Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter


Forgot your password?
DEAL: For $25 - Add A Second Phone Number To Your Smartphone for life! Use promo code SLASHDOT25. Also, Slashdot's Facebook page has a chat bot now. Message it for stories and more. Check out the new SourceForge HTML5 Internet speed test! ×

Comment Re:Verizon did this as well (Score 1) 88

"Oh, bullshit. You've fallen for marketing. No one voted them in charge of the dictionary"

This is not how standards bodies work.

NGMNA is simply a working group of mobile networks and handset makers who sit around and come up with a set of standards as to what will be called "5G". For 4G they settled on the LTE family of protocols of which LTEX is one of those standards. They are recognized by governments, standards super-bodies such as the IEEE, the mobile handset makers and the networks. Thats as close to "voted in" as your going to get.

No you dont get a say in it, unless your making handsets or own a mobile network, anything else is solipsist nonsense. Words actually have meanings dude, and they are not "Whatever I stamp my feet and demand to be true".

NGMNA's current prototype is based around the Snapdragon X50 modem which runs in the mm range (around 28ghz range) and supposedly can operate at a burst bandwidths of 35gbps.

Which is actually ridiculous and I have doubts they'll give consumers that much to play with. But a "generation" in mobile networks is around ten years, and we're still a long way off anything the NGMA and its member companies will agree on as worth locking in for a decade as a standard

Comment Re:Verizon did this as well (Score 2) 88

No, the 5G network will be what the The Next Generation Mobile Networks Alliance (The guys who actually define this, being the telco working body in charge). Its a work in process and all the stakeholders agree on that much.

My iphone 7 gets 127mbps/s8.87mbps. Thats 4G

5G research is including things like milimeter wavelength coms (20+ghz) and likely will crack the 1gbps barrier.

Comment Re: Unlikely (Score 1) 232

We heard the same sort of claims made about climate 'science'. We were told that 'the science was settled'. Then it turns out that it actually wasn't settled at all. There was much to be doubtful about. The accuracy of measurement techniques became doubted. Questionable assumptions were made. Data had to be 'adjusted' to fit models. All in all, it left a bad taste in the mouths of people who strive to apply the scientific method rigorously and properly.

Anthropic climate change is very much "settled", except in the minds of conservative conspiracy theorists who's opinions don't count towards "the scientific consensus" (Principally because they are wrong).

Where was the data "adjusted". Time and time again when these claims where made, when people look into it, the evidence disapears. And "the measurements" are the same.

The whole "urban heat island" thing was unscientific nonsense thats been debunked time and time again. And that whole "hide the decline" nonsense was a specific case where a known deviation from observations regarding arctic tree ring samples in the 50s (Likely from nuclear testing pounding the trees in the area with radiation) was removed from a dataset to make the data *MORE* accurate.

But hey, why let the facts get in the way of a good conspiracy theory.

As for dating, we're talking Thorium/Uranium dating here, which is very robust to the time span we're refering to with an accuracy to within 1% (Much better than the 1std-deviation of carbon).

All of these figures fall out the apriori calculations that derive from fundamental physics and observation.

Much like modern climate modelling, actually.

Comment Re:Unlikely (Score 1) 232

Another problem is the new date is almost an order of magnitude older than all prior evidence. One isolated sample set is not sufficient evidence to revise the estimate that much. We'd need more samples from the likes of say 40k and 90k to give more credence to the 130k date.

Needing samples from other dates is unnecessary. A quick search of the journals will show thousands of samples from various time periods tested with the method. Its a solved problem.

More samples from the *same* source however will reduce the error margins

Comment Re:Unlikely (Score 2) 232

Nah. These new methods aren't accurate either. Everyone said carbon dating was accurate for decades, but it really wasn't. Don't believe everything you read.

Where are you getting this guff from? Carbon dating is precisely as reliable as it always has been, within one standard deviation. We've always known that, and the accuracy can be derived a-priori from fundamental physics.

There are more accurate methods, but all are basically derived from the fundamental determinism that radioactive decay occurs at a predictable rate.

Source: I dont read creationist propaganda.

Comment Re:What happens if this goes wrong? (Score 1) 108

So what happens if this intervention accidentally goes wrong and utterly destroys the entire reef? Wouldn't it be something if those who claim to be helping the reef end up killing it?

Between climate change , ocean acidification , invasIive crown of thorns starfish and an idiot government wanting to stick the worlds largest coal mine smack in the midst off if creating a giant reef-fucking shipping route over the top of it, its already at the "disaster" stage. whole regions of the reef are dying every year and thats not supposed to happen at all

Comment Re:Logic and Reason, or lack thereof (Score 2, Informative) 199

Your missing the point. Theres a hell of a lot of "Originalists" who always seem to be the first to suggest changes, want clauses revoked, or happy for weird exceptions to be allowed through if thats whats required to sync their idea of politics with the constitution as written.

How many republicans still demand prayer in school or creationionism in classrooms despite the plain languaged absolute prohibition of government religion in the first ammendment.

And yeah libs arent much better on this, but at least thats not inconsistent with the interpretive school of constitutional thought

Comment Re:Low-cost is the factor here (Score 2) 129

So any additional costs (such as end-of-life mechanisms designed to put it into a burn trajectory) are going to have a proportionally greater impact on that "low cost" selling point, which means the proponents have a motive to resist such extra mechanisms and costs.

Anything sold on its main benefit being "low cost" will eventually result in a race to the bottom, and the cost-cutting that entails - "hey, our module is lighter and cheaper to get into orbit (because we decided to do without expensive impact shielding/temperature control/whatever)"

I've been saying to anyone who'd listen, those cubesats are going to bite us in the arse if we're not careful. Unless we know where *every single one* is, and every single one has somebody responsible to make sure it doesnt end as spacejunk, we're going to ruin our future in space if we get run-away spacejunk. Theres *always* a cost to "cheap"

Comment Re: permissions (Score 2) 313

This. We have devs in the US and in South America, Eastern Europe, NA, and Asia. That doesn't stop my boss from merging bad codel

Its the worst. where I work our CEO is a business guy who runs a multi state multi million $ company with large numbers of employees aaaand he likes to code. In fairness, he's actually not a bad coder , coming from a C++ background, but hes rarely over all the issues that the engineers are over, and as a result theres always a background noise of randomness coming into the code from whenever the big boss is bored with money and meetings and all the things rich guys do. And its *strictly* non optional code. If god wants a new screen on the app, and he;s made it, well its in, and we have to stop everything and make the fucking thing work. And he doesnt know our build processes, how we stage things, how issues management works or anything. More likely I get a call at 1am saying "Hey the websites acting up can you have a look at whats going on, and I log into the production server and he's in there with vim boredom progrmaming on the principal production server. Its a nightmare.

Comment Re:NK *is* a credible threat (Score 0) 296

North Korea is a credible threat because they have SLBM's (Submarine-Launched-Ballistic-Missiles.) They can get very close - they don't need the kind of range an ICMB design provides.

Those subs cant move an inch without a satelite somewhere knowning what its up to. Hell, you just get an optical camera on a satelite., look for plankton plumes, and even your best subs aren't so stealthy. Even more so if its packing nukes.

The nanosecond NK seems like it might mash the fire button, those submarines are will be blown out the water.

Comment Re:Well that makes sense (Score 0) 185

Ever notice how prolific JS users rarely defend the language? Of course it's badly designed. We use it because it's pragmatic to use the lingua franca of programming.

As someone whos been coding for nearly 30 years, and uses JS on a more or less daily basis, I will say it now. Javascript is a language straight from the bowels of hell. In a browser its where it should be, its OK-ish. But on the server, what a mess. Its immature, missing very important features and consistenty is responsible for projects coming out ass-backwards late and broken, because its a language that just doesnt lend itself well to safe programming.

Now, sure, typescript and some of the newer 2016/2017 feature sets do go some way to fixing that, the bulk of js out there is trash and a bad trap for innexperienced coders.

Comment Re:No (Score 1) 152

That works great until there is a jammer. In other words, it works fine against small, overpowered nations against whom there are already a myriad of options.

Back in my uni days I remember asking a physicist friend how an emp device would work. He flipped over a piece of paper drew a relative simple (20-30 components, a few of which would need to be fairly large capacitors and fairly large coils) that would take out all the electronics in about a 30-40m range. He said anyone who knew their engineering could work it out, and theres not really an upper limit to scaling the things up.

The point is, I'm kind of surprised small and non state actors havent already tried to use these against UAVs. It seems like the kind of engineering problem whos answer to problems only ever would need to be "More juice".

Slashdot Top Deals

Another megabytes the dust.