I think color could be achieved by having the ionization at a different frequency so it produces photons on a colored wavelength.

What I want to know is:
1) does it fry the flesh from your skeleton if you stick your hand in the middle?
and
2) how long until we can get lightsabers?

Just tap into the undersea fibre, there are repeaters every few miles.

Seriously though, I never thought about it. My guess would be not very well, and after a quick search I found this video - http://youtu.be/49K2hjV9OOY ("How to make your GoPro WiFi working underwater"), so there wouldn't be a need for such an "antenna extender" if WiFi did work well enough under water.

Any submarine experts on the sift??
I suspect that very low frequencies could work, but there is probably a max depth below which they couldn't communicate well.

Australia? AUSTRALIA??!? Them's fightin' words!

I'm in New Zealand (which I'm pretty sure I mentioned at least once in this thread).

And no, NZ police have had to deal with insane people the same as the US, although not on the same scale or frequency.

As for the gun issue, Australia did something about it, and there have been 0 gun massacres since.

The inextricable bedrock excuse is getting old. It's been over 200 years! Things change (slavery, for example).

Having established that a large amount of spree killings (seemingly most) are with legally acquired weapons, it stands to reason that reducing the availability of legally ownable weapons would reduce the frequency of spree killings. As well as this reasoning it also seems to be empirically supported.
Contrary to exactly your point, the legal status of guns does seem to have an impact on certain uses. For instance, few people in the UK use guns for self-defence, because its rarely legal to carry guns for that purpose, even most criminals avoid them.

All below exercised, and the point is lost to so much sophistic treason. The cop get's a glimpse of ego-loss and goes about his merry cop way, and Billy here making a non-violent public statement of laws vs rights is fingered by a paranoid delusional (cop-caller), harassed-with-the-hope-of-a-fumble by a dutiful enforcer/instigator (cop), and the ONLY thing that kept him off the National Terrorist Database was his acumen and legal knowledge...in publicly showcasing his RIGHTS under the LAW, he barely escapes arrest.

The point being, that with increasing frequency, a routine police-encounter because of someone's 'suspicion' may quickly and more often than not, escalate into an innocent citizen being FUCKED into a state-system of the state-sanctioned organized criminal business of keeping people in a state of fear of arrest and incarceration, oh ye clueless dumb-asses who think the world works or should work in some universally, equitable fashion.

Bravo for this Mainer's low-swinging balls and fuck the vortex of the US police forces in retrograde-The entire justice machine is rotten with institutional corruption and overdue for a major douche, or the future of Americas' headed for boots, clubs, and riot shields.

In dogs, artificial selection gave lots of variety that couldn't have existed in nature. But in humans there's no distinction between natural selection and artificial selection. We intelligently select our own mates by stringent criteria. Females favor good providers, and the cognitive traits that make a good provider changed drastically over the past 10,000 years, so you would expect the frequencies of genes affecting cognition to undergo unusually rapid change.

Yes, I am not entirely convinced by the term "reverse racism" either, but that's the one he used so I opted to let it stand.

Nonetheless, it's interesting how people can remain stuck on the label and miss the bigger point.
Yes "racism is racism", but that's not what he is talking about. Let's use a simple example: you're a white guy out in the street (of a western country, that is), minding your own business, when suddenly you are insulted by a black guy out of nowhere. He hates white folks. That guy is an evil racist, you got that right. He even snatches your wallet. You've been mugged by a racist. It sucks. It's an event in your life, but tomorrow will be another day.
Now let's compare that to being a black/colored/minority person: The police can stop, frisk, and detain you. Any day. You may be refused service at some restaurant. Any day. You may not be let in a club. Any day. You may not get that job. You may not get that apartment. If where you live really sucks, you may be in for a mugging or lynching on a seasonal basis. It won't happen all the time of course, but it will happen again and again, with a frequency and severity you will never be able to predict, and when it happens you will have no recourse. It's not 'an event', it defines you life. You expect it around every street corner.

So you and I can encounter a racist, but someone from a minority does experience racism (in other words, they've encountered so many racists in their life they've stopped counting: they talk about 'racism', not 'racists'). These are completely different things. There is simply no way you can actually live that level of oppression if you are not part of a minority.

And this is what he meant. He's not saying that there are no non-white racists, or no racists aiming at whites. He is saying there's no way you can experience actual real-scale racism, as it happens in society, if you yourself are part of the ethnic majority. Quite the difference.

TL;DR: racist != racism

I missed this earlier, but I think you'll find that there are almost no climate scientists who will say that for any given weather event "it's climate changes fault".

The media like to bring this up whenever there's a big storm or heatwave, because they know that extreme weather event + AGW "controversy" = ratings. And they go talk to someone (possibly wearing a bow tie) and ask "is climate change causing this?"

At which point, most scientists will respond that while no single incident can be taken as definitive proof, increasing frequency of extreme weather events does fit within the predicted model, and if AGW continues we can expect it to be hotter in summer and also see more storms etc.

I'm afraid you can lump me in the same group. I don't understand why it is offensive to tell women to smile. I'm also in the same boat as others here in that i have literally never, in my existence, heard a male tell a woman to smile in any way that wasn't contextual. Thirdly, i'm struggling to imagine a way in which the directive to "Smile!" is offensive.

You say "stop making it about YOU!" yet you're speaking about a video that is trying to personalise an issue. I hate to even get involved in this argument, because i believe modern day feminism is more about finding an issue than it is about correcting any number of issues that really exist and need attention (ie. wage inequality).

I think you'd serve the cause a lot better if you tried to understand why people make those comments instead of chastising them for making it. You're missing an opportunity to explain the problem better - you've engaged people, people are interested and talking about it. Now is the time to explain it so that those who don't understand can understand. And if you can present it in a believable way, you will convince me.

However if you stand there, fold your arms and say "ugh, guys!" then i'm going to insist that you're behaving in a sexist way.

In my upbringing, i was subject to women abusing their advantageous legal position when it comes to custody of children and such (i was the child). I was witness to women who claimed abuse when there was no abuse, and thankfully only saw a very small effect of what can happen when such false accusations are made. I've seen a close male relative go through divorces in which he made his best attempt to share the assets of the divorce, whilst the female partner did what they could to claw as much profit as possible, eventually taking a completely unfair share (all of it) in one case.

However, i am rational enough to understand that not all people are like that, and that my experiences are not common. If i was given the opportunity to campaign about father's rights, i'd do it clearly and in a way that people could empathise and sympathise with. I wouldn't generalise and i certainly wouldn't tell them not to personalise, because empathy is all about being able to personalise an issue.

If men are arguing with the point, perhaps the point is not being explained well enough. And if it keeps happening, perhaps that's an even stronger message. I wouldn't argue with videos that campaign against domestic violence - which i also haven't seen happen! - and that's because the campaign is well presented so that i am able to grasp the problem.

I don't understand why what this video refers to is a female issue. Add to that the fact that i have never seen it happen with such frequency that it was notably a female-only issue.

Until i am able to understand why this is specifically a female issue, i'm afraid i will consider this video to be sexist in that it addresses a universal issue as a solely female problem.

This is a brilliant video regarding high frequency trading

It's been tested and the "best" audiophiles can't hear differences between 14bit and 16bit, nor can they hear differences between 44.khz and ANYTHING higher. In some tests they could use12bit sound with 36khz sampling frequency... The differences they hear are inside their head. Thus the description of improved sound is always "air", "brilliance", "organic" etc.. Don't be fooled by their fancy gear, most of it is for nothing. Cables: i am always willing to bet my months salary on doubleblind tests, 10 000€/m against a coat hanger, no audible differences.. It's all about confirmation bias, you think there's a change and suddenly you hear it.

About MP3s vs PCM:
Here we have audible differences. But. Put on high enough energy, ie turn your amp high enough, suddenly double blind studies can't find which is which. But it can be audible, mp3 is lossy format and even 320kbps can be heard. Not with all material, it's about in the limits of human hearing. Some might hear high end loss, if you're in your twenties. Once you hit 40, everything above 17khz is gone, forever. You will never hear 20k again. And to really notice the difference, you need good gear. Your laptop earphone output most likely won't even output anything past 18khz well and it's dynamic range can be represented with 8bit depth.. It can be just horrible. Fix that with usb box, around 80€: you can take that box anywhere on planet to the most "hifiest" guy out there and he can't hear the difference between his 10000€ A/D converter.. In fact, 5€ A/D converter can produce the same output as 3000€ one... That's not why i said buy a external.. It's more to do with RF and other shielding, protection against the noises a computer makes than A/D conversion quality. Note, i'm talking about audible differences, you can find faults with measuring equipment and 95% of the gear price is about "just to be sure".

If you want a good sound, first, treat your room. Dampen it, shape it.. If you spent 10k on stereo and 0 on acoustics, you will not have a good sound no matter what you do. Spend the same amount on acoustics than what you do on you equipment, room makes a lot more differences than gear. Next comes speakers, they are the worst link in the chain by a large margin. Quality costs, still wouldn't go to extremes here either, the changes are again "just to be sure", not always audible.. Then amps, beefy, low noise, A/B. You don't need to spend a huge lot of money but some. Then cables.. Take the 50€ version instead of 300€ or 3000€. Build quality and connectors, durability. Those are the reason to buy more expensive than 5€. Not because of sound quality.. There will always be group of people that will swear they can hear the differences, that's bullcrap. Human ear CAN NOT detect any chances, even meters are having a REALLY hard time getting any changes. You need to either amp up the signal to saturation point, or use frequencies in the Mhz ranges, thousands of times higher than what media needs to get any changes between cheapest crap and high end scams.

Audiophiles can't be convinced they are wrong, they are suffering from the same thing antivax people do: give them facts, they will be even more convinced they are right.

It's actually slightly more complicated still. With the power supply he's using, a DC power supply, he could turn it up to 100+ volts and hold both leads without issue (not touch them to his tongue, but hold them in his hands would be fine). I've done exactly that before; I could feel a slight amount of discomfort as current flowed through my fingers at both leads (the point of highest current density in the circuit that is my body), but it could otherwise be said that it 'tickled'. I've also had experiences once or twice in my life where I accidentally touched 120V AC, and it most certainly did NOT tickle, it HURT.

What people don't realize about humans (and even regular tap water) is that both are actually highly resistive to DC current, in the megaohms region. Once you get to 10's of Hz, for example 60Hz, 100V starts becoming quite deadly. The capacitance in our body (and in water with ion contaminants) allows current to flow much more readily when you get to alternating current of at least that minimum frequency. The net effect is that your body's resistance decreases as the input frequency increases.

Yes, it is 'current that kills', and even more accurately 'current density that kills', but it's the amount and frequency of voltage applied paired with the frequency specific resistance of the system that determines how much current will flow.

@lucky760 That's a question for an engineer or someone well-versed in fluid dynamics I'm guessing but something else in place to create the vacuum would probably suffice....something that wears-out with less frequency than the valve itself perhaps?

You are thinking about QAM, Quadrature Amplitude Modulation. Thats an interesting question because QAM essentially produces the same results that the prof talks about in this video. By using interesting ways to change the beat and phase of a single carrier, one can represent a whole array of numbers greater than just a 1 or a zero with a single pulse, case in point.

In QAM, lets just use the easy example of QAM, QPSK (4QAM), where there are 4 possible binary positions for any given 'carrier' signal at a known frequency.

By shifting both phase and amplitude, you can get a 0, 1, 2 or 3, where each position represents a power of 2, up to a total value of 16 unique numbers.

Rather than just a 0 or a 1, you can have 0 through to 15. However doing this requires both a timeslot, and a known carrier window.

The fastest the QAM transmitter can encode onto a carrier is limited by the nyquist rate, that is, less than half the frequency which the receiver can sample at its fastest rate (on the remote end). As you increase the speed of the encoding, you also increase the error rate, and introduce more noise into the base carrier signal, in turn, reducing your effective available bandwidth.

So it then becomes a balancing act, do I want to encode faster, or do I want to increase my constellation density? The obvious answer is the one we went with, increase in constellation density.

There are much more dense variants, I think the highest ive heard of was 1024 QAM, where a single carrier of 8MHz wide could represent 1024 bits (1,050,625 unique values for a given 'pulse' within a carrier).

I actually had a lot more typed out here, but the maths that goes into this gets very ugly, and you have to account for noise products that are introduced as you increase both your transmission speed, and your receiver sensitivty, thus lowering your SNR, reducing your effective bandwidth for a given QAM scheme.

So rather than bore you with the details, the Shannon Hartley theorem is the hard wired physical limitation.

Think of it as an asymptote, that QAM is one method of trying to milk the available space of.

You can send encoded pulses very fast, but you are limited by nyquist, and your receivers ability to determine noise from signal.

The faster you encode, the more noise, the less effective bandwidth....and so begins the ritule of increasing constellation density, and receivers that can decode them....etc....

There is also the aspect of having carriers too close to one another that you must consider. If you do not have enough of a dead band between your receivers cut off for top end, and the NEXT carrier alongs cutoff for deadband at its LOW end, you can induce what is known as a heterodyne. These are nasty, especially so when talking about fibre, as the wavelengths used can cause a WIDE BAND noise product that results in your effective RF noise floor to jump SUBSTANTIALLY, destroying your entire network in the process.

So not only can you not have a contiguous RF bandwidth of carriers, one directly after another...if you try and get them close, you end up ruining everyones day.

I am sure there will be newer more fancy ways to fill that spectrum with useable numbers, but I seriously doubt they will ever go faster than the limit I proposed earlier (unless they can get better SNR, again that was just a stab in the dark).

It gives you a good idea of how it works though.

If you want to read more on this, I suggest checking wikipedia for the following;

Shannon Hartley theorem.
Nyquist Rate
Quadrature Phase Shift Key
Quadrature Amplitude Modulation
Fibre Optic Communication Wavelengths
Stimulated Brillouin Scattering
Ebrium Doped Fibre Amplifiers

Fibre can go a pretty long distance before it affects the signal though...

Fibre is comprised mainly of silicone, the more pure the fibre, the less dispersion issues occur at or around 1550nm (one of the main wavelengths used for long distance transmission, as we can easily and cheaply amplify this using ebrium doped segments and some pumps!)

Any impurities in the fibre will absorb the 1550 at a greater rate than other wavelengths, causing linear distortions in the received carrier along greater distances. This is called Brillouin scattering.

In the context of the above video, consider a paralell cable sending data over 100m. If one of those lines is 98m, then every bit that is sent down that line, will be out of order.

Same deal with Brillouin scattering, only on the optical level. Thats one of the main issues we gotta deal with at distance, however it only ever occurs at or around 1550nm, and only ever when you are driving that carrier at high powers (i.e. launching into the fibre directy from an ebrium doped amplifier at +15 dBm)

Theres some fancy ways of getting around that, but its not cheap.

Anywhere from say around 1260 to 1675nm is the typical bandwidth window we use today.

So, say 415nm of available bandwidth.
If we want that in frequency to figure out the theoritcal bits/sec value from the shannon-hartley theory, then we just take the inverse of the wavelength and times it by the speed of light.

7.2239e+14 hz is the available spectrum.

...thats 7.2239e+5 terahertz....

Assume typical signal to noise on fibre carrier of +6dB (haha, not a chance in hell it would be this good across this much bandwidth, but whatever..)

For a single fibre you would be looking at an average peak bandwidth of around 20280051221451.9 mbps.

Thats 19,340,564 Terabits per second, or 18,887.3 Petabits per second.

You can fudge that +/- a couple of million Tbps based on what the actual SnR would be, but thats your average figure.....thats a lot of Terabits.

On one fibre.

Source: Im a telecoms engineer