The Constitution is a Union of States. It was ratified by the States, it protects the rights of the States (amendments 9 and 10), and is amended by three-quarters of the State. The same is true of the European Union's Lisbon Treaty, which is equivalent to a constitution.
Plus you make an error when you say it's non-democratic. The State Legislatures are the representatives of the people. If the State of Maine (for example) declares the $2500 fine unconstitutional, the State Legislature is making that declaration on behalf of its voters/constituents.
That's democracy in action. It's also power. Voters don't have power at the U.S. level - Congress just ignores us. But the States DO have power, and the elected State representatives are acting upon the People's direct instructions.
Yes the nude photos crossed state borders, but it's not federal law that is being violated. It's Florida's obscenity law, and Californians are not subject to Florida law (no legislation without representation). The U.S. court should have thrown-out the case as invalid and nonjurisdictional.
Otherwise, if Florida laws CAN cross borders and be enforced in other states, then what happens next? Florida bans alcohol (for example) and alcohol is automatically banned for all 50 states???
No, no, no.
If Florida bans alcohol, then that law applies only inside their border. Likewise if Florida bans obscenity/nudity, then that law Also applies only inside their border. Florida is welcome to block the importation of alcohol or obscenity, but NOT to exert their control over other States, or sue other states' citizens.
>>>So instead of allowing judges to be the ones who interpret the law, you would have this fall to politicians?
STRAWMAN ARGUMENT (logical fail). I never said that. My point is that the obscenity law shouldn't even exist, because it violates three separate Supreme Laws - the U.S. Constitution, the Florida Constitution, and the California Constitution.
There are also jurisdictional problems - a Californian should not be subject to the laws of a foreign state (Florida). No legislation without representation. i.e. Florida should not be able to legislate anybody who does not have a representative to speak for them within the Florida government.
It's not government's responsibility to protect people from their own stupidity. I never click a link until I check the URL, and citizens will either have to learn to do the same, or *take responsibility* for their own laziness.
Which is what this all boils down to. Some guy in Florida doesn't want to take responsibility to censor himself from seeing playboy.com. Instead he wants to hand-over responsibility to the Florida Government, and have them censor his connection as if he was a child.
The other possibility is that he's a religious person, who thinks Yahweh/Allah/Whatever gave him the authority to control everybody else, and he's trying to use this case to clean-up the internet to fit his backwards moral code. So much for Freedom FROM religion.
It's not my fault the summary was written poorly (implying the court in Atlanta and the law under review was Georgian). But thanks for the correction. FLORIDA ALSO HAS A RIGHT TO FREE SPEECH, so I don't see how this obscenity law can be allowed to stand. Nor do I see how a Florida law applies to some guy who lives 2000 miles away.
Anyway bottom line: I have no desire to be subject to ANY law from a foreign state. I have enough problems dealing with the backwards morality of my own state (which has TWICE arrested boyfriends/girlfriends for sending each other nude photos via cellphone). Nuts.
Section 1. After a Bill has become Law, if one-half of the Member States declare the U.S. Law to be "unconstitutional" it shall be null and void. It shall be as if the Law never existed.
Section 2. This article shall be inoperative, unless it shall have been ratified as an amendment to the Constitution by the legislatures of three-fourths* of the several States by the date January 1, 2050. *[This is called a Constitutional majority in legal parlance.]
IMHO both the European Union and the United States need the following amendment added to their Lisbon Treaty and Constitution, respectively, (and rewritten to fit the needs of each continent):
The "Protect the 9th and 10th Amendments" Act. ----- Proposed Amendment XXVIII. Section 1. After a Bill has become Law, if one-half of the Member States declare the U.S. Law to be "unconstitutional" it shall be null and void. It shall be as if the Law never existed. Section 2. The Supreme Court will have the authority to review cases, and as part of the ruling declare these cases constitutional or unconstitutional, however the decision by the States (section 1) shall be superior. Section 3. This article shall be inoperative, unless it shall have been ratified as an amendment to the Constitution by the legislatures of three-fourths* of the several States by the date January 1, 2050. *[This is called a Constitutional majority in legal parlance.]
. . .
I envision this amendment to be very useful in overturning, for example the $2500 fine to be levied against citizens who don't have health insurance. That law, once Obama signs it, will be clearly unconsitutional and then the 25 State Legislatures can overturn it.
In the European Union, such an amendment could be used to block the EU Government from exercising powers never granted by the Lisbon Treaty. As things stand now, there is virtually no limit to what the EU Government can control.
Anybody see that 10-minute long infomercial run be WCAU 10 (NBC10 Philadelphia) last night at 7:48 pm? It announced the takeover of the station by Comcast. The announcement listed every party involved in the NBC-to-Comcast transition, and it droned on-and-on-and-on for 10 minutes! I'm surprised the reporter did not run out of breath.
Wow. Pretty soon Comcast will be like Microsoft and gobble-up everything.
Yes we do. We even have a competitive environment (Comcast or Verizon). Wooo. Think of Lancaster County as a suburb of Philadelphia.
Offtopic: Ya know it really annoys me when I hear people like Glenn Beck or Rush Limbaugh talking against "net neutrality". While I have a choice, many people are stuck with a monopoly like Comcast or Cox or Time-Warner for their internet. The purpose of net neutrality is to stop these monopolies from blocking websites they don't like, such as foxnews.com. Why would either Beck or Limbaugh be against that?
I think their opposition merely demonstrates their own ignorance about the issue.
Then the judge (or judges) is a coward. I would not have hesitated at all:
"The Laws of Florida do not apply to California citizens. Furthermore the Laws of California allow freedom of speech and the press. And the U.S. Constitution allows freedom of speech and the press without restriction. Therefore the California website is not violating any laws, and this case is dismissed as invalid. The State of Florida must pay for all legal fees incurred upon the California citizen."
Well I defer to someone smart than me - "But the Chief Justice says, 'There must be an ultimate arbiter somewhere.' True, there must; but does that prove it is either party? The ultimate arbiter is the people of the Union, assembled by their deputies in convention, at the call of Congress or of two-thirds of the States. Let them decide to which they mean to give an authority claimed by two of their organs. And it has been the peculiar wisdom and felicity of our Constitution, to have provided this peaceable appeal, where that of other nations is at once to force." Thomas Jefferson to William Johnson, 1823.
You could also apply common sense.
Yes there's nudity and porn on the internet. So what? Nobody's forcing you to type playboy.com into your computer, so why is there a need for government to regulate these websites? *The government does not need to be involved.* The government should not be censoring the internet. At all. Let people censor themselves, by simply not going to sites they find objectionable.
They only reason to censor the internet, is to exert morality upon other people, and I find that to be tyrannical. I don't want Georgia's primitive, backwards morality enforced upon me or any other non-Georgian citizen.
Just wait. It's only a matter of time until the Continent of Europe falls into that same litigious mode. There are already numerous cases of Germans being sued by Swedes for violating Swedish law (or vice-versa). Like the piratebay case for example. How can those citizens be subject to Danish law when they don't even live there? What a mess.
Even within the U.S. there are jurisdictional issues.
How will the State of Georgia arrest/punish a citizen 2000 miles away in California? If this website-publishing Californian continues to produce "nudie" photographs in direct violation of the court order, will Georgia send an invading army across ~10 states to collect him? I don't think states like Texas, Arkansas, Alabama, et cetera would appreciate that.
Neither is it the responsibility of California to enforce Georgian law. The Californian can remain free.
Ya know, a court can rule anything they feel like ruling. Their *opinion* does not trump the Supreme Law of the Land: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press....."
Or the Supreme Law of the State (in this case Georgia where the case happened): "Freedom of speech and of the press guaranteed. No law shall be passed to curtail or restrain the freedom of speech or of the press. Every person may speak, write, and publish sentiments on all subjects but shall be responsible for the abuse of that liberty." - Or the Constitution of California (where the citizen resides and to which law he is directly subject): "Every person may freely speak, write and publish his or her sentiments on all subjects, being responsible for the abuse of this right. A law may not restrain or abridge liberty of speech or press."
It's time that we the People stop bowing to judges as if they were the ultimate authorities. They are not. The LAW is the ultimate authority within the Member States and within our Union. Enforce the Constitution - it is the law, and no politician nor judge can trump it. Our various Union and State Constitutions give us the right to speak freely, either vocally or in written form, and censorship violates those Supreme Laws.
As a wise man opined 200 years ago:
"The opinion which gives to the judges the right to decide what laws are constitutional and what not, not only for themselves in their own sphere of action but for the Legislature and Executive also in their spheres, would make the Judiciary a despotic branch." Thomas Jefferson to Abigail Adams, 1804. - "To consider the judges as the ultimate arbiters of all constitutional questions [is] a very dangerous doctrine indeed, and one which would place us under the despotism of an oligarchy. Our judges are as honest as other men and not more so. They have with others the same passions for party, for power, and the privilege of their corps..... The Constitution has erected no such single tribunal, knowing that to whatever hands confided, with the corruptions of time and party, its members would become despots." - Thomas Jefferson, 1820
>>>CPU manufacturing is what is known as a "natural monopoly"
Completely and totally wrong. A natural monopoly relates to physical space where, for example, you can't have 4 or 5 companies supplying water to your house, because there's not enough room to bury 5 sets of pipes. That physical restriction imposed by NATURE means there can only be 1 company serving you with water. Same applies with natural gas and electricity.
CPUs have no restriction imposed by nature. Just as we have ~100 car companies around the world, and ~100 different brands of computer hardware manufacturers, we could easily have ~100 CPU manufacturers. There's no restriction imposed by Mother Nature therefore Intel's monopoly is NOT a natural monopoly.
The monopoly exists for other reasons, mainly government copyright/patent enforcement. It's a Man-made monopoly.
Your ISP is a monopoly because it colluded with government to GET that monopoly.
It's Crony capitalism is action - bribe the politicians and get an exclusive license so you don't need to compete. It isn't a true free market, because the government shot the free market in the head and now it's a government-run market.
If they said, "We caught you buying coffee at McDonalds. If you do it again, we will double your price. If you don't, then we'll sell our coffee 10 cents below Mickey D's price"..... then yes they would be drug into court by the FTC for violating antitrust law.
>>>FTC's inquiry involved Intel essentially holding their immediate customers over a barrel involving pricing of their chips
The record companies were sued by the FTC for similar acts ~10 years ago. They told retailers like Walmart, Target, et cetera that they *must* sell CDs for $12 minimum, otherwise the stores would be cutoff from the supply. The FTC almost won their case, but then the record companies agreed to pay a huge fine just prior to the final verdict.
I would not be surprised to see Intel do the same thing. Price-fixing is illegal under current law.
If labor is 75% of your recurring cost, and unions are driving that up even higher, then yes they can take the blame. It's only natural that a country which has 1/10th the labor costs ($5.00 an hour instead of $50) will have the competitive advantage and drive U.S. companies into non-existence.
Of course in a truly competitive free market, eventually jobless Americans will become desperate enough to accept those $5.00 an hour wages, and then the U.S. steel industry will be revitalized. We have not yet reached that point. And even if we did, the minimum wage laws stand in the way.
>>>people who buy such things (mostly) are well aware of what's inside the box that they are handing over money for. Not so in the case of this bluray player where they are literally rebadging a cheaper product and selling it deceitfully as a $3500 machine. >>>
Not true. Most Mac people believe the stuff inside the box is of the highest quality. They don't seem to realize it's a "rebadged cheaper product" with a bigger price tag. (dons asbetos suit).
My brother just bought an AMD X2 machine that only cost $300. Obviously Apple doesn't use non-intel products but if they did, they'd probably rebadge this identical unit with "macMini" and sell it for $800 (the lowest pricepoint for a 3 GHz/4GB machine).
Yes but THX isn't supposed to be dishonest. George Lucas created THX specifically so we, the consumers, could avoid the cheap junk and get a "like the theater" experience at home. I'm surprised to learn that THX has devolved to be as pointless a label as "UL" on a lamp.
"Out of sync" and "generates errors" are not the same thing. Once the 8 signals are clocked-in by the receiver, all the signals will be in sync with one another again. You would have to stretch your S/PDIF cable over several miles before you'd see any sync-related errors.
>>>That doesn't apply to digital data. If a 1 is sent and is received as a "0.8" or a "1.2", it will still be interpreted as a 1...... So that signal degeneration plays a lesser role now. Of course, if you have REALLY crappy cables it will show. But the average cable that wasn't tied in a knot first will do just fine. >>>
Well said. If a digital signal "1" degrades below 0.6 there's a possibility the computer inside the receiving unit will misinterpret that "1" as a "0" but as you said that's unlikely, even with a low-priced bargain cable. You don't need to spend $500.
Slashdot Mirror
The Constitution is a Union of States. It was ratified by the States, it protects the rights of the States (amendments 9 and 10), and is amended by three-quarters of the State. The same is true of the European Union's Lisbon Treaty, which is equivalent to a constitution.
Plus you make an error when you say it's non-democratic. The State Legislatures are the representatives of the people. If the State of Maine (for example) declares the $2500 fine unconstitutional, the State Legislature is making that declaration on behalf of its voters/constituents.
That's democracy in action. It's also power. Voters don't have power at the U.S. level - Congress just ignores us. But the States DO have power, and the elected State representatives are acting upon the People's direct instructions.
Yes the nude photos crossed state borders, but it's not federal law that is being violated. It's Florida's obscenity law, and Californians are not subject to Florida law (no legislation without representation). The U.S. court should have thrown-out the case as invalid and nonjurisdictional.
Otherwise, if Florida laws CAN cross borders and be enforced in other states, then what happens next? Florida bans alcohol (for example) and alcohol is automatically banned for all 50 states???
No, no, no.
If Florida bans alcohol, then that law applies only inside their border. Likewise if Florida bans obscenity/nudity, then that law Also applies only inside their border. Florida is welcome to block the importation of alcohol or obscenity, but NOT to exert their control over other States, or sue other states' citizens.
>>>So instead of allowing judges to be the ones who interpret the law, you would have this fall to politicians?
STRAWMAN ARGUMENT (logical fail). I never said that. My point is that the obscenity law shouldn't even exist, because it violates three separate Supreme Laws - the U.S. Constitution, the Florida Constitution, and the California Constitution.
There are also jurisdictional problems - a Californian should not be subject to the laws of a foreign state (Florida). No legislation without representation. i.e. Florida should not be able to legislate anybody who does not have a representative to speak for them within the Florida government.
It's not government's responsibility to protect people from their own stupidity. I never click a link until I check the URL, and citizens will either have to learn to do the same, or *take responsibility* for their own laziness.
Which is what this all boils down to. Some guy in Florida doesn't want to take responsibility to censor himself from seeing playboy.com. Instead he wants to hand-over responsibility to the Florida Government, and have them censor his connection as if he was a child.
The other possibility is that he's a religious person, who thinks Yahweh/Allah/Whatever gave him the authority to control everybody else, and he's trying to use this case to clean-up the internet to fit his backwards moral code. So much for Freedom FROM religion.
It's not my fault the summary was written poorly (implying the court in Atlanta and the law under review was Georgian). But thanks for the correction. FLORIDA ALSO HAS A RIGHT TO FREE SPEECH, so I don't see how this obscenity law can be allowed to stand. Nor do I see how a Florida law applies to some guy who lives 2000 miles away.
Anyway bottom line: I have no desire to be subject to ANY law from a foreign state. I have enough problems dealing with the backwards morality of my own state (which has TWICE arrested boyfriends/girlfriends for sending each other nude photos via cellphone). Nuts.
REVISED and shortened:
Section 1. After a Bill has become Law, if one-half of the Member States declare the U.S. Law to be "unconstitutional" it shall be null and void. It shall be as if the Law never existed.
Section 2. This article shall be inoperative, unless it shall have been ratified as an amendment to the Constitution by the legislatures of three-fourths* of the several States by the date January 1, 2050. *[This is called a Constitutional majority in legal parlance.]
IMHO both the European Union and the United States need the following amendment added to their Lisbon Treaty and Constitution, respectively, (and rewritten to fit the needs of each continent):
The "Protect the 9th and 10th Amendments" Act.
----- Proposed Amendment XXVIII.
Section 1. After a Bill has become Law, if one-half of the Member States declare the U.S. Law to be "unconstitutional" it shall be null and void. It shall be as if the Law never existed.
Section 2. The Supreme Court will have the authority to review cases, and as part of the ruling declare these cases constitutional or unconstitutional, however the decision by the States (section 1) shall be superior.
Section 3. This article shall be inoperative, unless it shall have been ratified as an amendment to the Constitution by the legislatures of three-fourths* of the several States by the date January 1, 2050. *[This is called a Constitutional majority in legal parlance.]
.
.
.
I envision this amendment to be very useful in overturning, for example the $2500 fine to be levied against citizens who don't have health insurance. That law, once Obama signs it, will be clearly unconsitutional and then the 25 State Legislatures can overturn it.
In the European Union, such an amendment could be used to block the EU Government from exercising powers never granted by the Lisbon Treaty. As things stand now, there is virtually no limit to what the EU Government can control.
P.S.
Anybody see that 10-minute long infomercial run be WCAU 10 (NBC10 Philadelphia) last night at 7:48 pm? It announced the takeover of the station by Comcast. The announcement listed every party involved in the NBC-to-Comcast transition, and it droned on-and-on-and-on for 10 minutes! I'm surprised the reporter did not run out of breath.
Wow. Pretty soon Comcast will be like Microsoft and gobble-up everything.
Yes we do. We even have a competitive environment (Comcast or Verizon). Wooo. Think of Lancaster County as a suburb of Philadelphia.
Offtopic: Ya know it really annoys me when I hear people like Glenn Beck or Rush Limbaugh talking against "net neutrality". While I have a choice, many people are stuck with a monopoly like Comcast or Cox or Time-Warner for their internet. The purpose of net neutrality is to stop these monopolies from blocking websites they don't like, such as foxnews.com. Why would either Beck or Limbaugh be against that?
I think their opposition merely demonstrates their own ignorance about the issue.
Then the judge (or judges) is a coward. I would not have hesitated at all:
"The Laws of Florida do not apply to California citizens. Furthermore the Laws of California allow freedom of speech and the press. And the U.S. Constitution allows freedom of speech and the press without restriction. Therefore the California website is not violating any laws, and this case is dismissed as invalid. The State of Florida must pay for all legal fees incurred upon the California citizen."
Well I defer to someone smart than me - "But the Chief Justice says, 'There must be an ultimate arbiter somewhere.' True, there must; but does that prove it is either party? The ultimate arbiter is the people of the Union, assembled by their deputies in convention, at the call of Congress or of two-thirds of the States. Let them decide to which they mean to give an authority claimed by two of their organs. And it has been the peculiar wisdom and felicity of our Constitution, to have provided this peaceable appeal, where that of other nations is at once to force." Thomas Jefferson to William Johnson, 1823.
You could also apply common sense.
Yes there's nudity and porn on the internet. So what? Nobody's forcing you to type playboy.com into your computer, so why is there a need for government to regulate these websites? *The government does not need to be involved.* The government should not be censoring the internet. At all. Let people censor themselves, by simply not going to sites they find objectionable.
They only reason to censor the internet, is to exert morality upon other people, and I find that to be tyrannical. I don't want Georgia's primitive, backwards morality enforced upon me or any other non-Georgian citizen.
Just wait. It's only a matter of time until the Continent of Europe falls into that same litigious mode. There are already numerous cases of Germans being sued by Swedes for violating Swedish law (or vice-versa). Like the piratebay case for example. How can those citizens be subject to Danish law when they don't even live there? What a mess.
Even within the U.S. there are jurisdictional issues.
How will the State of Georgia arrest/punish a citizen 2000 miles away in California? If this website-publishing Californian continues to produce "nudie" photographs in direct violation of the court order, will Georgia send an invading army across ~10 states to collect him? I don't think states like Texas, Arkansas, Alabama, et cetera would appreciate that.
Neither is it the responsibility of California to enforce Georgian law. The Californian can remain free.
Ya know, a court can rule anything they feel like ruling. Their *opinion* does not trump the Supreme Law of the Land: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press....."
Or the Supreme Law of the State (in this case Georgia where the case happened): "Freedom of speech and of the press guaranteed. No law shall be passed to curtail or restrain the freedom of speech or of the press. Every person may speak, write, and publish sentiments on all subjects but shall be responsible for the abuse of that liberty." - Or the Constitution of California (where the citizen resides and to which law he is directly subject): "Every person may freely speak, write and publish his or her sentiments on all subjects, being responsible for the abuse of this right. A law may not restrain or abridge liberty of speech or press."
It's time that we the People stop bowing to judges as if they were the ultimate authorities. They are not. The LAW is the ultimate authority within the Member States and within our Union. Enforce the Constitution - it is the law, and no politician nor judge can trump it. Our various Union and State Constitutions give us the right to speak freely, either vocally or in written form, and censorship violates those Supreme Laws.
As a wise man opined 200 years ago:
"The opinion which gives to the judges the right to decide what laws are constitutional and what not, not only for themselves in their own sphere of action but for the Legislature and Executive also in their spheres, would make the Judiciary a despotic branch." Thomas Jefferson to Abigail Adams, 1804. - "To consider the judges as the ultimate arbiters of all constitutional questions [is] a very dangerous doctrine indeed, and one which would place us under the despotism of an oligarchy. Our judges are as honest as other men and not more so. They have with others the same passions for party, for power, and the privilege of their corps..... The Constitution has erected no such single tribunal, knowing that to whatever hands confided, with the corruptions of time and party, its members would become despots." - Thomas Jefferson, 1820
>>>CPU manufacturing is what is known as a "natural monopoly"
Completely and totally wrong. A natural monopoly relates to physical space where, for example, you can't have 4 or 5 companies supplying water to your house, because there's not enough room to bury 5 sets of pipes. That physical restriction imposed by NATURE means there can only be 1 company serving you with water. Same applies with natural gas and electricity.
CPUs have no restriction imposed by nature. Just as we have ~100 car companies around the world, and ~100 different brands of computer hardware manufacturers, we could easily have ~100 CPU manufacturers. There's no restriction imposed by Mother Nature therefore Intel's monopoly is NOT a natural monopoly.
The monopoly exists for other reasons, mainly government copyright/patent enforcement. It's a Man-made monopoly.
Your ISP is a monopoly because it colluded with government to GET that monopoly.
It's Crony capitalism is action - bribe the politicians and get an exclusive license so you don't need to compete. It isn't a true free market, because the government shot the free market in the head and now it's a government-run market.
If they said, "We caught you buying coffee at McDonalds. If you do it again, we will double your price. If you don't, then we'll sell our coffee 10 cents below Mickey D's price"..... then yes they would be drug into court by the FTC for violating antitrust law.
>>>FTC's inquiry involved Intel essentially holding their immediate customers over a barrel involving pricing of their chips
The record companies were sued by the FTC for similar acts ~10 years ago. They told retailers like Walmart, Target, et cetera that they *must* sell CDs for $12 minimum, otherwise the stores would be cutoff from the supply. The FTC almost won their case, but then the record companies agreed to pay a huge fine just prior to the final verdict.
I would not be surprised to see Intel do the same thing. Price-fixing is illegal under current law.
If labor is 75% of your recurring cost, and unions are driving that up even higher, then yes they can take the blame. It's only natural that a country which has 1/10th the labor costs ($5.00 an hour instead of $50) will have the competitive advantage and drive U.S. companies into non-existence.
Of course in a truly competitive free market, eventually jobless Americans will become desperate enough to accept those $5.00 an hour wages, and then the U.S. steel industry will be revitalized. We have not yet reached that point. And even if we did, the minimum wage laws stand in the way.
>>>people who buy such things (mostly) are well aware of what's inside the box that they are handing over money for. Not so in the case of this bluray player where they are literally rebadging a cheaper product and selling it deceitfully as a $3500 machine.
>>>
Not true. Most Mac people believe the stuff inside the box is of the highest quality. They don't seem to realize it's a "rebadged cheaper product" with a bigger price tag. (dons asbetos suit).
My brother just bought an AMD X2 machine that only cost $300. Obviously Apple doesn't use non-intel products but if they did, they'd probably rebadge this identical unit with "macMini" and sell it for $800 (the lowest pricepoint for a 3 GHz/4GB machine).
Yes but THX isn't supposed to be dishonest. George Lucas created THX specifically so we, the consumers, could avoid the cheap junk and get a "like the theater" experience at home. I'm surprised to learn that THX has devolved to be as pointless a label as "UL" on a lamp.
So is a $200 eMachine as good as a $400 Compaq of equal specs?
;-)
Probably not. In my experience eMachines use cheap power supplies that die within a year.
"Out of sync" and "generates errors" are not the same thing. Once the 8 signals are clocked-in by the receiver, all the signals will be in sync with one another again. You would have to stretch your S/PDIF cable over several miles before you'd see any sync-related errors.
>>>That doesn't apply to digital data. If a 1 is sent and is received as a "0.8" or a "1.2", it will still be interpreted as a 1. ..... So that signal degeneration plays a lesser role now. Of course, if you have REALLY crappy cables it will show. But the average cable that wasn't tied in a knot first will do just fine.
>>>
Well said. If a digital signal "1" degrades below 0.6 there's a possibility the computer inside the receiving unit will misinterpret that "1" as a "0" but as you said that's unlikely, even with a low-priced bargain cable. You don't need to spend $500.
+1 Insightful
I'm not Shakrai.
I don't know where you got the idea that I am.