Posts by Rich of Observationz
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
Hard News: It's not funny because it's…, in reply to merc,
Not to mention that the experts in question are making predictions about economics without being economists, about sociology without being sociologists and about engineering without being engineers. I'd trust an expert in a scientific discipline on the specific subject they're qualified in. Someone who folk on the internet think to be one of the cool kids, less so.
Personally, I have a degree in Comp Sci and thirty-odd years experience, and have been using data circuits since the late 80's. I don't consider myself an expert though, just able to find and interpret information.
Wireless doesn't have intrinsically worse latency than wired (the speed of light is after all faster in air than glass) - practical protocols do have worse latency, but not unacceptable, unless you have a real need to zap your enemy inside milliseconds.
And I don't think our economic future hinges on winning at WoW.
-
Hard News: It's not funny because it's…, in reply to Sacha,
not nearly the same performance as fibre, is it?
You'd be surprised. 5Gbits enough for you?
More prosaically, 802.11n does 300Mbit/s. I'm getting 144Mbit right now. That's faster than UFB mandates, even on out-of-the-box technology.
What it wouldn't do is allow the digerati, when they meet their global mates at CatCon* or DivStock** to boast about how NZ has universal fibre to the home.
*CatCon - the leading unconference for users of the Linux cat command.
**DivStock - same, but for the DIV tag. -
fibre in the ground is fibre in the ground
It's presumably got a lifecycle and will one day be obsoleted. (and the termination kit will age a whole lot quicker).
Personally, I'd have thought a Fibre-To-The-Lamppost technology with wireless of some kind for the "last 20m" would have worked better. That way, there's no/less premise equipment, no/less marginal cost of connection and the ability to offer free trials.
-
Legal Beagle: On the possibilities of a…, in reply to Graeme Edgeler,
I stand corrected. Didn't realize that could happen.
-
Legal Beagle: On the possibilities of a…, in reply to David Ritchie,
A person (such as Gwaze) can appeal a conviction, and the appeal courts can order a retrial. The prosecution can't appeal an acquittal.
-
Hard News: Keeping our heads on "bath salts", in reply to david westcot,
Hey David, see that button on the right of your keyboard marked <Return>?
You can use it to break your thoughts into paragraphs. Makes them more readable.
-
In my view, it's highly likely that no drug (well, maybe caffeine) will get through the new process.
A doctor or pharmacist could clarify here, but my understanding is that the licencing process for new 'medical' pharmaceuticals balances risk and benefit, so that a new drug for terminal cancer can be much more hazardous than a treatment for man flu. Even then, pretty much all new products start out as prescription-only requiring a doctor and pharmacist's monitoring.
On this basis, a substance with negligible benefits and limited experience isn't going to be released for general sale through unqualified channels.
Then there's the fact that any substance, even placebo, will produce side effects. (It would be an interesting experiment to compound some inert food additives, sell them through Cosmic Christchurch, and observe how many hospital admissions they generate).
One would hope they'll set a higher benchmark, such as 'no worse than alcohol tobacco' or 'no worse than commonly used illicit drugs'. But I doubt it - I think the "I'd ban alcohol if I could" attitude of Jim Anderton is far to prevalent amongst our rulers.
-
Hard News: Judge Harvey: My part in his downfall, in reply to Steve Barnes,
by the time the dust settles and the law is enacted the technology has moved on
Which is why a well drafted law is technology independent. The Copyright Act sez:
Nothing in this Act prevents any person from using a TPM circumvention device to exercise a permitted act under Part 3.
Nothing about DVDs, carrier pigeons or anything else. If you're allowed to perform the underlying act (watching a legitimately acquired film, for instance), then it isn't illegal to hack out a TPM that's stopping you.
-
Hard News: Judge Harvey: My part in his downfall, in reply to Tom Semmens,
Was that an earlier, more verbose version of W00T?
-
Hard News: It's not funny because it's…, in reply to Steve Barnes,
You see one reason they're dragging the clearance/rebuild out? Keep wages down, make bigger profits.
(For instance, if they blew up all the hazardous buildings a year ago, as they're doing with this one, most of the CBD could have been reopened.)