Been waiting on that one forever
I'm no expert on this technology, but from tfs, it would seem to increase bandwidth by minimizing loss over distance, allowing for longer range and faster speed.
Not necessarily - there are lots of situations where it's not practical to run a cable. Secure connectivity between naval vessels is a prime example, others would be for use in the space program, or cheaper data communication between buildings in a campus. Residential broadband internet would be simpler - put an optical transceiver on the roof and point it at a tower - no more digging up the garden to provide fttp.
I pay $300 per year in my property tax bill for the public library system in my town. Why would I use anything else?
The much better Ars Technica summary article says that yes, 30m for 10Gbps, but 1Gbps over 70m. Gigabit DSL would be a game changer.
Just have to switch it around - instead of "offering a discount" for people who do this, think of it more as "charging a penalty" for people who don't.
Plus, ever since Snowden, the US is actively putting pressure on anyone in power in Russia - any Russians in positions of power with so much as a parking ticket in the US is on an extradition list.
Problem with that is, vegetation rots eventually, releasing methane - a more potent greenhouse gas than CO2. Sure, you can flame it off, but then you're still releasing that captured CO2 back to the atmosphere. Only by increasing the forest footprint of the world, or causing massive algae blooms in the oceans can you really sequester CO2 in vegetation.
Do you know anything at all about cost/benefit analysis and payback period?
The Germans are doing this with tax dollars, effectively siphoned off of the other EU members. I'd have to do it with my own money.
> Look outside! Life is beautiful and full of wonder!
Typical Euro-socialist garbage.
>Is this a republicans vs democrats thread in disguise?
Isn't every thread on Slashdot a political one these days? I swear, sometimes I think this place has become a cesspool of political mudslinging. I miss the old days before politics took over.
> Home owners can't really lose with solar PV
Unless, of course, you happen to live somewhere other than Southern California or Arizona, where weather conditions don't permit the sun to shine at sufficient intensity over the whole year. Here in the mid/upper midwest, the payback period for a solar installation on my house works out to be 17 years. Wind, on the other hand, can be cost effective if you have sufficient land space to put up a tower. I see a few of my rural neighbors with wind turbines on their properties.
All those TVs and the antenna are owned by you.
That's the difference.
In 1976, Congress updated the telecommunications act to specify that communal antennas were essentially 'retransmissions' under the act. SCOTUS was merely pulling Aereo in line with that existing law.
We do have the Museum of Science and Industry right across the street - a geek mecca if there ever was one.
Your timeline for that is a bit optimistic, I think. Robot factories - sure. Simple stuff like individual parts and toys from 3d printers - ok. For things like durable goods, there are too many dissimilar, complex parts made from varying materials, each processed in a different way, to make this a reality any time soon. You'd need a universal constructor - and that's at least 150 years out. We need to master far too many high level concepts first, like quantum physics.