The Lounge is rated Safe For Work. If you're about to post something inappropriate for a shared office environment, then don't post it. No ads, no abuse, and no programming questions. Trolling, (political, climate, religious or whatever) will result in your account being removed.
A physicist friend of mine set up a Faraday Cage around his den (aka basement) so that when his friends came around to talk and play cards or board games they wouldn't ever be interrupted by their cell phones going off.
I have been considering something similar, but never learned enough about signal propagation to know how to do it properly. How realistic is it to make a successful shield?
The elevator at my workplace has a steel ceiling, steel walls, steel door, and I assume there is steel in the floor as well. It is a closed box of steel. I am not sure how good the grounding of the steel is. Even without grounding, I would expect at least some weakening of the mobile signals, but the signal indicator is at top of the scale all the time, even with the elevator going down to the basement. So what does it take to make an effective shield against the signals?
Is an ungrounded shield completely worthless - is that why the steel box elevator does "nothing" to weaken the signals? Is a mesh better than solid steel plates? If it is: Should the mesh size be selected according to the frequency? Cellular phones use a good handful of frequency bands, so do you need different meshes for each band?
Maybe we are wasted in this country: We expect excellent mobile coverage everywhere, from deep sub-basements to wilderness mountain plains a hundred kilometers away from any signs of civilization. We expect capacity to be unlimited, and signal strength to be at top of the scale, everywhere.
Maybe successful shielding is possible at some desolate mountain farm in an area where no mountain hiker ever goes (i.e. noone needs to update their FB profile with their most recent mountain climbing achievements). But how realistic is it to shiels cellular signals in a rural area?
There are already several billion too many people on this planet, and it's rapidly getting very much worse. It's bad enough with loads of people living to 100 or so, but the last thing the planet needs is extended lifespans. The only feasible way to allow some people to live for centuries would involve a major wiping-out initially, followed by an almost complete cessation of new births. They can be annoying little b****ers at times, but I think on balance I wouldn't want to live in a world without any kids. Who would you be able to say "ha! back in my day..." to?
I'd say, after 3 or so thousand years, you'd have seen all there is (new tech is fine & dandy but in the grand picture, everything develops in a spiral, not a straight line) so life would become rather boring.
If we're limited to the Earth, no. I would think the old proverb 'familiarity breeds contempt' would hold true. Eventually you'd have seen everything and pretty much done everything to do, so why stick around? Heh, everyone would be a know it all, and you know how hard it to be around them!
I am financially planning to reach 80 though I honestly doubt that I'll make 24 more years: overweight, inactive, diabetic, etc. I have already thanked my doctor for achieving the goal I requested of him many years ago: keep me alive until my kids are adults. I pointed out the rest is just gravy to me; however, he contends that, like most, I will become greedy for more life as I get older. Time will tell, but any way you look at it, there are a LOT more years in the rearview mirror than ahead through the windshield, and I am fine with that.
Tuesday, January 19, 2038, might be a concern for any 32-bit systems remaining. That's coming sooner than we might think, and heck, I might live to see it.