I also realize that to a certain degree (not sure to exactly what degree) higher frequency waves are capable of traveling less distance through air, but as I said, all that is required if you desire greater bandwidth are more receivers, or more powerful ones.
And at some point, when you're trying to increase frequency, you run smack into a wall - the atmosphere is quite opaque to most of the EM spectrum. Only a few small bands (like radio) are at frequencies where the atmosphere is reasonably transparent. The cost of trying to push anything on a frequency where the atmosphere isn't almost completely transparent would be astronomical. Trust me, the spectrum itself may be infinite, but the usable portion of the spectrum is very finite and going fast. --
Wireless to people's homes would be a monstrous waste of our precious radio spectrum. We will eventually need every bit of that wireless bandwidth for mobile applications. Why use it on applications for which fiber optics would work just as well, if not better? Yes, the cable companies currently have a stranglehold on the market for broadband to your house (xDSL just isn't there yet for most people). The solution, however, is not to go wasting our radio spectrum on wireless broadband! Lay fiber-optic cables. The initial investment is big, but it will pay off big-time when the rdio spectrum starts filling up and peole want something faster than cable modems. --
I couldn't help but notice that you used those terms interchangeably. Free Software is _not_ the same thing as freeware! To paraphrase RMS, free software means free as in you can do whatever you want with it, not free as in beer. Just thought I'd clear that up... --
The computer they installed on the hubble space telescope had to be freed of radioation or some crap. That is why they only put in a 486. I wonder if that would apply to the space shuttle?
I doubt it, Hubble is much less shielded from radiation than either a space station or the shuttle would be. Remember, people will be living in the space station for months at a time - it wouldn't do for a solar flare to wipe them all out... --
We now have CD players (lasers included) for about $30.
I think you miss the point. Vinyl, IMHO, gives a much better, smoother, richer sound than does digital. CD's are great and all, but they really can't compare to the sound of a well-mastered vinyl record played on a top-quality turntable. The whole reason CDs are more popular than vinyl is that a cheap CD player sounds 10 times better than a cheap record player. But a really excellent record player sounds at least 10 times better than a really excellent CD player. It's a tradeoff. I, for one, would definitely buy one of these if I had the extra $30k lying around. Maybe Hemos wants to buy one for me? come on Hemos, support a starving college student:)!
As for your point about the cost of compact lasers, it's well taken, but the cost of this unit is most likely _not_ in the lasers. There's a whole load of signal processing equipment that's required to turn the (I'm assuming) Doppler shift detected in the reflected light into sound.
In short: Yes, you could buy a CD player that will give you decent sound for $30. But keep in mind that you won't even come _close_ to the quality of a really, really good record player. And if this unit is all they promised, which seems reasonable, then the cost of a really, really good record player just dropped by an order of magnitude. --
No precedent is being set; precedents are, in fact, being _followed_ in this case.
Check out Burdeau v. McDowell, which states:
The Fourth Amendment gives protection against unlawful searches and seizures, and as shown in the previous cases, its protection applies to governmental action. Its origin and history clearly show that it was intended as a restraint upon the activities of sovereign authority, and was not intended to be a limitation upon other than governmental agencies; as against such authority it was the purpose of the Fourth Amendment to secure the citizen in the right of unmolested occupation of his dwelling and the possession of his property, subject to the right of seizure by process duly issued.
The Fourth Amendment _does_not_apply_ to civil cases. It's called "discovery." IANAL, but I just had a discussion with my lawyer on this very topic. This is well within the bounds of established precedent. --
They don't *need* probable cause. They're not the state, and you're not going to jail.
I don't think the Fourth Amendment states that it applies only to criminal cases...
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
I also looked on FindLaw, and found nothing to suggest that the probable cause clause does not apply to civil actions. Of course, IANAL, but it seems pretty clear-cut to me. If you have better information, by all means share it. --
so really this isn't a case corportation playing big brother, its a case of the law proceeding as it should.
No, no, no. This is not the way the law should proceed. If I buy a computer for my personal use, I am entitled to a reasonable expectation of privacy. I, personally, am paranoid beyond belief, so I encrypt everything. Your average Joe does not, but that's beside the point. Joe is still entitled to privacy. If Northwest has to look through its employees' personal computers for evidence of contract violation, Northwest doesn't have a very strong case.
Short version: This is a case of a corporation playing big brother. And it's wrong. They have no right to search people's private posessions. As far as I can tell, they don't have probable cause. This is a case of a corporation muscling the little guy around, yet again. --
It's cases like this that highlight the need to be really, really paranoid. Encrypt everything, even stuff that (probably) doesn't need to be encrypted. Use GPG or PGP or whatever. Just make sure you encrypt anything that could even remotely be used against you.
That being said, I'm disgusted that Northwest is being allowed to search the home computers of the employees. If Northwest owns the computers, that's one thing. But if they're searching employees' private property, they need to be stopped. Even if the workers did organize a sick-out in violation of their contracts, they should still be entitled to privacy on their own computers.
Moral of the story is, use PGP religiously, and don't trust anyone. Especially the people you work for. --
There's definitely, in my experience, a strong correlation between the intelligence of a drug user and the types of drugs he/she uses. For the first two years of high school, I went to a pretty standard school - average in most respects. The drugs of choice there were weed (mainly), with some people opting for cocaine, heroin, etc. For my junior and senior years, I switched to a school with a selective admissions process. Once I was there, I only met 2 people who did cocaine. Everyone who did drugs still did weed, of course, but the focus tended to be on psychedelics of every sort - shrooms were extremely popular, as was acid. It was actually standard practice to have the hit of acid on one's tongue during the last class on Friday (first period, I think) so that the trip would start as soon as possible after class got out.
Anyway, I can see that I was rambling for a while there. My point was that the more intelligent folk tend to do psychedelics and mind-expanders, the less intelligent folk tend to do stimulants and downers, and everyone does weed. At least, that's been my experience. --
But they don't circumvent the copy protection because there simply is no copy protection. Just because it's encrypted does not mean it can't be copied - it just means it can't be played without decrypting it.
Have you actually read the DMCA? It doesn't apply to copy protection, but to _access_ protection! Under the DMCA, you _cannot_ legally circumvent a technological measure that "effectively controls access to a copyrighted work." It has been established that CSS doesn't prevent copying; it prevents _access_. You want to complain about the DMCA being unconstitutional, go ahead. Just keep in mind that copy protection is not what's at issue here.
By the way, I have an interesting application of the DMCA on my LiViD mirror... I'm calling the gzipping on the tarballs a technological measure that effectively controls access to the code within. It's as effective as CSS: anyone with the right tool can break it:) --
I'm glad that Apple is finally looking at other processors and architectures for its software. Don't get me wrong, Apple hardware is great. However, there's nothing quite like building your own computer, an option long denied to Mac users. This appears to open up that possibility to some extent, and I am quite happy. --
It comes down to the basic fact that most people don't read what's on their screen and randomly click whatever pops up and then get pissed when it didn't do what you really wanted.
But we're not talking about "most people", we're talking about reasonably clued-in people who have installed AOL 5.0 and discovered that it breaks all other dial-up connections. This is not acceptable behavior from any product --
I'm highly skeptical of the maliciousness of version 5.0
I don't see how you could be - deleting the other dial up connections is clearly malicious, and clearly unnecessary. AOL has no right to do such things, especially to people who lack the technical expertise to undo them. --
it would be almost unethical (almost) of them to ignore such things.
What do you mean "almost?" It would be unethical, plain and simple. We rely on news sources to be objective (well, we're supposed to be able to rely on them...) and if they allow their affiliations to get in the way of editorial freedom, that's just plain unethical. --
AOL can't expect to get away with this just by saying they gave users the option to click "no" when the installer asks whether AOL should be the default browser. The fact is, AOL is aimed at clueless newbies. Clueless newbies, almost without exception, just click away at the default choice without understanding what they're doing. Besides, there's no reason why AOL has to break other ISP setups. This is as bad as MS releasing versions of Windows that break competitors' products. AOL deserves whatever they get. --
$165,000,000 = one lost space exploration device. $165,000,000 = free lunch programs for all of the needy kids in the NYC region for a decade. These kids will not eat lunch otherwise.
Which is more important to you? What does that say about your priorities and your humanitarianism?
Since when do we not have the resources to do both? It's not like this is an either-or proposition. "but what about the needy children?" We can feed them _and_ go to mars! --
No, they don't. That's the problem. Ever since I've been going to school, I've been losing my rights at the schoolhouse door. No talking out of turn. No foul language. No hats. No drinking, even off-campus. No girls in the guys' dorms, and vice versa. I could go on, but you get the point. This isn't a change - this is the status quo. At least now that I'm in college things are getting a little better. The point is, you're not really free until you get to the Real World.
Coke is far superior
No argument there. Of course, I'd still rather have a Sobe, but...
If you want a more elegant solution, pay apple for the pro version that does more than simply play movies.
Or you can use a third-party QuickTime app, and not pay for it. Upgrading to QuickTime Pro only gets you more features in Apple's own QT player software - those features are always available if you use a third-party program. --
I have - got an autographed hardcover copy (hooray for living in Greensboro). It's as good, if not better than, the original. I highly recommend it. --
yeah, and also they wouldn't be pointing the telescopes at Mars, anyway. Radio astronomy is about looking at stars and galaxies, not the planet next door. --
The don't say "Kill the blacks/arabs/gays", but "Arm yourselves for self defence"
Since when does arming oneself lead to racially-motivated murders? I think you're reaching quite a bit with this statement. In the US, people try to propagate this BS all the time: "guns are bad, m'kay?" Guns are not bad. Gun owners are not bad people. Thank you. --
I've heard reports from a semi-trusted source that Aqua has run comfortably on a NeXT box with 32 MB of RAM. Of course, this is due to the vastly improved VM scheme which Apple is implementing in Mac OS X.
I long for real modern memory management in Mac OS, and it looks like my wish has been granted:). --
Slashdot Mirror
And at some point, when you're trying to increase frequency, you run smack into a wall - the atmosphere is quite opaque to most of the EM spectrum. Only a few small bands (like radio) are at frequencies where the atmosphere is reasonably transparent. The cost of trying to push anything on a frequency where the atmosphere isn't almost completely transparent would be astronomical. Trust me, the spectrum itself may be infinite, but the usable portion of the spectrum is very finite and going fast.
--
Wireless to people's homes would be a monstrous waste of our precious radio spectrum. We will eventually need every bit of that wireless bandwidth for mobile applications. Why use it on applications for which fiber optics would work just as well, if not better? Yes, the cable companies currently have a stranglehold on the market for broadband to your house (xDSL just isn't there yet for most people). The solution, however, is not to go wasting our radio spectrum on wireless broadband! Lay fiber-optic cables. The initial investment is big, but it will pay off big-time when the rdio spectrum starts filling up and peole want something faster than cable modems.
--
I couldn't help but notice that you used those terms interchangeably. Free Software is _not_ the same thing as freeware! To paraphrase RMS, free software means free as in you can do whatever you want with it, not free as in beer. Just thought I'd clear that up...
--
I doubt it, Hubble is much less shielded from radiation than either a space station or the shuttle would be. Remember, people will be living in the space station for months at a time - it wouldn't do for a solar flare to wipe them all out...
--
I think you miss the point. Vinyl, IMHO, gives a much better, smoother, richer sound than does digital. CD's are great and all, but they really can't compare to the sound of a well-mastered vinyl record played on a top-quality turntable. The whole reason CDs are more popular than vinyl is that a cheap CD player sounds 10 times better than a cheap record player. But a really excellent record player sounds at least 10 times better than a really excellent CD player. It's a tradeoff. I, for one, would definitely buy one of these if I had the extra $30k lying around. Maybe Hemos wants to buy one for me? come on Hemos, support a starving college student:)!
As for your point about the cost of compact lasers, it's well taken, but the cost of this unit is most likely _not_ in the lasers. There's a whole load of signal processing equipment that's required to turn the (I'm assuming) Doppler shift detected in the reflected light into sound.
In short: Yes, you could buy a CD player that will give you decent sound for $30. But keep in mind that you won't even come _close_ to the quality of a really, really good record player. And if this unit is all they promised, which seems reasonable, then the cost of a really, really good record player just dropped by an order of magnitude.
--
No precedent is being set; precedents are, in fact, being _followed_ in this case.
Check out Burdeau v. McDowell, which states:
The Fourth Amendment _does_not_apply_ to civil cases. It's called "discovery." IANAL, but I just had a discussion with my lawyer on this very topic. This is well within the bounds of established precedent.
--
I don't think the Fourth Amendment states that it applies only to criminal cases...
I also looked on FindLaw, and found nothing to suggest that the probable cause clause does not apply to civil actions. Of course, IANAL, but it seems pretty clear-cut to me. If you have better information, by all means share it.--
No, no, no. This is not the way the law should proceed. If I buy a computer for my personal use, I am entitled to a reasonable expectation of privacy. I, personally, am paranoid beyond belief, so I encrypt everything. Your average Joe does not, but that's beside the point. Joe is still entitled to privacy. If Northwest has to look through its employees' personal computers for evidence of contract violation, Northwest doesn't have a very strong case.
Short version: This is a case of a corporation playing big brother. And it's wrong. They have no right to search people's private posessions. As far as I can tell, they don't have probable cause. This is a case of a corporation muscling the little guy around, yet again.
--
That being said, I'm disgusted that Northwest is being allowed to search the home computers of the employees. If Northwest owns the computers, that's one thing. But if they're searching employees' private property, they need to be stopped. Even if the workers did organize a sick-out in violation of their contracts, they should still be entitled to privacy on their own computers.
Moral of the story is, use PGP religiously, and don't trust anyone. Especially the people you work for.
--
Anyway, I can see that I was rambling for a while there. My point was that the more intelligent folk tend to do psychedelics and mind-expanders, the less intelligent folk tend to do stimulants and downers, and everyone does weed. At least, that's been my experience.
--
no, some of us work for the NSA:)
--
Have you actually read the DMCA? It doesn't apply to copy protection, but to _access_ protection! Under the DMCA, you _cannot_ legally circumvent a technological measure that "effectively controls access to a copyrighted work." It has been established that CSS doesn't prevent copying; it prevents _access_. You want to complain about the DMCA being unconstitutional, go ahead. Just keep in mind that copy protection is not what's at issue here.
By the way, I have an interesting application of the DMCA on my LiViD mirror... I'm calling the gzipping on the tarballs a technological measure that effectively controls access to the code within. It's as effective as CSS: anyone with the right tool can break it:)
--
I'm glad that Apple is finally looking at other processors and architectures for its software. Don't get me wrong, Apple hardware is great. However, there's nothing quite like building your own computer, an option long denied to Mac users. This appears to open up that possibility to some extent, and I am quite happy.
--
But we're not talking about "most people", we're talking about reasonably clued-in people who have installed AOL 5.0 and discovered that it breaks all other dial-up connections. This is not acceptable behavior from any product
--
I don't see how you could be - deleting the other dial up connections is clearly malicious, and clearly unnecessary. AOL has no right to do such things, especially to people who lack the technical expertise to undo them.
--
What do you mean "almost?" It would be unethical, plain and simple. We rely on news sources to be objective (well, we're supposed to be able to rely on them...) and if they allow their affiliations to get in the way of editorial freedom, that's just plain unethical.
--
AOL can't expect to get away with this just by saying they gave users the option to click "no" when the installer asks whether AOL should be the default browser. The fact is, AOL is aimed at clueless newbies. Clueless newbies, almost without exception, just click away at the default choice without understanding what they're doing. Besides, there's no reason why AOL has to break other ISP setups. This is as bad as MS releasing versions of Windows that break competitors' products. AOL deserves whatever they get.
--
$165,000,000 = free lunch programs for all of the needy kids in the NYC region for a decade. These kids will not eat lunch otherwise.
Which is more important to you? What does that say about your priorities and your humanitarianism?
Since when do we not have the resources to do both? It's not like this is an either-or proposition. "but what about the needy children?" We can feed them _and_ go to mars!
--
No, they don't. That's the problem. Ever since I've been going to school, I've been losing my rights at the schoolhouse door. No talking out of turn. No foul language. No hats. No drinking, even off-campus. No girls in the guys' dorms, and vice versa. I could go on, but you get the point. This isn't a change - this is the status quo. At least now that I'm in college things are getting a little better. The point is, you're not really free until you get to the Real World.
Coke is far superior
No argument there. Of course, I'd still rather have a Sobe, but...
--
Or you can use a third-party QuickTime app, and not pay for it. Upgrading to QuickTime Pro only gets you more features in Apple's own QT player software - those features are always available if you use a third-party program.
--
I have - got an autographed hardcover copy (hooray for living in Greensboro). It's as good, if not better than, the original. I highly recommend it.
--
yeah, and also they wouldn't be pointing the telescopes at Mars, anyway. Radio astronomy is about looking at stars and galaxies, not the planet next door.
--
actually, yes, according to a poll a while ago, IIRC.
that being said, it's just a lot more fun to laugh at MS, cause they fuck up early and often.
--
Since when does arming oneself lead to racially-motivated murders? I think you're reaching quite a bit with this statement. In the US, people try to propagate this BS all the time: "guns are bad, m'kay?" Guns are not bad. Gun owners are not bad people. Thank you.
--
I've heard reports from a semi-trusted source that Aqua has run comfortably on a NeXT box with 32 MB of RAM. Of course, this is due to the vastly improved VM scheme which Apple is implementing in Mac OS X.
I long for real modern memory management in Mac OS, and it looks like my wish has been granted:).
--