Laptops break down less than desktops? Yeah right! You must have had some really bad luck with your desktops if you believe that. Or.. maybe if you tend to replace your portable devices more often than your desktops... so they never get old.
Every laptop I have had has sucked @ss. The batteries never last long enough before they no longer hold a good charge. Not for what replacements cost anyway... And then after a couple of years they start shutting themselves down as soon as they warm up. If you do anything processor intesive you don't even need the couple of years, they just overheat.
I guess we won't be hearing much from you pretty soon given Slashdot's announcement the other day that the comment system will be migrating over to FB.
I don't know anything about that particular video but I've heard stories of others who claimed personal experience with cellphones causing issues (which I also cannot verify)
That makes me think they are asking the wrong question. Shouldn't the question be 'why is any plane vulnerable to this and why are such planes legally allowed to fly?" Yes, I caught the fact that you were talking about planes from the 80s. I thought planes had pretty long 'lifespans' though. Aren't a lot of them still being flown? I hope they have been well upgraded if so. Besides all that, if something is vulnerable to a mere cellphone then what about natural sources of radio waves. How about RF from a nearby lightning strike for example? Lightning certainly existed in the 80s too!
If the fleet of planes that are out there are vulnerable to portable devices then it makes sense to ban them as a temporary measure but the long term solution should be mandating that all new planes are safe no matter what device a passenger uses on board. It shouldn't be that hard to accomplish. All important circuitry is built into shielded cases. Interconnecting cables are also sheilded. Any control lines over a certain length or going anywhere near the passenger compartment should carry high levels. For example, no wire should carry TTL level logic across the plane with an amplifier at the end to make up for losses which I suspect is how the plane worked in your video that you mentioned, if it is real.
LOL, yup, everyone in the country is rich and has a luxury ranch. Ha Ha
Usually people in the country are poorer actually. But.. they do have room to dig a hole and where there are trees to cut, even build an outhouse over it. Personally, I would rather squat in the woods than be poor in the city and drinking shit in my water. (even if the city provides some hope of a factory hiring me for the day now and then) I suppose there might not be enough non-desert country to squat in if everybody in every bad urban environment decided to do that at the same time but that's not what is happening anyway. Populations are moving into the cities, not out of them.
My point though was only meant in regards to the grandparent posts. Does the bible have some wisdom in it? Regardless of the truth or non-truth of the religion part? One guy says the parts about sanitation are a good example of wisdom. Another says such sanitation is impossible under current conditions in some places. I pointed out that if people followed one other bit of wisdom from the bible that condition might not exist today so yes, there does seem to be some wisdom in there.
I believe the Bible also says something about spreading out and populating the world. Perhaps people shouldn't be crowding together, living in cities if they aren't ready to build a sufficient sanitation system.
Sorry, but your best bets are to get an apartment or just get used to it. If you can't get used to it then get an apartment. Personally, when I was in the dorms I loved it. The background noise was just right for me. If I went where it was too quiet I felt like I was disconnected, missing something and then my mind would wander. It was very hard to adjust to leaving the dorms actually. For you... maybe the opposite is true.
In hardware hacking circles it is often joked about that an Arduino is included for blog credit. I think with Linux Ubuntu is included for blog credit.
Why would somebody mod that down? Just because of the 'F' word? Grow up moderator!
This is right on! Given what we are learning about our outer solar system and just begining to notice around other stars it would seem space isn't quite as empty as we thought. Without FTL travel people can still spread out, one rock/iceball at a time until eventually they end up in other solar systems. That route just takes longer but... if we develop that ability to live out there.. and FTL turns out ot be impossible or we just don't figure it out then I would think that kind of expansion is almost ineviteable.
Of course.. it might happen on timescales so long that the people who reach the next star system aren't really homosapien anymore!
I'm not sure #2 is even necessary so long as there are valuable minerals out there. Or for that matter, people who just want to be pioneers. It certainly would help accelerate things though.
Man I hate that argument. You are saying if we can't even figure out how not to harm the Earth's environment we can't or shouldn't be working on how to create a good environment in space right?
That is so backwards! We learn by doing the smaller things first, then the large ones. What do you think is more complicated, the environment of a complete planet or the space within a spaceship? Maybe by figuring out how to live on the space ship we will actually learn something we can apply to managing our resources back on Earth! For example... I bet people will develop some really good waste processing technology when they are reliant on it directly for drinking water!
At the very least, any steps we take in space are not likely to harm any existing liveable natural environment unlike pretty much everything we do on Earth. If anything environmentalists should want us OFF the planet, not on it! Some people seem to be more concerned about poluting our dead moon than they are our living planet! WTF are people smoking?
But.. if we were more advanced it might not take so much effort to put something up there. That would be a game changer. Rather than throw out spacecraft when their consumables run dry we would do it (or better yet recycle them) when they are technologically obsolete.
"...I don't think they should instantly be elevated to the level of creditability that the traditional journals currently enjoy without proving their worth" The universe is a universe of facts which are either true or false. It doesn't matter if I publish it in a respected journal, on a toilet paper roll in a truck stop bathroom or not at all. It's still either true or false. If an article is open about who reviewed it and how then what more does one need? In a worst case senario, if one really really needs to verify something, just contact the people who claim to have repeated the experiment or observation and ask them.
"I didn't say that this data should be available simply because my tax dollars subsidized it." No. I did. And I don't think I am alone.
" Just because an embattled president..." Huh? When did we start talking about him? Do Ineed to re-read all the grandparent comments? My money my information, your money your information. It's a pretty simple matter of ownership. I don't need the president or anybody else to tell me this.
"as soon as feasible" By some definition of the word feasible. In today's internet connected world feasible to me starts about 5 minutes after discovery. It's pretty much a matter of copying a file to a publically accessable place. Of course.. there is a difference between something being peer reviewed and just being a preliminary result of a single experiment but it only takes a few strokes on a keyboard to label things as such.
"Personally I believe that,... are obligated to provide this knowledge to society..." That's awesome! I appreciate that. I don't share your belief but I do appreciate it. If you want to pay for something yourself I would support your right to publish it in however expensive, closed, etc... place you wanted or even to not report it at all. Don't get me wrong, that would be a shame, a loss for the rest of us and rather pointless too but if you paid for it then that is your right.
" it is up to the government to provide funding for this research" That would be "We the People". If you are entitled to our money to do your research than we should be entitled to the result. Actually, that's the only reason I can see that we should be paying you, so that we can be enlightened ourselves when you release the results.
"People who say that they are entitled to all government funded data oversimplify a complex issue." No, people that say it is more complex are just spinning words in order to add complexity to a simple question of ownership. It's a way to make stealing look like something else.
" Not all governmental research has this type of obligation, but those types of research is in the minority. " What are we talking about here? State secrets / how to kill people? That's an entirely different line of discussion and way to big a tangent to want to deal with so I'll grant you an exception on that one, only to stay on track regarding purely scientific information.
"The non-free journals are searchable and readable/printable at some (probably most) university libraries." Contrary to some people's belief not everyone who might have an interest in science currently attends or works at a university. If I took Bob, Sue and Alice's money to go buy coffee but only gave coffe to Alice are Bob and Sue going to be happy if I say 'well, it's ok, Alice got some'?
Also, even if you are a priveleged person with access, recent events show it is certainly not without limitations. Apparently accessing too much information through a university can completely ruin your life.
-- Why do I think that the public owns anything which the government pays for?
Perhaps there is something of a compromise which must occur any time tax money is used to pay for something. Of course, tax money is not the ONLY thing spent on your research. Even if you are 100% tax funded monetarily, your time and labor go into it as well. Does this mean that the public does not own it? Well... I don't think the
No, I think you can get some higher powers legally using ham bands if you are licensed. I think that is limited to specific frequencies and still lower power than hams normally use to talk to one another but I'm not up on the exact rules for that. I bet it's a whole lot more than you can do by part 15 though!
In the 80s and 90s consoles were pretty much NEVER backwards compatible. And when things started getting better and they were... still not every game worked perfectly. If you want things like backwards compatibility, or really compatibility with ANYTHING except the exact same model game console you get a PC game, not a console game!
While you will find makers and hardware hackers on slashdot your mostly going to find kids who don't see the value in any tech they can't get a faster framerate than their friends playing the latest games on.
You should be asking this on Hackaday's forum or better yet on your local hackerspace's IRC channel.
No, I've been hording electronics since my college days. You would be amazed how much old computer junk I had packed in a college dorm room. But... CRTs which I couldn't use, less than VGA, nonfunctional, I used to enjoy throwing them out the 3rd story window of the study room.
Also, old, nonstandard computer cases were fun to get rid of. Now... I really was hording, for example, cases which I could get a standard footprint motherboard into given a nibbler and a hacksaw and a LOT of elbow grease I kept. It was mainly ones with non-standard spacing between the expansion slots and junk like that I tossed, after removing floppy drives, pathetically small hard drives, controler cards, etc... I used to throw unusable cases down the garbage shute. I would do it at night when people were sleeping. I always did it from the top floor and always at an angle so it bounced betweeen the metal walls several times on the way down.
I can understand why you don't want to lose the choice of where you publish 'your' research. But as a taxpayer why should I be funding 'your' project if I don't even get to see the results? If you want to lock your work in an ivory tower then that is your right but don't expect me to pay for it!
No, he's saying that he wants the government to mandate that the scientists who's work was paid for with public funds chose open journals to publish in. He is not saying that the open journals always chose to accept those scientist's work and publish it. The open journals would use the same peer review process that the overpriced ones are using now. These are not the same sites were you read your crappy e-books nor would they become that.
If the public pays for the research shouldn't the public get a chance to read it?
Slashdot Mirror
Laptops break down less than desktops? Yeah right! You must have had some really bad luck with your desktops if you believe that. Or.. maybe if you tend to replace your portable devices more often than your desktops... so they never get old.
Every laptop I have had has sucked @ss. The batteries never last long enough before they no longer hold a good charge. Not for what replacements cost anyway... And then after a couple of years they start shutting themselves down as soon as they warm up. If you do anything processor intesive you don't even need the couple of years, they just overheat.
Laptops suck!
Is that a trick question? Everybody knows that real gamers never leave their parent's basement!
Facebook... Easily Avoidable!!
I guess we won't be hearing much from you pretty soon given Slashdot's announcement the other day that the comment system will be migrating over to FB.
"But there are so many people who idealize these jerks think they are something special."
Oh, yeah, script kiddies. All the girls want to have them and the guys want to be them.
I don't know anything about that particular video but I've heard stories of others who claimed personal experience with cellphones causing issues (which I also cannot verify)
That makes me think they are asking the wrong question. Shouldn't the question be 'why is any plane vulnerable to this and why are such planes legally allowed to fly?" Yes, I caught the fact that you were talking about planes from the 80s. I thought planes had pretty long 'lifespans' though. Aren't a lot of them still being flown? I hope they have been well upgraded if so. Besides all that, if something is vulnerable to a mere cellphone then what about natural sources of radio waves. How about RF from a nearby lightning strike for example? Lightning certainly existed in the 80s too!
If the fleet of planes that are out there are vulnerable to portable devices then it makes sense to ban them as a temporary measure but the long term solution should be mandating that all new planes are safe no matter what device a passenger uses on board. It shouldn't be that hard to accomplish. All important circuitry is built into shielded cases. Interconnecting cables are also sheilded. Any control lines over a certain length or going anywhere near the passenger compartment should carry high levels. For example, no wire should carry TTL level logic across the plane with an amplifier at the end to make up for losses which I suspect is how the plane worked in your video that you mentioned, if it is real.
LOL, yup, everyone in the country is rich and has a luxury ranch. Ha Ha
Usually people in the country are poorer actually. But.. they do have room to dig a hole and where there are trees to cut, even build an outhouse over it. Personally, I would rather squat in the woods than be poor in the city and drinking shit in my water. (even if the city provides some hope of a factory hiring me for the day now and then) I suppose there might not be enough non-desert country to squat in if everybody in every bad urban environment decided to do that at the same time but that's not what is happening anyway. Populations are moving into the cities, not out of them.
My point though was only meant in regards to the grandparent posts. Does the bible have some wisdom in it? Regardless of the truth or non-truth of the religion part? One guy says the parts about sanitation are a good example of wisdom. Another says such sanitation is impossible under current conditions in some places. I pointed out that if people followed one other bit of wisdom from the bible that condition might not exist today so yes, there does seem to be some wisdom in there.
I believe the Bible also says something about spreading out and populating the world. Perhaps people shouldn't be crowding together, living in cities if they aren't ready to build a sufficient sanitation system.
Oh, like homo sapiens and neanderthals right?
Sorry, but your best bets are to get an apartment or just get used to it. If you can't get used to it then get an apartment. Personally, when I was in the dorms I loved it. The background noise was just right for me. If I went where it was too quiet I felt like I was disconnected, missing something and then my mind would wander. It was very hard to adjust to leaving the dorms actually. For you... maybe the opposite is true.
In hardware hacking circles it is often joked about that an Arduino is included for blog credit. I think with Linux Ubuntu is included for blog credit.
Why would somebody mod that down? Just because of the 'F' word? Grow up moderator!
This is right on! Given what we are learning about our outer solar system and just begining to notice around other stars it would seem space isn't quite as empty as we thought. Without FTL travel people can still spread out, one rock/iceball at a time until eventually they end up in other solar systems. That route just takes longer but... if we develop that ability to live out there.. and FTL turns out ot be impossible or we just don't figure it out then I would think that kind of expansion is almost ineviteable.
Of course.. it might happen on timescales so long that the people who reach the next star system aren't really homosapien anymore!
I'm not sure #2 is even necessary so long as there are valuable minerals out there. Or for that matter, people who just want to be pioneers. It certainly would help accelerate things though.
Man I hate that argument. You are saying if we can't even figure out how not to harm the Earth's environment we can't or shouldn't be working on how to create a good environment in space right?
That is so backwards! We learn by doing the smaller things first, then the large ones. What do you think is more complicated, the environment of a complete planet or the space within a spaceship? Maybe by figuring out how to live on the space ship we will actually learn something we can apply to managing our resources back on Earth! For example... I bet people will develop some really good waste processing technology when they are reliant on it directly for drinking water!
At the very least, any steps we take in space are not likely to harm any existing liveable natural environment unlike pretty much everything we do on Earth. If anything environmentalists should want us OFF the planet, not on it! Some people seem to be more concerned about poluting our dead moon than they are our living planet! WTF are people smoking?
Yes, of course! And that's why we do!
But.. if we were more advanced it might not take so much effort to put something up there. That would be a game changer. Rather than throw out spacecraft when their consumables run dry we would do it (or better yet recycle them) when they are technologically obsolete.
"...I don't think they should instantly be elevated to the level of creditability that the traditional journals currently enjoy without proving their worth"
The universe is a universe of facts which are either true or false. It doesn't matter if I publish it in a respected journal, on a toilet paper roll in a truck stop bathroom or not at all. It's still either true or false. If an article is open about who reviewed it and how then what more does one need? In a worst case senario, if one really really needs to verify something, just contact the people who claim to have repeated the experiment or observation and ask them.
"I didn't say that this data should be available simply because my tax dollars subsidized it."
No. I did. And I don't think I am alone.
" Just because an embattled president..."
Huh? When did we start talking about him? Do Ineed to re-read all the grandparent comments? My money my information, your money your information. It's a pretty simple matter of ownership. I don't need the president or anybody else to tell me this.
"as soon as feasible"
By some definition of the word feasible. In today's internet connected world feasible to me starts about 5 minutes after discovery. It's pretty much a matter of copying a file to a publically accessable place. Of course.. there is a difference between something being peer reviewed and just being a preliminary result of a single experiment but it only takes a few strokes on a keyboard to label things as such.
"Personally I believe that,... are obligated to provide this knowledge to society..."
That's awesome! I appreciate that. I don't share your belief but I do appreciate it. If you want to pay for something yourself I would support your right to publish it in however expensive, closed, etc... place you wanted or even to not report it at all. Don't get me wrong, that would be a shame, a loss for the rest of us and rather pointless too but if you paid for it then that is your right.
" it is up to the government to provide funding for this research"
That would be "We the People". If you are entitled to our money to do your research than we should be entitled to the result. Actually, that's the only reason I can see that we should be paying you, so that we can be enlightened ourselves when you release the results.
"People who say that they are entitled to all government funded data oversimplify a complex issue."
No, people that say it is more complex are just spinning words in order to add complexity to a simple question of ownership. It's a way to make stealing look like something else.
" Not all governmental research has this type of obligation, but those types of research is in the minority. "
What are we talking about here? State secrets / how to kill people? That's an entirely different line of discussion and way to big a tangent to want to deal with so I'll grant you an exception on that one, only to stay on track regarding purely scientific information.
"The non-free journals are searchable and readable/printable at some (probably most) university libraries."
Contrary to some people's belief not everyone who might have an interest in science currently attends or works at a university. If I took Bob, Sue and Alice's money to go buy coffee but only gave coffe to Alice are Bob and Sue going to be happy if I say 'well, it's ok, Alice got some'?
Also, even if you are a priveleged person with access, recent events show it is certainly not without limitations. Apparently accessing too much information through a university can completely ruin your life.
-- Why do I think that the public owns anything which the government pays for?
Perhaps there is something of a compromise which must occur any time tax money is used to pay for something. Of course, tax money is not the ONLY thing spent on your research. Even if you are 100% tax funded monetarily, your time and labor go into it as well. Does this mean that the public does not own it? Well... I don't think the
Some cancers are started by viri.
No, I think you can get some higher powers legally using ham bands if you are licensed. I think that is limited to specific frequencies and still lower power than hams normally use to talk to one another but I'm not up on the exact rules for that. I bet it's a whole lot more than you can do by part 15 though!
In the 80s and 90s consoles were pretty much NEVER backwards compatible. And when things started getting better and they were... still not every game worked perfectly. If you want things like backwards compatibility, or really compatibility with ANYTHING except the exact same model game console you get a PC game, not a console game!
While you will find makers and hardware hackers on slashdot your mostly going to find kids who don't see the value in any tech they can't get a faster framerate than their friends playing the latest games on.
You should be asking this on Hackaday's forum or better yet on your local hackerspace's IRC channel.
I dunno, given the power consumption of a CRT...
Then again, given all the transport of materials back and forth around the world that goes into making anything new...
It's pretty confusing these days to tell WHAT is more efficient!
No, I've been hording electronics since my college days. You would be amazed how much old computer junk I had packed in a college dorm room. But... CRTs which I couldn't use, less than VGA, nonfunctional, I used to enjoy throwing them out the 3rd story window of the study room.
Also, old, nonstandard computer cases were fun to get rid of. Now... I really was hording, for example, cases which I could get a standard footprint motherboard into given a nibbler and a hacksaw and a LOT of elbow grease I kept. It was mainly ones with non-standard spacing between the expansion slots and junk like that I tossed, after removing floppy drives, pathetically small hard drives, controler cards, etc... I used to throw unusable cases down the garbage shute. I would do it at night when people were sleeping. I always did it from the top floor and always at an angle so it bounced betweeen the metal walls several times on the way down.
Bah!
Windows 95.... on a 386!
Yes, it can be done, I've seen it.
It even had AOL muh ha hah hahh
I can understand why you don't want to lose the choice of where you publish 'your' research. But as a taxpayer why should I be funding 'your' project if I don't even get to see the results? If you want to lock your work in an ivory tower then that is your right but don't expect me to pay for it!
No, he's saying that he wants the government to mandate that the scientists who's work was paid for with public funds chose open journals to publish in. He is not saying that the open journals always chose to accept those scientist's work and publish it. The open journals would use the same peer review process that the overpriced ones are using now. These are not the same sites were you read your crappy e-books nor would they become that.
If the public pays for the research shouldn't the public get a chance to read it?
Hmmm... with the right software maybe Google glass could be WAY better than beer goggles!
" It makes me vibrate when techies accept ridiculously stupid crap like this"
Hmm... did you ever have a techie girlfriend? Did she ever talk in bed about putting her non-digital CD in her 'hard drive' ?
Wait, no, I really don't want you to answer that!