you have to remember most specs have also relied on over lapping and shared channel maps. So the more networks your device can see the more impact you will suffer. At the same time the "RECEIVER" is the bigger problem, the transmitter only has limited capabilities to try and get the packets to you, it's upto the receiver to be able to decode it and put it back together. You also have to remember that in almost every case of "marketed" and or "consumer spec" the throughput is measured and tested with UDP traffic. As this becomes a calculation of raw packets per second at a specific size without scaling and takes alot of the "logic" behind cleaning up the flow out of the equation. UDP based streams are more likely in most cases to receive at a rate closer to the theory.
Same thing was once said about Gas. Your strapping a massive storage of energy to wheels and sending it off at speeds faster than most peoples reaction time. I think the one that batteries have going for it over any other source today is that they can be used and deployed without the need of specialized fueling or anything like that.
That's a hard thing to change, just look at DEF, you still have very limited supply locations if your a general consumer that isn't always going to truckstops.
Just adding, yes it's the Mom and Pops but the big guys also have the ability to generate a large amount of revenue from say a Comcast or a L3 so sometimes they will go after them. Look at the IVR patent cases that went around they started big and worked their way down. Now, where Cisco does become liable is that the "topology" aspects is often one of generally vague or generic design. Such that in many if not all cases the "examples"
Fair point sir.
Can anyone recommend a good forum for technical and interesting stories regarding the advancement of knowledge in this day and age. And not political rhetoric that's just slanted either left or right.
I want to cry when this is the type of stuff at the top of my once beloved slashdot.
Like others here I can't get the real article and as such must only comment on the summary. I to read this that an agency is being given permission to look at data that other agency's already have. And in so looking they can create a global view of the activities of those individuals and establish an action. Now, I'm not a lawyer but I assume the premise is that the information they obtained was legally done so under current law so there is nothing horrible going on. Likewise, one would assume that if such information was used and then found to not be legally obtained initially it would then be thrown out. Again from the summary I'm not seeing anything incredibly egregious here or even remotely giving me chills.
Sad part is at first read I thought nctc "NCTC (National Cable Television Cooperative)"
dry land is not a myth! I've seen it!
sorry couldn't help it
In one way is this not a failing of the school system but I see it in a way as a Brat bitching. Just reading the linked article and the "note" that was scanned into it they received she's not being denied an education but being said she can "go back to" her home school. On one hand this is like an employee refusing to wear the badge of their employer or uniform. If you don't like it don't go there you have that choice and can make that decision.
Maybe I am over simplifying this but yea to me this is pretty cut and dry people say "your school is your job" to kids all the time. I heard it, yes the system can be defeated but that's not the issue at hand. It is an issue that this helps to perpetuate and start even younger if you don't like a simple policy SUE!
And yea really "Mark of the Beast" it's her name... so.... I hope she never gets a drivers license, a Library card, or a Passport! I simply can't see her side.
yea will it run Doom!
Not be Mr negativity, but this is some of the reason why many say that NASA is becoming a failed experiment not worthy of federal funding. I don't mean to discount what they do and what they have done. But sometimes, they spend far more effort engineering than actually producing which is what makes it really hard to secure public buy-in over time.
You can re-supply a mission to the planet, you can accomplish many things but NASA's model of 6 years development for a 20 year mission isn't closing the gap fast enough to keep public interested in what they are doing. Really, do you *need* to plan a 3 year mission, no, your intentionally adding a layer of complexity to try and make everything into one bubble. NASA's hayday of accomplishment where they had massive amount of public interest was because everyday people saw the things that they were doing. They took chances (measured) and didn't engineer everything to death. They simply need to get out of their own way long enough for people to actually feel inspired by them.
Like the one person mentioned about renewing. There should be a limitation based on how long you have to file a case of infringement and that time should be relatively short. To often are we seeing patents dated from 5 years ago and people begin going after deployments that are common space 6 years later. Look the suits filed against voip providers for various things. Referencing materials thought of a long time ago been deployed now for 6 years but someone picked it up in a acquisition and decided to go after it.
Likewise you shouldn't be able to go after a company for using something that you didn't even own at the time you purchased it. For a sadly stupid example if I memory a corpse I shouldn't be able to then sue for wrongful death.
Because stupid people historically have been easier to control. It helps you to maintain your power.
While I agree with you this is also the problem of the day we live in. To much information allows people to make non practical decisions. Several of the vaccines are known to cause severe side affects. And life altering complications for that child who was before that vaccine healthy and doing just fine, people see these "horror" stories and can't manage to take that "risk" along with their children. My wife was one of these and I had to talk and carry a long conversation with her about it needless to say the vaccines happened after we talked through it. But people often don't understand their true odds and can only focus on the "OMG" factor.
Depending on the field and where you your going you really should have it. CS covers a broad area, like many tech companies hiring an "computer guy" require a CS degree in the qualifications. The reality and they know it, that's not what they need, software companies love to say you have to have a CS degree but then you find out they are developing with perl. Really CS for a perl scripty job? Having the math base puts you at the bottom of the technology tower, that foundation where everything is put ontop of it.
A pure example, while not 100% relative, ask your "IT guy" (admittedly many not all companies consider IT your desktop support) how a CPU truely works. While they are a smart man or woman and solve many problems they very often have no idea the foundation of how things a layer bellow works. But the stronger your base is the further down that tower you go, and the farther down it you are in the future you can easily move to any place above it.
First comment I see is on caps. For second there I thought I was on dslreports.