If a TV signal has traveled 50 miles from a nearby city (say Philadelphia), its strength has degraded to ~0.1 milliwatt, and a 100 milliwatt whitespace-broadcasting Ipod can easily overpower it.
Have you ever thought people don't use technology to its fullest simply because *they don't want to*? I am an engineer, and I understand how things work, but I still don't use my cellphone for anything except voicecalls. I don't even text. It's not that I don't know how, but I simply don't want to pay the expensive bill. Not when I can "text" on the internet for free (email and usenet and livejournal).
As for enrollment being down, I don't understand that bit. Maybe it's just part of the natural ebb and flow. A few years ago the Penn State Computer Engineering/Science department was so full, it was nigh-impossible to get in (you had to have a 3.5 or better average).
What I can't figure out is why he can't get dialup. Even on noisy hotel lines, I can still get 19-24 kbit/s connections. And on clean home lines, the U.S. Congress passed a bill in 1996 to upgrade everyone to digital phones. That way even rural residents can get at least 50k connections via their digital modems. I'm surprised Australia didn't have a similar analog-to-digital phone upgrade.
The quickest-and-fastest way to provide broadband to rural communities is to simply install DSLAMS on existing phone connections. No need to dig everything up, or install new wires. When my phone company did this, I instantly went from 50k to 6000k connections. Now a rural farmhouse in the middle of nowhere might not be able to go that fast, but they should still be able to achieve ~500k connections using DSL.
i'm sorry to say this, but your Luddite paranoia is really just a knee-jerk reaction to societal pro
Thanks for the insult.
I will now insult you back.
On second thought, no I won't. I don't have to bend-down to your level. The facts support my case:
- broadcast television WILL continue on channels 2 to 51 - white space devices will Also be on channels 2 to 51 - this will cause interference with television reception - - broadcast television transmits the equivalent of 2 million gigabit/s bandwidth to 110 million households - no internet, wireless or otherwise, can handle that load; internet cannot replace the simplicity that is wireless tv. - nor can internet access be free, as is the case with wireless tv
Let's assume that an Ipod or Ipod-like device gains the ability to broadcast wireless internet over the television bands. There are a number of things that could go wrong (from worst to best case):
- This is unlikely but possible given how people hack their PSPs and Nintendo DS devices: Person hacks their Ipod to use any damn channel they please, thereby blocking my local weather/news channel WGAL8 because they are broadcasting directly overtop of it.
- Person uses Ipod normally, but Ipod database does not list nearby cities stations like WBAL11 (Baltimore) or WPHL17 (Philadelphia). As a result of this oversight I lose channels 2,3,6,10,11,12,13,17,29,35,57,65 because the Ipod is broadcasting directly overtop of them.
- Person uses Ipod normally, and Ipod decides to broadcast on channel 7, directly adjacent to WGAL8. The "spillover" from channel 7 confuses my television receiver and I can't tune-in my local weather/news. I see a picture, but it's heavily-pixelated due to interference.
- Person uses Ipod normally, but the cable connector hanging out of the wall picks-up the Ipod's broadcast, and several channels became "staticy" or "pixelated" as a result of the interference on the line.
Ooops. That was supposed to say "Sexy Vixens OF Babylon 5" including Minbari "boneheads" and Centauri women with shaved heads. The loss of that video would be a true tragedy.
Let's assume that an Ipod or Ipod-like device gains the ability to broadcast wireless internet over the television bands. There are a number of things that could go wrong (from worst to best case):
- Person hacks their Ipod to use any damn channel they please, thereby blocking my local weather/news channel WGAL8 because they are broadcasting directly overtop of it.
- Person uses Ipod normally, but Ipod database does not list nearby cities stations like WBAL11 (Baltimore) or WPHL17 (Philadelphia). As a result of this oversight I lose channels 2,3,6,10,11,12,13,17,29,35,57,65 because the Ipod is broadcasting directly overtop of them.
- Person uses Ipod normally, and Ipod decides to broadcast on channel 7, directly adjacent to WGAL8. The "spillover" from channel 7 confuses my television receiver and I can't tune-in my local weather/news. I see a picture, but it's heavily-pixelated due to interference.
- Person uses Ipod normally, but the cable connector hanging out of the wall picks-up the Ipod's broadcast, and several channels became "staticy" or "pixelated" as a result of the interference on the line.
i'm sorry to say this, but your Luddite paranoia is really just a knee-jerk reaction to societal pro
Thanks for the insult.
I will now insult you back.
On second thought, no I won't. I don't have to bend-down to your level. The facts support my case:
- broadcast television WILL continue on channels 2 to 51. - white space devices will be sharing the exact-same channels - this will cause interference with television reception - - broadcast television transmits the equivalent of 2 million gigabit/s bandwidth to 110 million households - no internet, wireless or otherwise, can handle that load; internet cannot replace the simplicity that is wireless tv. - nor can internet access be free, as is the case with wireless tv
besides, the white-space spectrum that is being opened up to wi-fi applications is what's being freed up by the switchover to digital television.
Now you see? You STILL don't understand. That's yet another reason I keep repeating myself. The channels are NOT being freed-up. These white-space devices are broadcasting ON EXISTING TV channels 2 to 51. Channels where I watch Baltimore, Philadelphia, Lancaster, and Harrisburg news and weather and sports. The WSDs and DTVs will be sharing the SAME channels. Clear?
do you have to repeat the same specious arguments every single time the white-space spectrum is brought up?
I don't know.
Was it necessary for Barak Obama to call me every single day for the last two weeks? Was it necessary to call me no less than *four times* on election day? I guess Mr. Obama thought it was necessary, because he wanted to win Pennsylvania. Similarly I want people to understand that WSDs are going to interfere with over-the-air television & harm the people who can least able to afford to lose their OTA TV (the poor and lower incomes).
You probably already read my previous posts, but many other people have not, and those are the people I am trying to reach with my message. Same way Obama was repeatedly-calling Pennsylvanians to make sure THEY got the message to go vote.
How are you going to lose access to channels that will not exist in 2 1/2 months?
What an incredible moronic and idiotic question. Broadcast television is NOT ending. And any engineer/technician who naively believes broadcast TV is ending is a stupid moronic shit, who should tear-up his engineering or science degree for being so clueless about technology./takes a break and drinks coffee
WOW. Did I just say that?!? Man, I can be a real bitch in the morning before I have my first cup. I sincerely apologize. Still my pre-caffeine alter ego is correct. Broadcast television is not ending. THAT is why I will be losing channels if a White-Space Device/ipod starts broadcasting overtop or near existing stations.
Well I can understand some people's viewpoints. My 75-year-old mom often complains "there's nothing decent on television anymore; too many bedroom scenes". She wants it to be sanitized to her tastes, otherwise she has nothing to watch.
It can be especially difficult if you have kids watching. You might have to tell the "Sorry you can't watch tv" because there's nothing clean enough for their age bracket.
I wasn't able to find any of my source code or family photos on DVD at my local store. Maybe I'm just looking in the wrong place. Where do you shop for yours?
Ya know... it helps if you read the WHOLE FRAKING POST before you post a reply.
Grrr. Quote: "I just keep a backup on both my C: and an external USB drive. The odds of both drives failing simultaneously are low." ---- That's how you protect your family photos from being lost. It's certainly safer using this method than relying on those stupid CDs that self-erased themselves after a few years.
Well there is such as thing as "infant mortality". It's when a device is not built properly and it either doesn't work at all, or works but quickly dies.
The death rate of products then plummets to a low point, until it rises again at 15-20 years (old age mortality). Products (and people) follow an upside-down bell curve.
your little bullshit spiel applied to none of the fucking story.
Really? "None" of it applied? Not even this part? "For stuff that's not worth buying... I just keep a backup on both my C: and an external USB drive." --- I'm fairly certain that applied to the original posters' question. He can't rely on burned CDs, but he can rely on multiple hard drives used for backup.
Definitely. I have several important documents printed and stored in a fireproof safe. My house might burn-down and my computer get destroyed, but the important stuff is still protected.
>>>To the engineer who can build her own invisibility cloak, I say that she is worthy of raiding the Sorority Girls' dorm.
(1) If the engineer is a "she", then she doesn't need a cloak. She can just walk right in and pretend she belongs there. When a dorm has ~400 people living in it, it's not possible for the residents to know every face.
(2) Furthermore she'd probably be more interested in raiding the Frat Boys dorm.;-)
Slashdot Mirror
Cute. :-) But I already graduated.
Your daddy didn't have the full force of the U.S. Army (or the IRS which is almost as bad) to back him up.
If a TV signal has traveled 50 miles from a nearby city (say Philadelphia), its strength has degraded to ~0.1 milliwatt, and a 100 milliwatt whitespace-broadcasting Ipod can easily overpower it.
Just like my signature.
Have you ever thought people don't use technology to its fullest simply because *they don't want to*? I am an engineer, and I understand how things work, but I still don't use my cellphone for anything except voicecalls. I don't even text. It's not that I don't know how, but I simply don't want to pay the expensive bill. Not when I can "text" on the internet for free (email and usenet and livejournal).
As for enrollment being down, I don't understand that bit. Maybe it's just part of the natural ebb and flow. A few years ago the Penn State Computer Engineering/Science department was so full, it was nigh-impossible to get in (you had to have a 3.5 or better average).
"I use a 512k connection" -- they would assume that you would be downloading at 512kb/s, not 1/8th of that.
Um... if you have a 512k connection then you ARE downloading at 512kb/s (kilobit/second). Maybe you meant something else?
What I can't figure out is why he can't get dialup. Even on noisy hotel lines, I can still get 19-24 kbit/s connections. And on clean home lines, the U.S. Congress passed a bill in 1996 to upgrade everyone to digital phones. That way even rural residents can get at least 50k connections via their digital modems. I'm surprised Australia didn't have a similar analog-to-digital phone upgrade.
The quickest-and-fastest way to provide broadband to rural communities is to simply install DSLAMS on existing phone connections. No need to dig everything up, or install new wires. When my phone company did this, I instantly went from 50k to 6000k connections. Now a rural farmhouse in the middle of nowhere might not be able to go that fast, but they should still be able to achieve ~500k connections using DSL.
[fixed formatting]
i'm sorry to say this, but your Luddite paranoia is really just a knee-jerk reaction to societal pro
Thanks for the insult.
I will now insult you back.
On second thought, no I won't. I don't have to bend-down to your level. The facts support my case:
- broadcast television WILL continue on channels 2 to 51
- white space devices will Also be on channels 2 to 51
- this will cause interference with television reception
-
- broadcast television transmits the equivalent of 2 million gigabit/s bandwidth to 110 million households
- no internet, wireless or otherwise, can handle that load; internet cannot replace the simplicity that is wireless tv.
- nor can internet access be free, as is the case with wireless tv
Let's assume that an Ipod or Ipod-like device gains the ability to broadcast wireless internet over the television bands. There are a number of things that could go wrong (from worst to best case):
- This is unlikely but possible given how people hack their PSPs and Nintendo DS devices: Person hacks their Ipod to use any damn channel they please, thereby blocking my local weather/news channel WGAL8 because they are broadcasting directly overtop of it.
- Person uses Ipod normally, but Ipod database does not list nearby cities stations like WBAL11 (Baltimore) or WPHL17 (Philadelphia). As a result of this oversight I lose channels 2,3,6,10,11,12,13,17,29,35,57,65 because the Ipod is broadcasting directly overtop of them.
- Person uses Ipod normally, and Ipod decides to broadcast on channel 7, directly adjacent to WGAL8. The "spillover" from channel 7 confuses my television receiver and I can't tune-in my local weather/news. I see a picture, but it's heavily-pixelated due to interference.
- Person uses Ipod normally, but the cable connector hanging out of the wall picks-up the Ipod's broadcast, and several channels became "staticy" or "pixelated" as a result of the interference on the line.
(say, Sexy Vixens 5)
Ooops. That was supposed to say "Sexy Vixens OF Babylon 5" including Minbari "boneheads" and Centauri women with shaved heads. The loss of that video would be a true tragedy.
Let's assume that an Ipod or Ipod-like device gains the ability to broadcast wireless internet over the television bands. There are a number of things that could go wrong (from worst to best case):
- Person hacks their Ipod to use any damn channel they please, thereby blocking my local weather/news channel WGAL8 because they are broadcasting directly overtop of it.
- Person uses Ipod normally, but Ipod database does not list nearby cities stations like WBAL11 (Baltimore) or WPHL17 (Philadelphia). As a result of this oversight I lose channels 2,3,6,10,11,12,13,17,29,35,57,65 because the Ipod is broadcasting directly overtop of them.
- Person uses Ipod normally, and Ipod decides to broadcast on channel 7, directly adjacent to WGAL8. The "spillover" from channel 7 confuses my television receiver and I can't tune-in my local weather/news. I see a picture, but it's heavily-pixelated due to interference.
- Person uses Ipod normally, but the cable connector hanging out of the wall picks-up the Ipod's broadcast, and several channels became "staticy" or "pixelated" as a result of the interference on the line.
i'm sorry to say this, but your Luddite paranoia is really just a knee-jerk reaction to societal pro
Thanks for the insult.
I will now insult you back.
On second thought, no I won't. I don't have to bend-down to your level. The facts support my case:
- broadcast television WILL continue on channels 2 to 51.
- white space devices will be sharing the exact-same channels
- this will cause interference with television reception
-
- broadcast television transmits the equivalent of 2 million gigabit/s bandwidth to 110 million households
- no internet, wireless or otherwise, can handle that load; internet cannot replace the simplicity that is wireless tv.
- nor can internet access be free, as is the case with wireless tv
besides, the white-space spectrum that is being opened up to wi-fi applications is what's being freed up by the switchover to digital television.
Now you see? You STILL don't understand. That's yet another reason I keep repeating myself. The channels are NOT being freed-up. These white-space devices are broadcasting ON EXISTING TV channels 2 to 51. Channels where I watch Baltimore, Philadelphia, Lancaster, and Harrisburg news and weather and sports. The WSDs and DTVs will be sharing the SAME channels. Clear?
do you have to repeat the same specious arguments every single time the white-space spectrum is brought up?
I don't know.
Was it necessary for Barak Obama to call me every single day for the last two weeks? Was it necessary to call me no less than *four times* on election day? I guess Mr. Obama thought it was necessary, because he wanted to win Pennsylvania. Similarly I want people to understand that WSDs are going to interfere with over-the-air television & harm the people who can least able to afford to lose their OTA TV (the poor and lower incomes).
You probably already read my previous posts, but many other people have not, and those are the people I am trying to reach with my message. Same way Obama was repeatedly-calling Pennsylvanians to make sure THEY got the message to go vote.
Excellent point. Although I think Heroes and Supernatural are worth watching, I will nevertheless revise my previous statement:
"I see a picture, but it's severely pixelated due to the adjacent-channel interference."
How are you going to lose access to channels that will not exist in 2 1/2 months?
What an incredible moronic and idiotic question. Broadcast television is NOT ending. And any engineer/technician who naively believes broadcast TV is ending is a stupid moronic shit, who should tear-up his engineering or science degree for being so clueless about technology. /takes a break and drinks coffee
WOW. Did I just say that?!? Man, I can be a real bitch in the morning before I have my first cup. I sincerely apologize. Still my pre-caffeine alter ego is correct. Broadcast television is not ending. THAT is why I will be losing channels if a White-Space Device/ipod starts broadcasting overtop or near existing stations.
Yes. I was saying I UNDERSTAND her view, even if I don't agree with it. (I will personally watch anything; I don't care.)
Well I can understand some people's viewpoints. My 75-year-old mom often complains "there's nothing decent on television anymore; too many bedroom scenes". She wants it to be sanitized to her tastes, otherwise she has nothing to watch.
It can be especially difficult if you have kids watching. You might have to tell the "Sorry you can't watch tv" because there's nothing clean enough for their age bracket.
I wasn't able to find any of my source code or family photos on DVD at my local store. Maybe I'm just looking in the wrong place. Where do you shop for yours?
Ya know... it helps if you read the WHOLE FRAKING POST before you post a reply.
Grrr. Quote: "I just keep a backup on both my C: and an external USB drive. The odds of both drives failing simultaneously are low." ---- That's how you protect your family photos from being lost. It's certainly safer using this method than relying on those stupid CDs that self-erased themselves after a few years.
Well there is such as thing as "infant mortality". It's when a device is not built properly and it either doesn't work at all, or works but quickly dies.
The death rate of products then plummets to a low point, until it rises again at 15-20 years (old age mortality). Products (and people) follow an upside-down bell curve.
your little bullshit spiel applied to none of the fucking story.
Really? "None" of it applied? Not even this part? "For stuff that's not worth buying... I just keep a backup on both my C: and an external USB drive." --- I'm fairly certain that applied to the original posters' question. He can't rely on burned CDs, but he can rely on multiple hard drives used for backup.
>>>You can't use this idea for data that you create or data that you download
Um. Yes I can. I can backup the data across both my C: drive and my external USB drive. I said that in the original message.
>>>I've been running into more and more store bought CDs that are burned, not stamped & pressed.
Really? That's cheap. If I discovered something like that I'd return it, because I don't like how dyed-CDs or DVDs tend to self-erase themselves.
Definitely. I have several important documents printed and stored in a fireproof safe. My house might burn-down and my computer get destroyed, but the important stuff is still protected.
>>>To the engineer who can build her own invisibility cloak, I say that she is worthy of raiding the Sorority Girls' dorm.
(1) If the engineer is a "she", then she doesn't need a cloak. She can just walk right in and pretend she belongs there. When a dorm has ~400 people living in it, it's not possible for the residents to know every face.
(2) Furthermore she'd probably be more interested in raiding the Frat Boys dorm. ;-)