I stand corrected. Digital signals were being transmitted in the 1950s, but it was not over fiber optic cable. The telephone company was doing analog to digital, sending the signal and then going from digital to analog at the other end.
Digital signals were being transmitted in the 1950s,
May have been a digital signal…but wasn’t anything like digital communication today. It was basically a single stream of digital data…as opposed to the packet system (512,1024, 2048…etc) bytes) today.
Fun trivia: Before any of that happened, back in the 1880’s, they were transmitting analog signals via light pulses on a device called a photophone. They’d use a sound-to-light modulator to encode the speaker’s voice, and a light-to-sound modulator on the other end to turn it back to sound. The trouble was that they had to just use light sources sending the data over the air - no wires, and so the signal to noise ratio was atrocious and it never caught on.
Theres a lot of stuff thats at least had a prototype before,but for whatever reason the technology tree never shot a branch there,some repression,some other reasons,while nothing"new under the sun" may not be exactly correct,theres a lot of stuff,that for whatever reason just wasnt offered to the general public and some outdated,dangerous technology(the space shuttle for example)had such an investment and backing it had to run its course and it actually stifiled the developement of better and more appropiate technology.
Suddenly the minivan and SUVs appeared on the scene, and even though they had all the amenities of a normal sedan or station wagon, since they were classified as light trucks they didn't have to meet the requirements.Aha! Welcome to the land of "unintended consequences." By producing a disincentive towards making full-size cars, the EPA produced an incentive to look for ways around the blockade. Well, one was found, and exploited, to the ultimate detriment of CAFE. Really, this is basic ECON 101 stuff, and the EPA knew, or reasonably should have known, the outcome, IF we assume economic competency on the part of the EPA.
I'm fine with emissions controls across a wide swath of industries, including car manufacturing. There is no such thing as "good enough" when we are still dumping enough carbon into the atmosphere to result in a net-positive.I'm sure there are plenty of hard-working Americans in manufacturing jobs who feel differently...but that doesn't affect you personally, does it? I guess they can all eat
Trying to rope in CO2 via fed regs is like roping the wind, because the jobs simply go to where the regs ain’t. (Often at higher CO2 output in the developing world, mind you.) Since CO2 is a global problem, it’s global CO2 output which matters…the net effect of such laws are: 1) less CO2 in a country, 2) the same or higher CO2 worldwide, 3) a lot of out-of-work folks in the country with the regs.
“Theres a lot of stuff thats at least had a prototype before,but for whatever reason the technology tree never shot a branch there”
GREAT analogy, Kevin. I might, with respect, borrow it on occasion. {
Go for it,I was thinking about “steampunk” for example when ,I wrote that.
Any Harry Turtledove fans out there?