This is a massive government babysitting project that Obama is proposing. This has NOTHING to do with our current education system. Rob Reiner just tried passing a similar bill/program here in California. I'm surprised NASA's the target this time. It's ususally cigarette smokers or the "rich". Guess they're becoming an easy target, too. Hey moms, dads - no need to spend time with your kids anymore. No time for babies. Send them off for early "education". What a brave new world we live in....
Yeah, I thought of that later, too. That's the one good consumer use I could see for this product. I'm still curious about the penetration ability of 60GHz. Pure line of sight could be a problem. Otherwise it seems destined for industrial interconnects - like one FPGA to another board to board but without wires. 5Gbps is pretty darn fast. This chip might only be $10, but it's associated components that can drive 5G data rates will be more expensive, I think. That alone could make this cost prohibitive for home theater in the short term. The broadcast guys are moving up to 3G data rates on their serial digital video transmissions (that's full 1080p with embedded audio). Cost is less an object for them - it might fit there also.
This will have nothing to do with routers or wireless internet access of any kind. This will strictly be for unit-unit communication that is line of sight (since 60GHz won't penetrate ANYTHING), can't use wires, and needs high speed. It is NOT a bluetooth replacement or WUSB replacement. I'm trying to think of the applications for this, since line of sight will be critical and there are few things I can think of that would require 5Gbps and still be line of sight. Bluetooth is still fairly expensive to implement - despite the crappy $20 BT units you can buy in the store today. A BT module - that is a complete OEM bluetooth solution that is pre FCC and BT certified costs about $16-$20. Doing discrete designs can bring this down significantly. $10 is cheap for such a chip. That's a final consumer cost of at least $50. This ain't gonna help your wifi.
My reasons exactly. The fact is, when you get down to the hardware level (like in microcontrollers and embedded systems) assembly is often the best and easiest way to get your system running and optimized. It's the closest thing we've got to direct machine code (and that's hard to read!). I'd also say it's more prevelent now - despite the fact that there are many high level languages out there (and you don't really have to understand anymore EXACTLY what they are doing on a low level) - because of the increase in engineers in general and the increase in embedded systems in general. And hey - you propbably have a lot of cool things that were programmed in assembly at the embedded system level. I personally programmed a surround sound decoder for a consumer product once (not the actual DSP, but the micro) not that long ago. HARDLY obsolete.
Am I the only one who finds it fascinating that the ONLY ones the tiger directly attacked were the 3 guys who were taunting it? That it specifically hunted down the 3 individuals who pissed it off? And they had moved away from the area... Who says animals are stupid?
They don't. They're water. They evaporate. The GP is right. If you look at some of the pictures of this phenomenon you'll notice that nearby rocks will also travel in similar paths -- and even sometimes turn. The only thing that would explain this appropriately is ice sheets. Sheets that lock several rocks together across a wide area. Sheets that could have considerable wind resistance -- in a notably hgh wind area.
Another issue is how GPS calculates your speed. It does not do this the same as a radar gun. A radar gun takes an instantaneous measurement of your velocity. GPS calculates your AVERAGE velocity from adjoining data points (or a series of data points) that can be spaced at various lengths of time. For this reason, unless your data points are VERY close together, radar will always be a more accurate measurment of velocity -- and it's also how you COULD have a radar gun showing one speed while GPS calculates another....
The PSP is a failure because after over 2 years on the market - no one still even knows what it is. It has none of the brand recognition of the DS or (holy of holies) the Game Boy THe numbers you give don't do justice to what a collosal nothing that player is (based on what I see in the US - I almost have a hard time believing those numbers) . Sony clearly had intentions to replace the iPod as a high-end multimedia device. In that respect they failed mightily. UMD sucks? Yeah, UMD sucks because no one else can use it and (again) Sony clearly intended this as a new, proprietary, movie standard. Forget the games (which are also quite forgettable). Ooooooh - it runs linux! So does my 8 year old Celeron! THat doesn't mean it's special in any way! Gawd! - Don't tell me the engineering beauty of UMD. How about a hard drive, huh? How about revolutionizing movie content distribution (since Sony owns it's own studios and production houses) instead of a creating a new draconian proprietary stillborn media format (UMD). Think that could've helped out the PSP sales? Look, Sony had good intentions with the PSP, but the road to hell is paved with good intentions. Sony missed the boat with this one. And the original xbox a failure? Again, the numbers don't tell the picture AT ALL. Even if msoft lost money on the original it was imperative for them to get it out to create gaming cred. And frankly, the new 360 is the most well thought out machine on the market today (and yeah - I've got ALL of them to compare - regardless of hardware issues). Nintendo has had that cred since the first Mario arcade games (and some would say even the card games before that) - they didnt' have to pay for it up front like microsoft did. Definitely more of an argument there, but it goes to show that "failure" is pretty subjective...
Agreed. And to top it off Sony went and started pushing minidisks with their ATRAC format ONLY on their players -- again completely incompatible with the rest of the world - at a time when MP3 was really starting to take off. You had to rip all your music to ATRAC, there was no online component, and you couldn't "share" files with your friends since they (typically) couldn't play ATRAC. UMD sucks. It's a PSP-only format and that limits the market already. The PSP never took off like Sony hoped it would (it was supposed to be the next "iPod" for Sony - a high end multimedia device).
For anyone who's actually READ the Real ID act -- it is NOT an National ID. What it IS is a set of standards the federal government would place on state IDs -- like your driver's license - for proof of identity in acquiring that. There is no requirement that you have it. All the "right to privacy" people who are confusing this bill -- along with certain congress people who like to obfuscate the facts -- are totally off base or outright lying. Senator Moore is obviously showing his ignorance. Real ID sets the standards for ID requirements on a National level. This MAY or MAY NOT be used by individual states, but ID's issued from those states would be invalid for identification at federal facilities (like the airport). Any YES -- your passport already qualifies as this.
...but wifi runs the same interference risks as cell phones.
No. Wi-fi is at 2.4GHz. Cell phones are 800-900MHz or 1900MHz (PCS). A 100MHz signal mixing with a 2.4GHz one results in -- 2.5GHz and 2.3GHz. A 100MHz signal mixing with a 900MHz one results in 800MHz and 1000MHz (the latter in the middle of the ILS glideslope band.) Those numbers are general, but in the right neighborhood to the specific ones in use.
--- Right, but that's not the interference they are worried about here. Signal modulation between two digital carriers doesn't usually amount to much. What the interference is from is the packet rate of GSM phones in particular -- which is 217Hz. Now while the carrier frequency (as you correctly stated) is anywhere from 800MHz or higher, that doesn't matter. It's that packet that is rectified by your amplifiers in your electrical system -- just like you hear it with GSM phones over the stereo in your car. The higher frequency has no gain at those levels, and doesn't really affect anything. The packet rate, however, can have very large amplitudes since that is within the gain range of the instrumentation amps. WiFi has the same exact issue -- it's the packet rate you're worried about, not the actual carrier frequency. That's why CDMA phones don't exhibit this interference problem (no set packet rate). ----------
Since users and flight attendants would be incabapble of knowing which band each phone was on, and it would be interesting, to say the least, for a flight attendant to tell one person to shut his phone (800MHz) off while allowing someone else (PCS) to use theirs, the only reasonable ban is all of them.
-----
irrelevant ------
As for the "technical" reasons. Completely bunk. Modern airplanes have all their signal wires twisted pair and shielded (very RF immune). While it IS possible for cell phones to create considerable interference (particularly GSM), airline systems are VERY well shielded.
PERHAPS, maybe when they first leave the assembly line, but after thousands of hours in use the shielding is not so good anymore, if it really is that good to start with.
The Mythbusters episode did not prove anything, other than perhaps that a specific set of conditions did not result in interference. It certainly did not prove that all possible conditions will not cause interference ever.
------ I certainly agree about mythbusters -- I included that more as a joke -- , but all modern airplanes use twisted pair transmission (itself very rf immune) and shielding. They HAVE to. The go through literally thousands of hours of FAA and FCC compliance on aircraft instrumentation (and entertainment) systems. I know -- I've worked with both airline system manufacturers and cell phone companies in my current job. --------
The thought that it would interfere with ground based systems is simply rediculous. What ground based systems? Other cell networks? No.
Cell networks have a limited number of channels that they can use. Cell towers are coordinated so that neighboring towers don't use the same channels. They can do this based on knowledge of the terrain that each tower covers, with predictions of signal strength. This also assumes a land-based transmitter. Take a land-based transmitter into the air and its range extends immensely. Move that same transmitter along at 500MPH and it suddenly not only covers a lot of space on the ground but comes in contact with a lot of towers (and loses contant with a lot of towers) very quickly. Sorting out which tower a cell phone is talking to is much harder under such conditions, and consumes many more resources than a static ground-based caller.
----- Yup. I understand all this. So you're saying the systmes can't keep up with how fast the plane is moving? 'Cause you still get cell strength up there even with directional antennas.... -----
There is no difference between being on the ground or in the air.
All I can hope for is that they continue to ban the use of headsets. I don't mind someone emailing or (OMG) IMing. At least it's quiet and I'm not held hostage to their innane conversation. Didn't I just see a story on this that several airlines are rolling out wifi? And the difference is....? I guess it's slightly lower power, but wifi runs the same interference risks as cell phones. As for the "technical" reasons. Completely bunk. Modern airplanes have all their signal wires twisted pair and shielded (very RF immune). While it IS possible for cell phones to create considerable interference (particularly GSM), airline systems are VERY well shielded. I seem to recall a "Mythbusters" episode (yes.. the paragons of the scientific process) that also confirmed this. The thought that it would interfere with ground based systems is simply rediculous. What ground based systems? Other cell networks? No. Airline communications? No -- totally different frequency band. Somebody give me a good example of where your cell phone was interfering in ground based systems while in your car (not your unshielded car stereo with a GSM phone). There is no difference between being on the ground or in the air. And no -- there is NO problem with communicating with a cell tower several miles DOWN -- with nothing in your way except the airplane fuselage. You'd actually get pretty good reception. Antenna sensitivity is also a function of height (and how much is in the way).
It's also important to note that LED brightness is set by the current flow, not voltage. With a typical dimmer (not a triac that cuts the AC into smaller bursts) your voltage is decreased. This would have no effect on an LED until you got below it's threshold level (usually about 2V). So a dimming feature could be done by shortening the time the LED is on (as you've stated) and rapidly pulsing that to achieve less light output, OR the current setting resistor (madatory for LED applications where you don't have some other current limit in place) can be varied to allow more/less current to the LED. A triac dimmer might actually work (assuming the output voltage is converted down enough). An LED is a diode -- it will work in both AC and DC applications (even used as a recifier) but the setup (voltage and current conditions) have to be right. LEDs typically operate around 3V -- most applications you see have some voltage conversion that is suppying this voltage to the LED. Too much voltage can cause breakdown. Too much current can cause breakdown. Even a 3V supply with no current limit can kill an LED (or significantly reduce it's life). See all those traffic lights with strings of LEDs already out? They overdrive the crap out of those things --otherwise they should last around 100k hours (depending on manufacturer). Too much current.
That was part of my exact argument over at thegreenbutton.com. Seems like a horrible way for anybody purchasing a computer with ANY technical skills. Why not provide both? A recovery disk for that "back to factory" install and an OEM version for driver upgrades, fresh install (or slipstreaming) and the like. Hell, making almost any hardware/software changes (except for a hard drive) would require significant work after using a recovery disk that's locked into a factory image. Lesson learned -- always get at least the OEM version of the OS. Recovery disks suck.
Yup...did this -- and I still had the original recovery disks. The problem is the disks are basically an image and don't allow recovery with significant hardware changes. The recovery portion on the drive is exactly the same -- I was able to boot up and use it to re-install (recover) Windows, but it would come up with a "configuration error....code purple" when windows would actually boot (after recovery). As you can see from my experiences at thegreenbutton.com, this is not an uncommon issue. HP told me to basically pound sand: that the machine was out of warranty, they were under no obligation to provide me with an OEM Windows install disk -- only a recovery disk. A close reading of Microsoft's OEM policies confirms this. It's their veiw that the motherboard (in particular) IS the computer. Making changes to it voids your software license. In my case I couldn't get the original board (which MIGHT have worked) but a functionally similar one. No go. HP wanted me to purchase an extended warranty on it -- which for $100 would allow me unlimited tech support questions by phone and $20 extra for each hardware fix. While this ALMOST sounded nice (it would have required a month wait for me to take advantage of the hardware claus), for the same cost I could simply buy a new version of the OS and not have to deal with their crap again. Guess which one I chose?
I just went through this fiasco while repairing a mobo failure on an HP Media Center PC. As with most OEM PCs these days it came pre-installed with everything and featured only a recovery disk (disc image) for system restore. Changing, upgrading, or altering many of the components onboard (particularly the motherboard) will result in this disk becoming useless. If you read Microsoft's ifo regarding OEM distributions -- they are totally OK with this. THe OEM is only required to provide a recovery disk that lives and dies with the computer (which is practically defined as the motherboard). The OEM install and recovery disks are keyed to some identifier in the motherboard, which requires some hacking to use. I wound up purchasing a new OEM version of Media Center (since they don't make a regular version) from NewEgg and reinstalling everything. I was pretty pissed. I felt like I had paid for this OS in the first place, I should have the right to reinstall it as necessary -- from hardware changes/failures/upgrades/whatever. It turns out you don't with most OEMs. A recovery disk is all they are required to provide. Here's the link to the forum over at thegreenbutton.com (Windows Media Center site) that tells my tail of woe and what I learned. http://thegreenbutton.com/forums/thread/160224.asp x Basically, you're screwed without at least on OEM copy of Windows. Then you can at least hack it. If all you've got is a recovery disk than you are hosed. THe same goes for all software that is preinstalled on your drive. You got Word preinstalled? And you changed your mobo? Whoops--it's a new computer now! No software/OS for you! I'd love to hear if someone's challenged this in court -- it seems pretty anti-consumer, although I'm sure OEMs save a ton of money and hassle with recovery disks....
Well, to be completely honest, I didn't pay for Pong when it came out. I was pretty small at the time. The first system I ponied up my own cash for was the original NES -- and that involved a serious "family conference" at the time as to wether I could spend $100 bucks on a game system vs getting a computer. The Wii, however, is first on my list of these last two consoles -- if only for Zelda. That's always been a system maker for me, I'm just disappointed by the seeming lack of great titles at launch -- Nintendo usually has more. That Zelda is non-exclusive to the Wii also has slowed my purchase. Thanks for the rec:)
Yeah, and people always make your same point, but it's not a sound argument either. It's called system sellers -- games that make you want to buy a system -- that justify it in your mind. Buying a system EARLY in the anticipation that some exclusive or great game will come out later is plain stupid. At best you've ponied up the highest amount of cash for a system you're not really happy with because it has no decent games yet, and at worst you never even get the games -- because they're vaporware. Now I'm not saying that situation (game vaporware) happens very often, but the fact is most people will wait to buy a system until there are decent games for it in decent numbers. I've bought damn near every game system since the Pong came out and for some reason I'm still waiting on BOTH the Wii and the PS3. I've got my 360 keeping me busy (along with many other distractions since the PS2 came out -- our entertainment space has changed) and there frankly aren't enough decent games on either system for my tastes yet. Certainly not enough to justify their pricetags. So I can wait for more games to come out, and prices to go down, and then I'll buy -- and enjoy the system without wondering how I just dropped $650 just to play that one game for 6 months. Yeah, yeah -- there will be other great games for sure, but my point is that's how most purchasers look at the initial cost of the system: It's a big hit to the pocketbook.
Ah...often true, it seems. In the words of the previous President of the US: "I feel your pain." Your point is still valid -- and WiFi isn't quite ubiquitous here yet....but at least there is some visible progress being made. Sounds like a business opportunity my friend! I didn't seem to have to many problems finding open WiFi spots during my last trip to Europe (Sweden, Denmark, Germany, and France) but I was mostly around densely populated places (well, Sweden wasn't exactly densely populated, but I was in Lund around the University and Sony-Ericsson so no problems). What is preventing the proliferation of WiFi in Europe?
Didn't I read it has a 2MP camera, too? That's better than most cameraphones sold in the US. Shouldn't be too difficult to do crappy video capture with it too...
...so why wouldn't Skype be an option? EDGE may be too slow, but WiFi works great and as others have pointed out it is rapidly expanding with free city-wide WiFi access in many US cities. Or your house. I'm guessing that if Apple doesn't include VoIP feature as standard it will be hacked out in less than a week once released. God I'm looking forward to this. I just scheduled a trip to MacWorld to check it out in person...
Ever run 2 amps through 26 guage wire (typical USB wire crap) -- and DC current no less? Not only are we talking significant line loss because of the small wire guage (and distances, of course. That guage is barely capable of 500mA. 22 guage will get you close to an amp. 2A, while not yet running the risk of a fire, is a BAD idea...
You are correct that NTSC is 480i, but DVD's contain material recorded at 480p -- it's then played back at 480i for most sets (connected thorugh S-video or composite). 480p is the native resolution of DVD (720x480) in mpeg2 format. The video on the DVD is always stored in full 30fps format (when in MPEG2 -- can also be 24fps) -- interlacing is only supported for PAL and NTSC streams for MPEG2 encoded video. MPEG1 video (also possible on standard DVD) does NOT support interlacing.
OK. Comparing an IBM XT with a cell phone (of any type) is comparing apples to oranges. How many cell phones were around when the XT was built -- and what was their built quality? Cell phones in particular are made as cheaply as possible with as many features as possible. They have helped push the envelope of surface mount technology probably more than any other device. Surface mount parts are intrinsicly more subject to failure than through-hole connections, but it is absolutely necessary to achieve the size, design, and form factors of modern cell phones. Of all our consumer products we use today, cell phones are probably the least reliable and most prone to failure for more reasons than just surface-mount technology. The use/abuse they take on a daily basis far outdoes any other device you use. That and cell phone companies WANT you to upgrade your phone every two years (typical service contract length). While I don't think phone designers specifically design them to fail in two years, it is a pretty typical life span for a device that sees so much use and abuse. I'm sorry, but consumer demand is what has caused the apparent lack in quality of today's consumer products. Faster, smaller, cheaper -- that's what the market wants and that's what manufacturers continue to strive for. The result is products with more features and style, but shorter use life due to cheaper materials or contruction methods used to save cost. You want bullet-proof build quality, you pay for bullet-proof build quality. Look at Panasonics toughbook laptop series or the many military grade laptops out there. These were meant for extreme use, but you pay through the nose for it -- usually with inferior performance to boot. Comparing todays tech gadgets with anything mechanical (washer/boots/whatever) isn't fair either. A better comparison would be something like a Mac (classic) and today's machines. See the old, through-hole populated motherboard? Works great, but it's expensive and space-hungry (my Mac II still works great). Our technology is becoming more and more complex, with increasing risk of failure with each increase in complexity. I don't buy into the corporate conspiracy theory that much of this stuff is designed to fail -- it just reaches that point sooner in some cases because of modern (read: cheaper)construction methods -- which also result in a lower price. The way we use technology has also changed. We have it with us at all times. Used to be the cell phone brick was left in the car of house for special occasions. Now everyone has them at all times in all sorts of environments.
Wow. Sounds like you are part of the problem ("wether they were illegal or not, I could care less. We did the proper parerwork to cover our butts so it was irrelevant"). At no time is it good argument that "no one wants the jobs". Pay decent wages for decent work and people WILL want them. Continuing to support the system by paying crap wages and supporting an illegal "slave labor" class doesn't help -- it makes things worse. Pride can be had in ANY job -- if someone finds it worthwhile. Pride in ownership of your job and product are essential. It's great that the "immigrant" work force has this -- since they're used to complete crap in their native country. Such feelings COULD be installed with some of our more "menial" jobs -- if they were compensated for properly. Even farm worker, construction, and service industries (the 3 big "we need illegals" industries). I have no sympathy for any of these groups. They have profitted off the public dole for far too long.
And back on topic: the huge increase in illegals also seems to account for a large amount of high school drop out in border states like California where the immigrant drop-out rate is about 45% (http://www.independent.org/issues/article.asp?id= 484). I'd even hazzard that the high immigrant rate in California public schools contributes to losses in other groups -- due to the poor quality of instruction and environment available. I, a proud Califonia public school product, refuse to send my own kids to any of the public schools here -- there's just no point. The teachers spend WAY to much of their time accounting for their large non-english speaking population and the actual instruction level is minimal.
Slashdot Mirror
This is a massive government babysitting project that Obama is proposing. This has NOTHING to do with our current education system.
Rob Reiner just tried passing a similar bill/program here in California. I'm surprised NASA's the target this time. It's ususally cigarette smokers or the "rich". Guess they're becoming an easy target, too.
Hey moms, dads - no need to spend time with your kids anymore. No time for babies. Send them off for early "education".
What a brave new world we live in....
Yeah, I thought of that later, too. That's the one good consumer use I could see for this product. I'm still curious about the penetration ability of 60GHz. Pure line of sight could be a problem. Otherwise it seems destined for industrial interconnects - like one FPGA to another board to board but without wires. 5Gbps is pretty darn fast. This chip might only be $10, but it's associated components that can drive 5G data rates will be more expensive, I think. That alone could make this cost prohibitive for home theater in the short term. The broadcast guys are moving up to 3G data rates on their serial digital video transmissions (that's full 1080p with embedded audio). Cost is less an object for them - it might fit there also.
This will have nothing to do with routers or wireless internet access of any kind. This will strictly be for unit-unit communication that is line of sight (since 60GHz won't penetrate ANYTHING), can't use wires, and needs high speed. It is NOT a bluetooth replacement or WUSB replacement. I'm trying to think of the applications for this, since line of sight will be critical and there are few things I can think of that would require 5Gbps and still be line of sight. Bluetooth is still fairly expensive to implement - despite the crappy $20 BT units you can buy in the store today. A BT module - that is a complete OEM bluetooth solution that is pre FCC and BT certified costs about $16-$20. Doing discrete designs can bring this down significantly.
$10 is cheap for such a chip. That's a final consumer cost of at least $50. This ain't gonna help your wifi.
My reasons exactly. The fact is, when you get down to the hardware level (like in microcontrollers and embedded systems) assembly is often the best and easiest way to get your system running and optimized. It's the closest thing we've got to direct machine code (and that's hard to read!).
I'd also say it's more prevelent now - despite the fact that there are many high level languages out there (and you don't really have to understand anymore EXACTLY what they are doing on a low level) - because of the increase in engineers in general and the increase in embedded systems in general. And hey - you propbably have a lot of cool things that were programmed in assembly at the embedded system level. I personally programmed a surround sound decoder for a consumer product once (not the actual DSP, but the micro) not that long ago.
HARDLY obsolete.
Am I the only one who finds it fascinating that the ONLY ones the tiger directly attacked were the 3 guys who were taunting it? That it specifically hunted down the 3 individuals who pissed it off? And they had moved away from the area...
Who says animals are stupid?
They don't. They're water. They evaporate. The GP is right. If you look at some of the pictures of this phenomenon you'll notice that nearby rocks will also travel in similar paths -- and even sometimes turn. The only thing that would explain this appropriately is ice sheets. Sheets that lock several rocks together across a wide area. Sheets that could have considerable wind resistance -- in a notably hgh wind area.
Another issue is how GPS calculates your speed. It does not do this the same as a radar gun. A radar gun takes an instantaneous measurement of your velocity. GPS calculates your AVERAGE velocity from adjoining data points (or a series of data points) that can be spaced at various lengths of time. For this reason, unless your data points are VERY close together, radar will always be a more accurate measurment of velocity -- and it's also how you COULD have a radar gun showing one speed while GPS calculates another....
The PSP is a failure because after over 2 years on the market - no one still even knows what it is. It has none of the brand recognition of the DS or (holy of holies) the Game Boy THe numbers you give don't do justice to what a collosal nothing that player is (based on what I see in the US - I almost have a hard time believing those numbers) . Sony clearly had intentions to replace the iPod as a high-end multimedia device. In that respect they failed mightily. UMD sucks? Yeah, UMD sucks because no one else can use it and (again) Sony clearly intended this as a new, proprietary, movie standard. Forget the games (which are also quite forgettable). Ooooooh - it runs linux! So does my 8 year old Celeron! THat doesn't mean it's special in any way!
Gawd! - Don't tell me the engineering beauty of UMD. How about a hard drive, huh? How about revolutionizing movie content distribution (since Sony owns it's own studios and production houses) instead of a creating a new draconian proprietary stillborn media format (UMD). Think that could've helped out the PSP sales?
Look, Sony had good intentions with the PSP, but the road to hell is paved with good intentions. Sony missed the boat with this one.
And the original xbox a failure? Again, the numbers don't tell the picture AT ALL. Even if msoft lost money on the original it was imperative for them to get it out to create gaming cred. And frankly, the new 360 is the most well thought out machine on the market today (and yeah - I've got ALL of them to compare - regardless of hardware issues). Nintendo has had that cred since the first Mario arcade games (and some would say even the card games before that) - they didnt' have to pay for it up front like microsoft did. Definitely more of an argument there, but it goes to show that "failure" is pretty subjective...
Agreed. And to top it off Sony went and started pushing minidisks with their ATRAC format ONLY on their players -- again completely incompatible with the rest of the world - at a time when MP3 was really starting to take off. You had to rip all your music to ATRAC, there was no online component, and you couldn't "share" files with your friends since they (typically) couldn't play ATRAC.
UMD sucks. It's a PSP-only format and that limits the market already. The PSP never took off like Sony hoped it would (it was supposed to be the next "iPod" for Sony - a high end multimedia device).
For anyone who's actually READ the Real ID act -- it is NOT an National ID. What it IS is a set of standards the federal government would place on state IDs -- like your driver's license - for proof of identity in acquiring that.
There is no requirement that you have it. All the "right to privacy" people who are confusing this bill -- along with certain congress people who like to obfuscate the facts -- are totally off base or outright lying. Senator Moore is obviously showing his ignorance.
Real ID sets the standards for ID requirements on a National level. This MAY or MAY NOT be used by individual states, but ID's issued from those states would be invalid for identification at federal facilities (like the airport).
Any YES -- your passport already qualifies as this.
...but wifi runs the same interference risks as cell phones.
No. Wi-fi is at 2.4GHz. Cell phones are 800-900MHz or 1900MHz (PCS). A 100MHz signal mixing with a 2.4GHz one results in -- 2.5GHz and 2.3GHz. A 100MHz signal mixing with a 900MHz one results in 800MHz and 1000MHz (the latter in the middle of the ILS glideslope band.) Those numbers are general, but in the right neighborhood to the specific ones in use.
--- Right, but that's not the interference they are worried about here. Signal modulation between two digital carriers doesn't usually amount to much. What the interference is from is the packet rate of GSM phones in particular -- which is 217Hz. Now while the carrier frequency (as you correctly stated) is anywhere from 800MHz or higher, that doesn't matter. It's that packet that is rectified by your amplifiers in your electrical system -- just like you hear it with GSM phones over the stereo in your car. The higher frequency has no gain at those levels, and doesn't really affect anything. The packet rate, however, can have very large amplitudes since that is within the gain range of the instrumentation amps. WiFi has the same exact issue -- it's the packet rate you're worried about, not the actual carrier frequency. That's why CDMA phones don't exhibit this interference problem (no set packet rate).
----------
Since users and flight attendants would be incabapble of knowing which band each phone was on, and it would be interesting, to say the least, for a flight attendant to tell one person to shut his phone (800MHz) off while allowing someone else (PCS) to use theirs, the only reasonable ban is all of them.
-----
irrelevant
------
As for the "technical" reasons. Completely bunk. Modern airplanes have all their signal wires twisted pair and shielded (very RF immune). While it IS possible for cell phones to create considerable interference (particularly GSM), airline systems are VERY well shielded.
PERHAPS, maybe when they first leave the assembly line, but after thousands of hours in use the
shielding is not so good anymore, if it really is that good to start with.
The Mythbusters episode did not prove anything, other than perhaps that a specific set of conditions did not result in interference. It certainly did not prove that all possible conditions will not cause interference ever.
------
I certainly agree about mythbusters -- I included that more as a joke -- , but all modern airplanes use twisted pair transmission (itself very rf immune) and shielding. They HAVE to. The go through literally thousands of hours of FAA and FCC compliance on aircraft instrumentation (and entertainment) systems. I know -- I've worked with both airline system manufacturers and cell phone companies in my current job.
--------
The thought that it would interfere with ground based systems is simply rediculous. What ground based systems? Other cell networks? No.
Cell networks have a limited number of channels that they can use. Cell towers are coordinated so that neighboring towers don't use the same channels. They can do this based on knowledge of the terrain that each tower covers, with predictions of signal strength. This also assumes a land-based transmitter. Take a land-based transmitter into the air and its range extends immensely. Move that same transmitter along at 500MPH and it suddenly not only covers a lot of space on the ground but comes in contact with a lot of towers (and loses contant with a lot of towers) very quickly. Sorting out which tower a cell phone is talking to is much harder under such conditions, and consumes many more resources than a static ground-based caller.
-----
Yup. I understand all this. So you're saying the systmes can't keep up with how fast the plane is moving? 'Cause you still get cell strength up there even with directional antennas....
-----
There is no difference between being on the ground or in the air.
Explain that to the pilot who cannot con
All I can hope for is that they continue to ban the use of headsets. I don't mind someone emailing or (OMG) IMing. At least it's quiet and I'm not held hostage to their innane conversation. Didn't I just see a story on this that several airlines are rolling out wifi? And the difference is....? I guess it's slightly lower power, but wifi runs the same interference risks as cell phones.
As for the "technical" reasons. Completely bunk. Modern airplanes have all their signal wires twisted pair and shielded (very RF immune). While it IS possible for cell phones to create considerable interference (particularly GSM), airline systems are VERY well shielded. I seem to recall a "Mythbusters" episode (yes.. the paragons of the scientific process) that also confirmed this. The thought that it would interfere with ground based systems is simply rediculous. What ground based systems? Other cell networks? No. Airline communications? No -- totally different frequency band. Somebody give me a good example of where your cell phone was interfering in ground based systems while in your car (not your unshielded car stereo with a GSM phone). There is no difference between being on the ground or in the air. And no -- there is NO problem with communicating with a cell tower several miles DOWN -- with nothing in your way except the airplane fuselage. You'd actually get pretty good reception. Antenna sensitivity is also a function of height (and how much is in the way).
It's also important to note that LED brightness is set by the current flow, not voltage. With a typical dimmer (not a triac that cuts the AC into smaller bursts) your voltage is decreased. This would have no effect on an LED until you got below it's threshold level (usually about 2V). So a dimming feature could be done by shortening the time the LED is on (as you've stated) and rapidly pulsing that to achieve less light output, OR the current setting resistor (madatory for LED applications where you don't have some other current limit in place) can be varied to allow more/less current to the LED. A triac dimmer might actually work (assuming the output voltage is converted down enough).
An LED is a diode -- it will work in both AC and DC applications (even used as a recifier) but the setup (voltage and current conditions) have to be right. LEDs typically operate around 3V -- most applications you see have some voltage conversion that is suppying this voltage to the LED. Too much voltage can cause breakdown. Too much current can cause breakdown. Even a 3V supply with no current limit can kill an LED (or significantly reduce it's life). See all those traffic lights with strings of LEDs already out? They overdrive the crap out of those things --otherwise they should last around 100k hours (depending on manufacturer). Too much current.
That was part of my exact argument over at thegreenbutton.com. Seems like a horrible way for anybody purchasing a computer with ANY technical skills. Why not provide both? A recovery disk for that "back to factory" install and an OEM version for driver upgrades, fresh install (or slipstreaming) and the like. Hell, making almost any hardware/software changes (except for a hard drive) would require significant work after using a recovery disk that's locked into a factory image.
Lesson learned -- always get at least the OEM version of the OS. Recovery disks suck.
Yup...did this -- and I still had the original recovery disks. The problem is the disks are basically an image and don't allow recovery with significant hardware changes. The recovery portion on the drive is exactly the same -- I was able to boot up and use it to re-install (recover) Windows, but it would come up with a "configuration error....code purple" when windows would actually boot (after recovery). As you can see from my experiences at thegreenbutton.com, this is not an uncommon issue.
HP told me to basically pound sand: that the machine was out of warranty, they were under no obligation to provide me with an OEM Windows install disk -- only a recovery disk. A close reading of Microsoft's OEM policies confirms this. It's their veiw that the motherboard (in particular) IS the computer. Making changes to it voids your software license. In my case I couldn't get the original board (which MIGHT have worked) but a functionally similar one. No go. HP wanted me to purchase an extended warranty on it -- which for $100 would allow me unlimited tech support questions by phone and $20 extra for each hardware fix. While this ALMOST sounded nice (it would have required a month wait for me to take advantage of the hardware claus), for the same cost I could simply buy a new version of the OS and not have to deal with their crap again. Guess which one I chose?
I just went through this fiasco while repairing a mobo failure on an HP Media Center PC. As with most OEM PCs these days it came pre-installed with everything and featured only a recovery disk (disc image) for system restore. Changing, upgrading, or altering many of the components onboard (particularly the motherboard) will result in this disk becoming useless. If you read Microsoft's ifo regarding OEM distributions -- they are totally OK with this. THe OEM is only required to provide a recovery disk that lives and dies with the computer (which is practically defined as the motherboard). The OEM install and recovery disks are keyed to some identifier in the motherboard, which requires some hacking to use. I wound up purchasing a new OEM version of Media Center (since they don't make a regular version) from NewEgg and reinstalling everything.p x
I was pretty pissed. I felt like I had paid for this OS in the first place, I should have the right to reinstall it as necessary -- from hardware changes/failures/upgrades/whatever. It turns out you don't with most OEMs. A recovery disk is all they are required to provide.
Here's the link to the forum over at thegreenbutton.com (Windows Media Center site) that tells my tail of woe and what I learned.
http://thegreenbutton.com/forums/thread/160224.as
Basically, you're screwed without at least on OEM copy of Windows. Then you can at least hack it. If all you've got is a recovery disk than you are hosed. THe same goes for all software that is preinstalled on your drive. You got Word preinstalled? And you changed your mobo? Whoops--it's a new computer now! No software/OS for you!
I'd love to hear if someone's challenged this in court -- it seems pretty anti-consumer, although I'm sure OEMs save a ton of money and hassle with recovery disks....
Well, to be completely honest, I didn't pay for Pong when it came out. I was pretty small at the time. The first system I ponied up my own cash for was the original NES -- and that involved a serious "family conference" at the time as to wether I could spend $100 bucks on a game system vs getting a computer. :)
The Wii, however, is first on my list of these last two consoles -- if only for Zelda. That's always been a system maker for me, I'm just disappointed by the seeming lack of great titles at launch -- Nintendo usually has more. That Zelda is non-exclusive to the Wii also has slowed my purchase.
Thanks for the rec
Yeah, and people always make your same point, but it's not a sound argument either. It's called system sellers -- games that make you want to buy a system -- that justify it in your mind. Buying a system EARLY in the anticipation that some exclusive or great game will come out later is plain stupid. At best you've ponied up the highest amount of cash for a system you're not really happy with because it has no decent games yet, and at worst you never even get the games -- because they're vaporware. Now I'm not saying that situation (game vaporware) happens very often, but the fact is most people will wait to buy a system until there are decent games for it in decent numbers.
I've bought damn near every game system since the Pong came out and for some reason I'm still waiting on BOTH the Wii and the PS3. I've got my 360 keeping me busy (along with many other distractions since the PS2 came out -- our entertainment space has changed) and there frankly aren't enough decent games on either system for my tastes yet. Certainly not enough to justify their pricetags. So I can wait for more games to come out, and prices to go down, and then I'll buy -- and enjoy the system without wondering how I just dropped $650 just to play that one game for 6 months. Yeah, yeah -- there will be other great games for sure, but my point is that's how most purchasers look at the initial cost of the system: It's a big hit to the pocketbook.
Ah...often true, it seems. In the words of the previous President of the US: "I feel your pain." Your point is still valid -- and WiFi isn't quite ubiquitous here yet....but at least there is some visible progress being made.
Sounds like a business opportunity my friend! I didn't seem to have to many problems finding open WiFi spots during my last trip to Europe (Sweden, Denmark, Germany, and France) but I was mostly around densely populated places (well, Sweden wasn't exactly densely populated, but I was in Lund around the University and Sony-Ericsson so no problems). What is preventing the proliferation of WiFi in Europe?
Didn't I read it has a 2MP camera, too? That's better than most cameraphones sold in the US. Shouldn't be too difficult to do crappy video capture with it too...
...so why wouldn't Skype be an option? EDGE may be too slow, but WiFi works great and as others have pointed out it is rapidly expanding with free city-wide WiFi access in many US cities. Or your house. I'm guessing that if Apple doesn't include VoIP feature as standard it will be hacked out in less than a week once released.
God I'm looking forward to this. I just scheduled a trip to MacWorld to check it out in person...
Ever run 2 amps through 26 guage wire (typical USB wire crap) -- and DC current no less? Not only are we talking significant line loss because of the small wire guage (and distances, of course. That guage is barely capable of 500mA. 22 guage will get you close to an amp. 2A, while not yet running the risk of a fire, is a BAD idea...
You are correct that NTSC is 480i, but DVD's contain material recorded at 480p -- it's then played back at 480i for most sets (connected thorugh S-video or composite). 480p is the native resolution of DVD (720x480) in mpeg2 format. The video on the DVD is always stored in full 30fps format (when in MPEG2 -- can also be 24fps) -- interlacing is only supported for PAL and NTSC streams for MPEG2 encoded video. MPEG1 video (also possible on standard DVD) does NOT support interlacing.
OK. Comparing an IBM XT with a cell phone (of any type) is comparing apples to oranges. How many cell phones were around when the XT was built -- and what was their built quality? Cell phones in particular are made as cheaply as possible with as many features as possible. They have helped push the envelope of surface mount technology probably more than any other device. Surface mount parts are intrinsicly more subject to failure than through-hole connections, but it is absolutely necessary to achieve the size, design, and form factors of modern cell phones. Of all our consumer products we use today, cell phones are probably the least reliable and most prone to failure for more reasons than just surface-mount technology. The use/abuse they take on a daily basis far outdoes any other device you use. That and cell phone companies WANT you to upgrade your phone every two years (typical service contract length). While I don't think phone designers specifically design them to fail in two years, it is a pretty typical life span for a device that sees so much use and abuse.
I'm sorry, but consumer demand is what has caused the apparent lack in quality of today's consumer products. Faster, smaller, cheaper -- that's what the market wants and that's what manufacturers continue to strive for. The result is products with more features and style, but shorter use life due to cheaper materials or contruction methods used to save cost. You want bullet-proof build quality, you pay for bullet-proof build quality. Look at Panasonics toughbook laptop series or the many military grade laptops out there. These were meant for extreme use, but you pay through the nose for it -- usually with inferior performance to boot.
Comparing todays tech gadgets with anything mechanical (washer/boots/whatever) isn't fair either. A better comparison would be something like a Mac (classic) and today's machines. See the old, through-hole populated motherboard? Works great, but it's expensive and space-hungry (my Mac II still works great). Our technology is becoming more and more complex, with increasing risk of failure with each increase in complexity. I don't buy into the corporate conspiracy theory that much of this stuff is designed to fail -- it just reaches that point sooner in some cases because of modern (read: cheaper)construction methods -- which also result in a lower price. The way we use technology has also changed. We have it with us at all times. Used to be the cell phone brick was left in the car of house for special occasions. Now everyone has them at all times in all sorts of environments.
Wow. Sounds like you are part of the problem ("wether they were illegal or not, I could care less. We did the proper parerwork to cover our butts so it was irrelevant"). At no time is it good argument that "no one wants the jobs". Pay decent wages for decent work and people WILL want them. Continuing to support the system by paying crap wages and supporting an illegal "slave labor" class doesn't help -- it makes things worse.
= 484). I'd even hazzard that the high immigrant rate in California public schools contributes to losses in other groups -- due to the poor quality of instruction and environment available. I, a proud Califonia public school product, refuse to send my own kids to any of the public schools here -- there's just no point. The teachers spend WAY to much of their time accounting for their large non-english speaking population and the actual instruction level is minimal.
Pride can be had in ANY job -- if someone finds it worthwhile. Pride in ownership of your job and product are essential. It's great that the "immigrant" work force has this -- since they're used to complete crap in their native country. Such feelings COULD be installed with some of our more "menial" jobs -- if they were compensated for properly. Even farm worker, construction, and service industries (the 3 big "we need illegals" industries). I have no sympathy for any of these groups. They have profitted off the public dole for far too long.
And back on topic: the huge increase in illegals also seems to account for a large amount of high school drop out in border states like California where the immigrant drop-out rate is about 45% (http://www.independent.org/issues/article.asp?id