I guess that's one definition of static webpage. My understanding was that static webpages are static. Meaning it has no dynamic content and that everyone accessing the static page sees the same thing.
If dynamic content is client side driven, it wouldn't be "static" as each client could see a different page.
For example, even if you your webpage just displayed the client side time, it would be dynamic since people in different time zones will see a different time regardless of the time being generated on the client side.
Whether it is a static class or a static webpage, static has a well established meaning in the CS world. But I haven't done web development since college and it is possible the meaning of static webpage has changed as technology changes.
Static is a term to describe the assets that are delivered to the client. It means every user is delivered the same assets which means the server doesn't have to do any logic. The assets can be delivered from a CDN and cached on the client indefinitely.
Sending every user `document.write(new Date());` is static because its identical for everyone. The fact each user sees something different is completely irrelevant.
Static webpages are served exactly the same to each user. As opposed to dynamically generated webpage. But that doesn't mean a static webpage doesn't use Javascript. It just means the actual content delivered is the same every time.
I respect and admire the risks Musk is willing to take and am amazed that he is able to find financial backers for his projects.
But I have to wonder whether the internet connection can be maintained during cloudy days and what the expected upload/download speeds will be and finally what the expected costs will be.
Affordable and globally available internet could be a game-changer. If viable, couldn't it challenge wireless carriers and ISPs?
Also, aren't there geopolitical ramifications. Would China, Russia, EU, etc allow their citizens to access the starlink system? Or will starlink have to be censored, filtered and monitored in these regions?
>But I have to wonder whether the internet connection can be maintained during cloudy days and what the expected upload/download speeds will be and finally what the expected costs will be.
Depends on the size of the constellation. Ultimately I think they want to have 3 sats visible at any given time which should be enough. The bands used can penetrate though anyway. I've seen numbers quoted of speeds up to 1gbps, so basically "good enough". I'm currently using a 4 mbps connection just fine and the fastest I have access to is 8 mbps down 0.5mbps up. And I'm getting my browsing done just fine. Costs are up to discussion, the main selling point of Starlink is backbone and the receiver was according to Shotwell one of the main research points to drive the cost down( 1k$ at the time but an obscure tech, they want it down to 300$).
>Affordable and globally available internet could be a game-changer. If viable, couldn't it challenge wireless carriers and ISPs?
No because of density limitations. They can't support enough bandwidth for an entire city. Also direct LoS is required so big buildings will limit you.
>Also, aren't there geopolitical ramifications. Would China, Russia, EU, etc allow their citizens to access the starlink system? Or will starlink have to be censored, filtered and monitored in these regions?
Current sat internet providers just don't sell their receivers in China or any country that doesn't allow them.
GPS is a bit different. It's uses multiple frequencies, so receivers can correct from some of the water vapor attenuation. I suspect that GPS satellites also broadcast at a much higher power than the starlink terminals will. Starlink is also using a much higher frequencies: GPS is around 1ghz. Starlink is in the 12-40 range since it used Ku and Ka band. Ku and Ka are much more susceptible to problems from moisture in the atmosphere. That's actually why K Band was split into Ku(under) and Ka(above). The middle parts around 22ghz are not useful for communicating through lots of atmosphere because so much of the signal gets absorbed by water (sidenote-- NASA and NOAA use signals around 22ghz to measure water vapor in the atmosphere. That's why they're pissed that the FCC auctioned off 24ghz spectrum for 5G-- it's going to interfere with forecasting things like hurricanes).
Call me crazy, but as a society, what do we lose if our best athletes are less good than the ones we have now? This argument maybe makes sense in STEM fields but to me at least it falls flat on its face if the loss is some number of seconds off the fastest mile ran, or cm's off the highest vertical leap.
It depends on whether you think non-STEM endeavors like athletic performance or art enriches society.
Does michael jordan dunking from the free throw line enrich society? Does mozart's music enrich society?
Did Bolt or Phelps breaking records at the olympics affect society or humanity? I'd say yes. Beyond the inspirational and the aspirational, it also pushed humans limits further.
Does art ( physical, musical, literary, etc ) matter? I'd say it matters, maybe even more than "STEM". But that's an open-ended philosophical discussion.
Athletic endeavors also help advance science as well. There is a science of athletics/athleticism. Striving for athletic excellence could drive genetic, biological and technological advancement and vice versa.
I think you missed the nuance of my point. I wasn't saying we should get rid of sports or athleticism or creative en devours that result in entertainment value or inspire emotion. I was saying that the accomplishments in those fields are relative. If Michael Jordan had instead dunked from a foot closer, but that was still better than had been previously seen, would the world have derived less enjoyment? If Phelps or Bolt had broken slightly less impressive records than they had broken would that really matter at all? I'd argue that since the history of humanity has been breaking those records and moving the line forwards again and again and the people where entertained long before the folks you mentioned were born, the answer is pretty obviously "not really". But a medical breakthrough that impacts millions of lives, not abstractly but in measurable improvements to health and longevity? It's a whole different kind of thing. Reducing the cost of clean energy and pushing back the grasp of climate change? Stuff like that vs an impressive slam dunk and I just don't see why it's vitally important to ever force-feed a child a sport in the hopes that they'll break that kind of record.
That goes counter to what this article is saying with the whole "Roger Dad" approach. He gives many examples where people took the general approach to start, specialized late and rose to the top.
Right. And I'm giving examples of prodigies who made it. My point is that "one size fits all" doesn't work.
I'm sure for every Tiger Woods or Serena Williams, there are late bloomers or generalists who thrived. For every example, there is a counterexample.
The blanket statement "You don't want a child prodigy" is simply false. Sometimes you want child prodigies if you can provide a great environment for them to thrive in.
I don't think Tiger Wood or Serena Williams would be where they are if they "generalized" and then decided to specialize later in life. Certain endeavors benefit from early commitment. Not always of course. Hakeem Olajuwon was a great NBA center who started playing basketball in his late teens. But then again, his size and pure athleticism allowed him to overcome late specialization. I don't think it would have worked had be been a point guard.
Lebron played football as well.
Most olympic athletes likely played other sports before picking up the sport they're competing in. No one grows up specializing in javelin, discus, shotput, rowing, decathlon etc, etc.
There's also all the multi-sport athletes that were phenomenal - Jordan, Gretzky, Bo Jackson, Deion Sanders, Jackie Robinson all come to mind.
Lebron played football because he's 6'8" 250lbs and a supreme athlete. Being a top notch athlete causes one to play more sports, not the other way around.
I know lebron played football. I'm sure he played some baseball and soccer too.
Everyone you listed specialized in a particular sport. Specializing in a particular sport doesn't mean that's all you do. You can specialize in hockey but also play baseball or basketball for fun, etc. And if you are exceptionally gifted, nothing prevents you from "specializing" in two sports. But the point is that you "specialize".
I wouldn't call Jordan, Gretzky, Sanders or Robinson "phenomenal" "multi-sport" athletes. Jordan wasn't a phenomenal baseball player. Neither was Deion Sanders. I've never heard of gretzky being "phenomenal" outside of hockey. I only know of Robinson from baseball. And Bo Jackson specialized in two sports and he was phenomenal in both.
Once again, you can specialize in a sport and play other sports.
It's not specializing when you play a bunch of things, that's the opposite of specializing.
Also:
During the 1992 season, his best year in the majors, Sanders hit .304 for the team, stole 26 bases, and led the NL with 14 triples in 97 games. During the 1989 season, he hit a major league home run and scored a touchdown in the NFL in the same week, becoming the only player ever to do so. Sanders is also the only man to play in both a Super Bowl and a World Series. In four games of the 1992 World Series, Sanders batted .533 with 4 runs, 8 hits, 2 doubles, and 1 RBI while playing with a broken bone in his foot.
Bo Jackson competed as a sprinter, hurdler, jumper, thrower and decathlete in College.
You can specialize and play a bunch of things. Pretty much everyone does it. You can be a chess prodigy and still play checkers, monopoly, video games, etc. Using your logic, nobody specializes because they all do other things.
As for Sanders, I'm well aware of his football and baseball careers because I was a kid who grew up watching him in the 90s. 1 "decent" season doesn't make a "phenom". Okay? In 1992, sanders didn't make the all-star team, he didn't get over 100 hits, he played less than 100 games. Sanders career batting average is the .260s. He was nothing special in baseball. Unless your definition of "phenomenal" is different than mine. Deion Sanders was phenomenal in football. He is arguably the greater cornerback in NFL history and a hall of famer. If deion sanders was a phenomenal center fielder, then what is ken griffey, kirby puckett, etc?
As for bo jackson, how about he specialized in track&field, baseball and football. You can argue all you want, bo jackson specialized. He didn't go into curling, badminton, tennis, hockey, etc. He didn't "generalize". He was a rare phenomenal athlete who could specialize in multiple sports.
If you disagree then your definition of phenomenal and specializing is different and we are simply never going to agree and I'll just leave it at that.
I suspect more and more funding will go to the Space Force and less and less will go to NASA. Looking at the budgets, it's clear that the military has far more pull in washington than NASA. Seems like whatever the military wants, it gets. While NASA has to beg, plead and grovel for every crumb.
And if SpaceX, Blue Origin and the private sector become viable players in space, then NASA might be shut down or absorbed into Space Force.
With China, EU, Japan, India, etc getting involved in space exploration, it's inevitable that space is going to be a new frontier of militarization and privatization. Space Force and the private sector are natural players in this new arena. Not sure where NASA fits in this picture.
The majority of NASA's missions are instrument-driven science missions designed to answer questions about space (ex: JWST). Neither SpaceX or Blue origin has displayed serious interest in replacing this function of NASA. They are mainly engineering organizations, and while they are effective at doing what they do, they are organizationally not pursuing models that research fundamental astrophysics, heliophysics, or earth science.
How juices ( orange, grape, etc ) became a "healthy" is just as ridiculous as cigarettes being "healthy" at one point. Misleading ads via industry and regulator collusion is why we have terrible diets and health issues as a nation.
Sure a glass of orange juice may have "health" benefits like vitamin C or may be good for your heart, but only if we ignore the globs of sugar in it. The liquor industry has to get better PR people. They could be selling vodka and orange juice screwdrivers as a health drink.
It's the power of industry advertising and media. I bet most people today still think fruit juices are healthy and even encourage their children to drink "healthy" juices.
Note that when juices became a thing diets used to be different. Most food was not processed and high calorie desserts didn't exist so technically the juice would be the equivalent of a 1000 calorie ice cream one would eat today just a bit healthier. Today though people eat the dessert and wash it down with "healthy" juice.
So in addition to all your personal ( family/friends/etc ) information, it'll have your spending history as well? So the only thing it needs is your medical history, income/job and government information. Though I suppose facebook could get a decent sense of your medical and income/work history using your spending habits and location and personal information.
At this rate, I wouldn't be too shocked if facebook bought ancestry or other dna company to truly challenge Alphabet and Apple as the world's largest spy agency.
If information is power, aren't we giving too much of it to a handful of companies?
Previously free? Hong Kong was a colony of britain which ruled with an iron fist and disallowed voting or democracy in Hong Kong. Hong Kong was never free nor democratic until it became part of China. Lots of brits love to pretend they brought democracy everywhere, but they didn't. Hong kong became a "democracy" and "free" after the brits got kicked out. The brits never let their colonies become democracies because britain was never really a democracy. Britain is a constitutional monarchy.
Also, the fact that china is an authoritarian communist state shows that they aren't pretending to be "naturally unified". If they were "naturally unified", they wouldn't be so authoritarian in the first place.
There were Legislative Council and District/Urban/Regional Council Elections even before the Joint Declaration was signed. In fact, in the final years of British administration both the LegCo and the Urban/Regional Councils were elected by universal suffrage.
Also,
> ... documents recently released by the National Archives in Britain suggest that beginning in the 1950s, the colonial governors who ran Hong Kong repeatedly sought to introduce popular elections but abandoned those efforts in the face of pressure by Communist Party leaders in Beijing.
Wasn't the "legislative" council filled with appointees and served as an advisory role to the british governor ruling over hong kong? Where is the democracy there. Also china played around with "local" elections, doesn't mean they were/are a democracy.
As for your last point, so what? Nobody is claiming china is a democracy. But neither was britain. And it's laughable that "chinese pressure" is why britain didn't allow democracy in hong kong. It's a convenient excuse that doesn't change the facts.
Britain never allowed democracy in hong kong. And it's simply absurd to claim hong kong was "free" when it was a conquered colony of britain. It's one of the ironies of history. Hong kong only became "free" and "democratic" under chinese rule.
And in the final years, the "LegCo and the Urban/Regional Councils" may have been elected but they were powerless advisors. The ruler of hong kong, the governor, who had actual power was not elected.
Does that guy look like an "elected" and "rightful" leader of hong kong? A guy who wasn't born in hong kong and who didn't grow up in hong kong ruled hong kong by appointment, not election. It's absurd that anyone would claim hong kong was free or democratic at any point under british rule. Britain itself wasn't a democracy and it never allowed any of it's colonies, especially the non-white colonies, to become a democracy.
The truth of the matter is hong kong was never a democracy and probably will never be one. Neither the colonizing brits or the chinese were interested in hong kong being a democracy.
Of course Hong Kong is supposed to be better under Chinese rule; it's no longer a colony!
I always find it amusing when people try to compare the PRC with the oppressive colonial empires as if they're on the same level...
As for whether LegCo was powerless, look up the Protection of the Harbour Ordinance. It was a bill introduced not by the government but by an elected legislator, something that will never happen under the current system. That bill has been the bane of the government ever since, even after the handover.
Your point that Hong Kong democracy was opposed by China is a piece of history that few know. Britain wanted to introduce self-governance in the 1950s/60s but China deemed that to be a hostile act. Details: https://qz.com/279013/the-secret-history-of-hong-kongs-still...
EU didn't reduce anything. The just shifted a significant part of their emissions to china. Just like they shifted a ton of their plastic and garbage to china.
Most of china's emissions, pollution, environment damage has been to manufacture goods for EU and the US. Europe and the US are responsible for most of the pollution and emissions. It's the price for a high standard of living in a consumer economy. It's why chinese cities and rivers are polluted and why american and european cities and rivers are clean.
But going forward, as china shifts from a manufacturing to a consumer economy, they are going to be responsible for a tremendous amount of emissions themselves. And the manufacturing will shift to poorer/cheaper ASEAN countries or India and eventually africa. What happens after that, I haven't a clue. The global economic system has been to exploit cheaper labor. What happens when the last cheap labor source has been exploited?
If the chinese want to live like an american or a european, then the environment is going to suffer. Then India, ASEAN and africa would want to live like the chinese. Then the environment is going to suffer even more.
It's a hard sell to get the west to lower our standard of living. It's an even harder sell to tell the developing world to accept their lower standard of living.
It's the new-age version of the Western exceptionalism: Everything that happens in the world - as long as it is bad - should be attributed to the West.
Most people pretending to care about the environment, aren't really interested in protecting the environment from those that destroy it at all, they are just interested in - by any way - attack the foundations of Western countries so that they can build their dystopian dream from its ashes.
Of course that while they do that, China, and soon India, will pollute so much that will make it extremely difficult to live in here. But, that's really a small price to pay to make the West pay for their sins of the past - real or imaginary.
If dynamic content is client side driven, it wouldn't be "static" as each client could see a different page.
For example, even if you your webpage just displayed the client side time, it would be dynamic since people in different time zones will see a different time regardless of the time being generated on the client side.
Whether it is a static class or a static webpage, static has a well established meaning in the CS world. But I haven't done web development since college and it is possible the meaning of static webpage has changed as technology changes.