Amateur radio does not allow the use of encryption, connections to the internet, or any commercial use or the exchange of any money. So no, we don't have this... Please comment only about things you actually know about please thanks.
Hell, even the TV stations themselves have wattage and spectrum limits. It's not going to be anarchy, any more than Wi-Fi frequencies are anarchic.
Nobody uses overpowered CB radios, and nobody modifies their stock wifi with pringles cans and high power amplifiers to get more range. And in dense urban areas, with hundreds of networks, drive-by hacking, people 'stealing' internet from their neighbors, police arresting people for having laptops in their car...
No anarchy here. Move along, nothing to see here. I don't need to see your identification.
They want to deregulate. Which means there will be no one authority to control these whitespaces. I don't think I need to explain what happens to an unmanaged network resource with multiple authorities competing; Multiple DHCP or domain controllers, etc.
And no matter how you cut the bandwidth, there will be overhead, which increases as a function of the number of devices. While these devices may be logically separated, they are not physically separated, making the entire spectrum act like a hub-based network. And devices outside the range of other transcievers can still cause interference so long as the the device at the remote can hear that interference.
So let me say that this is NOT A TECHNICAL PROBLEM. This is a tragedy of the commons problem. And it will be hugely exasperated in dense urban areas -- except on a larger footprint. Whereas before geographies with high densities of wifi devices could only interfere with each other up to a hundred meters or so, now we're talking about metro-wide interference. It'll be like CB radio, but for digital communication. And it will never compete with hardline installations like it could if it were regulated.
This is the simple truth -- unless the FCC puts some form of regulation onto these bands prior to their first use, it's going to be a nightmare. It would be far better to license these bands for **non-profit use** (note I did NOT say non-commercial) somewhat like Ham radio, where people needed to aquire a license to transmit, and take classes, and have an ID associated with transmissions, and a regulatory body to monitor specious transmissions and revoke licenses or shut down non-compliant equipment as necessary. This plan stands the best chance of achiving a usable public, wireless, high speed network... which incidentally could carry internet traffic. Anything less, and all it takes is a few jerks with high power transmitters in an area to render the entire spectrum useless.
Umm, I can't see this having any practical application. Not only that, but since when was a name a reliable method of gender determination? The TSA can't even get it right when they're looking right at the person -- in real life. And let's not even get started on intersex conditions, cultural differences, etc.
IBM just patented itself a lawsuit, nothing more. Move along.
The question here is about repeatability, and given how long it's taken to have an anomaly like this surface, the only other accelerator that might be capable of confirming this find (ie, doing it again) is probably the LHC.
Anyone know what the probability of doing this again might be?
In days of old, when cell phones made calls, and contracts deprived all of gold, there came a metal man who lived in a mobile, he promised free ring tones, no contracts, and a platform by, of, and for the people, but alas the sticker said "Made in China", and it filled their hearts with lead... I mean, dread. Yeah.
The reason a remote control car is a bad idea is because there's no way for you to get any feedback on your steering and acceleration/braking decisions. When you're in a car, you can feel what it is doing and know where the limits are. A joystick doesn't have that kind of responsiveness and it's inevitable that you'll lose control of the vehicle when doing much more than driving it in an oval or in a straight line. And you'd need more than 1 camera to effectively navigate; I'm sorry, but the idea of using an iPhone, with it's limited screen size, to display several video feeds, is not practical. That said, having invoked the "that's impossible!" phrase with a bunch of engineers... I've pretty much doomed the world to having one created...
Slashdot Mirror
Amateur radio does not allow the use of encryption, connections to the internet, or any commercial use or the exchange of any money. So no, we don't have this... Please comment only about things you actually know about please thanks.
You're confusing network layers. Please turn in your geek badge at the front counter.
Hell, even the TV stations themselves have wattage and spectrum limits. It's not going to be anarchy, any more than Wi-Fi frequencies are anarchic.
Nobody uses overpowered CB radios, and nobody modifies their stock wifi with pringles cans and high power amplifiers to get more range. And in dense urban areas, with hundreds of networks, drive-by hacking, people 'stealing' internet from their neighbors, police arresting people for having laptops in their car...
No anarchy here. Move along, nothing to see here. I don't need to see your identification.
They want to deregulate. Which means there will be no one authority to control these whitespaces. I don't think I need to explain what happens to an unmanaged network resource with multiple authorities competing; Multiple DHCP or domain controllers, etc.
And no matter how you cut the bandwidth, there will be overhead, which increases as a function of the number of devices. While these devices may be logically separated, they are not physically separated, making the entire spectrum act like a hub-based network. And devices outside the range of other transcievers can still cause interference so long as the the device at the remote can hear that interference.
So let me say that this is NOT A TECHNICAL PROBLEM. This is a tragedy of the commons problem. And it will be hugely exasperated in dense urban areas -- except on a larger footprint. Whereas before geographies with high densities of wifi devices could only interfere with each other up to a hundred meters or so, now we're talking about metro-wide interference. It'll be like CB radio, but for digital communication. And it will never compete with hardline installations like it could if it were regulated.
This is the simple truth -- unless the FCC puts some form of regulation onto these bands prior to their first use, it's going to be a nightmare. It would be far better to license these bands for **non-profit use** (note I did NOT say non-commercial) somewhat like Ham radio, where people needed to aquire a license to transmit, and take classes, and have an ID associated with transmissions, and a regulatory body to monitor specious transmissions and revoke licenses or shut down non-compliant equipment as necessary. This plan stands the best chance of achiving a usable public, wireless, high speed network... which incidentally could carry internet traffic. Anything less, and all it takes is a few jerks with high power transmitters in an area to render the entire spectrum useless.
Umm, I can't see this having any practical application. Not only that, but since when was a name a reliable method of gender determination? The TSA can't even get it right when they're looking right at the person -- in real life. And let's not even get started on intersex conditions, cultural differences, etc.
IBM just patented itself a lawsuit, nothing more. Move along.
The question here is about repeatability, and given how long it's taken to have an anomaly like this surface, the only other accelerator that might be capable of confirming this find (ie, doing it again) is probably the LHC.
Anyone know what the probability of doing this again might be?
Mount doom.
In days of old, when cell phones made calls,
and contracts deprived all of gold,
there came a metal man who lived in a mobile,
he promised free ring tones, no contracts, and
a platform by, of, and for the people,
but alas the sticker said "Made in China",
and it filled their hearts with lead... I mean, dread. Yeah.
The reason a remote control car is a bad idea is because there's no way for you to get any feedback on your steering and acceleration/braking decisions. When you're in a car, you can feel what it is doing and know where the limits are. A joystick doesn't have that kind of responsiveness and it's inevitable that you'll lose control of the vehicle when doing much more than driving it in an oval or in a straight line. And you'd need more than 1 camera to effectively navigate; I'm sorry, but the idea of using an iPhone, with it's limited screen size, to display several video feeds, is not practical. That said, having invoked the "that's impossible!" phrase with a bunch of engineers... I've pretty much doomed the world to having one created...