There is an infinite amount of spectrum between 100Mhz and 101MHz, just as there are an infinite number of numbers between 1 and 2. It all depends on how you can parcel up that available spectrum.
The Nyquist rate applies to the symbol frequency. This is related to, but not actually the bit rate.
(Struggling to remember decade old university lectures)
A symbol can carry many bits of data e.g. 16 QAM can carry 4 bits per symbol. The amount of data you can carry on your symbol being limited by your channel and your TX-RX hardware. Our lecturer in this subject was very keen to drive home the fact that "The only thing that stops you sending one Gigabit in one kilohertz is your budget to pay for your phase discriminators." So the GP is right in that data spectrum is infinite if you have the right hardware, you are right that at the moment we can only parcel the spectrum up so finely.
Background: I used to have a Jewish girlfriend and when the conversation came up about what the religious education of any of our children would be (Me being an Atheist) I said"If you want to take them to the Synagogue and teach them your family's ways then that's fine." This seemed to go down well, but "However I'll also be lending them to {our Christian friend} and {My Buddhist workmate} to take them to their places of worship to teach them too and anyone else I can expose them to in different religions" didn't go down as well.
The relationship didn't last too long after that...
Not quite: The Law of Gravity is so called because it was postulated in the days when anything that had an overwhelming amount of evidence for it became a law. If it was developed today it would be called the theory of gravity because like anything else in science it is possible to prove it wrong. This has already been done, hence the reason we need relativity to explain Mercury's orbit. However to say that under everyday conditions the Theory of Gravity holds is as true as it ever was; however remember that it could be proven completely wrong tomorrow. All that would have to happen would be to say that chairs and libraries stop obeying the "Law" unless someone chants "All hail our Lord FSM" at least once an hour. Now I don't think this will happen, You can't live your life thinking that it will happen, all science can do is go on the available evidence, but that's it. This is not a failing; this is the most important, wonderful thing about science is that it is humble it is prepared to admit it might be wrong and will accept it as long as you can prove it.
As others have said it those who misunderstand the concept of scientific principles who attack theories because they are "just a theory", it's this kind of mind that first forms an opinion then ignores dissenting evidence that we have to fight. It's the kind of person who disagrees with someone therefore has to attack them in anyway possible we have to fight, not because they want the truth, but because they want to be right.
TBH I think we're arguing the same point here, in some ways I'd love the law of gravity and relativity to go the same way as the bohr model of the atom, to be replaced with something more encompassing but so far we're not there yet...
So did he take 14 ducks and swans onboard. Seems awefully daft when he could have just let them swim. Along with all the evil fish that made it through the flood...
Honest question: what is the big deal with Ringworld? I finally read it a couple of years ago expecting some story masterpiece, but it ended up being a run of the mill 'people discover big dumb object and barely escape with their lives' story. Have I missed something here, because I feel I must have. Maybe it's the Asimov effect, that that when I finally got hold of a copy of the books a decade or so ago (had to wait until i had a job after uni to be able to have spare cash) then I was bitterly disappointed. "Hang on!" I said, "It's just a load of Star Trek TNG episodes but not done as thoroughly". Then I realised the concept of derivative works. Then I felt very embarrassed and realised how awesome he actually was. One way of the other what is that great about the story or the characters of Ringworld that make it worth transitioning to the big screen? Maybe Ringworld Engineers would work because you get more into the cultures there, i just don't know.
Now Consider Phlebas, that I would like to see on the big screen...
Like a movie adaptation of Consider Phlebas I wonder if the story for Pushing Ice would be just too damn long for the popcorn masses to sit through, This isn't the days of Gone With the Wind anymore and I wonder if most people would sit through it. That said LoTR did okay with it's epic story length, but then that was a popular classic, practically synonymous with Shakespeare in some circles...
In moral issues like this I like to ask what would be better for the whole of society. Which decision produces the society that is the most just, progressive, happy and healthy. Are you really saying that it would be better for society if no-one had sex at all until they were ready for children? Is that a society you want to live in? Let me ask a second question, would you have a moral problem with destroying a fertilized human egg(let's say one in a Petri dish)? If so, why? If not, then doesn't abortion then become a question of where you draw the line?
Birth control is not 100% effective, even the pill used correctly is about 99.5%, so do you punish those who it fails for through no fault of their own? How much birth control is enough? (I speak as someone who had friends who did get pregnant as virgins - they were quite adamant that there were lots of fun things you could do without actual sex, and then someone got too excited at the wrong time - their first son is apparently the result).
Hang on I have never used TrueCrypt, but if I read what you say correctly any unpartitioned space on a hard drive could be a truecrypt drive. Therefore anyone with unpartitioned space could be accused of having any data the police choose to accuse them of, and there is no possible defence because I don't know the key required to unencrypt that area to give them the data they want.
If it were the ultimate tool for "freedom and anarchy" would that be a good thing for society? Imagine if you couldn't trust the data on wikipedia Or if your bank account access could be spoofed Or your emails could be read by anyone Or even a reputable site by a known firm with a reputation to protect would use online tools to deceive What if lone individuals could topple governments and cause international diplomatic incidents?
How much worse a place would the world be then? I think you'd have serious problems in that scenario. No I think that for any one faction in this to win would be to the detriment of us all.
I'm not sure, why launch the sci-fi channel in the first place? Possibly because you love it yourself. Possibly because you know there is an unexploited niche in the market that you can chase. I'd be willing to bet that it was the second one that sci-fi was founded upon (or at least that's the pitch they used to get funding).
So it might well have been about chasing the bottom line. Let's face it sci-fi fans are low hanging fruit we'll go after anything "In Spaaaaaaace!" You'd have been a fool not to have come after us as an audience, the interesting thing is that once the medium is successful then I'm not surprised they branched out and then followed the ratings. I also wonder whether the accepted knowledge that Farscape was a financial failure is correct once you get past the Hollywood accounting. It's not a low risk show, and I think in fact that's more what's going on. Babylon 5 has yet to show a profit, but according to JMS it has collected over a billion but has yet to show a profit..
I also think that part of this is that whenever a new sci-fi show comes on the average geek pans it. Bab 5 was a copy of DS9, Farscape is Muppets in space, I was told for over a year to not bother watching Firefly because it was "just a space western".
I think a better question is why would they stay on their original vision now that they have a noticeable brand? Why not chase the ratings and the money?
Seriously, it is your job as a studio exec to get the ratings and the money, so why wouldn't you look at what people watch and try and follow that?
"Understand this: only in NA are phones subsidised as a norm." Erm, They're the norm in the UK too. Even pay as you go phones (as opposed to contract) are subsidised based on the assumption that you'll eventually have to buy a contract off someone and the new phones use more data = more money. Every phone I have ever owned has been subsidised. Same with my partner. Same for everyone in my family as well (unless you count those family members who have had our old phones, but that's a kind of subsidy right?)
Or it is in fact the other way around. For something really expensive like a car you want something that works for you exactly. That's why there is so much choice, like a tailored suit. Jobs is playing a different game he's selling a fashion accessory and therefore one (frequently updated) model is the way forwards.By saying everyone should play his game and do only one model means he gets to set the rules for that game so that he can win it. Me I like a real keyboard on my phone, so much so I'm willing to sacrifice other features for it. My significant other loves a good camera, a number of friends want to be able to hack their own apps, but have different habits and clothing tastes so different physical sizes of phone makes sense. One or two of my arty friends like to be different from the crowd, and so having the same phone as other people would be like a woman turning up to a cocktail party wearing the same dress as someone else... A monoculture is an unhealthy thing in most fields.
I don't get why choice is a problem as long as they are all good solutions and in fact you don't have to get the perfect one as they'll all do the job. If they won't all do the job then there's a problem with either your specification or the sales person not the fact that there is choice.
It's a shame then that they didn't use UWB for this 802.11ac standard, what with it being nearly impossible to effectively Jam. Ho Hum maybe for the next standard...
But the fall of the British empire lead to America's rise. America's rise got man on the moon so... What is China's rise going to give us? Something equally awesome hopefully.
And let's face it the UK isn't doing too bad at the moment, it might not be a world leader anymore, but being an also-ran isn't too bad...
I'm in Europe; England, Cambridge to be precise. Let's suppose I want to get to London for the theatre, well that's an hour and a half of bus journey(Only 1 connection, but poor services), followed by a 40 minute train, then half an hour or so on the tube. That's two hours longer than by car, each way. Okay that's unrealistic,(even though I do that journey quite frequently) maybe I want to commute to work on public transport, 1 hour 20 minutes is the quickest I've ever done it on the bus, it's normally a 12 minute journey in the car. Well again that's a little unfair because I work out of town and live out of town. Maybe I want to get to the nearest airport - 2 1/2-4 hours and about £25 in fares for a 30 minute drive.
Maybe the house I live in is unrepresentative? No, this situation has been the case in all but one of my previous 6 houses.This isn't just one town, during that 6 house stint I've lived in 4 different towns spread around the London commuter belt and it's all as bad. The only house where it did work was when I did live in London and even then you had over an hour and a half commute on public transport.
Unless you live in the centre of a major city I don't see how anyone can claim that public transport works. And to claim that people don't travel far is not the point if to do a 6 mile journey into town takes 45 minutes because it takes such a convoluted route through all the back roads. It's not the distance that matters it's the time.
There was an old addage I picked up a few years ago that i think applies here 'Any plan that starts "If only everybody" or "If only nobody" is doomed to failure'
I think the problem with a lot of environmentalism is that it often starts with one of those phrases. I think the only solution is to do many things.
Yeah I know, I chose a house in the country so I could grow my own food and be more ecological and now I have a longer commute and waste all that good I just did. Okay I'll cycle into work, it's only twice as long as the car. Great, now i need to eat more to survive; and what about when it snows, there's no buses out here... Okay that's the commute sorted, but what about when i want to visit friends, or go to the cinema, okay I'll take the bus into town, except that that stops at 8pm... etc
Sorry I've just spent years trying to change my life in order to be better to the planet but the more i do of it, the more it occurs to me that probably the best thing for me to do would be to move to a major city and cut off all ties with my family and existing friends - and this conclusion depresses me.
No problem I'll just do the best thing possible for the planet and get a vasectomy, I'm sure future generations will thank me!
Why shouldn't the informed actor be allowed to invest in a company he knows is unknown? To use an earlier analogy, the box might have a Pig or a Cat in it, obviously the pig would be worth more but an investor could choose to make that gamble as long as he knew that there was a risk.
No offence, but there's something seriously wrong with a relationship where you're required to cut off ties to old friends or you're prevented from gaining new ones. Why should it matter what your previous relationship was to that person? Hell if you were compatible in the past all the more likely that you should still be friends. However if she doesn't realise there was a reason you broke up then you probably need to talk to her* Yes I have friended most of my Exes on facebook, yes the odd one or two were/are a little insane, but one or two are really nice people and you know that's probably why I spent several years of my life with them.
Next thing you'll be telling me that she doesn't like it when you go out for a drink with your friends and would rather you stayed at home and watched X-Factor with her or something...
*That said If she knows that you regard that Ex as the one that got away then maybe you should ignore everything I said. Tell you what, do that anyway;-)
Did Gates speak out against condom use that would have prevented the spread of AIDS? Was Gates trying to make sure that the population grew as much as possible so there would be more customers for what he was selling, even if the over population caused famine?
No I thought not, as far as I am aware the same can't be said for John Paul II.
So no I don't think it matters which Pope because everyone I look at I see in their works moments of moral behaviour which to me (and pretty much most of the civilised world) are abhorrent. For an organisation which sells itself as a moral authority I can't see how people don't see this.
Slashdot Mirror
There is an infinite amount of spectrum between 100Mhz and 101MHz, just as there are an infinite number of numbers between 1 and 2.
It all depends on how you can parcel up that available spectrum.
The Nyquist rate applies to the symbol frequency. This is related to, but not actually the bit rate.
(Struggling to remember decade old university lectures)
A symbol can carry many bits of data e.g. 16 QAM can carry 4 bits per symbol. The amount of data you can carry on your symbol being limited by your channel and your TX-RX hardware. Our lecturer in this subject was very keen to drive home the fact that "The only thing that stops you sending one Gigabit in one kilohertz is your budget to pay for your phase discriminators."
So the GP is right in that data spectrum is infinite if you have the right hardware, you are right that at the moment we can only parcel the spectrum up so finely.
Background:
I used to have a Jewish girlfriend and when the conversation came up about what the religious education of any of our children would be (Me being an Atheist) I said"If you want to take them to the Synagogue and teach them your family's ways then that's fine." This seemed to go down well, but "However I'll also be lending them to {our Christian friend} and {My Buddhist workmate} to take them to their places of worship to teach them too and anyone else I can expose them to in different religions" didn't go down as well.
The relationship didn't last too long after that...
Not quite:
The Law of Gravity is so called because it was postulated in the days when anything that had an overwhelming amount of evidence for it became a law. If it was developed today it would be called the theory of gravity because like anything else in science it is possible to prove it wrong. This has already been done, hence the reason we need relativity to explain Mercury's orbit.
However to say that under everyday conditions the Theory of Gravity holds is as true as it ever was; however remember that it could be proven completely wrong tomorrow. All that would have to happen would be to say that chairs and libraries stop obeying the "Law" unless someone chants "All hail our Lord FSM" at least once an hour.
Now I don't think this will happen, You can't live your life thinking that it will happen, all science can do is go on the available evidence, but that's it. This is not a failing; this is the most important, wonderful thing about science is that it is humble it is prepared to admit it might be wrong and will accept it as long as you can prove it.
As others have said it those who misunderstand the concept of scientific principles who attack theories because they are "just a theory", it's this kind of mind that first forms an opinion then ignores dissenting evidence that we have to fight. It's the kind of person who disagrees with someone therefore has to attack them in anyway possible we have to fight, not because they want the truth, but because they want to be right.
TBH I think we're arguing the same point here, in some ways I'd love the law of gravity and relativity to go the same way as the bohr model of the atom, to be replaced with something more encompassing but so far we're not there yet...
So did he take 14 ducks and swans onboard.
Seems awefully daft when he could have just let them swim.
Along with all the evil fish that made it through the flood...
"star wars V star trek
the science fiction fan's ultimate cause for suicide and/ or homicide"
Actually if you look hard there are some good, relatively unbiased fan-fics in this genre.
http://www.stardestroyer.net/Empire/Fanfic/Conquest/index.html
Honestly, would a completely random person you've never spoken to before mislead you?
Honest question: what is the big deal with Ringworld? I finally read it a couple of years ago expecting some story masterpiece, but it ended up being a run of the mill 'people discover big dumb object and barely escape with their lives' story. Have I missed something here, because I feel I must have.
Maybe it's the Asimov effect, that that when I finally got hold of a copy of the books a decade or so ago (had to wait until i had a job after uni to be able to have spare cash) then I was bitterly disappointed. "Hang on!" I said, "It's just a load of Star Trek TNG episodes but not done as thoroughly". Then I realised the concept of derivative works. Then I felt very embarrassed and realised how awesome he actually was.
One way of the other what is that great about the story or the characters of Ringworld that make it worth transitioning to the big screen? Maybe Ringworld Engineers would work because you get more into the cultures there, i just don't know.
Now Consider Phlebas, that I would like to see on the big screen...
Like a movie adaptation of Consider Phlebas I wonder if the story for Pushing Ice would be just too damn long for the popcorn masses to sit through, This isn't the days of Gone With the Wind anymore and I wonder if most people would sit through it.
That said LoTR did okay with it's epic story length, but then that was a popular classic, practically synonymous with Shakespeare in some circles...
In moral issues like this I like to ask what would be better for the whole of society. Which decision produces the society that is the most just, progressive, happy and healthy.
Are you really saying that it would be better for society if no-one had sex at all until they were ready for children? Is that a society you want to live in?
Let me ask a second question, would you have a moral problem with destroying a fertilized human egg(let's say one in a Petri dish)? If so, why? If not, then doesn't abortion then become a question of where you draw the line?
Birth control is not 100% effective, even the pill used correctly is about 99.5%, so do you punish those who it fails for through no fault of their own? How much birth control is enough? (I speak as someone who had friends who did get pregnant as virgins - they were quite adamant that there were lots of fun things you could do without actual sex, and then someone got too excited at the wrong time - their first son is apparently the result).
Hang on I have never used TrueCrypt, but if I read what you say correctly any unpartitioned space on a hard drive could be a truecrypt drive. Therefore anyone with unpartitioned space could be accused of having any data the police choose to accuse them of, and there is no possible defence because I don't know the key required to unencrypt that area to give them the data they want.
That can't be right surely?
Do you think it's possible to mod a Judge insightful?
If it were the ultimate tool for "freedom and anarchy" would that be a good thing for society?
Imagine if you couldn't trust the data on wikipedia
Or if your bank account access could be spoofed
Or your emails could be read by anyone
Or even a reputable site by a known firm with a reputation to protect would use online tools to deceive
What if lone individuals could topple governments and cause international diplomatic incidents?
How much worse a place would the world be then? I think you'd have serious problems in that scenario. No I think that for any one faction in this to win would be to the detriment of us all.
I'm not sure, why launch the sci-fi channel in the first place? Possibly because you love it yourself. Possibly because you know there is an unexploited niche in the market that you can chase.
I'd be willing to bet that it was the second one that sci-fi was founded upon (or at least that's the pitch they used to get funding).
So it might well have been about chasing the bottom line. Let's face it sci-fi fans are low hanging fruit we'll go after anything "In Spaaaaaaace!" You'd have been a fool not to have come after us as an audience, the interesting thing is that once the medium is successful then I'm not surprised they branched out and then followed the ratings.
I also wonder whether the accepted knowledge that Farscape was a financial failure is correct once you get past the Hollywood accounting. It's not a low risk show, and I think in fact that's more what's going on. Babylon 5 has yet to show a profit, but according to JMS it has collected over a billion but has yet to show a profit..
I also think that part of this is that whenever a new sci-fi show comes on the average geek pans it. Bab 5 was a copy of DS9, Farscape is Muppets in space, I was told for over a year to not bother watching Firefly because it was "just a space western".
I think a better question is why would they stay on their original vision now that they have a noticeable brand?
Why not chase the ratings and the money?
Seriously, it is your job as a studio exec to get the ratings and the money, so why wouldn't you look at what people watch and try and follow that?
"Understand this: only in NA are phones subsidised as a norm."
Erm, They're the norm in the UK too. Even pay as you go phones (as opposed to contract) are subsidised based on the assumption that you'll eventually have to buy a contract off someone and the new phones use more data = more money.
Every phone I have ever owned has been subsidised. Same with my partner. Same for everyone in my family as well (unless you count those family members who have had our old phones, but that's a kind of subsidy right?)
Or it is in fact the other way around. For something really expensive like a car you want something that works for you exactly. That's why there is so much choice, like a tailored suit.
Jobs is playing a different game he's selling a fashion accessory and therefore one (frequently updated) model is the way forwards.By saying everyone should play his game and do only one model means he gets to set the rules for that game so that he can win it.
Me I like a real keyboard on my phone, so much so I'm willing to sacrifice other features for it. My significant other loves a good camera, a number of friends want to be able to hack their own apps, but have different habits and clothing tastes so different physical sizes of phone makes sense.
One or two of my arty friends like to be different from the crowd, and so having the same phone as other people would be like a woman turning up to a cocktail party wearing the same dress as someone else...
A monoculture is an unhealthy thing in most fields.
I don't get why choice is a problem as long as they are all good solutions and in fact you don't have to get the perfect one as they'll all do the job. If they won't all do the job then there's a problem with either your specification or the sales person not the fact that there is choice.
It's a shame then that they didn't use UWB for this 802.11ac standard, what with it being nearly impossible to effectively Jam.
Ho Hum maybe for the next standard...
But the fall of the British empire lead to America's rise.
America's rise got man on the moon so...
What is China's rise going to give us? Something equally awesome hopefully.
And let's face it the UK isn't doing too bad at the moment, it might not be a world leader anymore, but being an also-ran isn't too bad...
I'm in Europe; England, Cambridge to be precise.
Let's suppose I want to get to London for the theatre, well that's an hour and a half of bus journey(Only 1 connection, but poor services), followed by a 40 minute train, then half an hour or so on the tube. That's two hours longer than by car, each way.
Okay that's unrealistic,(even though I do that journey quite frequently) maybe I want to commute to work on public transport, 1 hour 20 minutes is the quickest I've ever done it on the bus, it's normally a 12 minute journey in the car.
Well again that's a little unfair because I work out of town and live out of town. Maybe I want to get to the nearest airport - 2 1/2-4 hours and about £25 in fares for a 30 minute drive.
Maybe the house I live in is unrepresentative? No, this situation has been the case in all but one of my previous 6 houses.This isn't just one town, during that 6 house stint I've lived in 4 different towns spread around the London commuter belt and it's all as bad. The only house where it did work was when I did live in London and even then you had over an hour and a half commute on public transport.
Unless you live in the centre of a major city I don't see how anyone can claim that public transport works. And to claim that people don't travel far is not the point if to do a 6 mile journey into town takes 45 minutes because it takes such a convoluted route through all the back roads. It's not the distance that matters it's the time.
There was an old addage I picked up a few years ago that i think applies here
'Any plan that starts "If only everybody" or "If only nobody" is doomed to failure'
I think the problem with a lot of environmentalism is that it often starts with one of those phrases. I think the only solution is to do many things.
Yeah I know, I chose a house in the country so I could grow my own food and be more ecological and now I have a longer commute and waste all that good I just did.
Okay I'll cycle into work, it's only twice as long as the car. Great, now i need to eat more to survive; and what about when it snows, there's no buses out here...
Okay that's the commute sorted, but what about when i want to visit friends, or go to the cinema, okay I'll take the bus into town, except that that stops at 8pm...
etc
Sorry I've just spent years trying to change my life in order to be better to the planet but the more i do of it, the more it occurs to me that probably the best thing for me to do would be to move to a major city and cut off all ties with my family and existing friends - and this conclusion depresses me.
No problem I'll just do the best thing possible for the planet and get a vasectomy, I'm sure future generations will thank me!
Why would a trade tariff make it not free trade, anymore than the existence of sales tax does?
Why shouldn't the informed actor be allowed to invest in a company he knows is unknown?
To use an earlier analogy, the box might have a Pig or a Cat in it, obviously the pig would be worth more but an investor could choose to make that gamble as long as he knew that there was a risk.
No offence, but there's something seriously wrong with a relationship where you're required to cut off ties to old friends or you're prevented from gaining new ones. Why should it matter what your previous relationship was to that person? Hell if you were compatible in the past all the more likely that you should still be friends. However if she doesn't realise there was a reason you broke up then you probably need to talk to her*
Yes I have friended most of my Exes on facebook, yes the odd one or two were/are a little insane, but one or two are really nice people and you know that's probably why I spent several years of my life with them.
Next thing you'll be telling me that she doesn't like it when you go out for a drink with your friends and would rather you stayed at home and watched X-Factor with her or something...
*That said If she knows that you regard that Ex as the one that got away then maybe you should ignore everything I said. Tell you what, do that anyway ;-)
Did Gates speak out against condom use that would have prevented the spread of AIDS?
Was Gates trying to make sure that the population grew as much as possible so there would be more customers for what he was selling, even if the over population caused famine?
No I thought not, as far as I am aware the same can't be said for John Paul II.
So no I don't think it matters which Pope because everyone I look at I see in their works moments of moral behaviour which to me (and pretty much most of the civilised world) are abhorrent. For an organisation which sells itself as a moral authority I can't see how people don't see this.