually spend time trying to reconstruct the currency to verify that you turned in 51%.
Yeah! Nobody actually keeps a copy of their on-line documentation anymore, do they? And using the internet to find a copy on their corporate website is so 1998. I can't stand that old timey shit.
this InformationWeek story [...] says that the tabs will be very "'basic' due to fears from Microsoft that tabbed browsing might scare off too many users.
Microsoft just doesn't seem to get it. From an "ease of use" standpoint, the best software is designed so that it's easy for a novice to use -- by hiding the "scary" options and so on. But it's also designed so that a user whose comfortable with the software can learn tricks, customizations, and so on to make his work faster. In short, the software has to grow as the user's skills grow.
Very few companies actually get this. Apple has made progress in this direction, as has the open source movement. But they're both well off.
I'm not trying to troll here, I just don't see how this is nerdy, relevant, or important at all. Sure, this is good for interstate commerce, but the federal government has had a strong record of opening that up anyway. All I can see happening because of this is teen lushes in Pennsylvania getting wasted on Napa Valley wine without their parents knowing.
Please, if you're more insightful than me, explain what the "broader" issue is.
Let's see what happens if we replace "school" with "Choicepoint":
Nope. What you do if Choicepoint administration doesn't listen is simple:
Absolutely nothing.
If Choicepoint is more interested in tempting fate, by all means, let them. It's their network -- if they can't or won't take care of it, there's nothing compelling you to do it for them.
Slashdot Mirror
But if you have enough towers, then you can dedicate a nearly unlimited number of channels to every single user.
/. post, but take it from me: the difference in entropy makes a difference of orders of magnitude.
No, you can't. Bandwidth has nothing to do with the number of towers. The modern use of the term bandwidth are a consequence of Claude Shannon's work in information theory. Before Shannon proved the Nyquist Sampling theorem, bandwidth referred only to particular regions in the electromagnetic spectrum. The Nyquist Sampling theorem justified the intuition that a large swath of the spectrum could carry more information than a small one, and in fact gives an upper bound on how much information a channel can carry in terms of its bandwidth.
Now consider what happens in the physical case of two towers broadcasting distinct signals on the same band -- we can think of each signal as a channel. Note that this would be required for your scheme to work. For simplicity, assume that they are broadcasting omnidirectionally. Fourier analysis (and experimental evidence) assure us that the signals are going to interfere with each other. The point being that unless you figure out some way to keep the two signals from interfering with each other, what you think are two channels are in fact one very noisy channel. This is possible (using special antennae and the like) but very difficult in practice.
Since there isn't much spectrum left to be used anyway, your suggestion just can't work. Note that under these conditions, a wired solution would provide far more bandwidth. Interference between cables is negligible, so each cable could be considered a distinct channel. So even if a single cable provides less bandwidth than the airwaves, we can connect two nodes with multiple channels. There is still a theoretical limit to my suggestion, since there will still be intra-cable interference. An analysis of communication across noisy channels is a beyond the scope of a
You claim that Democrats have any more foresight than the Republicans? As much as I hate Republicanism (and it's a lot), I must say that you're a fool if you believe that. Thus you've made a fool of yourself twice: first by assuming that I'm politically conservative and naive, and then by showing your own naivete regarding the Democrats' motives.
The Democrats love the political currency the gun control issue gives them, and (for all their possibly good intentions) nothing more. Gun control will not stop violent crime. It will not stop murder. For one, the best we can hope for is drastically curbing these behaviors. But gun control won't do even that. The only way to do that is to eliminate the social conditions that lead people to commit violent crime en masse. Neither the Democrats nor the Republicans are interested in doing that, though they both make half-hearted attempts at looking like they're doing something to keep people safe.
Who are the pricks who modded me -1 Troll? Asking for a torrent was obviously a joke. Christ on a cracker, go fuck yourselves, you humorless right wing son of a bitch bloggers.
Well, remember, if you have enough "towers", bandwidth is essentially unlimited.
Uhhhh... not really. Turn in your geek card. You failed to take advantage of this opportunity to apply the Nyquist Sampling theorem. I suggest you read books on Fourier Analysis and Information theory before spouting off such nonsense.
Actually, if he's been really consistent, it is kind of funny. Hilarious, actually.
Anyone got a torrent?
Of course. You just have to be well connected. (This was the first thing I thought of too, but I'm not connected enough to make it happen)
Blah. Business is just that: business. It's no secret that the people who work for the MPAA are ardent Democrats of the sleazy civil trial lawyer variety. Hell, Jack Valenti was a "Special Assistant" to Lyndon B. Johnson. I'm sure the MPAA has no official position regarding gun control, but you won't find any of its employees saying they're against it.
The MPAA is painfully liberal -- and not in the good, freedom loving way. They're about the last people who would ever say that guns don't kill people.
(And i'll get a good laugh if the site crashes because of /. hehehe)
I did my part. I even hit "reload" twice!
So the kid comes home and watches TV, gets to see Janet Jacksons tit, the whore from Desperate Houswifes get bannged by a black, and every nutjob with a gripe a venue on TV.
So when is your Fox special?
Sure, but that isn't as pleasing to the ear. They've already done a multi-stage focus group process in an attempt to synergize their vocalizations of market shaping conceptual schemes with the dominant user paradigm.
Get your hands on titles from the Criterion Collection. They don't do any of that mumbo jumbo advertising. And they only distribute the best titles they can find. They're extremely picky.
I think you're conflating "taking slaves for ransom" and "liberating slaves."
It might make committing a crime more ATTRACTIVE, but nobody can make anybody else do anything. I don't care how bad your situation is: You always CHOOSE to do good or do wrong.
Tell that to someone who hasn't eaten in a week. They're still responsible for what they do, in some strange Stoic sense of responsibility. But they lost they are compelled to do whatever it takes to eat by biological need.
Maybe they'll offer you a bounty for implementing those (good) ideas.
Fine. Google Small pox infected blankets. Illegal wars against Northern Africa (i.e., the "Barbary Pirates"). Slave labor and the slave trade. Native American genocide. The CIVIL FREAKING WAR. Government sanctioned strike busting. Do any of those ring a bell?
Whatever China, Japan, and India have done is irrelevant to the claim that the US has historically held human life as valuable. That claim is incredibly naive.
You're really naive.
I suggest reading a history book or two. Look up Cambodia, Vietnam, Laos, Panama, Nicaragua, Chile, East Timor. Read about the lives of Henry Kissinger, Alexander Haig, Richard Nixon, George G.W. Bush, Robert McNamara.
MPlayer is a good video player, but even though it can decode the newer real media formats, its much, much slower than Real Player. I caved a few weeks ago and got Real. (I know I'm really off topic, but you're new to the mac, and a college boy, so I figured I'd help you watch those old Simpsons episodes on your school's network with a minimum of frustration)
Yep. All you have to do is submit 51% of a bill or coin. If it's obviously more than 51%, they'll trade with you. Otherwise it goes to their forensices lab, where people actually spend time trying to reconstruct the currency to verify that you turned in 51%.
Yeah! Nobody actually keeps a copy of their on-line documentation anymore, do they? And using the internet to find a copy on their corporate website is so 1998. I can't stand that old timey shit.
this InformationWeek story [...] says that the tabs will be very "'basic' due to fears from Microsoft that tabbed browsing might scare off too many users.
Microsoft just doesn't seem to get it. From an "ease of use" standpoint, the best software is designed so that it's easy for a novice to use -- by hiding the "scary" options and so on. But it's also designed so that a user whose comfortable with the software can learn tricks, customizations, and so on to make his work faster. In short, the software has to grow as the user's skills grow.
Very few companies actually get this. Apple has made progress in this direction, as has the open source movement. But they're both well off.
I'm not trying to troll here, I just don't see how this is nerdy, relevant, or important at all. Sure, this is good for interstate commerce, but the federal government has had a strong record of opening that up anyway. All I can see happening because of this is teen lushes in Pennsylvania getting wasted on Napa Valley wine without their parents knowing.
Please, if you're more insightful than me, explain what the "broader" issue is.
Let's see what happens if we replace "school" with "Choicepoint":
Nope. What you do if Choicepoint administration doesn't listen is simple:
Absolutely nothing.
If Choicepoint is more interested in tempting fate, by all means, let them. It's their network -- if they can't or won't take care of it, there's nothing compelling you to do it for them.
...and how to safely discharge high voltage capacitors with variable resistators.