Orthogonal Frequency Division Multiple Access (OFDMA) is a method of dividing up a frequency into several orthogonal subcarriers that can be used to transmit and receive data. This technology is commonly used in wireless communication, particularly cellular networks. It allows many users to share the same channel while providing each user with their own dedicated signal path. This means that multiple devices can communicate simultaneously without interference from other devices that are using the same channel.
OFDMA also offers improved spectral efficiency compared to other technologies like FDMA or CDMA by allowing multiple users to use the same spectrum more efficiently than if it were divided up among all of them individually(Lahouar et al., 2020). The way this works is by splitting or “multiplexing” signals so they can be transmitted over different frequencies at the same time, thus conserving bandwidth and avoiding interference caused by overlapping transmissions(Fang & Zhang 2018). This increased efficiency translates directly into higher throughput rates for end users which leads to faster connection speeds and better overall performance when accessing the internet or downloading multimedia content.
The advantages of OFDMA for non-IT executives include cost savings due to its shared spectrum approach as well as improved network capacity through its ability to handle more simultaneous connections without sacrificing speed or quality of service. Additionally, OFDMA increases coverage area which means fewer dropped calls and stronger signals in areas with challenging terrain where reception can be spotty. Finally, it also reduces latency – an important factor when streaming videos or playing online games where every fraction of a second matters – further enhancing customer experience.
ntentionally kill innocent people in wars, supported by Vittola’s first proposition. This is widely accepted as ‘all people have a right not to be killed’ and if a soldier does, they have violated that right and lost their right. This is further supported by “non-combatant immunity” (Frowe (2011), Page 151), which leads to the question of combatant qualification mentioned later in the essay. This is corroborated by the bombing of Nagasaki and Hiroshima, ending the Second World War, where millions were intently killed, just to secure the aim of war. However, sometimes civilians are accidentally killed through wars to achieve their goal of peace and security. This is supported by Vittola, who implies proportionality again to justify action: ‘care must be taken where evil doesn’t outweigh the possible benefits (Begby et al (2006b), Page 325).’ This is further supported by Frowe who explains it is lawful to unintentionally kill, whenever the combatant has full knowledge of his actions and seeks to complete his aim, but it would come at a cost. However, this does not hide the fact the unintended still killed innocent people, showing immorality in their actions. Thus, it depends again on proportionality as Thomson argues (Frowe (2011), Page 141).
This leads to question of what qualifies to be a combatant, and whether it is lawful to kill each other as combatants. Combatants are people who are involved directly or indirectly with the war and it is lawful to kill ‘to shelter the innocent from harm…punish evildoers (Begby et al (2006b), Page 290).However, as mentioned above civilian cannot be harmed, showing combatants as the only legitimate targets, another condition of jus in bello, as ‘we may not use the sword against those who have not harmed us (Begby et al (2006b), Page 314).’ In addition, Frowe suggested combatants must be identified as combatants, to avoid the presence of guerrilla warfare which can end up in a higher death count, for example, the Vietnam War. Moreover, he argued they must be part of the army, bear arms and apply to the rules of jus in bello. (Frowe (2011), Page 101-3). This suggests Frowe seeks a fair, just war between two participants avoiding non-combatant deaths, but wouldn’t this lead to higher death rate for combatants, as both sides have relatively equal chance to win since both use similar tactics? Nevertheless, arguably Frowe will argue that combatant can lawfully kill each other, showing this is just, which is also supported by Vittola, who states: ‘it is lawful to draw the sword and use it against malefactors (Begby et al (2006b), Page 309).’
In addition, Vittola expresses the extent of military tactics used, but never reaches a conclusion whether it’s lawful or not to proceed these actions, as he constantly found a middle ground, where it can be lawful to do such things but never always (Begby et al (2006b), Page 326-31). This is supported by
