We are still in the "true trial" period. All you need to do is connect your new "HDTV antenna" to a conventional analog TV, and see how clear you get the analog signal for the stations that are staying on VHF post-transition. If you get a clear signal with no "ghosting" or "snow" with your UHF-only antenna, I'd be confident that your ATSC signal will be fine.
Yeah, that's a real good point. But who is making it to the people to whom it matters?
I understand London to have topography similar to New York City. However, reviews coming out of New York City indicate that multipath interference is a considerable problem there
Some have suggested that stationing repeaters throughout the city would prevent these issues. Is this done in London?
Still, people will not have the opportunity to determine the best solution for them prior to this switchover.
I hold that it is irresponsible for the government to have allowed stations to provide UHF service during this trial period only to allow them to broadcast in VHF later. Here's the situation:
Someone buys a high-quality, high-gain UHF antenna that allows them to pull in UHF signals from 30 miles (such as Antennas Direct DB2, which reviews indicate offers very little VHF gain). On February 17, they turn on their TV and find that they can't pick up the stations they watched only days before with equipment they bought to suit the government's order.
People say "Well, you've had all the time in the world to determine what equipment you need to buy," but that trial period was not a true trial period.
True, you can buy an antenna with great UHF and great VHF performance, but why would you spend the money on VHF if you didn't know you needed it?
You don't necessarily require a different antenna for VHF/UHF - As an example, ChannelMaster makes a variety of dual-band devices.
True, but if one does not know that some channels broadcasting UHF now will broadcast VHF in February, you would be inclined (as I did Tuesday before I knew this) to just buy one of the the UHF antennas ubiquitously marked "HDTV Antenna."
This is another missed opportunity for the government to have managed this transition. No one is telling this fact to the public.
there ain't nuttin ta stop y'all from trying out the newfangled digeetal thingy before the anylog tranmishun goes dark.
Untrue. Currently, almost all DTV signals are broadcasting UHF. Post-transition, many stations will shift digital signals to VHF, which has notably different reception qualities than UHF.
We will see additional complaints once this is rolled out to areas with more geographic diversity.
Ghosting (an effect of multipath reception, where the tv receives the signal more than once) is an annoyance with analog sets and occurs in areas with serious terrain, skyscrapers, or airplanes flying overhead (none of which really affects the Wilmington market). With a digital set, it can cause a complete loss of signal as the logic hardware may not know onto which signal to lock. Reviews online indicate that a good directional antenna and a quality digital converter box can eliminate those issues.
The way that this transition will occur muddies the waters further. Every station is broadcasting digital TV in the UHF band right now; post-transition, many stations will revert to broadcasting digital TV in the VHF band. Though we have the opportunity to read reviews for which antenna-receiver solution works best for UHF digital TV signals, people will only have the opportunity to read reviews on how this works with VHF after the transition.
Finally, the inexpensive converter boxes eligible for the coupon are of varying quality. There are some that have been recognized as excellent (The Zenith, the Channel Master, the Echostar), there are some that are awful (the Digital Stream, the GE).
Businesses expect to pay taxes. A liquor store has no reason to believe that it will be held up, unless so threatened. In such a case, retraction of such threat would represent welfare.
In any case, Iowa may believe that tax cuts to businesses that may bring work beyond corn to its state are in its best interest. The jury is out on whether this works.
Even when it's not loaded up with electro-crap the space shuttle can't provide the delta-v to make it out of earth orbit to the moon, much less to the sun.
How do you tell which electronics had a deposit paid on them?
A form? A stamp on the device itself? I suspect documenting either would be cumbersome for the recycling authority you allude to. Ensuring that such documentation is available at the time of refund would probably fall on the consumer, who probably threw the fucking form out with the box it came in. The consumer's kid could peel off the stamp.
However, the key issue is that fundemental difference between computers and disposable containers. There are few people that buy bottles and keep them for longer than the day they make their grocery list. People buy computers forever -- they're a capital good.
Instead, we should follow the refridgerator model. Sears brings by your new refridgerator to replace the old one. The installer says "Hey, man; you want me to get that thing out of your hair or do you want to take it to the dump yourself? We'll recycle it." You think to yourself "That's a damn good point. Shit, this damn thing is heavy as hell: how the fuck am I gonna get this thing in my car?" You just ask how much and who to write the check to.
Where am I going with this? I suggest we make computers too big to leave on the street and too awkward to take to the dump.
This is in contrast to the generally more intelligent free thinkers, such as ourselves, who like to understand the subtleties and nuances of a decision or at least be able to reason logically on the fly, but we are the ones that the government is watching because who needs those trouble makers anyway?
Tell me what your superiority over Joe Shmo has to do with buying electronics.
...people tend to fall back on their ingrained programming...and for most people that means the consumer program and not the hacker program that is more typical here on Slashdot.
So if someone is unable to "reason logically on the fly" -- which one doesn't need to do anyway; he can just look the shit up at home and make a decision as slow as he wants -- he shoould automatically revert to the so-called "hacker program?" Not everyone likes to sit around and tinker with shit.
Joe Shmo isn't a consumer rather than a hacker because he isn't sharp; he is a consumer because he has better things to think about.
The planned holds allow launch personnel an opportunity to ensure that the vehicle's status is nominal. NASA does not expect staff to evaluate information as complex as rocket science with a time contstraint; that is, scientists cannot work with a ticking clock in front of them as would be required if it were kept running.
At the end of holds often comes the "Go, no-go" sequence immortalized by Apollo 13. Or at least an implicit "Go, no-go" indication.
After one does something that would trigger a notification to all their friends via the newsfeed, he can disable notification for that event with a simple click of an X.
The United States feels that it is in its citizen's interests to protect the copyrights created by US citizens and marketed by a multi-billion dollar industry. Not only may the industry collapse, leaving thousands without jobs, but with the availability of cheap music artists lose their incentive to create.
Your assertion that the US would go to war with other countries is ludicris and you know it. Inflamatory remarks like yours serve only to alienate the world community.
At the very least, stop taxing everyone else to subsidize flood insurance for people who insist on building in flood-prone areas.
If they want insurance, let them pay the real cost of it. If they don't, let them take the risk themselves.
You ignore the spillover effects of such spending.
Redistributing money from areas (in the form of insurance subsidies) that don't have events to places like the Gulf and Atlantic coast states that do is a strategy by which areas important to the nation are protected and allowed to develop.
Imagine the United States without the vacation areas of Florida or the history of New Orleans.
The city was a creation of the French before the nation even existed. The city was there way before quality knowledge of the effects of hurricane given the now obvious geographical factors.
It seems like they want to have an entity around to sell their products for revenue, and they can do that now.
Indeed, it seems almost counter-productive to have a seperate corporation. If MozFoundation sold the goods and put that right into investment, then there would be no profit. However, if MozCorp sold the goods and made a profit, it would have to pay taxes, cutting back the amount of money sent up to the Foundation.
There is another possibility, though.
The Foundation might generate a lot of revenue selling its product. They would attempt to invest this cash into the operation to prevent profitting. But suppose that they ran out of ways to invest the money, because there are rules limiting what they can do with their money in the Foundations by-laws or other bureaucratic issues.
That would be a conundrum. But if there's a corporation, it is much less messy because they can just hang on to the money while MozFoundation figures out what to do with it.
There is some training involved in any job, but in every job I've had, from fast food to clerical, people disregard at least some of the methods -- particularly with regard to documentation -- so that they can get the job done and stand around or go home.
Why would I want to risk my future job security by letting other people know what I am doing?
How reasonable a fear is this?
Though commenting improves efficiency by allowing other members of the staff to collaborate effectively, it may also make one irrelavent or very easy to replace if new people can so easily introduce themselves to the methods of doing the work.
Not so. Sony may believe that the device will become so prolific as to be a substitute for the household DVD player, rather than a portable substitute to be used by the extremely small international jet-set.
Sony wants people to buy the device for how they can use it. They're justifiably afraid that the PSP will become simply another piece of hardware that has to compete with every other portable computer, at which point they are sure to lose their price premium.
Slashdot Mirror
We are still in the "true trial" period. All you need to do is connect your new "HDTV antenna" to a conventional analog TV, and see how clear you get the analog signal for the stations that are staying on VHF post-transition. If you get a clear signal with no "ghosting" or "snow" with your UHF-only antenna, I'd be confident that your ATSC signal will be fine.
Yeah, that's a real good point. But who is making it to the people to whom it matters?
I understand London to have topography similar to New York City. However, reviews coming out of New York City indicate that multipath interference is a considerable problem there
Some have suggested that stationing repeaters throughout the city would prevent these issues. Is this done in London?
Still, people will not have the opportunity to determine the best solution for them prior to this switchover.
I hold that it is irresponsible for the government to have allowed stations to provide UHF service during this trial period only to allow them to broadcast in VHF later. Here's the situation:
Someone buys a high-quality, high-gain UHF antenna that allows them to pull in UHF signals from 30 miles (such as Antennas Direct DB2, which reviews indicate offers very little VHF gain). On February 17, they turn on their TV and find that they can't pick up the stations they watched only days before with equipment they bought to suit the government's order.
People say "Well, you've had all the time in the world to determine what equipment you need to buy," but that trial period was not a true trial period.
True, you can buy an antenna with great UHF and great VHF performance, but why would you spend the money on VHF if you didn't know you needed it?
You don't necessarily require a different antenna for VHF/UHF - As an example, ChannelMaster makes a variety of dual-band devices.
True, but if one does not know that some channels broadcasting UHF now will broadcast VHF in February, you would be inclined (as I did Tuesday before I knew this) to just buy one of the the UHF antennas ubiquitously marked "HDTV Antenna."
This is another missed opportunity for the government to have managed this transition. No one is telling this fact to the public.
there ain't nuttin ta stop y'all from trying out the newfangled digeetal thingy before the anylog tranmishun goes dark.
Untrue. Currently, almost all DTV signals are broadcasting UHF. Post-transition, many stations will shift digital signals to VHF, which has notably different reception qualities than UHF.
UHF also requires a different antenna than VHF.
We will see additional complaints once this is rolled out to areas with more geographic diversity.
Ghosting (an effect of multipath reception, where the tv receives the signal more than once) is an annoyance with analog sets and occurs in areas with serious terrain, skyscrapers, or airplanes flying overhead (none of which really affects the Wilmington market). With a digital set, it can cause a complete loss of signal as the logic hardware may not know onto which signal to lock. Reviews online indicate that a good directional antenna and a quality digital converter box can eliminate those issues.
The way that this transition will occur muddies the waters further. Every station is broadcasting digital TV in the UHF band right now; post-transition, many stations will revert to broadcasting digital TV in the VHF band. Though we have the opportunity to read reviews for which antenna-receiver solution works best for UHF digital TV signals, people will only have the opportunity to read reviews on how this works with VHF after the transition.
Finally, the inexpensive converter boxes eligible for the coupon are of varying quality. There are some that have been recognized as excellent (The Zenith, the Channel Master, the Echostar), there are some that are awful (the Digital Stream, the GE).
Businesses expect to pay taxes. A liquor store has no reason to believe that it will be held up, unless so threatened. In such a case, retraction of such threat would represent welfare.
In any case, Iowa may believe that tax cuts to businesses that may bring work beyond corn to its state are in its best interest. The jury is out on whether this works.
AT&T requires a phone line for discounted service. The subscriber still qualifies for service at a higher price.
Even when it's not loaded up with electro-crap the space shuttle can't provide the delta-v to make it out of earth orbit to the moon, much less to the sun.
How do you tell which electronics had a deposit paid on them?
A form? A stamp on the device itself? I suspect documenting either would be cumbersome for the recycling authority you allude to. Ensuring that such documentation is available at the time of refund would probably fall on the consumer, who probably threw the fucking form out with the box it came in. The consumer's kid could peel off the stamp.
However, the key issue is that fundemental difference between computers and disposable containers. There are few people that buy bottles and keep them for longer than the day they make their grocery list. People buy computers forever -- they're a capital good.
Instead, we should follow the refridgerator model. Sears brings by your new refridgerator to replace the old one. The installer says "Hey, man; you want me to get that thing out of your hair or do you want to take it to the dump yourself? We'll recycle it." You think to yourself "That's a damn good point. Shit, this damn thing is heavy as hell: how the fuck am I gonna get this thing in my car?" You just ask how much and who to write the check to.
Where am I going with this? I suggest we make computers too big to leave on the street and too awkward to take to the dump.
Tell me what your superiority over Joe Shmo has to do with buying electronics.
So if someone is unable to "reason logically on the fly" -- which one doesn't need to do anyway; he can just look the shit up at home and make a decision as slow as he wants -- he shoould automatically revert to the so-called "hacker program?" Not everyone likes to sit around and tinker with shit.
Joe Shmo isn't a consumer rather than a hacker because he isn't sharp; he is a consumer because he has better things to think about.
The planned holds allow launch personnel an opportunity to ensure that the vehicle's status is nominal. NASA does not expect staff to evaluate information as complex as rocket science with a time contstraint; that is, scientists cannot work with a ticking clock in front of them as would be required if it were kept running.
At the end of holds often comes the "Go, no-go" sequence immortalized by Apollo 13. Or at least an implicit "Go, no-go" indication.
vdc.com offers NASA TV on its channel 230. It's one of the channels on the service that is free.
After one does something that would trigger a notification to all their friends via the newsfeed, he can disable notification for that event with a simple click of an X.
The United States feels that it is in its citizen's interests to protect the copyrights created by US citizens and marketed by a multi-billion dollar industry. Not only may the industry collapse, leaving thousands without jobs, but with the availability of cheap music artists lose their incentive to create.
Your assertion that the US would go to war with other countries is ludicris and you know it. Inflamatory remarks like yours serve only to alienate the world community.
In the linked article, it says that the public can view the streets of Britain through the cameras.
At the very least, stop taxing everyone else to subsidize flood insurance for people who insist on building in flood-prone areas.
If they want insurance, let them pay the real cost of it. If they don't, let them take the risk themselves.
You ignore the spillover effects of such spending.
Redistributing money from areas (in the form of insurance subsidies) that don't have events to places like the Gulf and Atlantic coast states that do is a strategy by which areas important to the nation are protected and allowed to develop.
Imagine the United States without the vacation areas of Florida or the history of New Orleans.
The city was a creation of the French before the nation even existed. The city was there way before quality knowledge of the effects of hurricane given the now obvious geographical factors.
Since sponges accept less water than their actual volume, you'd end up with more sponges than water.
It seems like they want to have an entity around to sell their products for revenue, and they can do that now.
Indeed, it seems almost counter-productive to have a seperate corporation. If MozFoundation sold the goods and put that right into investment, then there would be no profit. However, if MozCorp sold the goods and made a profit, it would have to pay taxes, cutting back the amount of money sent up to the Foundation.
There is another possibility, though.
The Foundation might generate a lot of revenue selling its product. They would attempt to invest this cash into the operation to prevent profitting. But suppose that they ran out of ways to invest the money, because there are rules limiting what they can do with their money in the Foundations by-laws or other bureaucratic issues.
That would be a conundrum. But if there's a corporation, it is much less messy because they can just hang on to the money while MozFoundation figures out what to do with it.
There is some training involved in any job, but in every job I've had, from fast food to clerical, people disregard at least some of the methods -- particularly with regard to documentation -- so that they can get the job done and stand around or go home.
Why would I want to risk my future job security by letting other people know what I am doing?
How reasonable a fear is this?
Though commenting improves efficiency by allowing other members of the staff to collaborate effectively, it may also make one irrelavent or very easy to replace if new people can so easily introduce themselves to the methods of doing the work.
slashdot isn't a script kiddie crackerz site. It's a news and discussion site.
Not so. Sony may believe that the device will become so prolific as to be a substitute for the household DVD player, rather than a portable substitute to be used by the extremely small international jet-set.
Sony wants people to buy the device for how they can use it. They're justifiably afraid that the PSP will become simply another piece of hardware that has to compete with every other portable computer, at which point they are sure to lose their price premium.