So if we can give light Mass...
..does this mean we can use it to push something close to the speed of light?
22 posts • joined 10 May 2011
Older phone interfere with electronics for sure. There have been at least one plane crash (and deaths) on 2003 was attributed to mobile phone interference. Newer phones however are not that much of a worry.
We are moving towards having the ability to have phones on planes, the planes have been redesigned and are now less vulnerable and phones are more specific in the waveband the transmit.
Till all the planes are updated and the older phones are no longer in use. Why risk your death and the death of the 100 or so people around you?
I was so disappointed that I would never see if the next Symbian OS up against the Android. I heard some great things about it and thought that it could be some great competition. Would it have the legs to keep up against google? If anyone could then nokia was an interesting bet.
Then when they announced the partnership that pretty much went out the window.
The MS OS is quite good, but its reputation with the Windows phone OS was really always going to put it on a back foot.
The biggest thing wrong with metro is it takes focus away from the desktop. Actually I would say this the only issue with metro.
This does not resolve that issue. How are you meant to multitask with that restriction ?
Look, just leave metro for people who are on tablets. Give back business the start menu
If you leave you phone in online mode you will effect the electronics on the plane.
There have been several cases where a plane has rolled side to side. And there have also been aircraft crashes attributed to mobile phone interference (REF: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crossair_Flight_498 )
This is not so true of newer phones or newer planes. Newer planes have better shielding and newer phones transmit on a narrower band. Until you can be 100% sure the plane electronics can take it and that everyone has a newer phone, then this will be federal law and a jail able offence.
Any steward who does not actively ensure that your electronic device will lose their job. Let them do their job. Repeat violations by any airline will lose their flying license.
One day soon we will all be able to use what ever we want on a plane. We will laugh about what we had to do in "the old days" Until then don't do it. You are at the very least breaking a federal law. At the worst killing everybody on the plane.
Any thing that is put up to help stop download of copyrighted will be circumvented within days. This has been show again and again. It is not something you can stop and it is useless trying
However, if we look closely at the issue then we can see that the people who do illegal downloads usually do it for 3 main reasons
1. They don't have any money and they would never have brought the content anyway
2. They have the money but they do not have the ability to purchase because of regional restrictions
3. They want to "try before they buy"
So my solution would be the following:
Every new Movie should be released immediately for free (or almost 0 cost) download on "low format". It would be a lower res edition missing unimportant scenes, stereo sound not dolby (maybe mono). Enough for the punter to say they have seen the movie. There would be no nag screans but there may be some advertising. The ads can be skipped if desired
Incentives for you to see the Movies in the cinema would be for "THE BIG MOVIE EXPERIENCE" with the full scenes and sound track
DVD release would be universal, and at the same time the same content would be available for download at a cost (pay per view and own outright) owning outright or purchasing the media would be given extra incentive though added value items such as making of etc..
Why do these things?
OK, so if you make the content legally and easily available even in a lower format, this will dramatically decrease the demand for peer to peer file sharing programs. If demand is lowered then the usefulness of these programs decreases. It will be harder to do and make the idea of paying for the content more attractive.
Make it easy and legal.
I am pretty sure the only company that has even claimed that directx was faster than OpenGL is Microsoft. All other companies and games developer know that OpenGL is faster. This has been shown in every comparative test (not using the MS OpenGL Wrapper) since 1995. Combine that with the faster Linux operating system then the results are a no brainier.
So why are the developers at Valve so surprised?
Having lived though the change over from imperial to the metric system in Australia during the 1970's I don't know what the fuss is all about.
Just do it. its not like you are going to wake up one morning and suddenly the world is turned upside down, it will happen gradually and with thought,
Yes there will be some extra expense in changing road signs etc.. but this will not be much more than the regular repairs and replacements.
The benefits far out weigh the costs.
AND... i would be very surprised if your local English pub would be forced to stop supplying the pint.. We retained our unique beer sizes.
update: John o' Sullivan didnt "invent" wifi, as my previous comment suggests, this was not my intention. it was only after re reading it that i saw my mistake.
to clarify: John O'Sullivan took the existing wifi protocols and developed technologies to make it many times faster.
Again I apologise in advance for any misconceptions that my previous comment may lead to. Please blame it on my hot head and the morning coffee buzz
I don't see what the issue is, CSIRO invented wifi, and they have every right to make claims on their patent .
As far as I am aware and from everything I know CSIRO scientist John O' Sullivan invented the technique behind wifi. He is the genius that worked out the complexities of the radio waves bouncing off the surrounding environment. Increasing speeds from a 300 baud modem to the incredible speeds that we obtain today. The latest wireless devices still use his theories, and if they didnt wifi would be a hell of a lot slower today.
John O' Sullivan alone worked out that rather than one packet by sending multiple packets as slightly different times, the massive environmental interference that exists could be cleaned up, thus allowing more and more packets to be sent at a vastly quicker pace.
In conjunction with the CSIRO they developed the prototype and patented it. And for some reason the rest of the world decided to ignore this and go on using John's theories without compensation.
The world of wifi would probably be a very different and at a slower pace without this.
Give John and the CSIRO the credit they are due PLEASE! if anything they should be paid more
blah! what can i say?
The music industry has had plenty of opportunities to adapt to new technologies and they have stubbornly refused to do so.
The obvious thing to do would have been to look at ways of using the new technology to make money rather than throwing money away to fight it. This is a lost cause.
I still buy albums, but now I listen to the majority of my music from internet radio and free music providers.
Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2019