A German physicist at the University of Edinburgh, Harald Haas, has found a way to turn LEDs into wireless hotspots which have a verified speed of 1Gbps (224 Gbps in lab settings), 100x the speed of WiFi. A HD film could be downloaded in seconds.
LiFi works by visible light communications. When you pass a current through an LED, the LED emits photons. Varying the current to the LED changes the photon intensity. LEDs are semiconductors, meaning the the photon intensity can be varied extremely quickly, and extremely delicately so that the changes in intensity are imperceptible to the human eye, but can still transmit information in the form of dimmer and brighter light. In this way the lightbulb acts as a wireless router. Haas says any LED will do.
This technology would allow faster speeds, better security and reduced interference.
LiFi has its problems: light cannot go through walls, so every room must have a lightbulb hub, and it cannot be used outside.
http://www.ibtimes.com/what-li-fi-meet-revolutionary-wireless-technology-100-times-faster-wi-fi-2199883
I get how a lightbulb could transmit info to a PC via changing the light in the room, but I don't get how the laptop would send info back to the router unless you stick a lightbulb to it.
>LED
>lightbulb
Same way a remote control works with a television. You need a LED in the computer to send info back to the hub, and it needs a relatively unimpeded path back.
Alternatively, since most bandwidth is downloads, you could use visible light only to transmit from hub to computer, and the usual radio frequencies to go from computer to hub (or bypass the hub and go directly back to the main router).
If you're only downloading the movies, having a 1Gbps uplink isn't important. Think of a hybrid system with a WiFi uplink, LiFi downlink. (Probably a WiFi downlink too as a secondary.)
How do you guys view the relationship between science and philosophy?
I know that Nietzsche was pretty critical of the scientific method, going so far as to say physics and evolution are just interpretations of the world, (to be fair Nietzsche was critical of objective truth in general)
On the other side theoretical physicist, Richard Feynman's view was that ultimately why questions aren't useful at all in explaining the world, because they imply the presence of purpose or intention, where in fact it's not a given that those things are always true or present.
Which is actually ironically super nihilistic.
anyway what does /sci/ think
>>7681771
Nobody's got any answers. But at least mathematical reasoning defines it's terms. It's what we've got so far. "Philosophers" just have to stop claiming conclusive data and start recognizing that what they've got is a more accessible terminology of description of the history of thought. They're on the cutting edge of nothing. Same with religion. It's perfectly fesable if somebody needs characters and magic to keep their attention and can systematically sift what is allegorical and let their understanding grow. But if you want to go around claiming proofs, that just won't cut it. You need maths, measurements, and less interchangeable terminology.
tldr: The big bang theory is also a miracle but it makes more sense than the bearded child getting all pissy because he sucks at omnipotence.
>>7681771
Philosophy is useless and science doesn't need philosophy.
>>7681771
Feynman's stance isn't nihilistic, is skeptic.
Go!
1.0
u mad?
>>7681690
Well, I assume there are extremely large integers which I can't think of, but still, I can think of more that 1 (one) integer, so the question is not formatted correctly.
Does calculus have any applications in the real world or is it just abstract math?
Here's your reply
>>7681688
Finding a physical application for calculus is one of the Millennium Problems. So we don't know.
>>7681688
>"every action has an equal and opposite reaction"
>do 5 push ups AS HARD AS I CAN / USING AS MUCH FORCE AS I CAN, TO MY LIMIT
>do this 3 times a week
>months later
>zero muscle or strength gains
>go to gym
>go to bench press and start with the heaviest weight I can do for 5 reps
>can't do heavier weight, by definition, obviously
>do this 3 times a week, obviously increasing my weight used due to lifting to the limit
>months later
>grown huge muscles, sloots mirin
EXPLAIN THIS
PRO-TIP: Taxation is thef- I mean, you can't!
The meme drive plus my rigorous refutation of the logic of reality as we perceive it will turn our understanding of the world on its head.
>>7681630
You would hear crickets but they were just too uncomfortable about how retarded you are.
>15 push ups a week
>where are the muscles
>>7682295
No! you dont get it, he's trying to do those push ups as HARD as he can! Of course the more effort you put into something the more GAINZ
Given that IQ tests are discriminating against persons of lower intellectual capacity, they have to be dismissed as pseudo-science.
What other concepts of "intelligence" are there in cognitive science, accounting for the fact that all people are equal and nobody is smarter than anyone else?
What is the fairest intelligence test?
>What is the fairest intelligence test?
dick length
>>7681628
>What are the tests that only tell me what I want to be told
>A test that measures intelligence is biased because it tells some people they aren't as intelligent as others.
>Wants new test to measure intelligence that won't do this.
Pic related
So I have an exam tomorrow, 50% of my grade. One of the 4 questions is gonna be a complex numbers problem. Now, my professor has a thing for making an easy thing hard, and the hardest part of the problem is gonna be figuring out sines and cosines of weird angles without a calculator. BUT, not weird in a sin(93.8) way, but more like sin(33/2 * pi) kind of way, multiples of common angles. I cannot find anywhere how do you do those (is it a - or a +), and I forgot if we learned that in high school.
Any trick / tip / video you can tell me to solve this, probably, the most trivial of problems?
reading the sticky would be very helpful
>>7681589
If you mean the rules, it's really not a homework problem, it's just one thing that I cannot find, and I need it for tomorrow. If you mean the sticky as in finding the answer in the wiki, yeah.. I'm better of if I keep googling.
I just thought it's a simple thing someone could explain in one sentence.
google "trig identities"
hey /sci/ what's the deal with this I keep getting 390N, it's rudamentary as fuck and i know you can do it jerking off backward tell me what's up.
i might have just been oversimplifying it...
>>7681546
Think that's the wrong redirect.
I get directed to Handsome Men.
>>7681546
isn't homework
How can people say that they were born into the wrong gender when their genetic makeup makes them a male or female? This has always baffled me, and isn't brought up that often. It seems like genetics are totally ignored in the discussion about "being transgender", and that you are the wrong gender if you think you are the wrong gender alone.
I think that the whole reason for the "transgender movement" is the post-modernist ideal that everyone determines their own lives and is what they want to be (which is bullshit much like most of post-modernism, the solution to modernism invented by people who had an invested interest in people thinking they are unique and special). If you have male sex genes, you are a male. If you have female sex genes, you are a female. There is no argument beyond this;it is probable that your estrogen levels or testosterone levels are higher than average and cause you to think that you are the opposite gender, because you think like a female or male sometimes and were convinced by media that if you think you are the opposite gender you are the opposite gender.
>pic related, a /sci/ /lgbt/ transgender crossboarder.
>>7681508
it's called insanity, anon.
>>7681508
sex =/= gender
sage
Pic related guy here, you edgy because of the lack of poosey in your life?
>sum of all positive integers equals -1/12
>"Le trust le us le guys, we're mathemagicians who are doing stuff you can't le ever le comprehend!"
Nah
Nah.
Explain this shit in simple terms or I will consider maths to be continental philosophy tier. Are the axioms messed up?
>>7681520
Why the fuck is LaTeX not working
maths is just the world's longest ongoing tautology extension. a philosopher would've stopped doing anything after the first equation was written and gone on to more intellectual matters
How does /sci/ visualise entropy?
to me a change in entropy is the measure of the number of allowable microstates gained or lost by the addition of energy to a system
it keeps being created because of muh uncertainty principle
>>7681466
k*ln(gamma(p,V,T))
Entropy is a dance. Pattern is a linear walk. If you just go with the flow, youll know where to go. If you try to count the beat youll look like an idiot party pooper on the dance floor. Just go with the floooow brooo.
How artistic is the average /sci/ user?
do you have or take time for any creative hobbies?
is art supposed to be separated from science?
I shitpost
I take this as an opportunity to show off my art on Instagram: haoxymo .
Average /sci/ user
>>7681486
>haoxymo
>I study Chinese Language and Culture
>Average /sci/ user
please tell me you're not a pop-sci memer
Can we have a thread about NASA failures and the toxic culture that precipitated them?
I was reading up on the Columbia disaster last night and I can't believe no one went to jail over this.
>Space shuttle Columbia takes off
>piece of foam insulation breaks off and damages the left wing
>NASA analysts insist the damage is nothing serious
>mission proceeds
>evidence from computer modelling shows that it might be quite serious
>NASA ignores the data
>DOD offers to photograph the shuttle in space so the crew can assess the damage and consider the prospect of repair
>NASA blocks the DOD from intervening, reasoning that there's nothing the crew can do about it
>NASA bureaucrats led by Linda Ham (who was later dismissed) decide that they're all dead anyway and it would be better not to let them know it
>Quote: You know, there is nothing we can do about damage to the TPS [Thermal Protection System]. If it has been damaged it's probably better not to know. I think the crew would rather not know. Don't you think it would be better for them to have a happy successful flight and die unexpectedly during entry than to stay on orbit, knowing that there was nothing to be done, until the air ran out?
>meanwhile NASA ground control sends the following message up to the crew before they begin reentry:
>During ascent at approximately 80 seconds, photo analysis shows that some debris came loose and subsequently impacted the orbiter left wing. The impact appears to be totally on the lower surface and no particles are seen to traverse over the upper surface of the wing. Experts have reviewed the high speed photography and there is no concern for RCC or tile damage. We have seen this same phenomenon on several other flights and there is absolutely no concern for entry.
>astronauts are now flying blind into almost certain death
>shuttle explodes over Texas
>Mission control declares a contingency and seals the room. Finger pointing begins at NASA
>That (defeatist) mindset was widespread. Astronauts agreed. So don't blame an individual; look for the organizational factors that lead to that kind of a mindset. Don't let them in your organization.
I'm honestly glad the age of government funded spaceflight is coming to an end. The private sector will take over and run things much more efficiently, with fewer mistakes and more accountability.
Good riddance to NASA
>>7681426
>NASA has 2 catastrophic disasters that end in the deaths of shuttle crews, out of the hundreds of successful missions it has flown.
>One person in authority during one of these disasters dropped the ball in an inexcusable fashion.
>All of NASA history is shit.
How much advanced maths before my mind breaks like those famous crazy mathematicians?
You can't handle it after triple integrals
>>7681392
Apparently if you spend too much time trying to prove or disprove the continuum hypothesis you go nuts.
Is it too late to say I'm sorry?
Goats are, of course, known to eat anything, and can continue to eat unless forcibly stopped by either humans or the head goat.
Is it possible for a single goat who is extremely hungry to consume all life on Earth leaving the planet a barren apocalyptic wasteland?
Yeah dude lol
>>7681282
The goatpocalypse is already under way...
>>7681282
yes.
t. knower
