Yes it is, Bruce, but analog TV (NTSC) is FCC emissions type 5M75C3F and digital TV (ATSC) is FCC emissions type 6M00C7W. So I stand by my presumption that the chosen modulation is WCDMA.
The FCC application lists the desired modulation type as 4M14G7D. FCC describes this as a 4.14 MHz (maximum) bandwidth emission that transfers data over a modulated wave using Two or more digital channels signal (wow that really narrows things down).
Best match I can find to this modulation type is WCDMA, aka UMTS (3G cellular). I didn't verify that all of the requested bands support this signal type, but several of them certainly do.
My guess is that they are experimenting with WCDMA transmission in otherwise unused cellular channels in these bands. This implies some degree of cognitive radio capability (listen for quiet channel before transmitting), or other interference avoidance schemes (of which I cannot imagine other than cognitive radio).
This is certainly not radar as another poster above suggests, but rather some kind of 3G-speed data communications. Drone sounds like a likely application.
I think Amazon is working on some kind of radio link and wants to test in a variety of cellular bands for determining effective coverage/propagation based on frequency choice. But radio propagation is well understood, so it seems they're more just looking for somewhere convenient to experiment. As Bruce notes, the ISM bands are available, but they're horribly noisy (with youze allz WiFi for instance), and I agree with his point about being unsuitable for radar due to wavelength being too long.
Opportunistic sharing of cellular channels was the basis for CDPD (developed in the early 90's), but that was not successful. I don't think its failure was due to an issue in the RF realm as much as in being able to provide an adequate quality of service for data users vis-a-vis the cost of delivering the service at that time. Cellular data has gone way beyond what CDPD could do, and therefore has supplanted this spectrum sharing approach for the most part.
The Devil In The Dark
The silicon based life form was the Horta. Its eggs were silicon spheres that the miners on the planet thought were interesting - so they broke most of them.
This was before they learned they were eggs, of course.
Not so hot for Datapoint, whose flagship terminal was now facing competition based on their own instruction set and designs.
I went to work for Datapoint in 1978. Was put to work writing software for the 1500 which, ironically, used a Z80 processor. So Datapoint actually used their own design two generations removed. (i.e. 8008 -> 8080 -> Z80)
The 1500 wasn't all that successful because it was tooaffordable. Datapoint salesmen preferred selling the 5500 and 6600 which were much more profitable (commission-wise).
They actually have some architectural details that can be traced to the 4004's successor, the 8008.
If this is true then it is coincidental. The 8008 was originally designed by Datapoint and came in "sideways" to Intel. The 8008 was not an evolution of the 4004.
You do know that CEOs don't write their own press copy, right? They have people to do that for them. I've worked with them. They are very proud of their ability to string together words that sound profound and official.
Most marketing and press releases, IMHO are doubleplus ungood.
The US switched from First-to-invent to First-to-File starting March 16, 2013.
This website is about 5-10 years too late.
Just replying to try to mod this up a notch (my postings seem to come in at 2, and I don't have moderator points today).
This needs to be emphasized: Prior art doesn't mean what it used to mean as of 2013 as said above. This further tilts in the direction of large companies who can better afford to "carpet bomb" the patent office with filings.
Anyone who thinks the patent system has any resemblence to "fair" should try filing just one patent on their own, without legal representation. If you have a career history of filing patents (for instance, with an employer who wants you to do it, so pays for the process), you might learn enough to succeed individually. But even then I wonder.
Expect each and every one of your claims to be rejected when you file. It's standard practice, regardless of what the claims say. Expect to have to "plead" (respectfully of course) that the patent examiner reconsider these rejections. Expect to need to cite precedence from prior patent proceedings and case law to support your "plea".
I believe it was John Quarterman's 1990 book "The Matrix" (seriously, and you thought the Wachowski brothers, er sisters, er.... made it up huh?) that coined the term "the Internet", emphasizing and classifying the distinction between "an internet" and "the Internet" in precisely this way. Common usage of not capitalizing is a consequence of many millions of people not knowing the distinction.
The distinction is essentially the same as "a man" vs. "the Man", which was a popular distinction in my youth. Perhaps it still is, but for the most part I've checked out of modern culture.
I enjoyed your artful presentation of wrong words and misspellings. I started counting them and then realized it takes effort for someone to do this much of it. Couldn't be accidental. Bravo!
How often does the TCP/UDP checksum detect errors that the previous two could not?
May I remind the distinguished audience that IPv6 does NOT have a Header checksum. Therefore, on IPv6, TCP/UDP/SCTP checks are MANDATORY in all cases...
One REALLY NEEDS to do those checks.
(Computer networks teacher speaking here).
May I remind the distinguished teacher that (a) the checksums in TCP and UDP are lame compared to CRC and (b) they are irrelevant given a sufficiently robust data link layer. As I said in another post just above, TCP and UDP originally included checksums because IP was being carried over lame data links, and so the checksums were a bit of "belt and suspenders". Very few data link protocols today lack a robust CRC, so the checksums are anachronistic.
The particular issue in this topic seems to be not that the Ethernet CRC32 is lame (it most certainly is not), but that the Linux network stack had a subtle bug introduced into it that caused known bad packets to be passed along as if they were not. This is not a failure of Ethernet, it is a failure of the Linux network stack. I for one am ecstatic that this has been found, because I think this might be what has been haunting a product of mine for several years! (hopefully preparing to rejoice).
I started working on transport protocols, And I always wondered about this: ethernet has its crc, ipv4 has its crc, how often does the TCP/UDP checksum detect errors that the previous two could not?
TCP was finalized in 1981, long before modern Ethernet was around. TCP was originally developed for ARPAnet which used various longhaul communications technologies (think "modems") to interconnect sites. In those days, communications hardware usually did not have CRC or any other checksum checking. So TCP did its (simplistic) checksum to provide some protection.
IPv6 does not have the checksum, but the ethernet one is still there.
IPv6 came along much later, after Ethernet (and long-haul communications) had advanced to the point where CRC protection was a standard expectation. The value of a checksum in the IP header was recognized as sufficiently pointless to drop it.
The mystery to me is that an Ethernet NIC passes up a known corrupt packet, and the kernel doesn't drop it! I suppose this is so it's possible for a human to sense the presence of hardware failures, since pcap (aka tcpdump, aka WireShark) can show the corrupt packets. It really sucks that this, due to a subtle bug, could result in known bad packets leaking into apps which assume the lower layers did their job. That's what happened, yes?
You don't believe him because his story isn't plausible, yet you automatically believe the girl that left a nightclub with a millionaire, crashed at his place, and then cried rape in the morning? Took the jury 30 minutes to decide his story was better than hers.
No dispute with you on that. I never said I believed the girl (was raped).
I suspect the jury had an easy go of it because the girl was 18. I don't know (but will presume) that 18 meets "age of consent" in that jurisdiction, hence no statutory rape possible. If she had been a bit younger, it could have had a completely different outcome.
It seems that accidentally is another English word that is reversing its meaning.
Well we all understand how Ehsan Abdulaziz could "accidentally" lose his balance ending up with physical evidence suggesting he raped an 18 year old. One just can't control where that pesky little poker will wind up when you're in freefall...
So how hard is it to believe MSFT accidentally overlooked resetting a user's defaults.
It's not unlike DoD (years ago, for you youngsters) implementing GPS with Selective Availability so they could de-accurize it in times of war, only to have the Coast Guard develop and install a network of differential correction transmitters (aka differential GPS). And today we have WAAS (equivalent of USCG's differential GPS, but I guess better?). But the "de-accurize" genie is way out of the bottle, btw. I'm just using this as an example as to how government left-hand doesn't know what government right-hand is doing.
Slashdot Mirror
I take it you missed the Princess Bride connection? I found it somewhat amusing myself.
Thank you - I enjoyed that! :-)
Yes it is, Bruce, but analog TV (NTSC) is FCC emissions type 5M75C3F and digital TV (ATSC) is FCC emissions type 6M00C7W. So I stand by my presumption that the chosen modulation is WCDMA.
Best match I can find to this modulation type is WCDMA, aka UMTS (3G cellular). I didn't verify that all of the requested bands support this signal type, but several of them certainly do.
My guess is that they are experimenting with WCDMA transmission in otherwise unused cellular channels in these bands. This implies some degree of cognitive radio capability (listen for quiet channel before transmitting), or other interference avoidance schemes (of which I cannot imagine other than cognitive radio).
This is certainly not radar as another poster above suggests, but rather some kind of 3G-speed data communications. Drone sounds like a likely application.
I think Amazon is working on some kind of radio link and wants to test in a variety of cellular bands for determining effective coverage/propagation based on frequency choice. But radio propagation is well understood, so it seems they're more just looking for somewhere convenient to experiment. As Bruce notes, the ISM bands are available, but they're horribly noisy (with youze allz WiFi for instance), and I agree with his point about being unsuitable for radar due to wavelength being too long.
Opportunistic sharing of cellular channels was the basis for CDPD (developed in the early 90's), but that was not successful. I don't think its failure was due to an issue in the RF realm as much as in being able to provide an adequate quality of service for data users vis-a-vis the cost of delivering the service at that time. Cellular data has gone way beyond what CDPD could do, and therefore has supplanted this spectrum sharing approach for the most part.
But I'm too old to be sure I really understand this. Wish I could still think like a young man...
The Devil In The Dark The silicon based life form was the Horta. Its eggs were silicon spheres that the miners on the planet thought were interesting - so they broke most of them. This was before they learned they were eggs, of course.
Not so hot for Datapoint, whose flagship terminal was now facing competition based on their own instruction set and designs.
I went to work for Datapoint in 1978. Was put to work writing software for the 1500 which, ironically, used a Z80 processor. So Datapoint actually used their own design two generations removed. (i.e. 8008 -> 8080 -> Z80)
The 1500 wasn't all that successful because it was tooaffordable. Datapoint salesmen preferred selling the 5500 and 6600 which were much more profitable (commission-wise).
Mod point from an AC? Can't say I've seen that before.
They actually have some architectural details that can be traced to the 4004's successor, the 8008.
If this is true then it is coincidental. The 8008 was originally designed by Datapoint and came in "sideways" to Intel. The 8008 was not an evolution of the 4004.
"Then researcher Rob Kinley of Dalhousie University caught wind of it."
Shouldn't that be "noticed the absence of wind?"
I couldn't resist. I've been waiting years for this opportunity (note my account name)...
You do know that CEOs don't write their own press copy, right? They have people to do that for them. I've worked with them. They are very proud of their ability to string together words that sound profound and official.
Most marketing and press releases, IMHO are doubleplus ungood.
It was a pretty good article. Well written and didn't sound like total hypus pocus.
Man didn't have the right van...
Stop calling it a PC. George Orwell should get credit for naming this surveillance tool.
... that AMD would be licensing Zen to a company in the country where Zen (buddhism) was founded.
The US switched from First-to-invent to First-to-File starting March 16, 2013.
This website is about 5-10 years too late.
Just replying to try to mod this up a notch (my postings seem to come in at 2, and I don't have moderator points today).
This needs to be emphasized: Prior art doesn't mean what it used to mean as of 2013 as said above. This further tilts in the direction of large companies who can better afford to "carpet bomb" the patent office with filings.
Anyone who thinks the patent system has any resemblence to "fair" should try filing just one patent on their own, without legal representation. If you have a career history of filing patents (for instance, with an employer who wants you to do it, so pays for the process), you might learn enough to succeed individually. But even then I wonder.
Expect each and every one of your claims to be rejected when you file. It's standard practice, regardless of what the claims say. Expect to have to "plead" (respectfully of course) that the patent examiner reconsider these rejections. Expect to need to cite precedence from prior patent proceedings and case law to support your "plea".
I believe it was John Quarterman's 1990 book "The Matrix" (seriously, and you thought the Wachowski brothers, er sisters, er.... made it up huh?) that coined the term "the Internet", emphasizing and classifying the distinction between "an internet" and "the Internet" in precisely this way. Common usage of not capitalizing is a consequence of many millions of people not knowing the distinction.
The distinction is essentially the same as "a man" vs. "the Man", which was a popular distinction in my youth. Perhaps it still is, but for the most part I've checked out of modern culture.
I enjoyed your artful presentation of wrong words and misspellings. I started counting them and then realized it takes effort for someone to do this much of it. Couldn't be accidental. Bravo!
... the providence of the backdoors, ...
You mean provenance
Wreck? Rude?
Wreak. Ride.
Aside from your atrocious spelling, ...
It a large wave hits you at a bad angle, you're fucked.
Yeah man, it a large wave, I agree.
How often does the TCP/UDP checksum detect errors that the previous two could not?
May I remind the distinguished audience that IPv6 does NOT have a Header checksum. Therefore, on IPv6, TCP/UDP/SCTP checks are MANDATORY in all cases...
One REALLY NEEDS to do those checks.
(Computer networks teacher speaking here).
May I remind the distinguished teacher that (a) the checksums in TCP and UDP are lame compared to CRC and (b) they are irrelevant given a sufficiently robust data link layer. As I said in another post just above, TCP and UDP originally included checksums because IP was being carried over lame data links, and so the checksums were a bit of "belt and suspenders". Very few data link protocols today lack a robust CRC, so the checksums are anachronistic.
The particular issue in this topic seems to be not that the Ethernet CRC32 is lame (it most certainly is not), but that the Linux network stack had a subtle bug introduced into it that caused known bad packets to be passed along as if they were not. This is not a failure of Ethernet, it is a failure of the Linux network stack. I for one am ecstatic that this has been found, because I think this might be what has been haunting a product of mine for several years! (hopefully preparing to rejoice).
I started working on transport protocols, And I always wondered about this:
ethernet has its crc, ipv4 has its crc, how often does the TCP/UDP checksum detect errors that the previous two could not?
TCP was finalized in 1981, long before modern Ethernet was around. TCP was originally developed for ARPAnet which used various longhaul communications technologies (think "modems") to interconnect sites. In those days, communications hardware usually did not have CRC or any other checksum checking. So TCP did its (simplistic) checksum to provide some protection.
IPv6 does not have the checksum, but the ethernet one is still there.
IPv6 came along much later, after Ethernet (and long-haul communications) had advanced to the point where CRC protection was a standard expectation. The value of a checksum in the IP header was recognized as sufficiently pointless to drop it.
The mystery to me is that an Ethernet NIC passes up a known corrupt packet, and the kernel doesn't drop it! I suppose this is so it's possible for a human to sense the presence of hardware failures, since pcap (aka tcpdump, aka WireShark) can show the corrupt packets. It really sucks that this, due to a subtle bug, could result in known bad packets leaking into apps which assume the lower layers did their job. That's what happened, yes?
You don't believe him because his story isn't plausible, yet you automatically believe the girl that left a nightclub with a millionaire, crashed at his place, and then cried rape in the morning? Took the jury 30 minutes to decide his story was better than hers.
No dispute with you on that. I never said I believed the girl (was raped).
I suspect the jury had an easy go of it because the girl was 18. I don't know (but will presume) that 18 meets "age of consent" in that jurisdiction, hence no statutory rape possible. If she had been a bit younger, it could have had a completely different outcome.
It seems that accidentally is another English word that is reversing its meaning.
Well we all understand how Ehsan Abdulaziz could "accidentally" lose his balance ending up with physical evidence suggesting he raped an 18 year old. One just can't control where that pesky little poker will wind up when you're in freefall...
So how hard is it to believe MSFT accidentally overlooked resetting a user's defaults.
I love this post! WTF indeed!
It's not unlike DoD (years ago, for you youngsters) implementing GPS with Selective Availability so they could de-accurize it in times of war, only to have the Coast Guard develop and install a network of differential correction transmitters (aka differential GPS). And today we have WAAS (equivalent of USCG's differential GPS, but I guess better?). But the "de-accurize" genie is way out of the bottle, btw. I'm just using this as an example as to how government left-hand doesn't know what government right-hand is doing.