I agree completely. It's like the entire state is in denial!
I was up in NH with family last year. They still advertise the stupid OLD MAN everywhere. It's in all their tourist books, placemats in restaurants, license plates, coins, etc. etc. There is NO mention of the fact that it fell down years ago and no longer exists!
So we figure that if it's such a HUGE deal, it's probably worth seeing and head to the right area. We walk down a brief trail from the parking lot, past a closed-down gift shop, to a clearing by a lake packed with other tourists. All are looking at the cliff edge, taking pictures, pointing, confused as hell. Only after about 5 minutes of trying to see this "face in the mountain", does my brother notice a crappy teeny tiny little plaque that starts by explaining the natural process of erosion... doh!
You mean the GSM standard. CDMA doesn't support multipart SMS messages.
Don't know how true that statement is in practice... every verizon (CDMA) phone I've ever used has done multipart SMS. I'm not sure whether this is implemented at the protocol level, or just concat'd in software after receiving a series of texts. Regardless, it's transparent to the end-user.
I agree with you in spirit. Angosticism to packet contents is logically a separate issue from bandwidth caps. However, the practical ramifications of both to the consumer are pretty much identical.
Time Warner sells cable TV, digital voice, video-on-demand, and run their own web portal (with videos, music, etc.) Presumably none of these service would be affected by their bandwidth cap. In contrast, hulu, youtube, vonage, netflix, etc. would be billed at $1/GB (at cheapest based on the current plan).
So while they haven't prioritized packets based on content/destination, they have made certain packets ludicrously expensive to the end-user (the packets that don't correspond to other Time Warner services). This effectively prioritizes packets using user behavior and economic principles. At the end of the day, does it really matter whether they use a piece of hardware to inspect packets and set QOS flags, or just use their grip on your wallet to drop those packets to a trickle.
At the very least caps are an end-run around net neutrality that will equally stifle innovation and competition. More realistically it's the first wedge Time Warner is driving into the net-neutrality issue. Anyone want to take any wagers on how long it will be after the caps are entrenched that we start seeing "free-bandwidth partner websites?" (e.g. Proudly announcing, TWulu, now bandwidth-usage-free to Time Warner customers!)
Meh.. You can look at hardware specs all you want, but the most telling thing here is to go through some of the reviews for cross-platform releases.
From what I've seen, 9/10 times the X360 version of a particular game gets higher (overall) reviews with comparable or superior graphics to the PS3 version. The other 10% of the time, the reviewer finds both versions comparable. As a matter of fact, I don't think I've ever seen a cross-platform review where the reviewer preferred the PS3 version of a game (I'm sure they exist, but must be pretty rare!).
I attribute this the fact that developers haven't fully caught up on the cell architecture yet. However, at the end of the day it doesn't really matter to me (the consumer). All that matters is the fact that the games that I want to play right now seem to play better on the x360 (when it's working)!
Except that CDMA providers actually do have free roaming agreements in many places within the USA which are often transparent to end users. (for instance sprint->verizon, verizon->alltel down south, etc.) These are not always marked uniformly in the ERI/PRL. By setting your phone to "home only" you would likely be reducing your normal free (non-roaming) coverage area by quite a bit.
IIRC, older CDMA sets would only associate with the home SID in the NAM when "home only" was set (which is pretty much never what you want to happen unless you want to force the phone onto a certain network in a particular geographical area).... but even worse, from what i've seen modern sets do something completely random depending on the phone vendor/firmware along with your ERI and PRL combo.
SO, IMHO "home only" is a very conservative option which will likely substantially reduce your coverage (often in a pretty unpredictable manner), and your best bet is to leave it off and actually figure out how your phone indicates roaming. (flashing triangles, "roam" banner, etc.)
P.S. The article refers to a GSM users. GSM phones do not give the user any control over the roaming list.
I was being quick in my reply and not very exact. Sorry for the confusion. You are correct that the chromatic aberrations do not matter until you get into the refractive components of the individual science instruments.
Assuming that the reflectivity of the surfaces is still good at visible wavelengths, the part of the prescription that changes are the surface figure requirements and tolerancing (spacing, alignment, etc.)
The operating range of the of the Herschel is 60-670 microns.
In order to get to diffraction limited in the visible with the same telescope, you would have to do a few orders of magnitude better in surface quality and alignment. Think of it this way, a wave at 600nm (visible) is 100 times smaller than a wave at 60 microns (Herschel IR). So you have to be about that much more exact in everything you do! So you CAN stick a Si detector on the Herschel, but you will get crap for an image.
The JWST design wavelength is at 2 microns (close to visible), and it is required to be diffraction limited at that wavelength. There was originally a requirement to have the JWST diffraction limited all the way down into the high visible, but it has been lifted to save costs AFAIK. It'll still be pretty damn good at visible, but no guarantee that it will be diffraction limited anymore.... So, expect some beautiful visible shots from the JWST!
Because an optical design for IR will not work well in the visible. It's not as simple as slapping an Si detector somewhere in the field and snapping images. The optical prescription of the telescope has to be tailored to the operating wavelength.
You would think that after being shot down by several people you might actually go and do some reading instead of persisting in your idiocy.
Cellular phones (since the Moto Dynatec according to wikipedia) have the ability to change their transmit power at the request of the network. This was SPECIFICALLY designed for the purpose of accommodating different-sized/power cells and increasing capacity (like in this situation). It is one of the principle reasons that you can now see cellular transmitter at different heights on towers (mostly lower), and why picocells work.
This capability is especially critical in CDMA-based systems for another reason. In a CDMA system, a user close to the tower would be jacking up the noise floor and decreasing capacity for the entire cell... unless the tower has a way of remotely regulating that users handset power.
Here is a page about power control in the UMTS system (http://www.umtsworld.com/technology/power.htm). You can also easily look up dozens of papers on calculating optimal handset powers for CDMA systems, and CDMA cell breathing.
I bet a nice chunk of this was due to people watching the CNN live feed at work. CNN partnered with facebook so that the live video feed page had your friends' facebook status, and gave you the opportunity to update your own status while watching the inauguration.
Btw as for the people who keep saying the cell towers on wheels solved all the problems, I dunno what moron thought that was going to help but there's only so much bandwidth available in the air regardless of the number of towers and you can't have them stomping on each other.
Apparently those "morons" that actually work as cellular engineers. You roll in the cell sites on wheels (COWs), drop the output power of neighboring cells, and voila increased capacity!
But hey, I guess it's just easier to call someone a name whenever you don't understand how something works.
Latency on 3G mobile broadband networks isn't bad. I usually see 100-500msec, with the average hovering somewhere around 200-300. Far from optimal for gaming, but enough to make the web feel snappy.
Why exactly is the sempron better? AFAIK, this Celeron is based on core architecture, and should actually be appreciable faster than the sempron (even with a 200MHz clock disadvantage)!
WRONG! Depending on the amount/type of damage, you CAN revive a teammate. In fact, this is USUALLY the case (the exceptions seem to be when your teammate gets headshot/blown up, etc.)
Furthermore, when you down an enemy, you can just fire a few more shots at them to permanently finish them off (or run over and perform one of the finishing moves).
fyi : I actually did beat GOW2 in co-op, so I'm not pulling this out of my ass
Saying "Interferometry can do better" makes no sense... similar to saying "RISC can do better" for you computer geeks. It's basically jargon + the phrase can do better. Meaningless without a problem statement and a lot of background info.
In reality, very few optical telescopes can operate in an interferometric mode, and there's a specific class of problems where it's actually useful. Furthermore, I think it would hard to define "better" in this context. FYI there are also preliminary plans out there for formation-flying interferometric space telescopes (none are currently on the map for real funding AFAIK).
In terms of absolute resolution over a small field with just a single telescope (non-interferometric), ground-based Adaptive Optics *can* do better (under certain conditions)... in the near future, they will be able to do significantly better than the Hubble over a much larger range of conditions... -But- there are still PLENTY of things that ONLY a space telescope can do, a buttload of things it does "better", and tons of interesting science that remains to be done.
Getting these to flawlessly get set-up from scratch is a feat in itself. Why don't we have such a product? I am no coder so I cannot do much except reporting problems.
I imagine a single script a user can run then have all those services running within parameters to be supplied. Linux folks are capable of a lot more so this should not be that difficult.
... because mail IS complicated, and each of these products has its own quirks and gotchas.
Someone who cannot be bothered to read the teeny fraction of relevant documentation necessary to properly set up this software probably has no business administering it (especially on a production network). Since a poorly configured mail server really has the potential to piss thousands of people off around the planet, I'm actually content with the current state of affairs...
P.S. you are looking for a product called Microsoft Exchange. It has nice big buttons you can point and click on. Luckily the costs involved and the presence of an official certification program serve as an effective barrier to entry for most amateur admins.
And why does it have to be contactless for ANY of the proposed applications?.
It seems safe to assume that your do not live upstate.
The NEXUSborder ID card costs $50 and is acceptable at only about sixteen border crossings nation-wide.NEXUS
I don't get it. I actually DO live upstate... Not everyone here drives to Canada often enough to justify the $50.
Besides, what does the nexus card have to do with anything? How does RFID make the nexus card better. Since you have to stop to use the card, wouldn't it have been CHEAPER, just as EASY and WAY MORE secure to use a barcode or a magstripe system?
Yeah, but that's EXACTLY what I don't get! It doesn't help the lazy either. In my experience, I have to practically rub the card on the reader in order for the RFID to register. It HAS to be designed that way so that I don't accidentally pay for the guy checking out in front of me!
Meanwhile, a nefarious party with a powerful enough receiver/transmitter can read it from inside my wallet, dozens of feet away.
Seriously! Can anyone please tell me the point of RFID in ID / credit cards!? I KNOW it doesn't make them more convenient. It DEFINITELY doesn't make them more secure. There's no longevity issues with laminated barcodes or any magstripe I've used recently (I'm a heavy CC user, and the card ALWAYS expires before the magstripe fails).
There are certain things that RFID will revolutionize (like inventory tracking, toll lanes, rapid checkout etc.)... but I haven't heard a SINGLE good reason for implementing it in ID/CC cards! Why pay for all the supporting infrastructure just to make the process more insecure?
And why does it have to be contactless for ANY of the proposed applications?
Am I the only one who fails to see the push for RFID in identifying cards? I've use my mastercard with RFID chip at the local supermarket. It's really NO more convenient than the magstripe... but it DOES open up the possibility that someone could clone my card from a few feet away!!! Furthermore, I don't see how this benefits the CC company. I've never had a magstripe on a credit card wear out before the bank sent me a new one (and I use my credit card at least once or twice a day)...
If you really are JUST storing an identifier on the drivers license, wouldn't a barcode or magstripe accomplish the same thing, AND be MUCH more secure? My current NYS drivers license has one of those fancy 2D looking barcodes. Isn't that sufficient for storing an ID number? If it isn't, then what about just printing another one of those. There's plenty of space! Not only would that be cheaper (hardware is currently in place), but it would also be impossible to probe from dozens of feet away!
In other words, he wasn't actively producing the pirated systems, or loading the games onto the consoles. He simply bought them wholesale from China, imported them, and re-sold them for profit in local malls. Doesn't make it right, but gives the story a slightly different twist in my mind.
To my knowledge, the games pre-loaded on this set are also currently out of production (but based on current retro-gaming trends may be re-introduced at a later date via online catalogs for existing consoles such as the wii).
In any case, another poster is correct. In my mind, most of these games are 14+ years old now, and not currently being sold by the original author. These two circumstances do lead me to question whether copyright law in this case really serves the interests of society.
Slashdot Mirror
I agree completely. It's like the entire state is in denial!
I was up in NH with family last year. They still advertise the stupid OLD MAN everywhere. It's in all their tourist books, placemats in restaurants, license plates, coins, etc. etc. There is NO mention of the fact that it fell down years ago and no longer exists!
So we figure that if it's such a HUGE deal, it's probably worth seeing and head to the right area. We walk down a brief trail from the parking lot, past a closed-down gift shop, to a clearing by a lake packed with other tourists. All are looking at the cliff edge, taking pictures, pointing, confused as hell. Only after about 5 minutes of trying to see this "face in the mountain", does my brother notice a crappy teeny tiny little plaque that starts by explaining the natural process of erosion... doh!
You mean the GSM standard. CDMA doesn't support multipart SMS messages.
Don't know how true that statement is in practice... every verizon (CDMA) phone I've ever used has done multipart SMS. I'm not sure whether this is implemented at the protocol level, or just concat'd in software after receiving a series of texts. Regardless, it's transparent to the end-user.
I agree with you in spirit. Angosticism to packet contents is logically a separate issue from bandwidth caps. However, the practical ramifications of both to the consumer are pretty much identical.
Time Warner sells cable TV, digital voice, video-on-demand, and run their own web portal (with videos, music, etc.) Presumably none of these service would be affected by their bandwidth cap. In contrast, hulu, youtube, vonage, netflix, etc. would be billed at $1/GB (at cheapest based on the current plan).
So while they haven't prioritized packets based on content/destination, they have made certain packets ludicrously expensive to the end-user (the packets that don't correspond to other Time Warner services). This effectively prioritizes packets using user behavior and economic principles. At the end of the day, does it really matter whether they use a piece of hardware to inspect packets and set QOS flags, or just use their grip on your wallet to drop those packets to a trickle.
At the very least caps are an end-run around net neutrality that will equally stifle innovation and competition. More realistically it's the first wedge Time Warner is driving into the net-neutrality issue. Anyone want to take any wagers on how long it will be after the caps are entrenched that we start seeing "free-bandwidth partner websites?" (e.g. Proudly announcing, TWulu, now bandwidth-usage-free to Time Warner customers!)
If this is really true, I am switching to Earthlink today.
Meh.. You can look at hardware specs all you want, but the most telling thing here is to go through some of the reviews for cross-platform releases.
From what I've seen, 9/10 times the X360 version of a particular game gets higher (overall) reviews with comparable or superior graphics to the PS3 version. The other 10% of the time, the reviewer finds both versions comparable. As a matter of fact, I don't think I've ever seen a cross-platform review where the reviewer preferred the PS3 version of a game (I'm sure they exist, but must be pretty rare!).
I attribute this the fact that developers haven't fully caught up on the cell architecture yet. However, at the end of the day it doesn't really matter to me (the consumer). All that matters is the fact that the games that I want to play right now seem to play better on the x360 (when it's working)!
Except that CDMA providers actually do have free roaming agreements in many places within the USA which are often transparent to end users. (for instance sprint->verizon, verizon->alltel down south, etc.) These are not always marked uniformly in the ERI/PRL. By setting your phone to "home only" you would likely be reducing your normal free (non-roaming) coverage area by quite a bit.
IIRC, older CDMA sets would only associate with the home SID in the NAM when "home only" was set (which is pretty much never what you want to happen unless you want to force the phone onto a certain network in a particular geographical area).... but even worse, from what i've seen modern sets do something completely random depending on the phone vendor/firmware along with your ERI and PRL combo.
SO, IMHO "home only" is a very conservative option which will likely substantially reduce your coverage (often in a pretty unpredictable manner), and your best bet is to leave it off and actually figure out how your phone indicates roaming. (flashing triangles, "roam" banner, etc.)
P.S. The article refers to a GSM users. GSM phones do not give the user any control over the roaming list.
Kudos for knowing about chromatic aberration.
I was being quick in my reply and not very exact. Sorry for the confusion. You are correct that the chromatic aberrations do not matter until you get into the refractive components of the individual science instruments.
Assuming that the reflectivity of the surfaces is still good at visible wavelengths, the part of the prescription that changes are the surface figure requirements and tolerancing (spacing, alignment, etc.)
The operating range of the of the Herschel is 60-670 microns.
In order to get to diffraction limited in the visible with the same telescope, you would have to do a few orders of magnitude better in surface quality and alignment. Think of it this way, a wave at 600nm (visible) is 100 times smaller than a wave at 60 microns (Herschel IR). So you have to be about that much more exact in everything you do! So you CAN stick a Si detector on the Herschel, but you will get crap for an image.
The JWST design wavelength is at 2 microns (close to visible), and it is required to be diffraction limited at that wavelength. There was originally a requirement to have the JWST diffraction limited all the way down into the high visible, but it has been lifted to save costs AFAIK. It'll still be pretty damn good at visible, but no guarantee that it will be diffraction limited anymore.... So, expect some beautiful visible shots from the JWST!
Because an optical design for IR will not work well in the visible. It's not as simple as slapping an Si detector somewhere in the field and snapping images. The optical prescription of the telescope has to be tailored to the operating wavelength.
The numeric keypad is on the right ... how exactly does this work out?
Don't know why you were modded insightful. Subby is correct!
Imagine a keyboard... now imagine a mouse...
Now imagine a right handed user using both and typing 1234.
Now imagine a left handed user using both and typing 159357.
Comprende?
You would think that after being shot down by several people you might actually go and do some reading instead of persisting in your idiocy.
Cellular phones (since the Moto Dynatec according to wikipedia) have the ability to change their transmit power at the request of the network. This was SPECIFICALLY designed for the purpose of accommodating different-sized/power cells and increasing capacity (like in this situation). It is one of the principle reasons that you can now see cellular transmitter at different heights on towers (mostly lower), and why picocells work.
This capability is especially critical in CDMA-based systems for another reason. In a CDMA system, a user close to the tower would be jacking up the noise floor and decreasing capacity for the entire cell... unless the tower has a way of remotely regulating that users handset power.
Here is a page about power control in the UMTS system (http://www.umtsworld.com/technology/power.htm). You can also easily look up dozens of papers on calculating optimal handset powers for CDMA systems, and CDMA cell breathing.
I bet a nice chunk of this was due to people watching the CNN live feed at work. CNN partnered with facebook so that the live video feed page had your friends' facebook status, and gave you the opportunity to update your own status while watching the inauguration.
Btw as for the people who keep saying the cell towers on wheels solved all the problems, I dunno what moron thought that was going to help but there's only so much bandwidth available in the air regardless of the number of towers and you can't have them stomping on each other.
Apparently those "morons" that actually work as cellular engineers. You roll in the cell sites on wheels (COWs), drop the output power of neighboring cells, and voila increased capacity!
But hey, I guess it's just easier to call someone a name whenever you don't understand how something works.
Latency on 3G mobile broadband networks isn't bad. I usually see 100-500msec, with the average hovering somewhere around 200-300. Far from optimal for gaming, but enough to make the web feel snappy.
Why exactly is the sempron better? AFAIK, this Celeron is based on core architecture, and should actually be appreciable faster than the sempron (even with a 200MHz clock disadvantage)!
WRONG! Depending on the amount/type of damage, you CAN revive a teammate. In fact, this is USUALLY the case (the exceptions seem to be when your teammate gets headshot/blown up, etc.)
Furthermore, when you down an enemy, you can just fire a few more shots at them to permanently finish them off (or run over and perform one of the finishing moves).
fyi : I actually did beat GOW2 in co-op, so I'm not pulling this out of my ass
No... not JUST GSM. There were several versions of CDMA RAZR's as well (all were very popular sellers). Google "v3c" for the first one.
All GSM phones roam freely between T-Mobile and AT&T's networks.
If the iPhone gets reception, the G1 will too.
So if you're complaining about reception, you're not just complaining about T-Mobile.
Whoa... That statement is not even REMOTELY true!!!
(polite correction)...
Saying "Interferometry can do better" makes no sense... similar to saying "RISC can do better" for you computer geeks. It's basically jargon + the phrase can do better. Meaningless without a problem statement and a lot of background info.
In reality, very few optical telescopes can operate in an interferometric mode, and there's a specific class of problems where it's actually useful. Furthermore, I think it would hard to define "better" in this context. FYI there are also preliminary plans out there for formation-flying interferometric space telescopes (none are currently on the map for real funding AFAIK).
In terms of absolute resolution over a small field with just a single telescope (non-interferometric), ground-based Adaptive Optics *can* do better (under certain conditions)... in the near future, they will be able to do significantly better than the Hubble over a much larger range of conditions... -But- there are still PLENTY of things that ONLY a space telescope can do, a buttload of things it does "better", and tons of interesting science that remains to be done.
Getting these to flawlessly get set-up from scratch is a feat in itself. Why don't we have such a product? I am no coder so I cannot do much except reporting problems.
I imagine a single script a user can run then have all those services running within parameters to be supplied. Linux folks are capable of a lot more so this should not be that difficult.
... because mail IS complicated, and each of these products has its own quirks and gotchas.
Someone who cannot be bothered to read the teeny fraction of relevant documentation necessary to properly set up this software probably has no business administering it (especially on a production network). Since a poorly configured mail server really has the potential to piss thousands of people off around the planet, I'm actually content with the current state of affairs...
P.S. you are looking for a product called Microsoft Exchange. It has nice big buttons you can point and click on. Luckily the costs involved and the presence of an official certification program serve as an effective barrier to entry for most amateur admins.
And why does it have to be contactless for ANY of the proposed applications? .
It seems safe to assume that your do not live upstate.
The NEXUSborder ID card costs $50 and is acceptable at only about sixteen border crossings nation-wide. NEXUS
I don't get it. I actually DO live upstate... Not everyone here drives to Canada often enough to justify the $50.
Besides, what does the nexus card have to do with anything? How does RFID make the nexus card better. Since you have to stop to use the card, wouldn't it have been CHEAPER, just as EASY and WAY MORE secure to use a barcode or a magstripe system?
Yeah, but that's EXACTLY what I don't get! It doesn't help the lazy either. In my experience, I have to practically rub the card on the reader in order for the RFID to register. It HAS to be designed that way so that I don't accidentally pay for the guy checking out in front of me!
Meanwhile, a nefarious party with a powerful enough receiver/transmitter can read it from inside my wallet, dozens of feet away.
Seriously! Can anyone please tell me the point of RFID in ID / credit cards!? I KNOW it doesn't make them more convenient. It DEFINITELY doesn't make them more secure. There's no longevity issues with laminated barcodes or any magstripe I've used recently (I'm a heavy CC user, and the card ALWAYS expires before the magstripe fails).
There are certain things that RFID will revolutionize (like inventory tracking, toll lanes, rapid checkout etc.)... but I haven't heard a SINGLE good reason for implementing it in ID/CC cards! Why pay for all the supporting infrastructure just to make the process more insecure?
And why does it have to be contactless for ANY of the proposed applications?
Am I the only one who fails to see the push for RFID in identifying cards? I've use my mastercard with RFID chip at the local supermarket. It's really NO more convenient than the magstripe... but it DOES open up the possibility that someone could clone my card from a few feet away!!! Furthermore, I don't see how this benefits the CC company. I've never had a magstripe on a credit card wear out before the bank sent me a new one (and I use my credit card at least once or twice a day)...
If you really are JUST storing an identifier on the drivers license, wouldn't a barcode or magstripe accomplish the same thing, AND be MUCH more secure? My current NYS drivers license has one of those fancy 2D looking barcodes. Isn't that sufficient for storing an ID number? If it isn't, then what about just printing another one of those. There's plenty of space! Not only would that be cheaper (hardware is currently in place), but it would also be impossible to probe from dozens of feet away!
I was just thinking the same. Seems to me that if you want anyone to be an 'authorized person', the above doesn't matter.
That's cool... until one of your "authorized" persons threatens the president!
FYI : you are off by a factor of two on the diameter of the primary. It should be roughly a meter (probably a little more accounting for aberrations)
He was selling these :
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Power_Player_Super_Joy_III
In other words, he wasn't actively producing the pirated systems, or loading the games onto the consoles. He simply bought them wholesale from China, imported them, and re-sold them for profit in local malls. Doesn't make it right, but gives the story a slightly different twist in my mind.
To my knowledge, the games pre-loaded on this set are also currently out of production (but based on current retro-gaming trends may be re-introduced at a later date via online catalogs for existing consoles such as the wii).
In any case, another poster is correct. In my mind, most of these games are 14+ years old now, and not currently being sold by the original author. These two circumstances do lead me to question whether copyright law in this case really serves the interests of society.