Just wondering - The broadband range that we are talking about is a min 2 Mbps range, correct? In that case how can a power line (whose frequency is 50 Hz), cause any issues? Even conisdering the harmonics of the same, it needs quite a bit of the harmonics - 50th or more to have any effect on the data. By that time, the base ampiltude would have died down to a negligible value (even if the starting value is high).
And if they are talking about a higher broadband range, the better.
How is transmission lines coming into picture here? And what is the square loop structure they are talking about? Some more information is needed here before we can even judge what they are doing.
Also, to add on to your data, backward induction currects also would provide a resistance here (for A/C which this is). Also doesnt such current flowing through closed loop structures cause good EM waves which can interact with other links in the circuit? Esp since other circuits also are dependent on the same.
Re:Cut and Paste?
on
Vim 7 Released
·
· Score: 2, Informative
for VIM, I found that it comes default with autoindent and smartindent switched ON. Just set it OFF.:se noai nosi
And try the same.
Re:I just can't get the hang of vim
on
Vim 7 Released
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
I guess different people use VIM for different reasons - I *never* ever use syntax highlighting, but after using VIM for last 3 years (after using VI for around 2 years) I find that I cannot use VI at all nowadays. For ex - I got so used to multiple undo that VI is a real pain the neck now. Other VIM features I use a lot are multi window , remote editing (I work on a m/c which is almost half way across the globe, and remote editing is ONE important feature) & MACROs.
Not to mention all the small (for ex: expandtab/visual mode etc) features.
One anecdote - I had an activity, where I had to convert around 80K lines from PASCAL to a different (proprietary) language. A very boring and _no_use_ work indeed. We were given 2 months to do that. With the help of quite a bit of macros, I converted the whole thing in less than 3 weeks.
So I dont think that VIM is a misguided attempt at all.
Re:Cut and Paste?
on
Vim 7 Released
·
· Score: 2, Informative
Try Esc V + use arrow keys to copy. Paste is usual Shift + Insert.
Also you can use -
Esc v -> visual mode - character wise Esc Cntrl+V -> Visual mode - coloumns
Whatever is in the visual mode also copies. So very easy
time can destroy anything. if mountains can be created or destroyed, if rivers can change directions or disappear altogether, if seas can come up and engulf evverything, what chance does a 60ft wall of concrete have?
Hinduism was not a religion - it was a way of life for the people living near the river Sind. Later it became a religion, i.e. all.
Also, the theory that it was a religion of aryans, who came in from Iran, is actually part of the now defunct (??) aryan invasion theory. The age of the Hindu religion itself is more than 5000 years. There is a big controversy regarding the same, so, I cannot say fully defunct. For any more info, please go through the basic AIT theory data in Wiki and associated pedias.
Proabably because Hinduism/Hindus is the religion/civilization where the concept of zero originated. Without zero (which basically implies -power of- ) one will be unable to think of any size bigger than say 10000 or so.
I dont think he was berating YOU. I guess he was against the basic idea of making theories without any empirical evidence to back your theory up. See, if you look at it that way, there is nothing against the theory of FSM creating the world too. When there is a really good correlation between theories and data (that too after applying occams razor). that is all.
Given the rivalry between these two behemoths, I guess, the day is not far away, when corporations will start writing viruses (knowingly or unknowingly) to make people use their products-
Like maybe some google fellow writing (with or without the blessings from google) a virus to install firefox in all m/cs or maybe even changing all soft links pointing to IE to point to firefox. or vice-versa.
This is a nifty idea. But how can this be considered invisible?
For invisibility, should the images of the objects behind the invisible object be seen to the eyes of the beholder?
If not, how can this be considered invisible? It will be a square where nothing is there, but not invisible. It is visible in the sense that a person can sense the object being there.
No answer is easy, especially generalizations. The other things to take care of are - 1. Socio-Economic Status - How they are viewed. It is not just that there is less money that kills poor people. The fact that a person is of a lower socio-economic strata than another set of people kills, just as well.
The concept being that the alpha males/females have evolved to live longer than the others.
In USA, I found that the concept of Success/Failure is very strong and is ingrained to the minds of people. In other countries, say India, it is not so. Quite a many jobs are considered Ok, and there is no extreme pressure for Success etc (but it is changing now).
Now, when such concepts of success is very strong, the feeling of *not* being the alpha male also comes right through you. This kills too.
So, work kills, but I think the view of work here kills more.
Not quite. See, in the case of people discovering some new phenomenon, or some amazing new theorem, yes, your point is very valid.
But in case of inventions (or rather tools, as is the case here), if the scientists are doing it at all, they will be doing it with some future goals in mind. Otherwise, why would they even go ahead doing it?
These guys would have thought of all the amazing future possibilities that is possible with such inventions, and there is nothing bad in telling them to the public also.
I would have guesses the existing technology used for robotic spider could have been re-used.
Should be cheaper to build - with little or no problem of falling, balancing s/w could be reduced. Also, there is no issue of falling in case of catastrophic failure in anything.
Maybe it might be unsuitable to bipedal based enviornments, but should be better than wheels.. right ?
And it seems like the marketing department managed to put a spin on that too Not sure whether that is a spin. Heating is a real problem for Solar concentrators.. A lens will concentrate light, but also IR. These are quite high temperatures we are talking about. If they can actually take out IR from the question, then this indeed is a good idea..
Also, I can see pratical applications on window sills etc. In our place, temp can go up to 110. Think of a cheap window which will let in only light (similar to the current double pane windows)... It has future.
Two different studies, coming to conclusion this week.
Now, along with the anthrax killer protien, we are making progress, indeed.
Whats more, this protien looks to be anti-resistant too.
Shouldnt memory play a role in this? I was under the impression that memory (basically hippocampus and amygdala) was the reason we chose items. For example - Grape - Appropriate synapses of the looks of the grape colour,look etc all get burned up in hippocampus Also, when we eat it - the synapses for amygdala set for pleasure also gets set up. Also a combination path way neuron for both also gets hardened due to electrons going there - (in hippocampus). Now next time I see a grape, this compination path gets a signal when we see a grape - so a signal goes to the other one (for pleasure also), thus the memory of pleasurable experience when a grape is eaten comes to me. This is memory.
Now, for a choice, depending on the amount of pleasure, my synapses fire more and I go for that. For example - if there is bittergourd and grape, I will go for grape only. I thought the monkeys choice depended on these neurons rather than the one they speak about.
Or is this the intelligent choice they are talking about - where in I go for bittergourd instead due to the higeher nutrition content ???.. I thought that also could be expressed in the earlier way mentioned.
1.But the consumer wants a cell phone, not a porcupine
This was just an idea. Maybe with good research down the line, the size and look of it might get better
2.I believe the problem of finding the direction is more complicated than just a pilot tone. It usually required multiple antennas and gets confused by multipath.
Quite true. I also was thinking about two rxr antennas with different directional properties looking for the pilot tone. But this idea here would not be using multipath transmission.. even though MIMO does provide better txn properties.
3.Also, what happens if someone in a car,train, etc? (changing angles at high rate of speed).
A very valid point. If the current alogorithms are not capable of very fact TO time, maybe we might have to have a mechanism (using the cell datum from towers) to understand that we are *indeed* travelling at very speed, so turn off the directional txn for now.
4.Also, it would seem that a directional phone would be forced to use lower transmit power
Not exactly. The plan anyway was to transmit with the same power itself. Just that the beam would be directional.
5.Also for cell phones, I wonder if directioality would be limited to 2D or 3D?
A very valid point. Especially in cities. This is becoming much more complex now. I did *not* think about this one at all.
Summary - Your points, esp 3&5 makes the antenna construction for such cases makes it very complex, ungainly (multiple antennas with different properties), high processing power etc etc:-(
I *knew* (cough cough) that there should be some reason they did not go for this. Now I actually know.
But even then I am thinking with better processing power, these problems can be solved.
Why ? We can turn around. The pilot signal would be coming full time. So the signal direction where it is sent also will be changing full time. This is a real -time system, which I trying to concieve.
The transmitter would be the one which would be using the max power in any cellphone. In that case, make the antenna directional. But then, we do *not* know the direction to which I have to sent the signal. That can be done by maybe - 1. Changes needed for Towers
Sent downstream a small pilot signal of the same freq as the upstream signal which the phone emits for that call. 2. Changes needed in the Cell
Have a direction sensor in your mobile for this pilot signal. Once direction the highest amp for the pilot signal is obtained, sent the signal back in the same direction.
Instead of the wasted signal going all around, we have a signal which has very good directional properties. Thus the power of the signal to be sent can be reduced to maybe even 1/10th or 1/100th. Thus the battery life also will have a propotional increase.
Adv of this system - 1.We dont care how many changes in direction the signal took and all.. Since the pilot came this way, my signal (almost the same freq, so almost the same refractive/reflective properties)will reach the tower proper. 2. Worries about your head getting fried by signal now over. Supposing that your head occupies 90 degrees of the phone directionality, now there is 1/4th time the power goes through you. In anycase, I dont think there is a high probability of the max amp pilot signal coming through your head.. So much less say1/10th of the time upstream signal goes through you.
Prob - Changes needed in all towers. Is a antenna which can change direction depending on a signal already there ? If not the idea wont work at all.
Why not just build huge rows upon rows of windmills in the desert? No danger of doing much of a damage (enviornmentally). Quite flat area with no trees or anything to decrease wind power. And lots of real-estate too..
One issue I can see is that the windmills might get all domed up, due to the sand flowing around. But not all deserts are made of sand.... Possible even the sand etc can be take care off.. with the power from maybe just one mill...
This should have been thought about before. So, anybody knows why it was rejected?
I agree quite a bit. Esp. the profiteering and entitlement concept.
But isnt the concept of patent 'fostering innovation' ? Wasnt the basic idea behind the patent to 'disallow rich from screwing poor (when they try to bring up an idea)'?
By making the patent costs this high, arent they shooting themselves on their foot? Ok, they want to kill off absolute dumb ideas or just *dreams* For that this is not the way.
A patent costs quite a bit. Big money companies can easily cough up that money. What about the average inventor? He might not be that lucky. If you were to look at statistics, I can gaurentee that >75% would be from companies. (ridiculoulsy hig, even considering that company spents more time/money in research)
Also, people who do *not* take too much risks are the ones whose patents/products have a higher chance of succeeding/changing the world. Because, they will take into consideration all the factors involved before jumping to such ideas.
This is actually making it a lot worse. Now, if you *insists* on products to be made before the patent is to be filed, then I believe that it is going to destroy innovative mentality.
I agree that world is a bad, hard place to live in. But these measures by govt was to decrease this hardness/badness. We shouldnt be killing it off.
Ok. Point. But tell me in case where the idea is there but the capital is not there? Not all ideas are 10K ideas. Say, it is much more, and the person cannot afford it.
Or that, the person is not a risk-taker, who would be risking big if he goes ahead with his ideas (ex - his complete investment goes up in the same)..
Even going for a basic patent costs anywhere upwards of $3K. Leave international, that is gonna kill you. Would you risk that? Many cannot, with the background they are from.
The basic problem of (current view of) science is that it is, definition, based on empiricism and experimentation. Intution comes always second to both.
Problem with empricism is that we cannot ever be sure. Just because, we observed it to be true doesnt mean that it is *always* true. But, one would guess, by the astounding success of humanity, that our theories is all quite near to the truth.
Gut *always near*, never sure.
May be, since we have amassed enough data, we should now go back to Aristotles view with Occam's Razor as a guiding stick. Already, I see a definite direction change towards it - String theory et al.
Slashdot Mirror
Just wondering -
The broadband range that we are talking about is a min 2 Mbps range, correct?
In that case how can a power line (whose frequency is 50 Hz), cause any issues?
Even conisdering the harmonics of the same, it needs quite a bit of the harmonics - 50th or more to have any effect on the data. By that time, the base ampiltude would have died down to a negligible value (even if the starting value is high).
And if they are talking about a higher broadband range, the better.
How is transmission lines coming into picture here?
And what is the square loop structure they are talking about?
Some more information is needed here before we can even judge what they are doing.
Also, to add on to your data, backward induction currects also would provide a resistance here (for A/C which this is). Also doesnt such current flowing through closed loop structures cause good EM waves which can interact with other links in the circuit?
Esp since other circuits also are dependent on the same.
for VIM, I found that it comes default with autoindent and smartindent switched ON. :se noai nosi
Just set it OFF.
And try the same.
I guess different people use VIM for different reasons -
I *never* ever use syntax highlighting, but after using VIM for last 3 years (after using VI for around 2 years) I find that I cannot use VI at all nowadays.
For ex - I got so used to multiple undo that VI is a real pain the neck now.
Other VIM features I use a lot are multi window , remote editing (I work on a m/c which is almost half way across the globe, and remote editing is ONE important feature) & MACROs.
Not to mention all the small (for ex: expandtab/visual mode etc) features.
One anecdote -
I had an activity, where I had to convert around 80K lines from PASCAL to a different (proprietary) language. A very boring and _no_use_ work indeed. We were given 2 months to do that. With the help of quite a bit of macros, I converted the whole thing in less than 3 weeks.
So I dont think that VIM is a misguided attempt at all.
Try Esc V + use arrow keys to copy.
Paste is usual Shift + Insert.
Also you can use -
Esc v -> visual mode - character wise
Esc Cntrl+V -> Visual mode - coloumns
Whatever is in the visual mode also copies. So very easy
The CORE ?? Are you sure?
Check out http://www.intuitor.com/moviephysics/core.html
time can destroy anything.
if mountains can be created or destroyed, if rivers can change directions or disappear altogether, if seas can come up and engulf evverything, what chance does a 60ft wall of concrete have?
Hinduism was not a religion - it was a way of life for the people living near the river Sind.
Later it became a religion, i.e. all.
Also, the theory that it was a religion of aryans, who came in from Iran, is actually part of the now defunct (??) aryan invasion theory. The age of the Hindu religion itself is more than 5000 years.
There is a big controversy regarding the same, so, I cannot say fully defunct.
For any more info, please go through the basic AIT theory data in Wiki and associated pedias.
Proabably because Hinduism/Hindus is the religion/civilization where the concept of zero originated.
Without zero (which basically implies -power of- ) one will be unable to think of any size bigger than say 10000 or so.
Zero indeed is the greatest of inventions
I dont think he was berating YOU. I guess he was against the basic idea of making theories without any empirical evidence to back your theory up.
See, if you look at it that way, there is nothing against the theory of FSM creating the world too. When there is a really good correlation between theories and data (that too after applying occams razor).
that is all.
Given the rivalry between these two behemoths, I guess, the day is not far away, when corporations will start writing viruses (knowingly or unknowingly) to make people use their products-
Like maybe some google fellow writing (with or without the blessings from google) a virus to install firefox in all m/cs or maybe even changing all soft links pointing to IE to point to firefox.
or vice-versa.
This is a nifty idea. But how can this be considered invisible?
For invisibility, should the images of the objects behind the invisible object be seen to the eyes of the beholder?
If not, how can this be considered invisible? It will be a square where nothing is there, but not invisible. It is visible in the sense that a person can sense the object being there.
No answer is easy, especially generalizations.
The other things to take care of are -
1. Socio-Economic Status - How they are viewed. It is not just that there is less money that kills poor people. The fact that a person is of a lower socio-economic strata than another set of people kills, just as well.
The concept being that the alpha males/females have evolved to live longer than the others.
In USA, I found that the concept of Success/Failure is very strong and is ingrained to the minds of people.
In other countries, say India, it is not so. Quite a many jobs are considered Ok, and there is no extreme pressure for Success etc (but it is changing now).
Now, when such concepts of success is very strong, the feeling of *not* being the alpha male also comes right through you.
This kills too.
So, work kills, but I think the view of work here kills more.
Not quite.
See, in the case of people discovering some new phenomenon, or some amazing new theorem, yes, your point is very valid.
But in case of inventions (or rather tools, as is the case here), if the scientists are doing it at all, they will be doing it with some future goals in mind.
Otherwise, why would they even go ahead doing it?
These guys would have thought of all the amazing future possibilities that is possible with such inventions, and there is nothing bad in telling them to the public also.
I would have guesses the existing technology used for robotic spider could have been re-used.
Should be cheaper to build - with little or no problem of falling, balancing s/w could be reduced. Also, there is no issue of falling in case of catastrophic failure in anything.
Maybe it might be unsuitable to bipedal based enviornments, but should be better than wheels.. right ?
And it seems like the marketing department managed to put a spin on that too
Not sure whether that is a spin. Heating is a real problem for Solar concentrators.. A lens will concentrate light, but also IR. These are quite high temperatures we are talking about. If they can actually take out IR from the question, then this indeed is a good idea..
Also, I can see pratical applications on window sills etc. In our place, temp can go up to 110. Think of a cheap window which will let in only light (similar to the current double pane windows)...
It has future.
Two different studies, coming to conclusion this week.
Now, along with the anthrax killer protien, we are making progress, indeed.
Whats more, this protien looks to be anti-resistant too.
Shouldnt memory play a role in this?
.. I thought that also could be expressed in the earlier way mentioned.
I was under the impression that memory (basically hippocampus and amygdala) was the reason we chose items.
For example -
Grape - Appropriate synapses of the looks of the grape colour,look etc all get burned up in hippocampus
Also, when we eat it - the synapses for amygdala set for pleasure also gets set up.
Also a combination path way neuron for both also gets hardened due to electrons going there - (in hippocampus).
Now next time I see a grape, this compination path gets a signal when we see a grape - so a signal goes to the other one (for pleasure also), thus the memory of pleasurable experience when a grape is eaten comes to me.
This is memory.
Now, for a choice, depending on the amount of pleasure, my synapses fire more and I go for that.
For example - if there is bittergourd and grape, I will go for grape only.
I thought the monkeys choice depended on these neurons rather than the one they speak about.
Or is this the intelligent choice they are talking about - where in I go for bittergourd instead due to the higeher nutrition content ???
Thanks. Let me try to answer one by one.
:-(
1.But the consumer wants a cell phone, not a porcupine
This was just an idea. Maybe with good research down the line, the size and look of it might get better
2.I believe the problem of finding the direction is more complicated than just a pilot tone. It usually required multiple antennas and gets confused by multipath.
Quite true. I also was thinking about two rxr antennas with different directional properties looking for the pilot tone. But this idea here would not be using multipath transmission.. even though MIMO does provide better txn properties.
3.Also, what happens if someone in a car,train, etc? (changing angles at high rate of speed).
A very valid point. If the current alogorithms are not capable of very fact TO time, maybe we might have to have a mechanism (using the cell datum from towers) to understand that we are *indeed* travelling at very speed, so turn off the directional txn for now.
4.Also, it would seem that a directional phone would be forced to use lower transmit power
Not exactly. The plan anyway was to transmit with the same power itself. Just that the beam would be directional.
5.Also for cell phones, I wonder if directioality would be limited to 2D or 3D?
A very valid point. Especially in cities. This is becoming much more complex now. I did *not* think about this one at all.
Summary - Your points, esp 3&5 makes the antenna construction for such cases makes it very complex, ungainly (multiple antennas with different properties), high processing power etc etc
I *knew* (cough cough) that there should be some reason they did not go for this. Now I actually know.
But even then I am thinking with better processing power, these problems can be solved.
Maybe I am just optimistic.
Anyway, thanks.
Why ?
We can turn around.
The pilot signal would be coming full time. So the signal direction where it is sent also will be changing full time.
This is a real -time system, which I trying to concieve.
So methinks no issues in this regard
The transmitter would be the one which would be using the max power in any cellphone.
In that case, make the antenna directional.
But then, we do *not* know the direction to which I have to sent the signal.
That can be done by maybe -
1. Changes needed for Towers
Sent downstream a small pilot signal of the same freq as the upstream signal which the phone emits for that call.
2. Changes needed in the Cell
Have a direction sensor in your mobile for this pilot signal. Once direction the highest amp for the pilot signal is obtained, sent the signal back in the same direction.
Instead of the wasted signal going all around, we have a signal which has very good directional properties. Thus the power of the signal to be sent can be reduced to maybe even 1/10th or 1/100th.
Thus the battery life also will have a propotional increase.
Adv of this system -
1.We dont care how many changes in direction the signal took and all.. Since the pilot came this way, my signal (almost the same freq, so almost the same refractive/reflective properties)will reach the tower proper.
2. Worries about your head getting fried by signal now over. Supposing that your head occupies 90 degrees of the phone directionality, now there is 1/4th time the power goes through you. In anycase, I dont think there is a high probability of the max amp pilot signal coming through your head.. So much less say1/10th of the time upstream signal goes through you.
Prob -
Changes needed in all towers.
Is a antenna which can change direction depending on a signal already there ? If not the idea wont work at all.
Just an idea.
Why not just build huge rows upon rows of windmills in the desert?
No danger of doing much of a damage (enviornmentally).
Quite flat area with no trees or anything to decrease wind power.
And lots of real-estate too..
One issue I can see is that the windmills might get all domed up, due to the sand flowing around.
But not all deserts are made of sand....
Possible even the sand etc can be take care off.. with the power from maybe just one mill...
This should have been thought about before. So, anybody knows why it was rejected?
I agree quite a bit. Esp. the profiteering and entitlement concept.
But isnt the concept of patent 'fostering innovation' ?
Wasnt the basic idea behind the patent to 'disallow rich from screwing poor (when they try to bring up an idea)'?
By making the patent costs this high, arent they shooting themselves on their foot?
Ok, they want to kill off absolute dumb ideas or just *dreams*
For that this is not the way.
A patent costs quite a bit. Big money companies can easily cough up that money.
What about the average inventor? He might not be that lucky.
If you were to look at statistics, I can gaurentee that >75% would be from companies. (ridiculoulsy hig, even considering that company spents more time/money in research)
Also, people who do *not* take too much risks are the ones whose patents/products have a higher chance of succeeding/changing the world.
Because, they will take into consideration all the factors involved before jumping to such ideas.
This is actually making it a lot worse.
Now, if you *insists* on products to be made before the patent is to be filed, then I believe that it is going to destroy innovative mentality.
I agree that world is a bad, hard place to live in. But these measures by govt was to decrease this hardness/badness. We shouldnt be killing it off.
Ok. Point.
..
But tell me in case where the idea is there but the capital is not there?
Not all ideas are 10K ideas.
Say, it is much more, and the person cannot afford it.
Or that, the person is not a risk-taker, who would be risking big if he
goes ahead with his ideas (ex - his complete investment goes up in the same)
Even going for a basic patent costs anywhere upwards of $3K. Leave international, that is gonna kill you.
Would you risk that? Many cannot, with the background they are from.
The basic problem of (current view of) science is that it is, definition, based on empiricism and experimentation.
Intution comes always second to both.
Problem with empricism is that we cannot ever be sure. Just because, we observed it to be true doesnt mean that it is *always* true.
But, one would guess, by the astounding success of humanity, that our theories is all quite near to the truth.
Gut *always near*, never sure.
May be, since we have amassed enough data, we should now go back to Aristotles view with Occam's Razor as a guiding stick.
Already, I see a definite direction change towards it - String theory et al.