On a plane today, and two people were assigned the same seat. They actually both had the same ticket... she had gotten a duplicate boarding pass.
Two identification checks and the gate scanner failed to figure out something was wrong. If she had just sat in a vacant seat, nobody would have been the wiser.
I don't see the need for Bluetooth, personally. Low powered, short range WiFi, IPv6, and zeroconf, could make a fucking beautiful marriage for wireless devices.
Throw in VOIP, and not only do you have a bunch of cool buzzwords, you might actually have something that could make some money.
The ad-hoc networking function could just be at a higher level...
...ummm, think about that student loan part for a minute....then think about how many years it would take to pay it back at minimum wage after graduation.
I don't pretend to know a lot about it, but I do know I hear a lot of complaining, particularly around here.
The best public use for the airwaves would be to spur adoption of software-based radios, rather than dedicating a chunk of spectrum to a specific function. This puts the government in an awkward position... how do you sell spectrum that is "self-regulating" and dynamically allocated?
Furthermore, if the band does actually self-regulate, where does the FCC fit into the equation? If you have eliminated the value to dedicated spectrum, how do your political allies make money off their licenses? Where does this magical money come from that is supposed to balance the budget in a few years?
I'm all for studying ways to re-allocate the spectrum for better public good, but unfortunately corporate greed from the entrenched players is a stronger force than what developing industries can provide.
I think that if the spectrum is given to digital broadcasting, they should be forced to have a minimum 10mbit stream at a minimum resolution of 1280x720P, not like the local Fox and WB affiliates that only broadcast at 704x480i.
Why? Sure, it looks nicer, but isn't their business to make money? Why should the government be dictating what resolution they should use, if the standard supports multiple resolutions?!
Sounds like a great opportunity for municipal cable. Still might not be able to hit every house, but can offer some things (say broadband) that help support schools and businesses.
How many TV stations could you get there... could they fit in a much more compact range of spectrum?
Bottom line remains the same-- the spectrum isn't efficiently used.
I don't recommend anybody dive to 60m on air, but it is within the limits of O2 toxicity. Everybody has to know their own limits as far a nitrogen narcosis goes... personally I am comfortable down to 42m on air. Much deeper than that... and all my normal diving practices go out the window... it's too cold for me!
Serious decompression diving should be done with proper tables. Get-out-of-jail-free decompression (less than five minutes at 5m), based on risk factors associated with your specific dive or series (a la Suunto RGBM), is still within the recreational realm.
I found myself in that situation a few months back, because of multiple day diving and a short surface interval (40min) after a deep dive. Although the tables let me ascend directly to the surface, I like having my computer tell me that maybe I should do a quick decompression stop, just to stay safe.
Japan might have a market for it, but I have difficulty believing anywhere else does.
Simple question: If I can't use my cell phone in the basement, on the elevator, wherever... how can I continue to put more and more important data on its network?
The phone companies will never have an incentive to serve my basement (at work)... so what I really need is some kind of inexpensive repeater... 802.11x or whatever.
Since the idea of active repeaters (as opposed to remote antennas in a high-rise to improve reception) is so contrary to the way the telephone industry works, how are we ever going to get "cooperating networks," where the data flows on the best possible path?
...and what of the batteries? Phones keep shrinking, batteries provide less run-time. The concept of the NETWORK makes sense, it's just that having a phone as the interface requires too many compromises.
Here, here on Thailand. Spent two years diving there (mostly east coast). Is that where the put another dollar in comes from? I know that's where I first heard it...
Do you dive with BSAC divers? They really trust them Aladdin's, especially for deco diving. There is nothing wrong with using a computer to tell you your deco time, but you should always plan a deco dive. You can make custom tables on a PC, and back that up with your dive computer.
Sadly, most people don't even know how to use computers. My girlfriend's computer got bent last month, and she couldn't figure out what she did wrong. People just don't pay attention to what their computer is telling them!
(BTW, if you are diving deeper than 60m, that is strictly in the realm of technical diving, ideally done with trimix to avoid narcossis and O2 toxicity issues. A special level of conservatism is required for that type of diving.)
With repetitive diving, it is arguable that you are actually safer with a computer over the tables. With the type of diving mentioned in the article (reverse-profiling), you are definately better off (with a computer that compensates for that type of thing).
The product in question is an air-integrated computer. For people not familiar with diving, that means that your tank pressure, depth, time, and no-decompression limits are all coming from a single device.
There are real safety benefits with air-integrated computers-- divers can compare their no-decompression limits with their remaining air time, and look to optimize both parameters. Sadly, getting bent is less of a concern for most divers than running out of air.
I personally dive with an air-integrated computer (Suunto Cobra). My backup device is Stinger (wristwatch dive computer)-- I used to have a Citizen bottom-timer-- depth and dive time integrated. I worked as a divemaster for a couple years.
The logic here is that you need to abort a dive immediately if your computer fails, but if you still know depth and time, you can fudge your way through things when you are working. Not pretty, but it can at least get you through a dive.
Everybody has their opinion, and it all comes down to risk. I personally make my computer more conservative, and push that limit, so I know I have some kind of safety factor. (Actually, one computer is set conservatively, and the other normal-- so I can actually tell where I stand with my buffer.)
CNS is a lot easier to stay away from, as it is a function of O2 partial pressure. Unless you are going deeper than 60m, it's hard to have a problem with air.
Technically, the computers aren't less conservative, they just calculate your no-deco time based on all tissue compartments, and don't make assumptions about repetitive dives like the table. The increased bottom time is more of a function of the exact depths.
The doppler-validated algorithms actually have considerably less bottom time than the PADI tables.
For this specific problem, it was more that they modified an existing product to get it to market (in order to sell the company).
Your nitrogen uptake in diving is a function of the nitrogen partial pressure (79% in air, 60-75% with oxygen enriched air (nitrox). Making a computer calculate based on nitrox rather than air should be as simple as changing the O2 percentage. The problem is that at the surface, this computer still assumed you were still breathing O2 enriched air.
Good diving practices dictate a minimum 1-hour surface interval, and 24-hours before flying when using nitrox. Professional divers often push these limits, especially at the end of a trip when it is most dangerous.
There are two major diving computer companies with "original" systems-- UWATEC and SUUNTO. Uwatec (named in the suit) has been known for less conservative systems; they let a diver stay down longer.
This is attractive to people who do decompression diving, because it means that they don't have to hang out shivering at 5-10m with nothing to see as long at the end of the dive.
Suunto takes a different approach, has a more conservative model, and makes it easier to force your computer to be more conservative still. Most divers don't use that function, because it is contrary to their desire to have maximum bottom time.
Proper diving procedures recommend using two different computers, and always relying on the more conservative unit for your decompression limits. (Assuming that you are doing a computer-only dive and not a table dive.) When your life is at stake, you have to assume that equipment has problems, and act accordingly.
If you do want to stay green, just put in a ceiling fan. When I was living in a place without A/C (island in Thailand... high humidity and temperature), and as long as the fan was working life was good.
If you have heat sources other than a couple people recreationally involved, then cooling might actually be required. Simple solution... shut off the computer at night!
Actually, the Thai government has been putting money into linux for a long time. About four years ago, I remember several big competitions for Thai fonts. The ministry of culture(?) is worried about the loss of the Thai language-- the thai web was looking very english back then.
Even if pirated copies are "free," it's in the government's best long-term interests to promote a Free solution, so piracy doesn't get in the way of trade treaties.
It would seem like the poster's requirement - $500/month for a few GB of storage should be possible from a $2 Million tera-data solution.
If you factored in separate bandwidth charges for uploads and downloads, you could account for backup requirements.
Assuming 25% utilization and an eight-month simple payback, I would think that $300 would be possible for the raw storage, plus another $300 for bandwidth.
Disney, Yes. Everybody else... the value of their IP depriciates.
That's really the bottom line; everything depriciates, and the copyright should respect the fact that the value of a movie or any other IP is reduced over time, as new products come out, and as tastes and needs change.
Every so often, you get a band or movie that has a cult attraction, but the laws should not be based on the exception to the rule.
It's actually not as hard as you would think. It still has to be done bill-by-bill, but if you go overseas with a wad of fake $20's it might not be as hard as you would think.... especially in countries where the local currency is pegged to the dollar, so shops frequently accept it.
As others have pointed out, it becomes a numbers game... if you have a roll of 20 bills, how much time can you spend checking the accuracy of all of them? How many bills does it require before someone will not check (all) of them?...not that I would recommend doing this at home or anything...
Computers today are really, really fast. The constant pressure to get the latest and best machine is no longer anywhere near as strong as it used to be, since for almost all applications, computers are "fast enough." Actually, you hit on one point of the article-- in our terms, there is no "killer app" driving the next leap in technology.
Each technology generation, even if it is all about chips, is a different product cycle. It could be reasonably argued that the lifecycle of the individual generations is shorter, but the overall lifecycle of "chips" may match the auto or train.
Slashdot Mirror
Here, here!
On a plane today, and two people were assigned the same seat. They actually both had the same ticket... she had gotten a duplicate boarding pass.
Two identification checks and the gate scanner failed to figure out something was wrong. If she had just sat in a vacant seat, nobody would have been the wiser.
I don't see the need for Bluetooth, personally. Low powered, short range WiFi, IPv6, and zeroconf, could make a fucking beautiful marriage for wireless devices.
Throw in VOIP, and not only do you have a bunch of cool buzzwords, you might actually have something that could make some money.
The ad-hoc networking function could just be at a higher level...
You can reform hydrocarbons and extract the H2.
...ummm, think about that student loan part for a minute. ...then think about how many years it would take to pay it back at minimum wage after graduation.
I don't pretend to know a lot about it, but I do know I hear a lot of complaining, particularly around here.
The best public use for the airwaves would be to spur adoption of software-based radios, rather than dedicating a chunk of spectrum to a specific function. This puts the government in an awkward position... how do you sell spectrum that is "self-regulating" and dynamically allocated?
Furthermore, if the band does actually self-regulate, where does the FCC fit into the equation? If you have eliminated the value to dedicated spectrum, how do your political allies make money off their licenses? Where does this magical money come from that is supposed to balance the budget in a few years?
I'm all for studying ways to re-allocate the spectrum for better public good, but unfortunately corporate greed from the entrenched players is a stronger force than what developing industries can provide.
I think that if the spectrum is given to digital broadcasting, they should be forced to have a minimum 10mbit stream at a minimum resolution of 1280x720P, not like the local Fox and WB affiliates that only broadcast at 704x480i.
Why? Sure, it looks nicer, but isn't their business to make money? Why should the government be dictating what resolution they should use, if the standard supports multiple resolutions?!
Sounds like a great opportunity for municipal cable. Still might not be able to hit every house, but can offer some things (say broadband) that help support schools and businesses.
How many TV stations could you get there... could they fit in a much more compact range of spectrum?
Bottom line remains the same-- the spectrum isn't efficiently used.
I don't recommend anybody dive to 60m on air, but it is within the limits of O2 toxicity. Everybody has to know their own limits as far a nitrogen narcosis goes... personally I am comfortable down to 42m on air. Much deeper than that... and all my normal diving practices go out the window... it's too cold for me!
Serious decompression diving should be done with proper tables. Get-out-of-jail-free decompression (less than five minutes at 5m), based on risk factors associated with your specific dive or series (a la Suunto RGBM), is still within the recreational realm.
I found myself in that situation a few months back, because of multiple day diving and a short surface interval (40min) after a deep dive. Although the tables let me ascend directly to the surface, I like having my computer tell me that maybe I should do a quick decompression stop, just to stay safe.
Japan might have a market for it, but I have difficulty believing anywhere else does.
Simple question:
If I can't use my cell phone in the basement, on the elevator, wherever... how can I continue to put more and more important data on its network?
The phone companies will never have an incentive to serve my basement (at work)... so what I really need is some kind of inexpensive repeater... 802.11x or whatever.
Since the idea of active repeaters (as opposed to remote antennas in a high-rise to improve reception) is so contrary to the way the telephone industry works, how are we ever going to get "cooperating networks," where the data flows on the best possible path?
...and what of the batteries? Phones keep shrinking, batteries provide less run-time. The concept of the NETWORK makes sense, it's just that having a phone as the interface requires too many compromises.
Here, here on Thailand. Spent two years diving there (mostly east coast). Is that where the put another dollar in comes from? I know that's where I first heard it...
Do you dive with BSAC divers? They really trust them Aladdin's, especially for deco diving. There is nothing wrong with using a computer to tell you your deco time, but you should always plan a deco dive. You can make custom tables on a PC, and back that up with your dive computer.
Sadly, most people don't even know how to use computers. My girlfriend's computer got bent last month, and she couldn't figure out what she did wrong. People just don't pay attention to what their computer is telling them!
(BTW, if you are diving deeper than 60m, that is strictly in the realm of technical diving, ideally done with trimix to avoid narcossis and O2 toxicity issues. A special level of conservatism is required for that type of diving.)
With repetitive diving, it is arguable that you are actually safer with a computer over the tables. With the type of diving mentioned in the article (reverse-profiling), you are definately better off (with a computer that compensates for that type of thing).
The product in question is an air-integrated computer. For people not familiar with diving, that means that your tank pressure, depth, time, and no-decompression limits are all coming from a single device.
There are real safety benefits with air-integrated computers-- divers can compare their no-decompression limits with their remaining air time, and look to optimize both parameters. Sadly, getting bent is less of a concern for most divers than running out of air.
I personally dive with an air-integrated computer (Suunto Cobra). My backup device is Stinger (wristwatch dive computer)-- I used to have a Citizen bottom-timer-- depth and dive time integrated. I worked as a divemaster for a couple years.
The logic here is that you need to abort a dive immediately if your computer fails, but if you still know depth and time, you can fudge your way through things when you are working. Not pretty, but it can at least get you through a dive.
Everybody has their opinion, and it all comes down to risk. I personally make my computer more conservative, and push that limit, so I know I have some kind of safety factor. (Actually, one computer is set conservatively, and the other normal-- so I can actually tell where I stand with my buffer.)
CNS is a lot easier to stay away from, as it is a function of O2 partial pressure. Unless you are going deeper than 60m, it's hard to have a problem with air.
Technically, the computers aren't less conservative, they just calculate your no-deco time based on all tissue compartments, and don't make assumptions about repetitive dives like the table. The increased bottom time is more of a function of the exact depths.
The doppler-validated algorithms actually have considerably less bottom time than the PADI tables.
For this specific problem, it was more that they modified an existing product to get it to market (in order to sell the company).
Your nitrogen uptake in diving is a function of the nitrogen partial pressure (79% in air, 60-75% with oxygen enriched air (nitrox). Making a computer calculate based on nitrox rather than air should be as simple as changing the O2 percentage. The problem is that at the surface, this computer still assumed you were still breathing O2 enriched air.
Good diving practices dictate a minimum 1-hour surface interval, and 24-hours before flying when using nitrox. Professional divers often push these limits, especially at the end of a trip when it is most dangerous.
There are two major diving computer companies with "original" systems-- UWATEC and SUUNTO. Uwatec (named in the suit) has been known for less conservative systems; they let a diver stay down longer.
This is attractive to people who do decompression diving, because it means that they don't have to hang out shivering at 5-10m with nothing to see as long at the end of the dive.
Suunto takes a different approach, has a more conservative model, and makes it easier to force your computer to be more conservative still. Most divers don't use that function, because it is contrary to their desire to have maximum bottom time.
Proper diving procedures recommend using two different computers, and always relying on the more conservative unit for your decompression limits. (Assuming that you are doing a computer-only dive and not a table dive.) When your life is at stake, you have to assume that equipment has problems, and act accordingly.
If you do want to stay green, just put in a ceiling fan. When I was living in a place without A/C (island in Thailand... high humidity and temperature), and as long as the fan was working life was good.
If you have heat sources other than a couple people recreationally involved, then cooling might actually be required. Simple solution... shut off the computer at night!
Actually, the Thai government has been putting money into linux for a long time. About four years ago, I remember several big competitions for Thai fonts. The ministry of culture(?) is worried about the loss of the Thai language-- the thai web was looking very english back then.
Even if pirated copies are "free," it's in the government's best long-term interests to promote a Free solution, so piracy doesn't get in the way of trade treaties.
Point taken... but that's why I said 8-month payback. Hopefully a solution would last a little more than two years...
$2M/3.5TB=$570/GB.
It would seem like the poster's requirement - $500/month for a few GB of storage should be possible from a $2 Million tera-data solution.
If you factored in separate bandwidth charges for uploads and downloads, you could account for backup requirements.
Assuming 25% utilization and an eight-month simple payback, I would think that $300 would be possible for the raw storage, plus another $300 for bandwidth.
Disney, Yes. Everybody else... the value of their IP depriciates.
That's really the bottom line; everything depriciates, and the copyright should respect the fact that the value of a movie or any other IP is reduced over time, as new products come out, and as tastes and needs change.
Every so often, you get a band or movie that has a cult attraction, but the laws should not be based on the exception to the rule.
Thailand was pretty cool with that; all the bills had significantly different textures, with the middle common bill being plastic.
It's actually not as hard as you would think. It still has to be done bill-by-bill, but if you go overseas with a wad of fake $20's it might not be as hard as you would think.... especially in countries where the local currency is pegged to the dollar, so shops frequently accept it.
...not that I would recommend doing this at home or anything...
As others have pointed out, it becomes a numbers game... if you have a roll of 20 bills, how much time can you spend checking the accuracy of all of them? How many bills does it require before someone will not check (all) of them?
Computers today are really, really fast. The constant pressure to get the latest and best machine is no longer anywhere near as strong as it used to be, since for almost all applications, computers are "fast enough."
Actually, you hit on one point of the article-- in our terms, there is no "killer app" driving the next leap in technology.
Each technology generation, even if it is all about chips, is a different product cycle. It could be reasonably argued that the lifecycle of the individual generations is shorter, but the overall lifecycle of "chips" may match the auto or train.