Protip: Aggressive murder of innocents (so-called collateral damage) by an illegitimate government waging an unconstitutional, undeclared war (just like Nam). At least that's how I see it. Our government has become the new terrorist and is FAR more scary to me than Bin Laden.
>>>the author has changed his mind from last time, going on CNN
Oh good. Got the video available on youtube or some other site? If true it reminds me of how Tom Clancy faced a mini-interrogation after he published Red Storm Rising. They accused him of knowing too much about US weapons and their capabilities, and had considered banning the book, until Mr. Clancy proved that all of his information came from public sources (like Janes).
>>>even if it's hurtful to what your nation's engaged in
It is not wrong to desire an end to Killing (both innocent men/women/children and our own soldiers). THAT is what my government (not nation) is currently engaged in and frankly I don't care if my actions "harm" the government if the final result if peace instead of death.
The government is also engaged in spying on its own citizens, holding them without trial, entering homes without warrant, and this information should be revealed, not locked up in a safe in the Pentagon, Congress, or White House buildings. Darkness is for the Oligarchs to hide their deeds. Exposure benefits the People, and liberty as a whole.
I'd probably send a "fuck off" reply but your solution is better. Like internet trolls/baiters, ignoring is probably the best policy. Especially if there's no proof of delivery. ("Huh? What? I never received anything like that." On Paypal that's good enough to get a refund on your purchase.)
>>>"Be prosecuted" shouldn't be a threat if you're innocent,
So ignorant. LOTS of innocent people go to jail (sometimes for 20-25 years until DNA proves they did not commit the crime). And even innocent people are not innocent thanks to our morass of laws that make nearly-everything a crime.
>>>outdoor lighting need like livestock pens or barns, gets to have dark barns all winter. and >>>...to keep my aerosols from freezing... What the heck am I supposed to do when I can't buy incandescent bulbs anymore?
The Democrat Congress doesn't give a fuck about farmers and do-it-yourselfers (i.e. independent persons). They think you should quit and become factory or office workers like everyone else, while the government takes care of you like a little child. (Yes the Dems really are that stupid - which is why they passed a law banning incandescents.)
Yeah these CFLs are sooooo much better than incandescents. ot only do they save you pennies, but also might burn down your house! Yippee! .
>>>$30/month for a 60W bulb that's in use 8 hours a day.
So you're paying $30 divided by 14.4 kWh == $2.08 per kilowatthour??? Hmmm. I doubt the veracity of your story. My cost would be only 0.09 per kWh times 14.4 == $1.30. And in order to reduce cost, rather than switch to CFL, I'd just turn off the damn light. Or if you really think you "need" a light eight hours per day, switch to a 15 or 25 watt bulb... still 20 times brighter than the candlelight our ancestors used.
Wow.... that's really saving energy isn't it? Instead of building/burying incandescents in our own backyard, we're switching to CFLs so we can save a few pennies each month, and then spend millions of dollars (1) shipping them 10,000 miles from Chinese or Indian factories followed by (2) shipping the dead ones back.
Yeah. Great job Greens. You INCREASED energy usage instead of decreasing it.
>>>You've said yourself that you're using them inappropriately in closed enclosures
And what am I supposed to do? Spend thousands of dollars ripping out the existing ceiling lights, change over to "open" enclosures, just so I can save a few pennies each month with my CFL? (And yes it is pennies because I use 40 watt bulbs, not 100 watts.)
Bullshit (again). It makes more sense for me to stay with the incandescents..... of course with Congress outlawing them, that will be impossible to do.
No what's "wrong" here is that you are telling people how to live their lives ("you're doing it wrong"). You remind me of a bible-thumper. Same arrogant attitude of telling everybody else how they should live their lives (or else punish them).
>>>The big issue is that lots of on-off cycles lessen the life of the CFL bulbs a huge amount
So what are we supposed to use in these "frequent on/off" locations (like the bathroom) after the EU and US ban incandescents??? See - this is a perfect example of a short-sighted law that HURTS the average citizen more than it helps them. .
>>>under the assumption that it takes everyone 4 gallons of gas
Strawman argument. No. He. Did. Not.
In fact theaveng said, "I have to drive". Notice the I in that sentence? Jackass. Trying to ram your damn CFLs into people's homes and costing them MORE money, not less. Typical Tyrant (or should I call you Lord?) who treats everyone like serfs too dumb to run their own lives.
>>>Although it offers a bit more range than DVB-T at the same power level
QED if you're living in North Dakota or Wisconsin or Manitoba, you'd have no television because DVB-T would not reach far enough. About 40-50 miles and that's it, whereas 8VSB can reach 100+ miles. So DVB-T was automatically rejected by the FCC as unworkable.
.
>>>it has much worse multipath behavior.
Not buying it. We use the same modulation as DVB-T does on our AM/FM digital radios (COFDM), and they have multipath problems galore. I think your comment is a popular myth among TV fans, but it has no basis on fact. (Just like the myth that Betamax forbade porn and that's why it died.) Of course I could be wrong; can you prove that DVB-T handles multipath better than 8VSB? No not really.
>>>We'd have signed on, and pushed for something that worked world-wide.
More likely we'd have been ignored. (1) The Europeans (especially the french) are notorious for ignoring Americans ideas (and often for just cause). (2) A lot of the flaws with the EU systems is that they were adopted too early. DAB for digital radio is a fine systems for the 80s, but today it's are junk. The US FCC took a little longer to settle on a design, but the result (HDR) is superior because it uses newer ideas and technologies (like MPEG4).
Also theaveng is right that the European DVB-T is unsuited for American/Canadian usage due to its ridiculously short range (40 miles). They needed a solution that could reach upto 100 miles across the empty stretches of North Dakota, Montana, Alberta, and so on. Why do you insist were should adopt a TV standard that would not work? It's illogical. .
>>>PAL is superior to NTSC
Yeah it is but it wasn't adopted until the 1960s. Was the US supposed to go without TV until that time??? I suppose you would argue the US should have adopted the inferior 350-line system that europeans used before PAL wa invented, but why??? US-NTSC was better. Even the Japanese agreed (they adopted NTSC too.)
Your attitude (anti-us) doesn't make sense when examined closely. You would have us adopt inferior standards (350-line TV, DVB-T, DAB) simply because it's european. Foolishness and the mark of a poor engineer .
>>>>>Sure AM is easy NOW but it wasn't easy when it was first developed in the 1910s or 20s. >> >>trench radio and was popular during WWII [1940s]
That doesn't negate theaveng's original point. WW2 was about thirty years after AM's invention, and while building an AM Radio was hard at first (requiring vacuum tubes and cabinets the size of refrigerators), it eventually became easy to build as technology advanced. Likewise he's saying HD Radio will be easy to self-build 30 years after its invention. Come 2030 kids will be buying "build your one digital radio" kits at Radio Shack.
>>>AM has it's uses, music broadcasts do not belong to it
Disagree with this. I used to travel across the Mid-US and there are a few AM stations broadcasting music. You're right the monoaural AM sounds "ehhh" but the AM Stereo has a wider dynamic range than FM (50-20,000 versus 50-15,000). Plus it has a longer range (across a whole state instead of just 100 miles). I was surprised how good AMS sounded and started seeking it out wherever I could find it.
>>>AM Stereo succeeded in [Asia, Canada] and Australia (where a single standard was picked upfront).
Fixed. Here's what wikipedia says: "Europe: After some experiments in the 1980s, AM Stereo was deemed to be unsuitable for the crowded band conditions and narrow bandwidths associated with AM broadcasting in Europe. However, Motorola C-QUAM AM Stereo remains in use today on a handful of stations in France, Italy, and Greece."
A lot more than that. RetroTV and THIStv shows a lot of older shows and movies that can not be found online. (I know - I've tried when I missed an episode or movie.) Antenna television also feeds international Chinese, Indian, European programming into my home, which is available online, but not translated to English. So that's another niche that Free TV fills but online TV does not.
>>>But I don't think HD-radio compares with HDTV. The latter had a switchover that was mandated by the government. Not only is this unlikely for radio
I disagree with this. The UK Parliament already set 2018 to turn-off analog AM/FM radio. I suspect the date will slide (as DTV slid from 2006 to 2009), but it will still happen - a government mandated switchoff. The US FCC is likely to copy the same idea. .
>>>moving from traditional "transmitter-and-big-stick" technologies to alternatives, such as Internet delivery
The problem is that the cellular spectrum simply isn't large enough to stream a personal radio station to all ~10 million people in a metro market. Just doing some quick math: 10 kHz per person (40 kb/s stream) times 10 million == 100,000 megahertz needed..... almost 500 times larger than the whole TV Band. Right now cellular internet is only 2.5 times larger.
As for the future, I've seen my local station encourage people to stream their signal over their iPhones. So at least SOME radio people can see the value of internet streaming. .
>>>When my local Telco can deliver HD-quality programming over via Internet, what's the point?
I can't stream HD over the net. The best I can do is is 240p or 360p... not even DVD quality, because the line is too slow. PLUS even if I could stream HD my computer is too slow to handle it. QED there's still a need for traditional TVs. Oh and antennas too. 20 million homes use nothing but antennas to watch TV, including me. I get about 40 channels at zero cost.:-)
>>>I have a very hard time seeing this as something that will actually affect labor prices in any great way
It's competition.
Supply and demand. The end. If Microsoft, Google, Apple, et cetera had to compete with one another for "human resources", that is increased demand and the pricetags on the employees would go up. By creating a gentleman's agreement Not to compete one another, they eliminate the demand and avoid that escalating cost. Great for them. Sucks for the employees.
The North Pole view of our system seems extremely unlikely.
Virtually all the solar systems we've found were viewed from the side, and the only thing we saw was a star with a slight "bulge" on the side to indicate the presence of a giant planet.
>>>they are as interested in limiting the information as is the pentagon.
I would be too if the Pentagon told me, "Either you censor the second printing, or we'll throw you in jail for violating the Patriot Act." And don't tell me it can't happen. They did the same to Alice Paul and the suffragettes, when the Dept of Defense jailed them for violating the 1910s version of the Patriot Act. (And all they wanted was the right to vote.)
Good grief. I can't believe how readily you (and others) are to watch your right to speak, print whatever you wish, and basically be a Free Individual be taken away. The central Union government is demoting you to the level of a Serf (slave) and you cheer them on. I can just imagine Slashdot ~80 years ago: "They weren't mistreating the Gypsies and Jews. They were just asking them to carry IDs and wear the symbol of their religion on their sleeve. There's nothing with that."
>>>The Pentagon didn't really 'buy' the books. They paid for them. There's a difference. >>>Some body at the pentagon "Oh, shit, this has classified intel in it. Call up the publisher"
So? This is a difference that matters not. (Like whether I paid the hooker with dollars or euros - the end result is the same.) I can not lay my hand on any part of our Union Constitution that gives the general government power to censor information.
If the Pentagon left classified information (i.e. info that they are holding americans without trial), then too bad for them. Let them do a better job. A democratic Republic can not work if the leaders treat the People like Serfs (or children). The People have a right to know because the people are the source from which all legitimate authority comes from. Thank God for places like wikileaks so the tyrants can not hide their actions in the dark.
As for the publisher, shame on them. "Collaborator" is the proper term. They should let the people know, via the liberated press, what is really going on behind closed doors. Just as the publishers did during the Watergate or McCarthy scandals.
Most publishers are "artists" at heart and anti-censorship.
They want to able to print anything they wish. So I suspect the publisher was threatened by the Current Administration to either censor portions of the book, or have their bank accounts frozen. As I said just a suspicion but not unprecedented. Of course such a move violates our 9th and 10th Amendment rights.
Slashdot Mirror
>>>protip: ongoing military actions.
Protip: Aggressive murder of innocents (so-called collateral damage) by an illegitimate government waging an unconstitutional, undeclared war (just like Nam). At least that's how I see it. Our government has become the new terrorist and is FAR more scary to me than Bin Laden.
>>>the author has changed his mind from last time, going on CNN
Oh good. Got the video available on youtube or some other site? If true it reminds me of how Tom Clancy faced a mini-interrogation after he published Red Storm Rising. They accused him of knowing too much about US weapons and their capabilities, and had considered banning the book, until Mr. Clancy proved that all of his information came from public sources (like Janes).
>>>even if it's hurtful to what your nation's engaged in
It is not wrong to desire an end to Killing (both innocent men/women/children and our own soldiers). THAT is what my government (not nation) is currently engaged in and frankly I don't care if my actions "harm" the government if the final result if peace instead of death.
The government is also engaged in spying on its own citizens, holding them without trial, entering homes without warrant, and this information should be revealed, not locked up in a safe in the Pentagon, Congress, or White House buildings. Darkness is for the Oligarchs to hide their deeds. Exposure benefits the People, and liberty as a whole.
But Publishers include writers.
There's an overlap.
Good advice.
I'd probably send a "fuck off" reply but your solution is better. Like internet trolls/baiters, ignoring is probably the best policy. Especially if there's no proof of delivery. ("Huh? What? I never received anything like that." On Paypal that's good enough to get a refund on your purchase.)
>>>"Be prosecuted" shouldn't be a threat if you're innocent,
So ignorant. LOTS of innocent people go to jail (sometimes for 20-25 years until DNA proves they did not commit the crime). And even innocent people are not innocent thanks to our morass of laws that make nearly-everything a crime.
>>>outdoor lighting need like livestock pens or barns, gets to have dark barns all winter.
and
>>>...to keep my aerosols from freezing... What the heck am I supposed to do when I can't buy incandescent bulbs anymore?
The Democrat Congress doesn't give a fuck about farmers and do-it-yourselfers (i.e. independent persons). They think you should quit and become factory or office workers like everyone else, while the government takes care of you like a little child. (Yes the Dems really are that stupid - which is why they passed a law banning incandescents.)
>>>fire hazard
Yeah these CFLs are sooooo much better than incandescents. ot only do they save you pennies, but also might burn down your house! Yippee!
.
>>>$30/month for a 60W bulb that's in use 8 hours a day.
So you're paying $30 divided by 14.4 kWh == $2.08 per kilowatthour??? Hmmm. I doubt the veracity of your story. My cost would be only 0.09 per kWh times 14.4 == $1.30. And in order to reduce cost, rather than switch to CFL, I'd just turn off the damn light. Or if you really think you "need" a light eight hours per day, switch to a 15 or 25 watt bulb... still 20 times brighter than the candlelight our ancestors used.
Wow.... that's really saving energy isn't it? Instead of building/burying incandescents in our own backyard, we're switching to CFLs so we can save a few pennies each month, and then spend millions of dollars (1) shipping them 10,000 miles from Chinese or Indian factories followed by (2) shipping the dead ones back.
Yeah. Great job Greens. You INCREASED energy usage instead of decreasing it.
Short-sighted thinking sucks.
>>>You've said yourself that you're using them inappropriately in closed enclosures
And what am I supposed to do? Spend thousands of dollars ripping out the existing ceiling lights, change over to "open" enclosures, just so I can save a few pennies each month with my CFL? (And yes it is pennies because I use 40 watt bulbs, not 100 watts.)
Bullshit (again). It makes more sense for me to stay with the incandescents..... of course with Congress outlawing them, that will be impossible to do.
No what's "wrong" here is that you are telling people how to live their lives ("you're doing it wrong"). You remind me of a bible-thumper.
Same arrogant attitude of telling everybody else how they should live their lives (or else punish them).
>>>The big issue is that lots of on-off cycles lessen the life of the CFL bulbs a huge amount
So what are we supposed to use in these "frequent on/off" locations (like the bathroom) after the EU and US ban incandescents??? See - this is a perfect example of a short-sighted law that HURTS the average citizen more than it helps them.
.
>>>under the assumption that it takes everyone 4 gallons of gas
Strawman argument. No. He. Did. Not.
In fact theaveng said, "I have to drive". Notice the I in that sentence? Jackass. Trying to ram your damn CFLs into people's homes and costing them MORE money, not less. Typical Tyrant (or should I call you Lord?) who treats everyone like serfs too dumb to run their own lives.
>>>Although it offers a bit more range than DVB-T at the same power level
QED if you're living in North Dakota or Wisconsin or Manitoba, you'd have no television because DVB-T would not reach far enough. About 40-50 miles and that's it, whereas 8VSB can reach 100+ miles. So DVB-T was automatically rejected by the FCC as unworkable.
.
>>>it has much worse multipath behavior.
Not buying it. We use the same modulation as DVB-T does on our AM/FM digital radios (COFDM), and they have multipath problems galore. I think your comment is a popular myth among TV fans, but it has no basis on fact. (Just like the myth that Betamax forbade porn and that's why it died.) Of course I could be wrong; can you prove that DVB-T handles multipath better than 8VSB? No not really.
>>>We'd have signed on, and pushed for something that worked world-wide.
More likely we'd have been ignored. (1) The Europeans (especially the french) are notorious for ignoring Americans ideas (and often for just cause). (2) A lot of the flaws with the EU systems is that they were adopted too early. DAB for digital radio is a fine systems for the 80s, but today it's are junk. The US FCC took a little longer to settle on a design, but the result (HDR) is superior because it uses newer ideas and technologies (like MPEG4).
Also theaveng is right that the European DVB-T is unsuited for American/Canadian usage due to its ridiculously short range (40 miles). They needed a solution that could reach upto 100 miles across the empty stretches of North Dakota, Montana, Alberta, and so on. Why do you insist were should adopt a TV standard that would not work? It's illogical.
.
>>>PAL is superior to NTSC
Yeah it is but it wasn't adopted until the 1960s. Was the US supposed to go without TV until that time??? I suppose you would argue the US should have adopted the inferior 350-line system that europeans used before PAL wa invented, but why??? US-NTSC was better. Even the Japanese agreed (they adopted NTSC too.)
Your attitude (anti-us) doesn't make sense when examined closely. You would have us adopt inferior standards (350-line TV, DVB-T, DAB) simply because it's european. Foolishness and the mark of a poor engineer
.
>>>>>Sure AM is easy NOW but it wasn't easy when it was first developed in the 1910s or 20s.
>>
>>trench radio and was popular during WWII [1940s]
That doesn't negate theaveng's original point. WW2 was about thirty years after AM's invention, and while building an AM Radio was hard at first (requiring vacuum tubes and cabinets the size of refrigerators), it eventually became easy to build as technology advanced. Likewise he's saying HD Radio will be easy to self-build 30 years after its invention. Come 2030 kids will be buying "build your one digital radio" kits at Radio Shack.
>>>AM has it's uses, music broadcasts do not belong to it
Disagree with this. I used to travel across the Mid-US and there are a few AM stations broadcasting music. You're right the monoaural AM sounds "ehhh" but the AM Stereo has a wider dynamic range than FM (50-20,000 versus 50-15,000). Plus it has a longer range (across a whole state instead of just 100 miles). I was surprised how good AMS sounded and started seeking it out wherever I could find it.
Try it - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qXWMB7JffkQ
>>>AM Stereo succeeded in [Asia, Canada] and Australia (where a single standard was picked upfront).
Fixed. Here's what wikipedia says: "Europe: After some experiments in the 1980s, AM Stereo was deemed to be unsuitable for the crowded band conditions and narrow bandwidths associated with AM broadcasting in Europe. However, Motorola C-QUAM AM Stereo remains in use today on a handful of stations in France, Italy, and Greece."
>>>Except for two things: Local TV news, and PBS.
A lot more than that. RetroTV and THIStv shows a lot of older shows and movies that can not be found online. (I know - I've tried when I missed an episode or movie.) Antenna television also feeds international Chinese, Indian, European programming into my home, which is available online, but not translated to English. So that's another niche that Free TV fills but online TV does not.
>>>But I don't think HD-radio compares with HDTV. The latter had a switchover that was mandated by the government. Not only is this unlikely for radio
I disagree with this. The UK Parliament already set 2018 to turn-off analog AM/FM radio. I suspect the date will slide (as DTV slid from 2006 to 2009), but it will still happen - a government mandated switchoff. The US FCC is likely to copy the same idea.
.
>>>moving from traditional "transmitter-and-big-stick" technologies to alternatives, such as Internet delivery
The problem is that the cellular spectrum simply isn't large enough to stream a personal radio station to all ~10 million people in a metro market. Just doing some quick math: 10 kHz per person (40 kb/s stream) times 10 million == 100,000 megahertz needed..... almost 500 times larger than the whole TV Band. Right now cellular internet is only 2.5 times larger.
As for the future, I've seen my local station encourage people to stream their signal over their iPhones. So at least SOME radio people can see the value of internet streaming.
.
>>>When my local Telco can deliver HD-quality programming over via Internet, what's the point?
I can't stream HD over the net. The best I can do is is 240p or 360p... not even DVD quality, because the line is too slow. PLUS even if I could stream HD my computer is too slow to handle it. QED there's still a need for traditional TVs. Oh and antennas too. 20 million homes use nothing but antennas to watch TV, including me. I get about 40 channels at zero cost. :-)
>>>I have a very hard time seeing this as something that will actually affect labor prices in any great way
It's competition.
Supply and demand. The end. If Microsoft, Google, Apple, et cetera had to compete with one another for "human resources", that is increased demand and the pricetags on the employees would go up. By creating a gentleman's agreement Not to compete one another, they eliminate the demand and avoid that escalating cost. Great for them. Sucks for the employees.
The North Pole view of our system seems extremely unlikely.
Virtually all the solar systems we've found were viewed from the side, and the only thing we saw was a star with a slight "bulge" on the side to indicate the presence of a giant planet.
>>>they are as interested in limiting the information as is the pentagon.
I would be too if the Pentagon told me, "Either you censor the second printing, or we'll throw you in jail for violating the Patriot Act." And don't tell me it can't happen. They did the same to Alice Paul and the suffragettes, when the Dept of Defense jailed them for violating the 1910s version of the Patriot Act. (And all they wanted was the right to vote.)
>>>Mod parent up.
Good grief. I can't believe how readily you (and others) are to watch your right to speak, print whatever you wish, and basically be a Free Individual be taken away. The central Union government is demoting you to the level of a Serf (slave) and you cheer them on. I can just imagine Slashdot ~80 years ago: "They weren't mistreating the Gypsies and Jews. They were just asking them to carry IDs and wear the symbol of their religion on their sleeve. There's nothing with that."
And somebody replies:
"Mod parent up."
>>>The Pentagon didn't really 'buy' the books. They paid for them. There's a difference.
>>>Some body at the pentagon "Oh, shit, this has classified intel in it. Call up the publisher"
So? This is a difference that matters not. (Like whether I paid the hooker with dollars or euros - the end result is the same.) I can not lay my hand on any part of our Union Constitution that gives the general government power to censor information.
If the Pentagon left classified information (i.e. info that they are holding americans without trial), then too bad for them. Let them do a better job. A democratic Republic can not work if the leaders treat the People like Serfs (or children). The People have a right to know because the people are the source from which all legitimate authority comes from. Thank God for places like wikileaks so the tyrants can not hide their actions in the dark.
As for the publisher, shame on them. "Collaborator" is the proper term. They should let the people know, via the liberated press, what is really going on behind closed doors. Just as the publishers did during the Watergate or McCarthy scandals.
Most publishers are "artists" at heart and anti-censorship.
They want to able to print anything they wish. So I suspect the publisher was threatened by the Current Administration to either censor portions of the book, or have their bank accounts frozen. As I said just a suspicion but not unprecedented. Of course such a move violates our 9th and 10th Amendment rights.