I remember when I was a teenager running an auto-mouse script to take full advantage of "All Advantage, Get Paid to Surf!". Made a killing (for 14) before they went under. Tech has improved 100x but advertising tech not so much. I see the exact same arms race taking place here... I'm out this time though;)
And just to clear something up in case you didn't quite understand. I'm not saying all aircraft equipment is immune to interference from all radio waves. A 30Ghz wave can have quite and impact if pushed in the right direction, hell you can cook people with radio waves. I said no CONSUMER equipment, regardless of its power, would have an impact on an aircraft. The power and frequencies available to normal people walking onto an aircraft pose no threat to the aircraft or the people. And at this point I will leave it to you to prove that a consumer device HAS screwed with an airplane, otherwise your blowing hot air. We could have a circular argument on "higher standards" of testing something as harmless as a kitten. Actually, I think the kitten could be more dangerous, their cuteness may distract the flight crew.
Standards are completely subjective. Just because I feel comfortable about something with less evidence doesn't mean it's any less correct. It just means I'm less retentive.
w00t. Funny, you said grip while talking about ex-film people. +1
In response: I would never put "my life", and by making assumptions of this magnitude around aircraft "my life" is the proper phrase, without watching and understanding what they did. As an electrical engineer I understand what they did, and can reasonably say they did a decent job. I believe mytbusters was open enough in how they conducted there tests for an outside observer to see that. While it's not an end all to the question, it's close enough to an answer that allows further reasonable conclusions to be gained from the experiment. I would much rather rely on someone who openly accept criticism and admits fault to see how they can improve the way approach and test situations over someone who stands behind a podium and blames things on others blindly with absolutely no scientific knowledge on how these things work.
But now your pointing out protocol semantics, I'm talking about the raw activity of the amplifier switching frequencies, whatever the nerds who wrote it down on paper call it, I don't care as it doesn't change how the equipment is negatively hit by it.
All cell phones use a range of frequencies, if everyone used say 150Hz(as an example number, not a really used number) to talk on, everyone would be talking to everyone. When your cell phone connects to a tower, the tower tells it what frequency range to use. Thus the hopping, not randomly, but still hopping within it's range. No phone tech uses one single frequency for all calls going both directions.
And before someone jumps on me about "it messed with communications", that is because two systems designed to rely on radio waves to do the same thing will get cross talk(radios don't really filter the waves, they amplify them. I expect other systems to have guards against this if they accept open radio waves blindly). An altitude measurement system and a radio communication system should in no way get crosstalk and interfere with each other if designed properly. And for my $$$ ticket and my life on the line, I expect them to design it properly.
Cell phones use frequency hoping, so the test the mythbusters did wasn't just on ONE frequency. And the instruments are usually up to par if not surpassing certain safety levels required by law. I feel what the mythbusters did (flood a range of frequencies and varying levels of amplification) was sufficient to determine that the majority of aircraft using a majority of equipment would be safe from such incidents unless something was designed VERY badly on the part of the aircraft/equipment manufacturer. Even consumer devices that surround us on all sides and interact with out wireless mice and cellular phones function just fine. I'm also an electrical engineer and understand how radio waves travel and interact with electronic devices and I highly doubt that a consumer wireless device of any power level would have the ability to interfere with an aircraft. Otherwise you would have people modifying cell phones to have nothing but a screen, a battery, and a high power spread spectrum amplifier designed to flood the instrumentation of an aircraft to bring it down. I doubt it's possible. There hasn't been a single incident in the history of aircraft of radio interference causing a downed aircraft. It is either faulty equipment, bad design, or operator error that has always been to blame for "improperly functioning" aircraft. And if I remember the mythbusters episode correctly, they researched that very fact.
Mybusters proved that cellular signals, even those jacked up 20x didn't interfere with ANY instruments in a Cessna, IN FLIGHT. I'm pretty sure that a wireless mouse signal is much more benign than that of a 20x cellular transmitter. There is no way a "Wireless mouse" did this. bah!
Settings aside all the comments about providers, This is about the actual functionality. There are devices made by linksys for gaming, that allow for anwyhere from two to 16 INTERNET connections. Each is managed by it's own rules for latency and load. These work great for home users. If you got a little extra cash to throw around and want better QoS and priority, go with peplink. These devices range from small business(big consumer) to corporate enterprise and are the cream of the crop of consumer rolled load balancing/redundancy for your internet. I've used both and recomend both.
Why do people use the comment "apple is right because there is no way they could support it so they have the right to prevent it?" This has got to be the most "de,de,dee" excuse I have ever seen! In patching 101 we learn that if we modify it, we have no right for them to support it. Apple does not block patching/unlocking of the iphone because they are afraid they will have to support it, they block it for the pure and simple fact that they have gone from a corporation that instills creativity in it's customers and products to a company that want to make a buck! And having an "exclusive" agreement with a cell phone company and control over applications launched helps them make a buck, and it does it at the expense of their image and customer base. Apple used to be a company where the hacker niche wanted one to play with because it was pretty and different. Now they are a company who's business plan is seeming a little to... microsoft for my taste(insert intel processor here). I don't pay for Micro$haft products, and now I don't even WANT to pay for Apple $nc. products anymore.
And dumbass who posted above, an SDK isn't required to program something(as proven by the people who have released hundred of apps thus far without one that mostly work just fine until apple 'updates' the phone), SDK's make it easier for script kiddies to exploit or corporate software development to rubber stamp the same applications with THEIR name on it as the guy released a month ago without the sdk! And the coporate version will probably be allowed to run on the phone because apple MAKES A BUCK FROM IT! And don't think for a second apple will support a third party program just because it was made with an SDK, your much stupider than I thought if you believe that.
The only companies I can see anymore that actually allow creative WITHOUT guidelines or bounds are open source communities. And these are suffering because people are becoming lazy and don't mind having their "creativity" set to a wizard where your primary choices are blue or red borders around the same applications as everyone else because it's the only way it could be supported by the manufacturer... BAH!
For some reason I think guy either works for apple, or donates his time to apple!
I worked for flextronics in a repair facility. Standing in one place, while it may sound better than walking all day, is not better than walking ALOT of the day. We had 12 hour shifts with 30 minute breaks, yes Flextronics sucks the big one, and just believe me when I say standing in place for more than 1-2 hours at a time sucks MAJORLY!!!
I got the kensington mouse with the touch panel for free from CDW when I puchased something a long time ago. (years) So this definately isn't something new, but it's nice to see it developed a little further. I'll miss that ever so soft click my mouse gives me when I Rub it's Wheel:)
/./././././.
I imagine thats all the webserver is seeing right now, cause i'm not getting anything. Can't you people pace yourselves??? *ducks and prepares for his own hourly injection of slashdot*
About buying software, he has a point, software not bought, is NOT lost revenue. ALOT of people who download software, don't have the money to buy the software in the first place. So they are being told "You are poor, you can't use our software." We all now how that goes...FU
Then, if I download software for free, their is a good chance I will tell someone with money about the software, countless people have bought photoshop because I showed it to them one day. Otherwise they would of used paint brush, or psp, or something else. So screw adobe if they don't value my software recommendations to other people, they have made money off of ME, where is my consultant FEE???
About photoshop... If i use photoshop once a month for a year, does that constitute paying hundreds of dollars for it? Hell No! As for the OS, we use it EVERYDAY, however... Without the OS, the hardware we just paid for, is useless. So why buy the hardware, then BUY the os to run it... If i just paid $800 to build a new computer, like hell if i'm paying $200 more just to make it work....
I would use linux, if the monopolies were not preventing developers from making software work on all platforms!
Yes, I do believe software vendors should be compensated for their work, but until i feel they are being fair (by being forced to pay excessive amounts AFTER the fact), I will use what I have to use.
Any further comments??? I love a good flame fest between 'good' and 'evil'... until people get this black and white picture of everything out of their head, were doomed. NOTHING in the world is as simple as black and white, were ALL shades of gray!!!
Slashdot Mirror
I remember when I was a teenager running an auto-mouse script to take full advantage of "All Advantage, Get Paid to Surf!". Made a killing (for 14) before they went under. Tech has improved 100x but advertising tech not so much. I see the exact same arms race taking place here... I'm out this time though ;)
I'll pop the cork before takeoff and be merry before I worry for a second over something this trivial.
Consumer devices + airplanes != reason to be retentive.
And just to clear something up in case you didn't quite understand. I'm not saying all aircraft equipment is immune to interference from all radio waves. A 30Ghz wave can have quite and impact if pushed in the right direction, hell you can cook people with radio waves. I said no CONSUMER equipment, regardless of its power, would have an impact on an aircraft. The power and frequencies available to normal people walking onto an aircraft pose no threat to the aircraft or the people. And at this point I will leave it to you to prove that a consumer device HAS screwed with an airplane, otherwise your blowing hot air. We could have a circular argument on "higher standards" of testing something as harmless as a kitten. Actually, I think the kitten could be more dangerous, their cuteness may distract the flight crew.
Standards are completely subjective. Just because I feel comfortable about something with less evidence doesn't mean it's any less correct. It just means I'm less retentive.
w00t. Funny, you said grip while talking about ex-film people. +1 In response: I would never put "my life", and by making assumptions of this magnitude around aircraft "my life" is the proper phrase, without watching and understanding what they did. As an electrical engineer I understand what they did, and can reasonably say they did a decent job. I believe mytbusters was open enough in how they conducted there tests for an outside observer to see that. While it's not an end all to the question, it's close enough to an answer that allows further reasonable conclusions to be gained from the experiment. I would much rather rely on someone who openly accept criticism and admits fault to see how they can improve the way approach and test situations over someone who stands behind a podium and blames things on others blindly with absolutely no scientific knowledge on how these things work.
But now your pointing out protocol semantics, I'm talking about the raw activity of the amplifier switching frequencies, whatever the nerds who wrote it down on paper call it, I don't care as it doesn't change how the equipment is negatively hit by it.
Check http://www.ubnt.com/downloads/ff_big.jpg for a nice chart or frequencies. Big image, but nice.
All cell phones use a range of frequencies, if everyone used say 150Hz(as an example number, not a really used number) to talk on, everyone would be talking to everyone. When your cell phone connects to a tower, the tower tells it what frequency range to use. Thus the hopping, not randomly, but still hopping within it's range. No phone tech uses one single frequency for all calls going both directions.
And before someone jumps on me about "it messed with communications", that is because two systems designed to rely on radio waves to do the same thing will get cross talk(radios don't really filter the waves, they amplify them. I expect other systems to have guards against this if they accept open radio waves blindly). An altitude measurement system and a radio communication system should in no way get crosstalk and interfere with each other if designed properly. And for my $$$ ticket and my life on the line, I expect them to design it properly.
Cell phones use frequency hoping, so the test the mythbusters did wasn't just on ONE frequency. And the instruments are usually up to par if not surpassing certain safety levels required by law. I feel what the mythbusters did (flood a range of frequencies and varying levels of amplification) was sufficient to determine that the majority of aircraft using a majority of equipment would be safe from such incidents unless something was designed VERY badly on the part of the aircraft/equipment manufacturer. Even consumer devices that surround us on all sides and interact with out wireless mice and cellular phones function just fine. I'm also an electrical engineer and understand how radio waves travel and interact with electronic devices and I highly doubt that a consumer wireless device of any power level would have the ability to interfere with an aircraft. Otherwise you would have people modifying cell phones to have nothing but a screen, a battery, and a high power spread spectrum amplifier designed to flood the instrumentation of an aircraft to bring it down. I doubt it's possible. There hasn't been a single incident in the history of aircraft of radio interference causing a downed aircraft. It is either faulty equipment, bad design, or operator error that has always been to blame for "improperly functioning" aircraft. And if I remember the mythbusters episode correctly, they researched that very fact.
Mybusters proved that cellular signals, even those jacked up 20x didn't interfere with ANY instruments in a Cessna, IN FLIGHT. I'm pretty sure that a wireless mouse signal is much more benign than that of a 20x cellular transmitter. There is no way a "Wireless mouse" did this. bah!
Settings aside all the comments about providers, This is about the actual functionality. There are devices made by linksys for gaming, that allow for anwyhere from two to 16 INTERNET connections. Each is managed by it's own rules for latency and load. These work great for home users. If you got a little extra cash to throw around and want better QoS and priority, go with peplink. These devices range from small business(big consumer) to corporate enterprise and are the cream of the crop of consumer rolled load balancing/redundancy for your internet. I've used both and recomend both.
Agreed, saying creationism is right just because is the equivalent of saying 5+3 = 13 because god says so.
Score one for reality...
Why do people use the comment "apple is right because there is no way they could support it so they have the right to prevent it?" This has got to be the most "de,de,dee" excuse I have ever seen! In patching 101 we learn that if we modify it, we have no right for them to support it. Apple does not block patching/unlocking of the iphone because they are afraid they will have to support it, they block it for the pure and simple fact that they have gone from a corporation that instills creativity in it's customers and products to a company that want to make a buck! And having an "exclusive" agreement with a cell phone company and control over applications launched helps them make a buck, and it does it at the expense of their image and customer base. Apple used to be a company where the hacker niche wanted one to play with because it was pretty and different. Now they are a company who's business plan is seeming a little to ... microsoft for my taste(insert intel processor here). I don't pay for Micro$haft products, and now I don't even WANT to pay for Apple $nc. products anymore.
And dumbass who posted above, an SDK isn't required to program something(as proven by the people who have released hundred of apps thus far without one that mostly work just fine until apple 'updates' the phone), SDK's make it easier for script kiddies to exploit or corporate software development to rubber stamp the same applications with THEIR name on it as the guy released a month ago without the sdk! And the coporate version will probably be allowed to run on the phone because apple MAKES A BUCK FROM IT! And don't think for a second apple will support a third party program just because it was made with an SDK, your much stupider than I thought if you believe that.
The only companies I can see anymore that actually allow creative WITHOUT guidelines or bounds are open source communities. And these are suffering because people are becoming lazy and don't mind having their "creativity" set to a wizard where your primary choices are blue or red borders around the same applications as everyone else because it's the only way it could be supported by the manufacturer... BAH!
For some reason I think guy either works for apple, or donates his time to apple!
Exact Yahoo Maps location... I didn't look at the URL completely before I posted.. http://maps.yahoo.com/beta/index.php#maxp=search&m vt=h&trf=0&lon=129.114&lat=41.311&mag=6
Idle
I want my own GoogleSAT. http://maps.google.com/maps?f=q&hl=en&q=41.311%C2% B0N,+129.114%C2%B0E&ie=UTF8&z=17&ll=41.310864,129. 114139&spn=0.003385,0.010815&t=k&om=1
Yahoo Approx posistion, I'm sure someone can come closer..
http://maps.yahoo.com/beta/index.php#maxp=search&m vt=h&trf=0&lon=128.969879&lat=41.338669&mag=9
IdleByte
I worked for flextronics in a repair facility. Standing in one place, while it may sound better than walking all day, is not better than walking ALOT of the day. We had 12 hour shifts with 30 minute breaks, yes Flextronics sucks the big one, and just believe me when I say standing in place for more than 1-2 hours at a time sucks MAJORLY!!!
Great, now both my wrists will go bad....
Wonder if something like that would null out any lasers shot at it, or something close..... Now the terrorists get to sport stylish eyewear...yeah!
I got the kensington mouse with the touch panel for free from CDW when I puchased something a long time ago. (years) So this definately isn't something new, but it's nice to see it developed a little further. I'll miss that ever so soft click my mouse gives me when I Rub it's Wheel :)
Thanks Bill for that stunning report, We will return to our scheduled programming after these commercial announcements.
/. /. /. /. /. /.
I imagine thats all the webserver is seeing right now, cause i'm not getting anything. Can't you people pace yourselves??? *ducks and prepares for his own hourly injection of slashdot*
About buying software, he has a point, software not bought, is NOT lost revenue. ALOT of people who download software, don't have the money to buy the software in the first place. So they are being told "You are poor, you can't use our software." We all now how that goes...FU
... until people get this black and white picture of everything out of their head, were doomed. NOTHING in the world is as simple as black and white, were ALL shades of gray!!!
Then, if I download software for free, their is a good chance I will tell someone with money about the software, countless people have bought photoshop because I showed it to them one day. Otherwise they would of used paint brush, or psp, or something else. So screw adobe if they don't value my software recommendations to other people, they have made money off of ME, where is my consultant FEE???
About photoshop... If i use photoshop once a month for a year, does that constitute paying hundreds of dollars for it? Hell No! As for the OS, we use it EVERYDAY, however... Without the OS, the hardware we just paid for, is useless. So why buy the hardware, then BUY the os to run it... If i just paid $800 to build a new computer, like hell if i'm paying $200 more just to make it work....
I would use linux, if the monopolies were not preventing developers from making software work on all platforms!
Yes, I do believe software vendors should be compensated for their work, but until i feel they are being fair (by being forced to pay excessive amounts AFTER the fact), I will use what I have to use.
Any further comments??? I love a good flame fest between 'good' and 'evil'