the "beat frequency" he's talking about isn't the frequency used as a carrier to decode the FM, it's the intermediate frequency used in a super-het FM radio.
Here's the deal: Say I want to be able to demodulate FM from 80 MHz to 110 MHz. Do I build a bunch of demodulators that can each demod a single FM station? That would be expensive, so I build a single FM receiver, and I multiply the incoming transmission by a variable frequency, and tune the variable frequency such that the signal I want to receive is mixed down (by the multiplication) to the frequency my FM receiver is built for.
Wait, I said "mixed down to." Why wouldn't some of them be mixed up to the frequency of the receiver, and some of them mixed down? In general, for a fixed bandwidth (all FM stations have an identical bandwidth, just different center frequency), the higher the frequency, the more expensive the equipment. So to cut costs, our FM receiver doesn't operate anywhere near the FM band, it'll be way lower.
I don't know what center frequency the radio manufacturer will build the receiever to, but let's just guess that it would be 10 MHz. So, if I want to listen to 101.5 FM, which operates around 101.5 MHz, my variable frequency would have to be set to the difference, which is 81.5 MHz.
The grandparent is sugesting that the variable frequency used by most FM receivers varies over a range that interferes with air-ground transmissions. Now, your receiver isn't trying to broadcast anything, but when you build devices with radio-frequency currents running through them, the energies have a habit of wandering of the circuit, and you have to work really hard to prevent all leaks.
If I feed poison to my children, regardless of reason, I have committed murder. period. Whether or not I my motives were religious should not even be an issue, only that I had motives.
And if there happens to be nudity on a few non.sex sites(paintings, etc), judge on a case-by-case basis. Obviously, the Venus De Milo isn't smut.
Obvious to who? Who gives you the right to judge that its not smut. Personaly, every time someone so much as mentions the Venus De Milo, I become so greivously offended that my eyes turn green.
Yes, that was sarcasm. No, I don't agree with you. What you propose is the exact same thing as censorship. Why is segregation illegal? Because it implies second-class citizenship. Forcing netporn into.sex domains would be the same thing. It would be a message from the government that pornography is less free than all other speech, which is not true.
Oh, and there's that whole "slippery slope" thing to deal with, too. But I ain't touchin' that with a 10 foot pole.
While Quebec is "the french speaking province," all of the Candian provinces I have been in (all two of them) seem to have french subscript over everything written in public. Lay off the author here.
I was going to moderate this thread, but I just couldn't, because I needed to let this rant out.
To all of the people who think the FBI is so wrong in this(including the above poster): Who the hell do you think you are?
We do not have a constitutional right to privacy. This is not a 4th ammendment issue either. If the FBI(or any organization, public or not), through legal means, asks an ISP to let them look through whatever records the ISP keeps, this doesn't violate the constitution in any way.
The FBI is doing nothing illeagal here. If you are going to send plaintext over a mixed network like the internet, its going to be routed through some computer that you don't have an privacy contrract with.
If you don't encrypt your email or network transmissions, anyone with enough money(power) can intercept it. And there is nothing illeagal about it(Contracts non-withstanding, but the buyer isn't at fault regardless).
[sarcasm]Remember, information wants to be free.[/sarcasm]
I believe what he is saying is that we have the right to free speech. Period.
If the government doesn't respect that right, we will need to take it back. Larry Flynt used the courts to take it back. Others are proposing that they use methods such as Fling.
And people bitch about RMS's software being political. Not that I disagree with their politics or anything, but it won't bring good press. Not that the press matters, or anything.
But this sort of flagrant politicism kindof colors the project...a person who would have a use for the Fling suite and would like to contribute to it may not because they don't agree with the idealogy.
But then again, that hasn't stopped too many people from working in GPL'd projects. I mean, there have been developers working on projects under the GPL who don't neccessarily agree with RMS's rants that "Proporietary Software is Satan."
Its a cool idea, and I hope it works. I know jack shit about IP, but Fling looks like it has a bit more overhead then the normal protocols. Eh.
The main points I see you making against Metallica's actions(and their lawyers) are the following:
"Information wants to be free"
Metallica has the fundamental right to control how their intellectual property is distributed. Yeah, it'd be nice if they let everyone listen to their music for free, but the don't, and they don't have to. Deal with it.
"The're attacking little kids!"
That, my friend Katz, is the mating call of the politician. "It is for the children!" And whenever a politician says that, you just know that someones rights are being taken away. In this cases, its Metallica's intelectual property rights. The "save the children" cry is just a smoke screen. You never say why it is you believe that the Napster users are children. You never say why punishing children that do illeagle things is wrong in the first place. All you do is throw out "Save the children!"
"The are restricting peoples privacy
Well, gee Katz, when its Metallica's intellectual property, "information wants to be free," but when its information about precious little Napster users, well thats just a different story, right? Freedom of information, and the right to privacy are mutually exclusive, you can't have both.
Yes, napster and napster users have the right to seek privacy, but what is wrong about a person using legal means to eavsdropping on an open "conversation" on an open network? If you don't know, the answer is nothing. I have the right to listen in on a conversation you and your friend are having in a shopping mall. You and your friend have the right to move to a different store, but I have the right to follow you(restraining orders not taken into account).
"Metallica is alienating their fans!"
The musical group, Metallica, has the fundamental right to being complete and total assholes if they want. Metallica never agreed to give their music away for free. This is not bad, this is not good. It just is. Metallica has the right to decide what happens to their music, even if it involves them being assholes.
"This an issue for anyone who believes in a free and open Internet, not just music downloaders."
Damn straight it is. What you, Katz, are trying to do is greatly limiting to internet freedoms. Napster has the right to decide who can use their service, not you. Metallica has the right to decide who can distribute their music, not you.
Katz, all along you seem to be preeching for a more "open" internet...but as soon as someone puts one or two packet sniffers out you start crying for... for... well, what the hell are you crying for?
All that I hear you saying is that somewhere, somehow, there is a problem. And there is a problem: It is people who belive that freedoms that apply to them shouldn't apply to others, and who argue in vague uncertain terms just to stir up protest.
Get a clue
Re:Unable to stop this fiasco...
on
UCITA is passed
·
· Score: 1
Isn't Initiative and Referendum part of the constitution? I coud have sworn they snuck that in when they changed the way the Senate was apointed.
Neo is godloke _in_the_matrix_. A big bad robot can still beat the sh*t out of him 24/7. They may have the computer software beat...but all of those people are _still_ in the pod things, and those machines are still out there. Unless of course the machines are stupid enough to have the matrix directly connected to their central network...
They could block out your entire subnet. Whenever I connect to the internet, my computer' IP address is always the same except for the last number. It wouldn't me hard to block an entire class c network...i've been on ftp servers that do that, and irc channel ops have the power to do it as well.
This is the preciise reson that nonotech must be public. If a single central agency has absolute control over nanotech than that leaves us with two very big problems that would be very hard to deal with:
1)External terrorist groups illeagally obtain nanotech knowledg/resources. The central agency, being the only group that has nonotech would be horribly unpropared for an outside group to have nanotech as well. Catastrophy results.
2)The central agency itself could become corrupt, result in catastrophy to a greater extent than the above.
While I believe that nanotechnology will remain out of the hands of the home hobbyist for some time to come, if many diverse(funded) groups have knowledge of nanotechnology, then almost the first thing on the government's (et al) agenda would be nanotech defense, and even though the risk of nanotech missuse is greater, our preparedness is likewise increased.
He could be referring to the 'search and seizure' bit of the bill of rights, that 'garauntees' and american the right not to be searched without just cause. Of course, that only applies to the government.
I'm not scared because of the fact that the spuds are genetically engineered, I'm scared because of the fact that that means that only one strain of potato is in production. As soon as the insects/diseases/fungi/whatever become tolerant to the genetic alterations, that years potato harvest is gone. And if the market can't adapt fast enough to provide enough seeds(or whatever potatoes use) for the next year, then, oh well.
Slashdot Mirror
the "beat frequency" he's talking about isn't the frequency used as a carrier to decode the FM, it's the intermediate frequency used in a super-het FM radio.
Here's the deal: Say I want to be able to demodulate FM from 80 MHz to 110 MHz. Do I build a bunch of demodulators that can each demod a single FM station? That would be expensive, so I build a single FM receiver, and I multiply the incoming transmission by a variable frequency, and tune the variable frequency such that the signal I want to receive is mixed down (by the multiplication) to the frequency my FM receiver is built for.
Wait, I said "mixed down to." Why wouldn't some of them be mixed up to the frequency of the receiver, and some of them mixed down? In general, for a fixed bandwidth (all FM stations have an identical bandwidth, just different center frequency), the higher the frequency, the more expensive the equipment. So to cut costs, our FM receiver doesn't operate anywhere near the FM band, it'll be way lower.
I don't know what center frequency the radio manufacturer will build the receiever to, but let's just guess that it would be 10 MHz. So, if I want to listen to 101.5 FM, which operates around 101.5 MHz, my variable frequency would have to be set to the difference, which is 81.5 MHz.
The grandparent is sugesting that the variable frequency used by most FM receivers varies over a range that interferes with air-ground transmissions. Now, your receiver isn't trying to broadcast anything, but when you build devices with radio-frequency currents running through them, the energies have a habit of wandering of the circuit, and you have to work really hard to prevent all leaks.
eh, there are plenty of lasers that produce light in beam form. the LED lasers are the odd ones that need a comunating lens.
Divide a pound of meat into six patties. How heavy is each patty?
I don't have a clue, because I have no idea how many ounces are in a pound (8? 16? who the fuck cares!), and I've lived in the US for 22 years.
Divide two kg. of meat into six patties. How much meat is in each patty?
333 grams, or 1/3 kg each. That was hard, wasn't it?
If I feed poison to my children, regardless of reason, I have committed murder. period. Whether or not I my motives were religious should not even be an issue, only that I had motives.
And if there happens to be nudity on a few non .sex sites(paintings, etc), judge on a case-by-case basis. Obviously, the Venus De Milo isn't smut.
Obvious to who? Who gives you the right to judge that its not smut. Personaly, every time someone so much as mentions the Venus De Milo, I become so greivously offended that my eyes turn green.
Yes, that was sarcasm. No, I don't agree with you. What you propose is the exact same thing as censorship. Why is segregation illegal? Because it implies second-class citizenship. Forcing netporn into .sex domains would be the same thing. It would be a message from the government that pornography is less free than all other speech, which is not true.
Oh, and there's that whole "slippery slope" thing to deal with, too. But I ain't touchin' that with a 10 foot pole.
lactoseWhile Quebec is "the french speaking province," all of the Candian provinces I have been in (all two of them) seem to have french subscript over everything written in public. Lay off the author here.
I understand your statement. I just believe that what your saying is "wrong" is actually "right." Oh well, we disagree.
I was going to moderate this thread, but I just couldn't, because I needed to let this rant out.
To all of the people who think the FBI is so wrong in this(including the above poster): Who the hell do you think you are?
We do not have a constitutional right to privacy. This is not a 4th ammendment issue either. If the FBI(or any organization, public or not), through legal means, asks an ISP to let them look through whatever records the ISP keeps, this doesn't violate the constitution in any way.
The FBI is doing nothing illeagal here. If you are going to send plaintext over a mixed network like the internet, its going to be routed through some computer that you don't have an privacy contrract with.
If you don't encrypt your email or network transmissions, anyone with enough money(power) can intercept it. And there is nothing illeagal about it(Contracts non-withstanding, but the buyer isn't at fault regardless).
[sarcasm]Remember, information wants to be free.[/sarcasm]
I believe what he is saying is that we have the right to free speech. Period.
If the government doesn't respect that right, we will need to take it back. Larry Flynt used the courts to take it back. Others are proposing that they use methods such as Fling.
Simple, really.
And people bitch about RMS's software being political. Not that I disagree with their politics or anything, but it won't bring good press. Not that the press matters, or anything.
But this sort of flagrant politicism kindof colors the project...a person who would have a use for the Fling suite and would like to contribute to it may not because they don't agree with the idealogy.
But then again, that hasn't stopped too many people from working in GPL'd projects. I mean, there have been developers working on projects under the GPL who don't neccessarily agree with RMS's rants that "Proporietary Software is Satan."
Its a cool idea, and I hope it works. I know jack shit about IP, but Fling looks like it has a bit more overhead then the normal protocols. Eh.
The main points I see you making against Metallica's actions(and their lawyers) are the following:
"Information wants to be free"
Metallica has the fundamental right to control how their intellectual property is distributed. Yeah, it'd be nice if they let everyone listen to their music for free, but the don't, and they don't have to. Deal with it.
"The're attacking little kids!"
That, my friend Katz, is the mating call of the politician. "It is for the children!" And whenever a politician says that, you just know that someones rights are being taken away. In this cases, its Metallica's intelectual property rights. The "save the children" cry is just a smoke screen. You never say why it is you believe that the Napster users are children. You never say why punishing children that do illeagle things is wrong in the first place. All you do is throw out "Save the children!"
"The are restricting peoples privacy
Well, gee Katz, when its Metallica's intellectual property, "information wants to be free," but when its information about precious little Napster users, well thats just a different story, right? Freedom of information, and the right to privacy are mutually exclusive, you can't have both.
Yes, napster and napster users have the right to seek privacy, but what is wrong about a person using legal means to eavsdropping on an open "conversation" on an open network? If you don't know, the answer is nothing. I have the right to listen in on a conversation you and your friend are having in a shopping mall. You and your friend have the right to move to a different store, but I have the right to follow you(restraining orders not taken into account).
"Metallica is alienating their fans!"
The musical group, Metallica, has the fundamental right to being complete and total assholes if they want. Metallica never agreed to give their music away for free. This is not bad, this is not good. It just is. Metallica has the right to decide what happens to their music, even if it involves them being assholes.
"This an issue for anyone who believes in a free and open Internet, not just music downloaders."
Damn straight it is. What you, Katz, are trying to do is greatly limiting to internet freedoms. Napster has the right to decide who can use their service, not you. Metallica has the right to decide who can distribute their music, not you.
Katz, all along you seem to be preeching for a more "open" internet...but as soon as someone puts one or two packet sniffers out you start crying for ... for ... well, what the hell are you crying for?
All that I hear you saying is that somewhere, somehow, there is a problem. And there is a problem: It is people who belive that freedoms that apply to them shouldn't apply to others, and who argue in vague uncertain terms just to stir up protest.
Get a clue
Isn't Initiative and Referendum part of the constitution? I coud have sworn they snuck that in when they changed the way the Senate was apointed.
lactose
Neo is godloke _in_the_matrix_. A big bad robot can still beat the sh*t out of him 24/7. They may have the computer software beat...but all of those people are _still_ in the pod things, and those machines are still out there. Unless of course the machines are stupid enough to have the matrix directly connected to their central network...
They could block out your entire subnet.
Whenever I connect to the internet, my computer' IP address is always the same except for the last number. It wouldn't me hard to block an entire class c network...i've been on ftp servers that do that, and irc channel ops have the power to do it as well.
This is the preciise reson that nonotech must be public.
If a single central agency has absolute control over nanotech than that leaves us with two very big problems that would be very hard to deal with:
1)External terrorist groups illeagally obtain nanotech knowledg/resources. The central agency, being the only group that has nonotech would be horribly unpropared for an outside group to have nanotech as well. Catastrophy results.
2)The central agency itself could become corrupt, result in catastrophy to a greater extent than the above.
While I believe that nanotechnology will remain out of the hands of the home hobbyist for some time to come, if many diverse(funded) groups have knowledge of nanotechnology, then almost the first thing on the government's (et al) agenda would be nanotech defense, and even though the risk of nanotech missuse is greater, our preparedness is likewise increased.
lactose
He could be referring to the 'search and seizure' bit of the bill of rights, that 'garauntees' and american the right not to be searched without just cause. Of course, that only applies to the government.
I'm not scared because of the fact that the spuds are genetically engineered, I'm scared because of the fact that that means that only one strain of potato is in production. As soon as the insects/diseases/fungi/whatever become tolerant to the genetic alterations, that years potato harvest is gone. And if the market can't adapt fast enough to provide enough seeds(or whatever potatoes use) for the next year, then, oh well.
I guess I'm just paranoid.