i think thats a problem with the device manufacturer. Once the content is delivered to the device, its the device that caches your notifications for review. Aparently they didnt think this type needed to be cached. I agree with you, but I am not sure there is much the feds can do. Not every device that is designed to recieve this actually has the feature you are talking about. Believe it or not but there are still a few 'dumb' phones still in ciculation.
agreed, this has got to be the worst case of 'i'm going to take my ball and go home' I have ever seen. Forget about WHO ordered the message. This is an emergency alert system. If he didn't run tests, they would accuse him of the same bullshit they accused bush jr of with new orleans. Damned if you do, damned if you dont. Why do they even pretend its about more than being butt hurt?
if your goal is to stop buring oil, gas, and coal, then why oppose nuclear? Who said the solution had to be just one? We dont have enough wind/solar to provide power for the planet. Wind power cannot work everywhere. Its geographically limited to how much you can get out of wind. Solar works well in locations that get peak sun throughout the day (like arizona) but I am fairly certain that it isnt going to be worth a shit in Anchorage, AK. So why not use nuclear, instead of coal, while we work on other sources of energy.
im waiting to see if that solid-state lithium battery that doesnt require slow charging makes it to market. Rapid charging batteries will overcome one of the largest hindrances to electric vehicles. Price being the other one. Show me a car that is less than $30,000, can go more than 300 miles on a single charge, can be fully recharged inside of 5 minutes, and still looks like a car people want to drive and take trips in(not some bicycle frame or something barely counting) and the problem will solve itself. EV acceleration is pretty good so you dont get that rice-burning, barely get out of its own way, sluggishness that tiny (1.4L) 4-cylinder engines get.
wasn't there a way to turn coal into oil? I asked because at one time Gasoline was a possible fuel source for hydrogen powered cars. Its full of hydrogen. Instead of buring it the hydrogen was stripped out, by the car, and fed to the combustion chamber. IF they can do that with gas, then, in theory, they should be able to do that with coal.
Remember when that Al Gore idiot, with his hockeystick graph, claimed that replacing just one lightbulb in my house with a CFL would stop global warming?
Well I replaced every single lightbulb in my house with LEDs. In just 4hours enough NEW bitmining machines are added to the equation to undermine every milliwatt-hour of energy saved over the last decade from my LED bulbs. I refuse to participate in a reasonable global-warming / energy-reducing discussion with that elephant sitting in the room. Thats like trying to stop bleeding from a severed leg with a couple band-aids and neosporin.
Im trying to figure out how $50 and $90 falls between $177 and $805. They state a range and then say the second highest country in the world only costs 1/4 of that, and the highest country is only half the lowest value of this range.
if any of them mine bitcoins they should be slapped. If their answer is using less energy to reduce output, then wasting it on useless hash algorithms seems rather hypocritical. Something like a few percent of the entire world consumption is attributed to crytocurrency mining. In one day more KWH are wasted on mining that the entire island of Puerto Rico consumes in a year (pre hurricane levels)
this is the ugly undocumented result of people demanding equality. It doesn't even have to happen in your town. When a town riots because some guy, with a gun, gets shot by a cop, policies pop up everywhere. Sometimes the video even clearly shows a justified lethal response, but people riot anyway. They end up rioting for a blended image of past injustices but still verbally insist this incident is another case of injustice. So then the departments start digging into every perceived chance of injustice. Lattitude of an officer falls right in the cross-hairs. There have been plenty of allegations that cops are more lenient to certain races above others. When given discretion a cop is more likely to cut a break to someone who 'appears' to be a non-troublemaker. This is entirely subjective but definitely some psychology is at play. This is often why if you keep your hair cut short and military-like (not high and tight but at least not touching ears etc), and when questioned use Sir and/or Maam you are more likely to get a break than having long hair and sounding like a punk. The subjective part is that someone might be more easily convinced someone white, asian, or indian is a non-troublemaker than that of someone hispanic or black. So the department decides to error on the side of caution and simply require officers to report ALL crimes with little lattitude. If they personally witness two guys punch each other, they cannot break it up and send them to their homes for the rest of the day. So yes, its very equal in trreatment. It is also somewhat oppressive. So now everyone can be equally oppressed, and distrusting of law enforcement.
technically yes. Because otherwise the people in the room would scatter and NOT call 911, leaving the other person do die. It was decided that saving a life outweighed the other scenarios. But thanks to Carfintanil and something out of China called 'Pink', not even Narcan (Noloxone) is effective from saving the patient. I have no idea why someone decided heroin wasnt strong enough and had to come up with something 100x stronger and 10,000 times stronger. Does it matter that you had to take 2cc of a substance instead of 0.2cc? IMO the mad scientist that made _that_ stuff should bear some responsibility.
this depends on the state. Not every state looks the other way, and if you leave it up to local authorities it becomes inconsistent between bigger cities and more rural towns. Indiana is a good example of this. I work in Louisville and KY has a policy that possession (not distribution) of less than 8 oz is considered a misdemeanor $100 fine for the _first_ offence. After that it is back to disproportionate punitive measures. However, because under 8oz is a misdemeanor it does give sworn officers the flexibility to not report it. I have heard Indiana (right across a bridge) is no where near as flexible so people wont even carry their personal stuff on them if they have to go over the bridge. Southern Indiana is pretty rural and so law enforcement has more time to nitpick this kind of stuff whereas bigger cities are so busy dealing with bigger crimes they dont waste their time dealing with the little shit.
its basically like OnStar but instead of monitoring airbag deployment and impact collision, it monitors the user. As long as laws get changed to restrict police arrest to crimes that are imminent danger to self or others, such as discovering human trafficking, it could be of some medical benefit. Its these legal backdoors to our bill of rights that concern me the most. What good is saving a life if it is spent incarcerated?
Police are dispatched to every ambulance call in my city/state. There was an emergency responder that was shot in the line of duty attempting to save another life. Officers are 'sworn' to uphold the law. That means they technically are not allowed to use good judgement to overlook illicit or illegal activity because they are sworn to arrest/report to the DA. Unless another law or policy tells them to look the other way, they HAVE to intervene. They do not have any latitude to make the call. This is reserved only for the district attorneys office. They barely have the latitude to let you off on a traffic warning.
In my state (KY but possibly others), we created a law that when 911 was called for an overdose that everyone at the scene was safe from prosecution of crimes such as possession etc. Could this law be expanded or interpreted to include 911 calls made by an apple watch?
my prediction is google, facebook, twitter all get together and ban access for all members of eu parliament and their staff. So many people are so fucking addicted to social media at this point it wont be long till heads start exploding. Lets not forget how wording in legal documents have a way to get fucked up. By clicking 'like' on someone's post or picture, is that also considered 'linking'? Do they explicitly say it doesn't? because some lawyer probably can argue the sky is green and likely be convincing.
This whole thing reeks of trying to protect the newspapers from going out of business. You know, the Arbiters of _their_ versions of stories they want to manipulate the masses into believing vs telling just the facts.
or they say 'the 1% will pay for it', not bothering to add up all this total of free education, free money, etc. If they added everything up, the entire total amount, it would be obvious that the entire wealth of the planet would not even be able to pay for it. When money is free, what do you care if your doctor charges $50 for his 7min office visit with you, or $500. And thats exactly what has historically happened next. If you're going to mandate the government start providing services free, you're also going to have to mandate those providing said services accept next-to-nothing in payment for providing them. Thats the biggest, most fundamental problem with the idea of universal healthcare in America.
They keep talking about how un-affordable it is (universal healthcare). They still think that doctors should continue pulling in the obscene income that they do. Don't get me wrong, if the doctor gets away with charging obscene pricing, its up to everyone else to say otherwise; he's just looking out for his best interest. They also see no need to tweak the cash-cow of malpractice lawsuits. This whole healthcare affordability is a 3 sided object.
On one side you have money spent providing the services. This would be analogous to an insurance provider paying claims, or a management firm paying the contractors. the second side are those providing services. This would represent the medical professionals, professors, administrative staff or symbolically a contractor providing services. The third side are the lawyers. There is no analog for this. They are the metaphoric leeches that slowly bleed off the other two sides and threaten its balance.
The amount side one has at its disposal is limited. It has a very theoretical and nearly calculable maximum to which you can obtain through taxes and fees. At a certain point you risk a collapsing diminishing return. Side two, historically, has made out rather cushy with their government contracts. Costs are often glossed over and the contractors are well compensated. This tends to lend itself to greed. It doesnt even have to be obscene levels of greed, simply the constant want for bigger better things eventually promote higher prices. This can often be seen as 'gouging'. Then there is the third side. These lawsuits that implement financial penalties intended to 'teach a lesson' have created a market of sharks that get a cut of these over-the-top penalties. When you take a system that allows for this and pair it with a system that is paying for everything, your 3 sided object, your triangle, suddenly becomes a fire triangle. You cant have someone suing the government (the payers of the services) and also suing the contractors (the providers of the services). That instantly starts driving up expenses on both the other two sides of the triangle, and we know one side had a maximum limit he can reach.
I've talked to people in countries that have some form of universal healthcare or another. I ask questions that maybe nobody else asks, apparently. What they all seem to have in common is in the countries that manage to keep it working, health providers are not part of the upper-elite income class. They are squarely middle-class citizens. They get paid well, but not - 3 Lexus, a Lamborghini, and a summer home in the Hamptons - well. They definitely have much lower limits on tort claims. When a company gets fined to teach it a lesson, they usually award the government the money.
The closest I came to universal healthcare, socialized medicine, call it what you may; was the 6yrs I spent in the navy. It was clearly laid out that 1) they decide what treatments you get, not you 2) you cant sue the government 3) you can't sue the providers of the services.
Tying this back to universal income, some people seem to think there is some monetary method to transition to cashless socialism. They're wrong, because no one has ever been able to lock down all 3 sides of this triangle to keep it from burning up in flames.
exactly. I just posted a more descriptive explanation of that very thing a thread above this one. Sometimes it's easier to buy a vacation that makes the choice for you, than having to, repeatedly, make the same choice throughout the entire vacation. Picking a destination that has no access means you can re-focus on other forms of entertainment. Its easy to fall back into habits. By picking a spot with no access, you are not fighting temptation, and i dare say withdrawal, the entire time. The price of vacationing in this spot will only increase now that its mandated technology-free.
Actually this intrigues me. I go on cruises for the same getaway. Sure one can declare a weekend of no devices or technology, but theres always something that comes up that eventually screws that up. I go on cruises with the family and we do not buy the internet package. The fact that its ridiculously expensive helps 'cut the cord' when on vacation. The most online time the kids ever experience is when we pull into a port and visit a place that has 'free wifi'; giving them 30-60 min of checking their email and responding to messages. So out of 6 - 7 days, they get 3 hours tops of access. You never realize what a trap it is, until you're actually forced to go without. It seems so benign, so passive. How could the potential for access be such a bad thing? its what you do with it that's so bad right? Its a time thief. I challenge everyone to spend 72 hours without any sort of technology, not even garmin. Afterwards you might find yourself searching for vacations that help make the decision for you. Forcing yourself to go without technology of any sort, when its readily available, is much more difficult than going someplace where it is simply off-grid. These off-grid places are going to eventually become prime property commanding top dollar for the effects they have on the human psyche. Sometimes its a lot easier to unplug when the option is made for you, after you've signed up for the event, than it is to consciously say 'no' repeatedly, every time a new opportunity alerts you on the device.
The future of vacations in the 21st century are going to center around off-grind spots.
the potential upside is that you dont have to get brain cancer by transmitting from your cell phone in order to be picked up by the tower. Lower transmission power should be able to be 'heard' using this technology. This directly translates to better signal quality, less interference, and lower battery consumption. The LTE antenna is the biggest battery drain on your phone right after the active display. Along side these is the wi-fi antenna on your phone. So the upsides are:
better coverage and lower power transmission for cellular data
better coverage for wi-fi hotspots, less dead spots, perhaps 600ft+ radius
FM is a huge range actually, covering more than just public broadcast. But the article did mention both.
"The atomic radio wave receiver operates by direct real-time optical detection of the atomic response to AM and FM baseband signals, precluding the need for traditional de-modulation and signal-conditioning electronics,"
right now detection is limited to wavelengths from 2.5 to 15 centimeters... which is 2Ghz - 10Ghz, definitely much higher than the 88 - 108 Mhz frequencies reserved for public radio broadcasts. Sensitivity and accuracy with the new technology could lead to much lower broadcast power requirements. Imagine a cell phone using bluetooth-level power transmissions to communicate with the cell tower a few miles away. On the flip side (down side) imagine a transmitter and atomic battery the size of a grain of salt implanted into someone as a tracker. At least, so far, the transmitter side uses older technology. If they figure out how to use this technology to transmit on a given frequency that grain of rice tracker that keeps its charge for months/years becomes a very real possibility.
What is the sensitivity and latency using this method? Since it occurs at the atomic scale can we assume that the chance of getting real data throughput in the FM band quite good?
What will be the impact on transmission power requirements given this heightened sensitivity? Will low power devices be as clear-reception as the type of power transmission hitting the airwaves when you tune into a radio station?
The biggest downfall to 2.4ghz and 5.8ghz (aside from crowding and cross-talk interference) is the line-of-sight and near-line-of-sight requirements to travel more than a few miles. With lower frequencies and longer wavelengths, line of sight would become less required, especially if the sensitivity is as heightened as they are making it sound. 900mhz worked better from a wireless-internet perspective, but the throughput was shit. I am assuming that the closer to quantum scale you get, the quicker the response times and lower the latency. Unfortunately 900mhz fell outside the 15cm range but maybe they can find a similar method that worked even at 33cm wavelengths.
This is huge from a free (as in speech) internet perspective. Back in the 90s when we first got into the internet business, the only people offering service were local companies akin to small-town cable companies who bought a franchise license. Unlike cable, you could have 3 and 4 providers in a town. Since the PSTN was already in place and in use to provide service, you had your choice of which providers you used for dialup services. As broadband came to market these small providers worked with the telco's to resell ADSL the phone companies provided where the layer2 gets tunneled back to a specific provider. Not quite as equal but still gave the consumer some alternative options. Shortly after the patriot act and the verizon ruling of not having to let competitors on your network, things devolved into two monopolies, the telco's and the cable companies. Nearly gone is the cottage industry of providing internet access. Wireless is the only real frontier left, but its limitations have hindered it considerably. Trees are a problem, other buildings are a problem, cross-talk is a problem. Attenuation and line-of-sight are creating a lot of difficulties in back-hauling information. Even within a given radius, using google earth to qualify a potential customer, onsite surveys still sometimes return failed test results. If we can open the frontier of wireless communication to where anyone could successfully go into business selling access wirelessly, we can put an end to these monopolies in a pure market-driven, non-legislated manner. We wouldn't have to fret Net Neutrality oversight. With 10 - 15 different providers in your town, that are just as easy to switch to as picking a different SSID and calling them up to start billing, the power the telco's would wield by trying to collude with each other to restrict your access, diminishes greatly. It was never the tier1 carrier availability that eroded your options, it was always the last-mile connection that was/is the problem.
When I signed up, it was still during the cold war. The berlin wall didnt fall until later, and russia was still the u.s.s.r. In 1992 we went to the gulf for desert shield, then desert storm, then southern watch.
I assure you I did not volunteer to âget my ass shot offâ(TM). I did helo onto a frigate that struck a mine in order to assist in damage control. The ship was taking on water and sinking. That can be alarming. Ive also done dmage control during a couple shipboard fires. Those are no joke either. But as Gen Patton(George C Scott) is quoted as saying âoeno son of a bitch ever won a war dyjng for his country. He won a war by making the other, dumb, son of a bitch, did for HIS countryâ
Slashdot Mirror
i think thats a problem with the device manufacturer. Once the content is delivered to the device, its the device that caches your notifications for review. Aparently they didnt think this type needed to be cached. I agree with you, but I am not sure there is much the feds can do. Not every device that is designed to recieve this actually has the feature you are talking about. Believe it or not but there are still a few 'dumb' phones still in ciculation.
agreed, this has got to be the worst case of 'i'm going to take my ball and go home' I have ever seen. Forget about WHO ordered the message. This is an emergency alert system. If he didn't run tests, they would accuse him of the same bullshit they accused bush jr of with new orleans. Damned if you do, damned if you dont. Why do they even pretend its about more than being butt hurt?
if your goal is to stop buring oil, gas, and coal, then why oppose nuclear? Who said the solution had to be just one? We dont have enough wind/solar to provide power for the planet. Wind power cannot work everywhere. Its geographically limited to how much you can get out of wind. Solar works well in locations that get peak sun throughout the day (like arizona) but I am fairly certain that it isnt going to be worth a shit in Anchorage, AK. So why not use nuclear, instead of coal, while we work on other sources of energy.
all the fuel savings from switching to LEDs was offset by all the goddamn bitcoin mining
im waiting to see if that solid-state lithium battery that doesnt require slow charging makes it to market. Rapid charging batteries will overcome one of the largest hindrances to electric vehicles. Price being the other one. Show me a car that is less than $30,000, can go more than 300 miles on a single charge, can be fully recharged inside of 5 minutes, and still looks like a car people want to drive and take trips in(not some bicycle frame or something barely counting) and the problem will solve itself. EV acceleration is pretty good so you dont get that rice-burning, barely get out of its own way, sluggishness that tiny (1.4L) 4-cylinder engines get.
wasn't there a way to turn coal into oil? I asked because at one time Gasoline was a possible fuel source for hydrogen powered cars. Its full of hydrogen. Instead of buring it the hydrogen was stripped out, by the car, and fed to the combustion chamber. IF they can do that with gas, then, in theory, they should be able to do that with coal.
Remember when that Al Gore idiot, with his hockeystick graph, claimed that replacing just one lightbulb in my house with a CFL would stop global warming?
Well I replaced every single lightbulb in my house with LEDs. In just 4hours enough NEW bitmining machines are added to the equation to undermine every milliwatt-hour of energy saved over the last decade from my LED bulbs. I refuse to participate in a reasonable global-warming / energy-reducing discussion with that elephant sitting in the room. Thats like trying to stop bleeding from a severed leg with a couple band-aids and neosporin.
Im trying to figure out how $50 and $90 falls between $177 and $805. They state a range and then say the second highest country in the world only costs 1/4 of that, and the highest country is only half the lowest value of this range.
if any of them mine bitcoins they should be slapped. If their answer is using less energy to reduce output, then wasting it on useless hash algorithms seems rather hypocritical. Something like a few percent of the entire world consumption is attributed to crytocurrency mining. In one day more KWH are wasted on mining that the entire island of Puerto Rico consumes in a year (pre hurricane levels)
this is the ugly undocumented result of people demanding equality. It doesn't even have to happen in your town. When a town riots because some guy, with a gun, gets shot by a cop, policies pop up everywhere. Sometimes the video even clearly shows a justified lethal response, but people riot anyway. They end up rioting for a blended image of past injustices but still verbally insist this incident is another case of injustice. So then the departments start digging into every perceived chance of injustice. Lattitude of an officer falls right in the cross-hairs. There have been plenty of allegations that cops are more lenient to certain races above others. When given discretion a cop is more likely to cut a break to someone who 'appears' to be a non-troublemaker. This is entirely subjective but definitely some psychology is at play. This is often why if you keep your hair cut short and military-like (not high and tight but at least not touching ears etc), and when questioned use Sir and/or Maam you are more likely to get a break than having long hair and sounding like a punk. The subjective part is that someone might be more easily convinced someone white, asian, or indian is a non-troublemaker than that of someone hispanic or black. So the department decides to error on the side of caution and simply require officers to report ALL crimes with little lattitude. If they personally witness two guys punch each
other, they cannot break it up and send them to their homes for the rest of the day. So yes, its very equal in trreatment. It is also somewhat oppressive. So now everyone can be equally oppressed, and distrusting of law enforcement.
technically yes. Because otherwise the people in the room would scatter and NOT call 911, leaving the other person do die. It was decided that saving a life outweighed the other scenarios. But thanks to Carfintanil and something out of China called 'Pink', not even Narcan (Noloxone) is effective from saving the patient. I have no idea why someone decided heroin wasnt strong enough and had to come up with something 100x stronger and 10,000 times stronger. Does it matter that you had to take 2cc of a substance instead of 0.2cc? IMO the mad scientist that made _that_ stuff should bear some responsibility.
this depends on the state. Not every state looks the other way, and if you leave it up to local authorities it becomes inconsistent between bigger cities and more rural towns. Indiana is a good example of this. I work in Louisville and KY has a policy that possession (not distribution) of less than 8 oz is considered a misdemeanor $100 fine for the _first_ offence. After that it is back to disproportionate punitive measures. However, because under 8oz is a misdemeanor it does give sworn officers the flexibility to not report it. I have heard Indiana (right across a bridge) is no where near as flexible so people wont even carry their personal stuff on them if they have to go over the bridge. Southern Indiana is pretty rural and so law enforcement has more time to nitpick this kind of stuff whereas bigger cities are so busy dealing with bigger crimes they dont waste their time dealing with the little shit.
its basically like OnStar but instead of monitoring airbag deployment and impact collision, it monitors the user. As long as laws get changed to restrict police arrest to crimes that are imminent danger to self or others, such as discovering human trafficking, it could be of some medical benefit. Its these legal backdoors to our bill of rights that concern me the most. What good is saving a life if it is spent incarcerated?
Police are dispatched to every ambulance call in my city/state. There was an emergency responder that was shot in the line of duty attempting to save another life. Officers are 'sworn' to uphold the law. That means they technically are not allowed to use good judgement to overlook illicit or illegal activity because they are sworn to arrest/report to the DA. Unless another law or policy tells them to look the other way, they HAVE to intervene. They do not have any latitude to make the call. This is reserved only for the district attorneys office. They barely have the latitude to let you off on a traffic warning.
In my state (KY but possibly others), we created a law that when 911 was called for an overdose that everyone at the scene was safe from prosecution of crimes such as possession etc. Could this law be expanded or interpreted to include 911 calls made by an apple watch?
http://www.lrc.ky.gov/statutes...
my prediction is google, facebook, twitter all get together and ban access for all members of eu parliament and their staff. So many people are so fucking addicted to social media at this point it wont be long till heads start exploding. Lets not forget how wording in legal documents have a way to get fucked up. By clicking 'like' on someone's post or picture, is that also considered 'linking'? Do they explicitly say it doesn't? because some lawyer probably can argue the sky is green and likely be convincing.
This whole thing reeks of trying to protect the newspapers from going out of business. You know, the Arbiters of _their_ versions of stories they want to manipulate the masses into believing vs telling just the facts.
or they say 'the 1% will pay for it', not bothering to add up all this total of free education, free money, etc. If they added everything up, the entire total amount, it would be obvious that the entire wealth of the planet would not even be able to pay for it. When money is free, what do you care if your doctor charges $50 for his 7min office visit with you, or $500. And thats exactly what has historically happened next. If you're going to mandate the government start providing services free, you're also going to have to mandate those providing said services accept next-to-nothing in payment for providing them. Thats the biggest, most fundamental problem with the idea of universal healthcare in America.
They keep talking about how un-affordable it is (universal healthcare). They still think that doctors should continue pulling in the obscene income that they do. Don't get me wrong, if the doctor gets away with charging obscene pricing, its up to everyone else to say otherwise; he's just looking out for his best interest. They also see no need to tweak the cash-cow of malpractice lawsuits. This whole healthcare affordability is a 3 sided object.
On one side you have money spent providing the services. This would be analogous to an insurance provider paying claims, or a management firm paying the contractors. the second side are those providing services. This would represent the medical professionals, professors, administrative staff or symbolically a contractor providing services. The third side are the lawyers. There is no analog for this. They are the metaphoric leeches that slowly bleed off the other two sides and threaten its balance.
The amount side one has at its disposal is limited. It has a very theoretical and nearly calculable maximum to which you can obtain through taxes and fees. At a certain point you risk a collapsing diminishing return. Side two, historically, has made out rather cushy with their government contracts. Costs are often glossed over and the contractors are well compensated. This tends to lend itself to greed. It doesnt even have to be obscene levels of greed, simply the constant want for bigger better things eventually promote higher prices. This can often be seen as 'gouging'. Then there is the third side. These lawsuits that implement financial penalties intended to 'teach a lesson' have created a market of sharks that get a cut of these over-the-top penalties. When you take a system that allows for this and pair it with a system that is paying for everything, your 3 sided object, your triangle, suddenly becomes a fire triangle. You cant have someone suing the government (the payers of the services) and also suing the contractors (the providers of the services). That instantly starts driving up expenses on both the other two sides of the triangle, and we know one side had a maximum limit he can reach.
I've talked to people in countries that have some form of universal healthcare or another. I ask questions that maybe nobody else asks, apparently. What they all seem to have in common is in the countries that manage to keep it working, health providers are not part of the upper-elite income class. They are squarely middle-class citizens. They get paid well, but not - 3 Lexus, a Lamborghini, and a summer home in the Hamptons - well. They definitely have much lower limits on tort claims. When a company gets fined to teach it a lesson, they usually award the government the money.
The closest I came to universal healthcare, socialized medicine, call it what you may; was the 6yrs I spent in the navy. It was clearly laid out that 1) they decide what treatments you get, not you 2) you cant sue the government 3) you can't sue the providers of the services.
Tying this back to universal income, some people seem to think there is some monetary method to transition to cashless socialism. They're wrong, because no one has ever been able to lock down all 3 sides of this triangle to keep it from burning up in flames.
exactly. I just posted a more descriptive explanation of that very thing a thread above this one. Sometimes it's easier to buy a vacation that makes the choice for you, than having to, repeatedly, make the same choice throughout the entire vacation. Picking a destination that has no access means you can re-focus on other forms of entertainment. Its easy to fall back into habits. By picking a spot with no access, you are not fighting temptation, and i dare say withdrawal, the entire time. The price of vacationing in this spot will only increase now that its mandated technology-free.
Actually this intrigues me. I go on cruises for the same getaway. Sure one can declare a weekend of no devices or technology, but theres always something that comes up that eventually screws that up. I go on cruises with the family and we do not buy the internet package. The fact that its ridiculously expensive helps 'cut the cord' when on vacation. The most online time the kids ever experience is when we pull into a port and visit a place that has 'free wifi'; giving them 30-60 min of checking their email and responding to messages. So out of 6 - 7 days, they get 3 hours tops of access. You never realize what a trap it is, until you're actually forced to go without. It seems so benign, so passive. How could the potential for access be such a bad thing? its what you do with it that's so bad right? Its a time thief. I challenge everyone to spend 72 hours without any sort of technology, not even garmin. Afterwards you might find yourself searching for vacations that help make the decision for you. Forcing yourself to go without technology of any sort, when its readily available, is much more difficult than going someplace where it is simply off-grid. These off-grid places are going to eventually become prime property commanding top dollar for the effects they have on the human psyche. Sometimes its a lot easier to unplug when the option is made for you, after you've signed up for the event, than it is to consciously say 'no' repeatedly, every time a new opportunity alerts you on the device.
The future of vacations in the 21st century are going to center around off-grind spots.
the potential upside is that you dont have to get brain cancer by transmitting from your cell phone in order to be picked up by the tower. Lower transmission power should be able to be 'heard' using this technology. This directly translates to better signal quality, less interference, and lower battery consumption. The LTE antenna is the biggest battery drain on your phone right after the active display. Along side these is the wi-fi antenna on your phone. So the upsides are:
better coverage and lower power transmission for cellular data
better coverage for wi-fi hotspots, less dead spots, perhaps 600ft+ radius
lower power consumption on portable devices.
FM is a huge range actually, covering more than just public broadcast. But the article did mention both.
"The atomic radio wave receiver operates by direct real-time optical detection of the atomic response to AM and FM baseband signals, precluding the need for traditional de-modulation and signal-conditioning electronics,"
right now detection is limited to wavelengths from 2.5 to 15 centimeters ... which is 2Ghz - 10Ghz, definitely much higher than the 88 - 108 Mhz frequencies reserved for public radio broadcasts. Sensitivity and accuracy with the new technology could lead to much lower broadcast power requirements. Imagine a cell phone using bluetooth-level power transmissions to communicate with the cell tower a few miles away. On the flip side (down side) imagine a transmitter and atomic battery the size of a grain of salt implanted into someone as a tracker. At least, so far, the transmitter side uses older technology. If they figure out how to use this technology to transmit on a given frequency that grain of rice tracker that keeps its charge for months/years becomes a very real possibility.
What is the sensitivity and latency using this method? Since it occurs at the atomic scale can we assume that the chance of getting real data throughput in the FM band quite good?
What will be the impact on transmission power requirements given this heightened sensitivity? Will low power devices be as clear-reception as the type of power transmission hitting the airwaves when you tune into a radio station?
The biggest downfall to 2.4ghz and 5.8ghz (aside from crowding and cross-talk interference) is the line-of-sight and near-line-of-sight requirements to travel more than a few miles. With lower frequencies and longer wavelengths, line of sight would become less required, especially if the sensitivity is as heightened as they are making it sound. 900mhz worked better from a wireless-internet perspective, but the throughput was shit. I am assuming that the closer to quantum scale you get, the quicker the response times and lower the latency. Unfortunately 900mhz fell outside the 15cm range but maybe they can find a similar method that worked even at 33cm wavelengths.
This is huge from a free (as in speech) internet perspective. Back in the 90s when we first got into the internet business, the only people offering service were local companies akin to small-town cable companies who bought a franchise license. Unlike cable, you could have 3 and 4 providers in a town. Since the PSTN was already in place and in use to provide service, you had your choice of which providers you used for dialup services. As broadband came to market these small providers worked with the telco's to resell ADSL the phone companies provided where the layer2 gets tunneled back to a specific provider. Not quite as equal but still gave the consumer some alternative options. Shortly after the patriot act and the verizon ruling of not having to let competitors on your network, things devolved into two monopolies, the telco's and the cable companies. Nearly gone is the cottage industry of providing internet access. Wireless is the only real frontier left, but its limitations have hindered it considerably. Trees are a problem, other buildings are a problem, cross-talk is a problem. Attenuation and line-of-sight are creating a lot of difficulties in back-hauling information. Even within a given radius, using google earth to qualify a potential customer, onsite surveys still sometimes return failed test results. If we can open the frontier of wireless communication to where anyone could successfully go into business selling access wirelessly, we can put an end to these monopolies in a pure market-driven, non-legislated manner. We wouldn't have to fret Net Neutrality oversight. With 10 - 15 different providers in your town, that are just as easy to switch to as picking a different SSID and calling them up to start billing, the power the telco's would wield by trying to collude with each other to restrict your access, diminishes greatly. It was never the tier1 carrier availability that eroded your options, it was always the last-mile connection that was/is the problem.
I say we take off and nuke the entire site from orbit. Itâ(TM)s the only way to be sure.
But the upside is that thc and bud production is increasing, so theres that.
When I signed up, it was still during the cold war. The berlin wall didnt fall until later, and russia was still the u.s.s.r. In 1992 we went to the gulf for desert shield, then desert storm, then southern watch.
I assure you I did not volunteer to âget my ass shot offâ(TM). I did helo onto a frigate that struck a mine in order to assist in damage control. The ship was taking on water and sinking. That can be alarming. Ive also done dmage control during a couple shipboard fires. Those are no joke either. But as Gen Patton(George C Scott) is quoted as saying âoeno son of a bitch ever won a war dyjng for his country. He won a war by making the other, dumb, son of a bitch, did for HIS countryâ