Unlike wired services (cable, fibre, dsl) overall mobile bandwidth *does* have a limit. More towers only makes for better coverage, not more bandwidth to split between the users in that area, so carriers need to realistically sell that bandwidth so as to not overload their networks.
If you have one tower covering an area, and you split that "cell" on to 2 towers, and you are splitting the bandwidth between users anyway, you DO have more bandwidth, in fact DOUBLE as much. In fact this is exactly how cell companies deal with areas that become crowded with more people, more towers covering smaller areas each. A rural tower may cover a positively enormous area, while a tower located downtown in a major city may only cover one office building, or even less. In fact even if you are trying to get more bandwidth to a single customer, you can do it by pairing data channels (My local cellular provider now offers devices that double their throughput using 2 data channels instead of one)
The only part you're right on is that carriers need to realistically sell their bandwidth so as not to overload their networks. But at the same time, as speeds increase, and more applications need more bandwidth, cellular providers need to realize that their limits just don't make sense any more and work around it. My provider is now advertising their first true 4G phone, with download speeds so fast that on their largest data plan you can max out your monthly allotment in half an hour, for an extra $1,000 in overage fees in the next hour after that you can hit their maximum allowed overage usage before being cut off completely. I think it's time they re-evaluate their limits. Even if that involves some substantial network upgrades.
When I first got a cable Internet connection we asked our ISP how we could hook up all 3 of our computers to the one connection, they told us it was physically impossible. When I specified that I knew how, and was simply asking if it was ok, they simply repeated that it was physically impossible to hook up multiple computers to their connection. I decided that my contract didn't prohibit me from doing the physically impossible, so I connected all 3 computers up. Later on they changed the terms to specifically forbid connecting multiple computers to the same connection. Unfortunately at the time the only other option was dialup. I chose to simply not tell the cable company what I was doing.
When DSL became available in my area I switched to a competitor who didn't forbid connection sharing (although they did strongly discourage it and refuse to offer you any support if you used it)
These SAME companies are now offering cellular service, is it any wonder that they are trying the same thing they used to try on their wired internet services on their wireless ones?
But without the contract the monthly fees and the terms and conditions are identical, AND you have to pay for a several hundred dollar phone that is STILL locked to that provider.
So where's the benefit in not being on a contract?
You can get a small voice and data plan for less than that. I have a plan from TELUS which costs $50/month (and when I say $50/month, I mean $50/month, no extra fees tacked on) and includes 200 any time minutes, unlimited evenings and weekends, "favourite 5" calling, 500mb of data, voicemail, call display, and unlimited text and picture messaging.
And with a 3 yr contract it came with a "free" Motorola Milestone (or various other smart phone devices, but I liked the milestone)
It's not a lot of minutes, and it's not a lot of data. but it's way more of either than I use in a month (especially being that the phone is on wifi whenever I'm at home or at work and therefore not using any of that 500mb). For someone who just wants the "occasional quick search or map lookup" it's more than enough, and about 40% lower than the price you quoted.
And on the topic at hand, tethering is specifically allowed.
Problem is, it's beyond a marketing technique, we often don't have the choice.
The carriers don't give you any discount on the plan price if you own your own phone, so you might as well get the "free" one, after all, you're paying for it whether you get it or not. Additionally any phone you do get is locked to the carrier you are on, and some carriers go so far as to refuse you service if you don't take one of their phones.
The net result is you can choose a free phone on a 3yr term, or you can pay several hundred dollars extra (the price of the phone) to not be locked in to the contract, but still have your phone locked to the provider (so you might as well be locked in to the contract)
The carriers shouldn't be allowed to do that, if you don't need a subsidized phone, you shouldn't have to subsidize other people's phones, and if you pay for the phone, it shouldn't be locked to a carrier. Separating the phone from the price plan and the carrier would encourage more competition and more choice (which is of course why it doesn't happen)
My statement was in regards to inconsistency in the application of the current laws, not a statement about my preferred situation.
Basically the government needs everyone to play by the same rules, either everyone is allowed foreign investment, or nobody is. They can't go doing the one off exceptions like they did for Wind.
That said, my personal preference is to remove the foreign ownership rules to allow more competition, but only with corresponding consumer and infrastructure protection rules to offset the risks that you describe.
The foreign ownership rules are there for a completely different purpose. The theory is that telecommunication is critical infrastructure, and as such we don't want someone from a foreign country dictating who can talk to who and how.
Personally I think that a better option would be to remove the ownership requirements, but make sure that there are appropriate laws in place to safeguard the infrastructure against such changes.
TELUS has specifically stated in the media that this is what they want, they have also been lobbying the government for this, and have testified to this point in court.
So I'll take their actions to speak louder than your random guess on slashdot.
Not exactly. CRTC is pushing to maintain the rule of law. The law says no more than 30% foreign ownership in Canada, so that's what the CRTC is enforcing. If the government changes that law, the CRTC will enforce whatever the new law says instead.
Bell, TELUS, and Rogers are after something different, they want the rules on foreign ownership relaxed, they are actually on Wind's side (sort of), What they DON'T want though is an exemption for one specific carrier as the government illegally put through originally. If Wind is allowed in, why are we still blocking other european carriers who tried to gain entry? Why do we block US carriers from buying stakes in our existing carriers?
The Government is the one that has caused this mess, they undermined the rule of law by illegally making an exemption for a single company (Wind) while at the same time blocking any other company in the world that wanted to do the same thing. The government needs to make up it's mind, either competition is good (in which case anybody who wants to should be allowed to compete) or the foreign ownership rules are important (in which case foreign telecoms like Wind shouldn't be allowed) Either answer is valid, but one off exceptions aren't.
I think you misunderstood TELUS, Rogers, and Bell. They have never said "we don't want Wind to be allowed to compete in Canada" they've said "we want a level playing field, if they can get foreign investment, we want to be able to too."
And I can't blame them for it. This is actually not a CRTC problem, the CRTC was only upholding the law as made by the government. It is up to the government to fix this mess, not the CRTC.
By giving Wind an exception to the law, they not only limited competition in Canada, but they also undermined the rule of law, one of the most fundamental principles of our society. If they truly wanted more competition they would have changed the law itself to allow any company to come in, something they haven't done. And believe it or not, the big telecoms in Canada are pushing for the same thing Wind wants, more relaxed foreign ownership rules. They just don't want it in the form of individual exemptions for specific players.
Why should Wind get a free pass on foreign ownership but nobody else?
Wind? According to their adds it is pronounced the same way as moving air outdoors.
As for the topic at hand. In Canada it is illegal for a telecom company to have more than 30% foreign ownership. Wind was owned by an Egyptian company violating those rules, as such the CRTC banned them from operating in Canada, the federal government then overode the ban (but didn't change the rules) making Wind the only foreign owned telecom company allowed to operate in Canada. Recently a federal judge overturned the exemption and sent it back to the government saying that they had to make everyone play by the same rules (either ban Wind from operating in Canada, or allow other foreign companies the same leeway, and gave Wind 60 days to comply/appeal. Now the Egyptian company is solving their foreign ownership problems by becoming Russian owned instead of Egyptian... somehow I don't think that helps.
Our government really needs to make up it's mind. Either allow foreign ownership of telecoms (and open up our telecom industry to real competition) or kick Wind out. The double standard has got to go.
Intent matters only in sentencing. We aren't there yet. So far they are arguing as to whether or not being a search engine for a specific type of file that is in itself only a link to another file that may, or may not, contain illegal content.
The question is, is it illegal? if so, then google is guilty of the same offence as isohunt. Sentencing can decide what penalties should be associated with that. But the point is that if someone commits an illegal act, we shouldn't overlook it just because they can afford better lawyers, or conversely, we shouldn't select who to prosecute based soley on who can't afford to defend themselves properly.
let's look at it a different way... if someone who has never dealt with illegal material before wants to look, which is more likely the first place they go? I'd say google most likely.
"I do illegal stuff, and more than he does, but as a percentage I don't do it as much as he does!" isn't a very good defence.
Let's face it, there's only one reason the media industry is going after the small players and not google, and that's because google would likely put up a much better fight.
It's all a matter of what you want to do on the radio. I've found a huge gap in radio operators, we have the really old ones, who got their licenses as you say, to chat, for social contact, to tinker, etc. And then there's the gap where people realized that long distance phone calls were cheap, the internet made contact almost free, etc. Then we have the new hams, they aren't doing it to "chat" or for the social interaction, they are doing it for different reasons.
Ham radio hasn't become irrelecant, but it's purpose has changed. New hams do it because they know it's the only thing that works in a disaster, they do it because it's an opportunity to play and tinker with technology (something that is becoming increasingly difficult to do legally with many other devices), They do it because it has capabilities that simply don't exist in any other technology. They do it to give back to their community.
It's too bad we have a gap where people played with the internet instead of the radio, but the new hams seem to be every bit as eager and dedicated as the long time ones.
(FYI, I'm one of the rarities, I'm in the age gap, very few hams seem to exist in this range)
Actually, centralized, or distributed, both are a problem.
The only way to ensure disaster-proofing is for every node on the network to be completely independant of every other node.
If you are reliant on 1 central tower, or any of a dozen other towers, either way you're in trouble if no tower works.
Emergency services have been flocking to digital trunked systems over the past few years, these are the worst possible ifrastructure for anything mission critical. Too many failure modes. Good ol' analog simplex systems are the most reliable, but a compromise is usually required for longer range, so the best systems out there are analog radios that can use either a repeater for longer distances, or a simplex channel for short range and emergency situations.
In EMS I've already worked through a couple of comm blackouts due to repeater issues, luckilly we could still go simplex, but I see many services in our area that aren't so lucky any more.
not entirely related... but my local telco just announced their first "4g" phone... with download speeds of 21Mbps, the largest data plan available on their service is 5GB/month meaning you can burn through your entire monthly allotment in half an hour, after which you go in to overage fees, you can spend over a thousand dollars in the next hour to get to the maximum allowed overage of 10GB/month at which point you get cut off.
If you're bragging about fast download speeds... don't you think you should re-think a monthly data cap that can be exceeded in half an hour? (and that's the BIGGEST plan they offer!)
I am a "real professional" I work on an ambulance, I have an extensive background in search and rescue, and I'm a ham radio operator.
I have amazed the military, the local police forces, and the head of disaster services for our province with what I can do on ham radio, things they can't do on their multi-million dollar comm systems when they're working properly. In a disaster, when all the repeaters that are required for the fancy digital radios stop working, emergency services always come back to the hams.
Your truck is a good first step in emergency preparedness, but there's never a guarantee it will work as planned, or that it can get to where you need it, or that you won't need it in more than one location at the same time. One mobile repeater won't cover the site of a large scale disaster, and outside responding agencies may not even be able to use it.
The only "holier-than-thou I-know-everything" types are the ones who think they are infaliable and could never require any outside assistance. If you are truly involved in emergency services I suggest you go back to your most basic introductory class where they discuss knowing your limitations, operating within them, and not being afraid to call for help when you actually need it. This is part of every single course I have ever seen for every emergency service qualification, it's tragic that many people forget it, because it's simple stuff like that that costs lives, sometimes the victims, and often the responders.
That's a decent point. I actually made the same argument in more than one place, and I think I might have worded it better in the other one. Basically though if someone materializes in front of me, claims to be god, and then makes a beer materialize out of thin air, I will re-evaluate my position. It may be that the re-evaluation causes me to start believing in god. It may be that the whole incident causes me to redefine the term "god", or it may be that I figure out that the one who materialized in front of me is merely a human con artist and my position remains unchanged.
As in many other aspects of life, when something happens to try to change our view of the universe, we need to re-evaluate and decide if our universe view needs a complete re-write, a minor correction, or was actually right the first time.
Either way though, until it happens I'll stick to my theory that god does not exist, and ignore the religious people who claim otherwise until they are willing to put forward concrete proof that disproves (or at least attempts to disprove) my theory.
I guess though my biggest frustration is that there are literally an infinite number of ridiculous possibilities that fall in to the same category as god, most are simply dismissed out of hand, and generally would get one labelled as insane if you truly believed in them. The only difference with the "god" theory (and in this particular case I'll use "god" as the generic term for your deity of choice) is popularity, and as truth is not democratic, popularity is irrelevant. No government is going to make teachers include the flying spaghetti monster in their class, or invisible leprechauns, or magical elves, or the idea that we truly live in the matrix, as part of a science curriculum. And yet "god" keeps popping up to try to derail current scientific progress, and worse yet, hamper the development of future scientists.
I think that North America is facing a serious scientific problem in the near future, and it's a combination of issues, not just this one. Our society is trying to breed science out of kids, we do everything we can to kill curiosity, whether it be fewer toys to encourage curiosity and imaginative thinking, or the locking down of devices to prevent tinkering. Schools that try to teach what to think instead of how to do so, and religious nuts who try to derail science to suit their own needs. Add to this the problems with patents that basically ensure that any new invention, no matter how novel, is bound to run afoul of some patent somewhere. If we don't start changing we won't have scientists and inventors in the near future, this will put us at a giant disadvantage to parts of the world who still encourage this sort of thing. Today much of our technology (I know it's not "all" by any stretch) is designed in North America, but built in Asia. Our "export" is that nebulous "intellectual property"... it's to a large extent all we have left. If we continue to follow our current path, even that will be gone, and a nation that has no exports and many imports will never be able to maintain a decent standard of living.
I have a scientific theory that God dose not exist. It is scientific because it is falsifiable. If God appears in front of me and offers me a beer that he makes materialize out of thin air, then he will have falsified my scientific theory. And that scientific theory holds just as much weight as the idea that God does exist, in fact more so, because this theory is falsifiable.
Now we generally consider scientific theories to be "true" as long as they are a) falsifiable, b) have not yet been falsified, and c) have no competing scientific theories with equal or better evidence to support them. (and as the only competing theory (that god does exist) does not meet the first requirement of being falsifiable, my theory now meets all 3) As such, I would like to declare that it is "true" that god does not exist (until proven otherwise) and be allowed to go along my way not hampered by religion until someone can offer some proof to falsify my theory.
But is not a working hypothesis considered to be correct until a competing hypothesis comes along that better fits our current understanding? And in the absence of such a hypothesis, can we not state that the initial hypothesis is "the truth" (until proven otherwise)
If I drop something and it falls sideways instead of down, I will stop saying that gravity is a fact and look for alternate explanations. Until then I will consider gravitational theory to be correct and to be "true". If I God stops by for a beer, and makes them appear out of thin air, i will stop saying that God doesn't exist and look for alternate explanations. Until then I will consider the non-existence of God to be correct and his existence to be "false".
I'm open to evidence that changes my view of the world. But I am not open to believing in things that don't have such evidence, and worse yet, are arguments constructed in such a way that they can not be proven false. Anything that is not falsifiable is not science, and anything that is not science does not describe the natural world.
Somehow though we put a lot of weight on this "God" hypothesis, yet very little on magical elves, or other fictional characters.
Why should skeptics be forced to admit the possibility of God, but not magical elves, and if they should admit the possibility of magical elves, should they also admit to the possibility of bigfoot? or that we don't actually exist at all and this is all just a computer simulation? or any of an infinite number of other possibilities that any nut can throw our way?
At what point can we say STOP! I refuse to entertain your idea until you provide at the very least some form of test that would be able to disprove your pet theory?
I don't know for a fact that God does not exist, but I also have seen no compelling evidence that God does exist, nor any scientific theory that would explain such an existence, or even provide a framework for testing such a thing. As such, the "null hypothesis" is a much more reasonable answer, as at least it can be disproved, which is the very basis of science. As such I chose to believe that God does not exist, as the weight of scientific understanding points much more heavily in that direction than in the direction that he does.
I refuse to believe in the existence of any being that isn't falsifiable.
You are right in that science can define various milestones along a fetus' development, and obviously those facts will help to define people's views on the issue. But that doesn't translate to science being able to decide at what point a fetus is a person. The main reason for this is that the very definition of "person" is not something science can do. It's up to society and politics to define that. We could define that a person exists at conception, or at a certain number of cells, or when a heart starts beating, or a brain starts thinking, or lungs start breathing, or any of millions of other significant developmental milestones. Science could tell us when each of those are, or how to check for them. Science can give us statistics about survivability of a fetus at various points, or the likelihood of various outcomes for mother and child, but science fundamentally can not decide which choice is "correct." That's a value judgment, not a scientific one.
A "pro-choice" person could tell us that a child doesn't have a heart and lungs until birth, and science would prove them wrong. A "pro-life" person could tell us that a 1 month old fetus would be intelligent enough to write a novel, and science would prove them wrong. A scientist however could not tell you if the already born child has any more or less value than the 1 month old fetus because "value" isn't something you can measure by itself.
Abortion is a political issue, no scientist can go in to a lab and do an experiment to prove or disprove either viewpoint. Science can inform the debate, but society has the responsibility to decide which choice is appropriate.
Slashdot Mirror
Unlike wired services (cable, fibre, dsl) overall mobile bandwidth *does* have a limit. More towers only makes for better coverage, not more bandwidth to split between the users in that area, so carriers need to realistically sell that bandwidth so as to not overload their networks.
If you have one tower covering an area, and you split that "cell" on to 2 towers, and you are splitting the bandwidth between users anyway, you DO have more bandwidth, in fact DOUBLE as much. In fact this is exactly how cell companies deal with areas that become crowded with more people, more towers covering smaller areas each. A rural tower may cover a positively enormous area, while a tower located downtown in a major city may only cover one office building, or even less. In fact even if you are trying to get more bandwidth to a single customer, you can do it by pairing data channels (My local cellular provider now offers devices that double their throughput using 2 data channels instead of one)
The only part you're right on is that carriers need to realistically sell their bandwidth so as not to overload their networks. But at the same time, as speeds increase, and more applications need more bandwidth, cellular providers need to realize that their limits just don't make sense any more and work around it. My provider is now advertising their first true 4G phone, with download speeds so fast that on their largest data plan you can max out your monthly allotment in half an hour, for an extra $1,000 in overage fees in the next hour after that you can hit their maximum allowed overage usage before being cut off completely. I think it's time they re-evaluate their limits. Even if that involves some substantial network upgrades.
When I first got a cable Internet connection we asked our ISP how we could hook up all 3 of our computers to the one connection, they told us it was physically impossible. When I specified that I knew how, and was simply asking if it was ok, they simply repeated that it was physically impossible to hook up multiple computers to their connection. I decided that my contract didn't prohibit me from doing the physically impossible, so I connected all 3 computers up. Later on they changed the terms to specifically forbid connecting multiple computers to the same connection. Unfortunately at the time the only other option was dialup. I chose to simply not tell the cable company what I was doing.
When DSL became available in my area I switched to a competitor who didn't forbid connection sharing (although they did strongly discourage it and refuse to offer you any support if you used it)
These SAME companies are now offering cellular service, is it any wonder that they are trying the same thing they used to try on their wired internet services on their wireless ones?
But without the contract the monthly fees and the terms and conditions are identical, AND you have to pay for a several hundred dollar phone that is STILL locked to that provider.
So where's the benefit in not being on a contract?
You signed a contract. In America, you can't break a contract without penalty.
... Unless you're a big corporation.
You can get a small voice and data plan for less than that. I have a plan from TELUS which costs $50/month (and when I say $50/month, I mean $50/month, no extra fees tacked on) and includes 200 any time minutes, unlimited evenings and weekends, "favourite 5" calling, 500mb of data, voicemail, call display, and unlimited text and picture messaging.
And with a 3 yr contract it came with a "free" Motorola Milestone (or various other smart phone devices, but I liked the milestone)
It's not a lot of minutes, and it's not a lot of data. but it's way more of either than I use in a month (especially being that the phone is on wifi whenever I'm at home or at work and therefore not using any of that 500mb). For someone who just wants the "occasional quick search or map lookup" it's more than enough, and about 40% lower than the price you quoted.
And on the topic at hand, tethering is specifically allowed.
Problem is, it's beyond a marketing technique, we often don't have the choice.
The carriers don't give you any discount on the plan price if you own your own phone, so you might as well get the "free" one, after all, you're paying for it whether you get it or not. Additionally any phone you do get is locked to the carrier you are on, and some carriers go so far as to refuse you service if you don't take one of their phones.
The net result is you can choose a free phone on a 3yr term, or you can pay several hundred dollars extra (the price of the phone) to not be locked in to the contract, but still have your phone locked to the provider (so you might as well be locked in to the contract)
The carriers shouldn't be allowed to do that, if you don't need a subsidized phone, you shouldn't have to subsidize other people's phones, and if you pay for the phone, it shouldn't be locked to a carrier. Separating the phone from the price plan and the carrier would encourage more competition and more choice (which is of course why it doesn't happen)
My statement was in regards to inconsistency in the application of the current laws, not a statement about my preferred situation.
Basically the government needs everyone to play by the same rules, either everyone is allowed foreign investment, or nobody is. They can't go doing the one off exceptions like they did for Wind.
That said, my personal preference is to remove the foreign ownership rules to allow more competition, but only with corresponding consumer and infrastructure protection rules to offset the risks that you describe.
The foreign ownership rules are there for a completely different purpose. The theory is that telecommunication is critical infrastructure, and as such we don't want someone from a foreign country dictating who can talk to who and how.
Personally I think that a better option would be to remove the ownership requirements, but make sure that there are appropriate laws in place to safeguard the infrastructure against such changes.
TELUS has specifically stated in the media that this is what they want, they have also been lobbying the government for this, and have testified to this point in court.
So I'll take their actions to speak louder than your random guess on slashdot.
Not exactly. CRTC is pushing to maintain the rule of law. The law says no more than 30% foreign ownership in Canada, so that's what the CRTC is enforcing. If the government changes that law, the CRTC will enforce whatever the new law says instead.
Bell, TELUS, and Rogers are after something different, they want the rules on foreign ownership relaxed, they are actually on Wind's side (sort of), What they DON'T want though is an exemption for one specific carrier as the government illegally put through originally. If Wind is allowed in, why are we still blocking other european carriers who tried to gain entry? Why do we block US carriers from buying stakes in our existing carriers?
The Government is the one that has caused this mess, they undermined the rule of law by illegally making an exemption for a single company (Wind) while at the same time blocking any other company in the world that wanted to do the same thing. The government needs to make up it's mind, either competition is good (in which case anybody who wants to should be allowed to compete) or the foreign ownership rules are important (in which case foreign telecoms like Wind shouldn't be allowed) Either answer is valid, but one off exceptions aren't.
I think you misunderstood TELUS, Rogers, and Bell. They have never said "we don't want Wind to be allowed to compete in Canada" they've said "we want a level playing field, if they can get foreign investment, we want to be able to too."
And I can't blame them for it. This is actually not a CRTC problem, the CRTC was only upholding the law as made by the government. It is up to the government to fix this mess, not the CRTC.
By giving Wind an exception to the law, they not only limited competition in Canada, but they also undermined the rule of law, one of the most fundamental principles of our society. If they truly wanted more competition they would have changed the law itself to allow any company to come in, something they haven't done. And believe it or not, the big telecoms in Canada are pushing for the same thing Wind wants, more relaxed foreign ownership rules. They just don't want it in the form of individual exemptions for specific players.
Why should Wind get a free pass on foreign ownership but nobody else?
Wind? According to their adds it is pronounced the same way as moving air outdoors.
As for the topic at hand. In Canada it is illegal for a telecom company to have more than 30% foreign ownership. Wind was owned by an Egyptian company violating those rules, as such the CRTC banned them from operating in Canada, the federal government then overode the ban (but didn't change the rules) making Wind the only foreign owned telecom company allowed to operate in Canada. Recently a federal judge overturned the exemption and sent it back to the government saying that they had to make everyone play by the same rules (either ban Wind from operating in Canada, or allow other foreign companies the same leeway, and gave Wind 60 days to comply/appeal. Now the Egyptian company is solving their foreign ownership problems by becoming Russian owned instead of Egyptian... somehow I don't think that helps.
Our government really needs to make up it's mind. Either allow foreign ownership of telecoms (and open up our telecom industry to real competition) or kick Wind out. The double standard has got to go.
Intent matters only in sentencing. We aren't there yet. So far they are arguing as to whether or not being a search engine for a specific type of file that is in itself only a link to another file that may, or may not, contain illegal content.
The question is, is it illegal? if so, then google is guilty of the same offence as isohunt. Sentencing can decide what penalties should be associated with that. But the point is that if someone commits an illegal act, we shouldn't overlook it just because they can afford better lawyers, or conversely, we shouldn't select who to prosecute based soley on who can't afford to defend themselves properly.
I missed the part where the Pirate Bay wasn't still up and running...
out of curiosity, do you think google would have a better chance of arguing exactly the same point to the same judge? and if so, why?
let's look at it a different way... if someone who has never dealt with illegal material before wants to look, which is more likely the first place they go?
I'd say google most likely.
"I do illegal stuff, and more than he does, but as a percentage I don't do it as much as he does!" isn't a very good defence.
Let's face it, there's only one reason the media industry is going after the small players and not google, and that's because google would likely put up a much better fight.
It's all a matter of what you want to do on the radio. I've found a huge gap in radio operators, we have the really old ones, who got their licenses as you say, to chat, for social contact, to tinker, etc. And then there's the gap where people realized that long distance phone calls were cheap, the internet made contact almost free, etc. Then we have the new hams, they aren't doing it to "chat" or for the social interaction, they are doing it for different reasons.
Ham radio hasn't become irrelecant, but it's purpose has changed. New hams do it because they know it's the only thing that works in a disaster, they do it because it's an opportunity to play and tinker with technology (something that is becoming increasingly difficult to do legally with many other devices), They do it because it has capabilities that simply don't exist in any other technology. They do it to give back to their community.
It's too bad we have a gap where people played with the internet instead of the radio, but the new hams seem to be every bit as eager and dedicated as the long time ones.
(FYI, I'm one of the rarities, I'm in the age gap, very few hams seem to exist in this range)
Actually, centralized, or distributed, both are a problem.
The only way to ensure disaster-proofing is for every node on the network to be completely independant of every other node.
If you are reliant on 1 central tower, or any of a dozen other towers, either way you're in trouble if no tower works.
Emergency services have been flocking to digital trunked systems over the past few years, these are the worst possible ifrastructure for anything mission critical. Too many failure modes. Good ol' analog simplex systems are the most reliable, but a compromise is usually required for longer range, so the best systems out there are analog radios that can use either a repeater for longer distances, or a simplex channel for short range and emergency situations.
In EMS I've already worked through a couple of comm blackouts due to repeater issues, luckilly we could still go simplex, but I see many services in our area that aren't so lucky any more.
not entirely related... but my local telco just announced their first "4g" phone... with download speeds of 21Mbps, the largest data plan available on their service is 5GB/month meaning you can burn through your entire monthly allotment in half an hour, after which you go in to overage fees, you can spend over a thousand dollars in the next hour to get to the maximum allowed overage of 10GB/month at which point you get cut off.
If you're bragging about fast download speeds... don't you think you should re-think a monthly data cap that can be exceeded in half an hour? (and that's the BIGGEST plan they offer!)
I am a "real professional" I work on an ambulance, I have an extensive background in search and rescue, and I'm a ham radio operator.
I have amazed the military, the local police forces, and the head of disaster services for our province with what I can do on ham radio, things they can't do on their multi-million dollar comm systems when they're working properly. In a disaster, when all the repeaters that are required for the fancy digital radios stop working, emergency services always come back to the hams.
Your truck is a good first step in emergency preparedness, but there's never a guarantee it will work as planned, or that it can get to where you need it, or that you won't need it in more than one location at the same time. One mobile repeater won't cover the site of a large scale disaster, and outside responding agencies may not even be able to use it.
The only "holier-than-thou I-know-everything" types are the ones who think they are infaliable and could never require any outside assistance. If you are truly involved in emergency services I suggest you go back to your most basic introductory class where they discuss knowing your limitations, operating within them, and not being afraid to call for help when you actually need it. This is part of every single course I have ever seen for every emergency service qualification, it's tragic that many people forget it, because it's simple stuff like that that costs lives, sometimes the victims, and often the responders.
That's a decent point. I actually made the same argument in more than one place, and I think I might have worded it better in the other one. Basically though if someone materializes in front of me, claims to be god, and then makes a beer materialize out of thin air, I will re-evaluate my position.
It may be that the re-evaluation causes me to start believing in god. It may be that the whole incident causes me to redefine the term "god", or it may be that I figure out that the one who materialized in front of me is merely a human con artist and my position remains unchanged.
As in many other aspects of life, when something happens to try to change our view of the universe, we need to re-evaluate and decide if our universe view needs a complete re-write, a minor correction, or was actually right the first time.
Either way though, until it happens I'll stick to my theory that god does not exist, and ignore the religious people who claim otherwise until they are willing to put forward concrete proof that disproves (or at least attempts to disprove) my theory.
I guess though my biggest frustration is that there are literally an infinite number of ridiculous possibilities that fall in to the same category as god, most are simply dismissed out of hand, and generally would get one labelled as insane if you truly believed in them. The only difference with the "god" theory (and in this particular case I'll use "god" as the generic term for your deity of choice) is popularity, and as truth is not democratic, popularity is irrelevant. No government is going to make teachers include the flying spaghetti monster in their class, or invisible leprechauns, or magical elves, or the idea that we truly live in the matrix, as part of a science curriculum. And yet "god" keeps popping up to try to derail current scientific progress, and worse yet, hamper the development of future scientists.
I think that North America is facing a serious scientific problem in the near future, and it's a combination of issues, not just this one. Our society is trying to breed science out of kids, we do everything we can to kill curiosity, whether it be fewer toys to encourage curiosity and imaginative thinking, or the locking down of devices to prevent tinkering. Schools that try to teach what to think instead of how to do so, and religious nuts who try to derail science to suit their own needs. Add to this the problems with patents that basically ensure that any new invention, no matter how novel, is bound to run afoul of some patent somewhere. If we don't start changing we won't have scientists and inventors in the near future, this will put us at a giant disadvantage to parts of the world who still encourage this sort of thing. Today much of our technology (I know it's not "all" by any stretch) is designed in North America, but built in Asia. Our "export" is that nebulous "intellectual property"... it's to a large extent all we have left. If we continue to follow our current path, even that will be gone, and a nation that has no exports and many imports will never be able to maintain a decent standard of living.
I have a scientific theory that God dose not exist. It is scientific because it is falsifiable. If God appears in front of me and offers me a beer that he makes materialize out of thin air, then he will have falsified my scientific theory. And that scientific theory holds just as much weight as the idea that God does exist, in fact more so, because this theory is falsifiable.
Now we generally consider scientific theories to be "true" as long as they are a) falsifiable, b) have not yet been falsified, and c) have no competing scientific theories with equal or better evidence to support them. (and as the only competing theory (that god does exist) does not meet the first requirement of being falsifiable, my theory now meets all 3)
As such, I would like to declare that it is "true" that god does not exist (until proven otherwise) and be allowed to go along my way not hampered by religion until someone can offer some proof to falsify my theory.
For me therefore, God does not exist.
But is not a working hypothesis considered to be correct until a competing hypothesis comes along that better fits our current understanding? And in the absence of such a hypothesis, can we not state that the initial hypothesis is "the truth" (until proven otherwise)
If I drop something and it falls sideways instead of down, I will stop saying that gravity is a fact and look for alternate explanations. Until then I will consider gravitational theory to be correct and to be "true".
If I God stops by for a beer, and makes them appear out of thin air, i will stop saying that God doesn't exist and look for alternate explanations. Until then I will consider the non-existence of God to be correct and his existence to be "false".
I'm open to evidence that changes my view of the world. But I am not open to believing in things that don't have such evidence, and worse yet, are arguments constructed in such a way that they can not be proven false. Anything that is not falsifiable is not science, and anything that is not science does not describe the natural world.
Somehow though we put a lot of weight on this "God" hypothesis, yet very little on magical elves, or other fictional characters.
Why should skeptics be forced to admit the possibility of God, but not magical elves, and if they should admit the possibility of magical elves, should they also admit to the possibility of bigfoot? or that we don't actually exist at all and this is all just a computer simulation? or any of an infinite number of other possibilities that any nut can throw our way?
At what point can we say STOP! I refuse to entertain your idea until you provide at the very least some form of test that would be able to disprove your pet theory?
I don't know for a fact that God does not exist, but I also have seen no compelling evidence that God does exist, nor any scientific theory that would explain such an existence, or even provide a framework for testing such a thing. As such, the "null hypothesis" is a much more reasonable answer, as at least it can be disproved, which is the very basis of science. As such I chose to believe that God does not exist, as the weight of scientific understanding points much more heavily in that direction than in the direction that he does.
I refuse to believe in the existence of any being that isn't falsifiable.
You are right in that science can define various milestones along a fetus' development, and obviously those facts will help to define people's views on the issue. But that doesn't translate to science being able to decide at what point a fetus is a person. The main reason for this is that the very definition of "person" is not something science can do. It's up to society and politics to define that. We could define that a person exists at conception, or at a certain number of cells, or when a heart starts beating, or a brain starts thinking, or lungs start breathing, or any of millions of other significant developmental milestones. Science could tell us when each of those are, or how to check for them. Science can give us statistics about survivability of a fetus at various points, or the likelihood of various outcomes for mother and child, but science fundamentally can not decide which choice is "correct." That's a value judgment, not a scientific one.
A "pro-choice" person could tell us that a child doesn't have a heart and lungs until birth, and science would prove them wrong.
A "pro-life" person could tell us that a 1 month old fetus would be intelligent enough to write a novel, and science would prove them wrong.
A scientist however could not tell you if the already born child has any more or less value than the 1 month old fetus because "value" isn't something you can measure by itself.
Abortion is a political issue, no scientist can go in to a lab and do an experiment to prove or disprove either viewpoint. Science can inform the debate, but society has the responsibility to decide which choice is appropriate.