Comment AGAIN WITH THIS (Score 3, Insightful) 60
http://build.slashdot.org/stor...
wasn't all that interesting the first round, just how many raspberry pin a cutesy box stories are needed ?
http://build.slashdot.org/stor...
wasn't all that interesting the first round, just how many raspberry pin a cutesy box stories are needed ?
You need to see the movie. I highly doubt that the DHS used it as propaganda.
Using lasers for freespac communications is already very practical and well solved, just look at this example
Yesssssh... just like computer networking, both wired and wireless, is already very practical and well-solved, so no need for anything faster than... 10Mbit, or 11Mbit, or 54Mbit, or 100Mbit, or... take your pick.
Really now, what are you smoking?
Actually you have an excellent example there. Networking/communication is much more sensitive to reliability issues than performance issues especially for long distance links. This may help you understand, ask yourself how many people who already have broadband will derive significant benefit from having the amount of available bandwidth increased by a factor of 10 ? Then ask yourself how many people would significantly benefit from having their reliability increased by a factor of 10 ?
Now you also have to ask yourself if you are running 10 times the traffic through one of these links, just how much more impact will downtime have ?
Engineering is always about balancing your choices against each other, in this case you have to think a little about just where this might actually be used. For the communication application it needs niches, where it can outperform traditional fiber, AND existing line of sight communication links.
Hope that helps you understand why so many things you see being touted as the nicest thing since slice bread and will be everywhere in a few years, never amount to much of anything. If it doesn't see if you can find an archive of old popular science/mechanics/scientific american magazines from 20-40 years ago and look at what they were thinking would be the next big thing. Is anyone even thinking about producing a nutcracker vtol ? http://forum.keypublishing.com...
“Instead of a watchlist limited to actual, known terrorists, the government has built a vast system based on the unproven and flawed premise that it can predict if a person will commit a terrorist act in the future,”
I thought that was an exceptionally silly idea when it used in Captain America Winter Soldier. Is Armin Zola running the DHS ?
The overreach of this goal, is very worrisome. Especially when you consider that the inevitable failures will likely result in its promoters just doubling down on what they claim it needs to work.
Pretty well actually
http://www.fastlinks-wireless....
http://etherealmind.com/free-s...
They are currently in widespread use
The real question is just how much improvement would you get with the new system under inclement conditions. The other big question is how they fare against microwave links.
Frank Herbert wrote in a few of his sf novels about a Bureau of Sabotage that did essentially that, gumming up the efforts of other government agencies
Hold it, don't we have that ? I am fairly certain is congress's job to gum up the entire society.
and the only ones that looked remotely practical was the laser weapon and remote sensing requiring high power high focus.
Using lasers for freespac communications is already very practical and well solved, just look at this example
http://esc.gsfc.nasa.gov/267/2... (BTW definitely one of the better uses of NASA's budget. )
All the other mentioned applications also have off the shelf solutions that perform exceptionally well. The weapons and high power remote sensing however while listed last seem to have the most to gain. Being able to generate a waveguide in either case solves their two big problems atmospheric distortion and the need to focus large amounts of laser energy on a small point.
Your reaction is what I've noticed most women get if they even gently bring something up. It's 100% complete denial and blame the messenger.
If you are in management and the entire office is giving you death threats, it might just be that you are doing something wrong.
What I can't figure out is why? I'm a guy, I'm a software developer. I like to work off data. Every single even halfway notable woman I've seen or talked to from conferences in person to online forums and Twitter all tell the same story: massive ongoing campaigns of harassment.
Your data seems to contradict other people's data that women don't like to talk about these incidents.
True, this behavior may be a small group of bad apples, but by denying the problem exists at all you're enabling those bad apples to continue doing what they do.
I am sorry we went from one proposition, that everyone or the vast majority were the problem, to the proposition that there are few bad apples.
These are mutually exclusive propositions. You can't be both just a few bad apples and the entire industry at the same time.
Seriously, why can't we just admit women catch a lot of shit just for being women in tech?
Is there a recognizable subgroup on the planet that doesn't catch shit for being who they are ?
Just how annoying is this person that she generates that kind of hate ?
I have worked with/under/and above women and the only time I have ever seen anyone get this kind of reaction, male or female is when it is provoked or the people perpetrating it were a few punch cards short of a program.
Ahh so there are no scarce resources that go into digital creations ? Nobody puts time, money, consumable resources to make entertainment ?
I didn't say that at all, and you know it. It's the "digital creations" themselves which are not scarce. Producing new ones requires labor and other scarce resources. However, artificial copyright monopolies are hardly the only way to fund the production of new media. In the absence of copyright you still have options like patronage and crowd-funding, not to mention volunteer efforts (which already make up a significant fraction of copyrighted works).
Really, while I certainly think that the media companies have been shooting themselves in the foot with machineguns by not maximizing the digital presence of their works,
No, punishing those who distribute copies of digital media without their authorization isn't a right. It's just a privilege invented as part of a scheme to incentivize the creation of new works. And like any legal privilege, it can only exist by infringing on the natural rights of others. There are other, better options.
Aren't you the little godling. What's your stuff is your natural right to control and have the state punish those that abuse that right, but for people that create the things you enjoy it's an artificial privilege. Then you go around saying that a system that is producing most of the worlds entertainment should be discarded just so people can have things they didn't contribute to the creation of ?
Seriously why don't you just try justifying why you limit access to your property or person for your own material interests.
That's easy. If someone else is using my property or person, I can't use it myself. Use of scare resources is inherently competitive and zero-sum. The same is not true for non-scarce resources like digital media.
Ahh so there are no scarce resources that go into digital creations ? Nobody puts time, money, consumable resources to make entertainment ?
To condense out, you limit access to your things so you can derive benefit from them, in the case of digital creations you have arbitrarily decided that the creators and their creations shouldn't enjoy the same protections you enjoy with your property.
Really, while I certainly think that the media companies have been shooting themselves in the foot with machineguns by not maximizing the digital presence of their works, (Just who the hell does it benefit when I can't watch all quiet on the western front, or Kubric's paths of glory ?). But that's their right. Just the same way it's your right not to let random strangers take a nap in your home when you aren't there.
I also wouldn't use a service that does not provide a library at least on par with The Pirate Bay.
That's a pretty ridiculous bar to set.
I think it's a very reasonable bar to set. TPB proves that there is no technical reason why we can't provide everyone with near-instant, free access to basically every last bit of media on Earth. It's up to the pro-copyright faction to justify withholding that access to suit their own material interests.
Oh man, That's just nucking futs. Seriously why don't you just try justifying why you limit access to your property or person for your own material interests.
What the gods would destroy they first submit to an IEEE standards committee.
