And, well, sorry, but the Windows universe has long been better for blind and near-blind users than the OS X universe. Though Apple has made some serious strides in the past few years, they're still behind.
Simple things, like not tab-stopping commit/cancel buttons, make the process significantly harder for usability programmers and users alike.
Applause should be given for making strides on this front, but Apple is still playing catch-up.
Sorry, but that's not entirely on the mark. It's possible to create a Windows application that isn't fully accessible by keyboard by screwing up tabstop ordering, failing to add accelerators, etc. That said, it's much easier to get it right. You have to go out of your way (and a surprising number of people do) to screw things up.
You can keep saying whatever you want, and believing that there's some great conspiracy. These devices have failed to detect mics and TV stations in every test so far. Cold fusion has a better record.
Don't get me wrong. I love the idea of these devices (and of completely free and open networking). The reality is that, so far, implementations have failed basic tests. We'll get there, but let's not just decide that we're there because we want it really bad. My ideal is an open, wireless, buy-only-a-device-to-play mesh network, and it may be something we can do in the future. Devices that can detect and dodge interference in RF are definitely the first step.
The Sony slot-in system is brand-spanking new, and the problem with it is largely that it is victim to interference. Audio transmission doesn't really allow for retries and significant redundancy. With audio, latency is really important.
We'll see what happens. I'm convinced that cognitive radio approaches can make this easy for all (to a point).
It doesn't have to be digital to keep from being a dumb wireless device, for instance.
Except those guys who showed up at the test, like ESPN? Yeah, those guys are licensed. The guys at the Grammys, Emmys, Oscars? Yep.
The likelihood of adoption and dynamic auto-switching behavior make whitespace devices far more likely to cause problems than wireless mics. There's no hypocrisy because there's an FCC regulation section for wireless mics and their usage. Seriously, all these guys have to do is safely scan before transmitting at really low power. I don't think this is an unsolvable problem, but I do think that the cost of allowing a poorly implemented class of devices to be released could be significant and long-lasting.
What part of digital transmission makes RF intermodulation suddenly go away?
And have you tried any of the high end digital wireless systems yet? The UHF-R kicks them all in the teeth and takes their lunch money. They don't have the low latency, reliability, or sound quality of high-end analog systems. Hell, they don't even match low-end ones.
Look at a spectrum analyzer at some point. Those NTSC signals stay pretty tight.
What happens if we approve whitespace devices and then decide to go back to analog, or narrow-band transmission (admittedly unlikely). Then we have these whitespace devices just sitting out there until all of the hold-outs decide to stop using them?
Let badly implemented unregulated devices out in the wild and you stand a very good chance of making a section of the spectrum toxic.
Apparently the device didn't work. FCC tests go like this:
- Set up things so they work. - Add candidate device. - If other stuff fails to work, fail candidate device.
The TV frequency is actually a band of 6 MHz, and the video and audio carriers are peaks near the ends of this 6MHz. There's a lot of juicy space to drop a mic into, and it's a fairly common practice. There's no one frequency, just a center of distribution or a center between appreciable edges.
Again, as I've had to say so many times here (because programmers and slashdotters always think they know how everything works), wireless microphone signals can be slotted into the gap between the video and audio carrier signals of analog TV. It's done in the field, and it works.
Chances are high that, when all in the same room, the whitespace device created intermodulation interference with the mic and failed the test. If you want to play in licensed spectrum, you'd better be able to play nice with unexpected situations.
I promise that the FCC didn't just jam out a signal and then go: "Well, your device didn't magically fix that. You fail."
They're crooked enough to have just not run the test at all. If they ran it, I'm sure the device just screwed the pooch.
It's worth noting that "wireless coordinator" is typically a full-time job. The Bears are hiring for one right now. You have to make sure that the mics and monitors don't interfere directly, and then you have to avoid intermodulation between transmitters.
There are software packages to handle this math for you, and the spectrum looks like a Christmas tree when those 40 mics are lit up.
Also note that it's a bitch to reconfigure mics once deployed.
Wireless mics can slot in between the video and audio carriers of a TV signal and still work (it's pretty fun).
My guess is that the device didn't pick up on this and may have produced transmission intermods. These would essentially show up as new mixed signals that screw with all sorts of stuff.
And yet, somehow, their work craps itself when it encounters TV and wireless mics at the same time (yes, in the same 6MHz, which, yes, works, and, yes, is a standard practice... try it some time with your high-end wireless mic).
Take your stupid whitespace device home and make it work. The could also have just ponied up enough dough in the auction to make a big C-band mesh network. Probably spent all of that extra cash on roller-blades...
And they told him wrong. See my previous posts on this for more details, but wireless mics get slotted into analog TV signals all the time. If that screws up these whitespace devices, what other licensed signals are going to cause problems?
It's astounding what passes for insightful these days. (By "these days" I mean "since the dawn of slashdot")
Then he's overpaying, because their interpretation is wrong.
Wireless mics get put in between the video and audio carriers in TV signals every day. It's a somewhat standard industry practice (when you've run out of space).
Quick, I'll guess the number that you're thinking..
Wait.. it has to be between 1 and 10 or this doesn't work. Wait.. it has to be prime. Wait.. it has to be odd. Wait.. okay.. it has to be 5.
1. Incompetent. 2. Apparently incapable of following public standards. 3. Breaking the rules. 4. Whining about being mistreated. 5. Somehow, astoundingly, failing to pay off a corrupt government organization with any appreciable benefit.
A town 70 miles from a larger city could have several thousand people and no transmitter. If 50 of them have these gadgets, yeah, it could be a problem.
Pulling the rug out from an established mechanism is like deciding that a few people should be sterilized for the good of the general population, and we haven't done that since.. wait.. 1981?!?
There were lots of beautiful spaces for this (like these), but the fattest ones netted a small payout in the reallocation auctions recently. All your wireless handsets are.. well, belong to them.
Insightful is apparently the new (Score: -2, Idiot).
There are lots of spaces that could have been set aside for this, but we sold them off to for-pay wireless carriers. What if this magic whitespace device can't phone home for a while? What happens if ranges and regulations change? What happens if signal characterization changes because we change signal profiles?
The idea that the FCC would allow for a future of mediocre unlicensed devices to cut through licensed spectrum is laughable. Keep sending the devices back until they get them right. It's how FCC certification is supposed to work.
So you've never watched the Super Bowl, Grammys, Emmys, Oscars, local news, or that Korean dude on Youtube teaching breakdancing? You've never gone to a concert? You could be a text-browser using shut-in with no TV, of course.
Give me a break. We all benefit indirectly from wireless mics, and the idea that everybody else should have to change because these guys can't get their act together is ridiculous. Please explain this to the thousands of local theaters and high schools in the country that will need to pony up several thousand dollars for new mics because they'll have audiences of whitespace device users.
The amazing thing here is that the FCC actually did its job. Normally we'd have devices and be complaining about pay-offs. In this case, good old-fashioned common sense and industry awareness actually prevailed.
If you wanted magic free wireless internet devices, the time to complain to your representative was some time before the big auctions.
The practice of slotting wireless mics in between video and audio carrier peaks of analog TV signals is an industry standard practice. If you go to NAB, stroll into a wireless mic tutorial and watch it on a spectrum analyzer.
Analog TV and wireless mics play just fine this way, and it gives you a nice way to avoid intermods. People who don't know the industry (I'm looking at you, Page) should seriously STFU about this and get back to making the whitespace devices actually work. If it can't play in the lab, how do they expect it to play in the wild west, or even with other devices? Church services are going to be hilarious. Think Spinal Tap meets okay, so who has a GSM phone on their desk?
The FCC isn't some white angel of impartiality, but it hardly seems like rigging a test to subject a device claiming to detect unexpected radio transmissions to unexpected radio transmissions.
Sorry, but it's common practice with wireless mics (at least at the high end) to slot in between the video and audio carrier peaks, about 2/3 of the way up towards audio. The TV signal is unaffected if you do it right, and your mic works just fine.
You can't do this with DTV because DTV is essentially even energy (and information) for the whole 6MHz.
This is done, by the way, because it doesn't take many transmitters (even if narrow-band) to clog a frequency space. Intermodulation bites you quickly if you have transmitters near each other.
Slashdot Mirror
And, well, sorry, but the Windows universe has long been better for blind and near-blind users than the OS X universe. Though Apple has made some serious strides in the past few years, they're still behind.
Simple things, like not tab-stopping commit/cancel buttons, make the process significantly harder for usability programmers and users alike.
Applause should be given for making strides on this front, but Apple is still playing catch-up.
Sorry, but that's not entirely on the mark. It's possible to create a Windows application that isn't fully accessible by keyboard by screwing up tabstop ordering, failing to add accelerators, etc. That said, it's much easier to get it right. You have to go out of your way (and a surprising number of people do) to screw things up.
You can keep saying whatever you want, and believing that there's some great conspiracy. These devices have failed to detect mics and TV stations in every test so far. Cold fusion has a better record.
Fortunately these tests are open to the public.
Don't get me wrong. I love the idea of these devices (and of completely free and open networking). The reality is that, so far, implementations have failed basic tests. We'll get there, but let's not just decide that we're there because we want it really bad. My ideal is an open, wireless, buy-only-a-device-to-play mesh network, and it may be something we can do in the future. Devices that can detect and dodge interference in RF are definitely the first step.
The Sony slot-in system is brand-spanking new, and the problem with it is largely that it is victim to interference. Audio transmission doesn't really allow for retries and significant redundancy. With audio, latency is really important.
We'll see what happens. I'm convinced that cognitive radio approaches can make this easy for all (to a point).
It doesn't have to be digital to keep from being a dumb wireless device, for instance.
Except those guys who showed up at the test, like ESPN? Yeah, those guys are licensed. The guys at the Grammys, Emmys, Oscars? Yep.
The likelihood of adoption and dynamic auto-switching behavior make whitespace devices far more likely to cause problems than wireless mics. There's no hypocrisy because there's an FCC regulation section for wireless mics and their usage. Seriously, all these guys have to do is safely scan before transmitting at really low power. I don't think this is an unsolvable problem, but I do think that the cost of allowing a poorly implemented class of devices to be released could be significant and long-lasting.
What part of digital transmission makes RF intermodulation suddenly go away?
And have you tried any of the high end digital wireless systems yet? The UHF-R kicks them all in the teeth and takes their lunch money. They don't have the low latency, reliability, or sound quality of high-end analog systems. Hell, they don't even match low-end ones.
If every whitespace device came bundled with a full-time wireless coordinator, I guess it would be okay.
Look at a spectrum analyzer at some point. Those NTSC signals stay pretty tight.
What happens if we approve whitespace devices and then decide to go back to analog, or narrow-band transmission (admittedly unlikely). Then we have these whitespace devices just sitting out there until all of the hold-outs decide to stop using them?
Let badly implemented unregulated devices out in the wild and you stand a very good chance of making a section of the spectrum toxic.
Apparently the device didn't work. FCC tests go like this:
- Set up things so they work.
- Add candidate device.
- If other stuff fails to work, fail candidate device.
The TV frequency is actually a band of 6 MHz, and the video and audio carriers are peaks near the ends of this 6MHz. There's a lot of juicy space to drop a mic into, and it's a fairly common practice. There's no one frequency, just a center of distribution or a center between appreciable edges.
They have to save up for daycare.
Again, as I've had to say so many times here (because programmers and slashdotters always think they know how everything works), wireless microphone signals can be slotted into the gap between the video and audio carrier signals of analog TV. It's done in the field, and it works.
Chances are high that, when all in the same room, the whitespace device created intermodulation interference with the mic and failed the test. If you want to play in licensed spectrum, you'd better be able to play nice with unexpected situations.
I promise that the FCC didn't just jam out a signal and then go: "Well, your device didn't magically fix that. You fail."
They're crooked enough to have just not run the test at all. If they ran it, I'm sure the device just screwed the pooch.
It's worth noting that "wireless coordinator" is typically a full-time job. The Bears are hiring for one right now. You have to make sure that the mics and monitors don't interfere directly, and then you have to avoid intermodulation between transmitters.
There are software packages to handle this math for you, and the spectrum looks like a Christmas tree when those 40 mics are lit up.
Also note that it's a bitch to reconfigure mics once deployed.
Wireless mics can slot in between the video and audio carriers of a TV signal and still work (it's pretty fun).
My guess is that the device didn't pick up on this and may have produced transmission intermods. These would essentially show up as new mixed signals that screw with all sorts of stuff.
And yet, somehow, their work craps itself when it encounters TV and wireless mics at the same time (yes, in the same 6MHz, which, yes, works, and, yes, is a standard practice... try it some time with your high-end wireless mic).
Take your stupid whitespace device home and make it work. The could also have just ponied up enough dough in the auction to make a big C-band mesh network. Probably spent all of that extra cash on roller-blades...
And they told him wrong. See my previous posts on this for more details, but wireless mics get slotted into analog TV signals all the time. If that screws up these whitespace devices, what other licensed signals are going to cause problems?
It's astounding what passes for insightful these days. (By "these days" I mean "since the dawn of slashdot")
Then he's overpaying, because their interpretation is wrong.
Wireless mics get put in between the video and audio carriers in TV signals every day. It's a somewhat standard industry practice (when you've run out of space).
Quick, I'll guess the number that you're thinking..
Wait.. it has to be between 1 and 10 or this doesn't work.
Wait.. it has to be prime.
Wait.. it has to be odd.
Wait.. okay.. it has to be 5.
Because performance systems can deal with 50ms retry latencies and.. oh. right, nevermind.
I can't wait to see the Super Bowl half time show start gapping because someone wanted to check the weather on their phone.
No. As per usual, they are:
1. Incompetent.
2. Apparently incapable of following public standards.
3. Breaking the rules.
4. Whining about being mistreated.
5. Somehow, astoundingly, failing to pay off a corrupt government organization with any appreciable benefit.
A town 70 miles from a larger city could have several thousand people and no transmitter. If 50 of them have these gadgets, yeah, it could be a problem.
Pulling the rug out from an established mechanism is like deciding that a few people should be sterilized for the good of the general population, and we haven't done that since.. wait.. 1981?!?
There were lots of beautiful spaces for this (like these), but the fattest ones netted a small payout in the reallocation auctions recently. All your wireless handsets are.. well, belong to them.
Insightful is apparently the new (Score: -2, Idiot).
There are lots of spaces that could have been set aside for this, but we sold them off to for-pay wireless carriers. What if this magic whitespace device can't phone home for a while? What happens if ranges and regulations change? What happens if signal characterization changes because we change signal profiles?
The idea that the FCC would allow for a future of mediocre unlicensed devices to cut through licensed spectrum is laughable. Keep sending the devices back until they get them right. It's how FCC certification is supposed to work.
So you've never watched the Super Bowl, Grammys, Emmys, Oscars, local news, or that Korean dude on Youtube teaching breakdancing? You've never gone to a concert? You could be a text-browser using shut-in with no TV, of course.
Give me a break. We all benefit indirectly from wireless mics, and the idea that everybody else should have to change because these guys can't get their act together is ridiculous. Please explain this to the thousands of local theaters and high schools in the country that will need to pony up several thousand dollars for new mics because they'll have audiences of whitespace device users.
The amazing thing here is that the FCC actually did its job. Normally we'd have devices and be complaining about pay-offs. In this case, good old-fashioned common sense and industry awareness actually prevailed.
If you wanted magic free wireless internet devices, the time to complain to your representative was some time before the big auctions.
This, of course, ruins wireless mics.
The practice of slotting wireless mics in between video and audio carrier peaks of analog TV signals is an industry standard practice. If you go to NAB, stroll into a wireless mic tutorial and watch it on a spectrum analyzer.
Analog TV and wireless mics play just fine this way, and it gives you a nice way to avoid intermods. People who don't know the industry (I'm looking at you, Page) should seriously STFU about this and get back to making the whitespace devices actually work. If it can't play in the lab, how do they expect it to play in the wild west, or even with other devices? Church services are going to be hilarious. Think Spinal Tap meets okay, so who has a GSM phone on their desk?
The FCC isn't some white angel of impartiality, but it hardly seems like rigging a test to subject a device claiming to detect unexpected radio transmissions to unexpected radio transmissions.
Sorry, but it's common practice with wireless mics (at least at the high end) to slot in between the video and audio carrier peaks, about 2/3 of the way up towards audio. The TV signal is unaffected if you do it right, and your mic works just fine.
You can't do this with DTV because DTV is essentially even energy (and information) for the whole 6MHz.
This is done, by the way, because it doesn't take many transmitters (even if narrow-band) to clog a frequency space. Intermodulation bites you quickly if you have transmitters near each other.