I'm not sure I see the potential for this anywhere on a practical level. Gee, we can link our PDAs with a cable instead of IR. How convenient!
And besides, I have a USB cradle for my PDA, and it's so fast I often wonder if the little man inside there is out for a smoke or something. PDA-PDA transfer would still be slower than all-get-out even with a physical connection because that's just how fast the damn things move data.
Yeah, maybe it could replace NICs. But NICs have been integrated hardware on a mobo for a long time, and everybody's got one, and you can get things for $10 as it is. Hell, I have three in the room here!
Oh! I got it! We could make USB PRINTERS! Like, printers that print through USB!
After five years in radio, I've learned a couple things... One, do it cuz you love it. Two, if you're in it for the money, go do something else.
You need to consider lots of things. If you license the station through the school, you can get an educational FM frequency (88.7-91.9 MHz) which has VASTLY different rules and regs cuz it runs as a non-profit station. You need people and money to underwrite the station, of course, but as far as being one guy wanting to start a radio station, it'd be *really* nice to not have to deal with quite so much of the crap. And because you can only have underwriters and not advertisers, you don't have to deal with the absurd spot loads that plague radio today.
You can also look into Title 15 / LPFM stations if you want a really low wattage AM or FM station, respectively. A little tranny and upkeep on it is a pretty reasonable prospect. I don't know what the deal is with moving up to a full license is, though--you may not have much of an upgrade path outside the constraints of the low-wattage restrictions.
I'd be interested in hearing your ideas about the software you'd use to run the setup. Broadcast computers are some of the damndest pieces of hardware I've EVER worked with. It is truly a place where I don't think computers are yet up to par. They're flaky and not terribly idiot-proof. And some of the folks in broadcasting aren't the most smartest;) so idiot-proofing is important.
I guess that's a roundabout way of saying "you probably don't want to fulfill full FCC licensure for FM broadcast." It's a crapload of money. You'll have to deal with spot production, traffic, reconciliation, discreps, make-goods, and more affidavits than you care to shake a stick at. You'll need a full-time engineer for the tranny, and at least a part-time notary public for said affidativts. Not to disourage you at all, but I'd shy away from the full kit and kaboodle!
Upon closer examination, you'll see that the claim can't be filed unless $250 in monetary (not informational, but monetary) damages occur. And you can't ask for punitive damages. Simply the money you lost plus court costs. Bummer.
....it breaks them. The author of this article makes some claims about how Opera needs to be WC3 compliant. Last I checked (and if I'm wrong, y'all are gonna give it to me;) Opera is as much a WC3 compliant browser as Mozilla, and certainly moreso than IE.
The issue that designers, programmers, and ultimately the end-users must combat is that all sorts of flash-bang features that go into making pages look great in IE screw the hell out of those same pages in other browsers. Opera's efficient standards compliance measures wind up backfiring a bit because when this Made For Internet Explorer crap comes along, Opera chokes on it like the worthless coding it really is.
Mozilla really floats the middle ground well; pages that don't render quite right in Opera always show up fine in Mozilla, and if there were a good mouse gesture plug-in (I admit it, I love 'em), Mozilla would be all I use. Can't wait for 1.0!!
Yeah, they *really* did block it. I suspect the SecureIM exchange was what AOL was using to sniff out Trillian users first, that's why shutting it off worked. But, I really *was* disconnected from AOL IM for some time. Older versions of the program (v.721) don't work anymore. But,.721 is sitll functional! Whee! Go Trillian!
First of all, to credit the RIAA, Hillary & Co. have stood up time and again about free speech, music censorship, and the like. Every time they do that, that little twinkle of faith in their organization shines a bit brighter.
But at the same time, it's a crafty setup they have going. RIAA would have you believe "Recording Industry" somehow includes singers, musicians, songwriters, producers, techs, and all the behind-the-scenes folks. Time and again, though, we are reminded that RIAA really only represents the major record labels themselves. When RIAA talks about the "artists," it's a patronizing sort of thing, becuase as we see demonstrated over and over, "art" consistently takes a back seat to the bottom line.
Now, not only do artists go into thousands and thousands of dollars of debt to record songs for record labels to exploit, the labels are now trying to take away rights to the recordings themselves under Work for Hire laws. Where does that stop, exactly? Do the songwriters lose THEIR rights to the songs they AUTHORED when their song gets cut? Do ASCAP and BMI surrender thier rights once a song is on a label's master reel? This gets ridiculous really fast.
Go capitalism, rah rah rah!
What they're not saying here explicitly is that they still haven't come up with a waveform recognition / microphone setup that they can implement in "normal" usage situations, and still have it recognize consonants with voice and without. The voiced plosive "b" and the voiceless plosive "p", for example, just sound too damn alike.
I think rather than manipulate our computers using "oooh" and "ahh" and "Oh shit!".... perhaps we should just restructure the English language?
Additionally, you might want to consider taking this to class. Just the other day, we were discussing bullying in Japan, and suicides there are very common, too. I'm taking this to class next time; discussion leads to awareness, hopefully awareness leads to prevention.
Slashdot Mirror
I'm not sure I see the potential for this anywhere on a practical level. Gee, we can link our PDAs with a cable instead of IR. How convenient!
And besides, I have a USB cradle for my PDA, and it's so fast I often wonder if the little man inside there is out for a smoke or something. PDA-PDA transfer would still be slower than all-get-out even with a physical connection because that's just how fast the damn things move data.
Yeah, maybe it could replace NICs. But NICs have been integrated hardware on a mobo for a long time, and everybody's got one, and you can get things for $10 as it is. Hell, I have three in the room here!
Oh! I got it! We could make USB PRINTERS! Like, printers that print through USB!
What's that? We already have those too?
Shoot.
After five years in radio, I've learned a couple things... One, do it cuz you love it. Two, if you're in it for the money, go do something else.
;) so idiot-proofing is important.
You need to consider lots of things. If you license the station through the school, you can get an educational FM frequency (88.7-91.9 MHz) which has VASTLY different rules and regs cuz it runs as a non-profit station. You need people and money to underwrite the station, of course, but as far as being one guy wanting to start a radio station, it'd be *really* nice to not have to deal with quite so much of the crap. And because you can only have underwriters and not advertisers, you don't have to deal with the absurd spot loads that plague radio today.
You can also look into Title 15 / LPFM stations if you want a really low wattage AM or FM station, respectively. A little tranny and upkeep on it is a pretty reasonable prospect. I don't know what the deal is with moving up to a full license is, though--you may not have much of an upgrade path outside the constraints of the low-wattage restrictions.
I'd be interested in hearing your ideas about the software you'd use to run the setup. Broadcast computers are some of the damndest pieces of hardware I've EVER worked with. It is truly a place where I don't think computers are yet up to par. They're flaky and not terribly idiot-proof. And some of the folks in broadcasting aren't the most smartest
I guess that's a roundabout way of saying "you probably don't want to fulfill full FCC licensure for FM broadcast." It's a crapload of money. You'll have to deal with spot production, traffic, reconciliation, discreps, make-goods, and more affidavits than you care to shake a stick at. You'll need a full-time engineer for the tranny, and at least a part-time notary public for said affidativts. Not to disourage you at all, but I'd shy away from the full kit and kaboodle!
Upon closer examination, you'll see that the claim can't be filed unless $250 in monetary (not informational, but monetary) damages occur. And you can't ask for punitive damages. Simply the money you lost plus court costs. Bummer.
....it breaks them. The author of this article makes some claims about how Opera needs to be WC3 compliant. Last I checked (and if I'm wrong, y'all are gonna give it to me ;) Opera is as much a WC3 compliant browser as Mozilla, and certainly moreso than IE.
The issue that designers, programmers, and ultimately the end-users must combat is that all sorts of flash-bang features that go into making pages look great in IE screw the hell out of those same pages in other browsers. Opera's efficient standards compliance measures wind up backfiring a bit because when this Made For Internet Explorer crap comes along, Opera chokes on it like the worthless coding it really is.
Mozilla really floats the middle ground well; pages that don't render quite right in Opera always show up fine in Mozilla, and if there were a good mouse gesture plug-in (I admit it, I love 'em), Mozilla would be all I use. Can't wait for 1.0!!
Yeah, they *really* did block it. I suspect the SecureIM exchange was what AOL was using to sniff out Trillian users first, that's why shutting it off worked. But, I really *was* disconnected from AOL IM for some time. Older versions of the program (v.721) don't work anymore. But, .721 is sitll functional! Whee! Go Trillian!
First of all, to credit the RIAA, Hillary & Co. have stood up time and again about free speech, music censorship, and the like. Every time they do that, that little twinkle of faith in their organization shines a bit brighter.
But at the same time, it's a crafty setup they have going. RIAA would have you believe "Recording Industry" somehow includes singers, musicians, songwriters, producers, techs, and all the behind-the-scenes folks. Time and again, though, we are reminded that RIAA really only represents the major record labels themselves. When RIAA talks about the "artists," it's a patronizing sort of thing, becuase as we see demonstrated over and over, "art" consistently takes a back seat to the bottom line.
Now, not only do artists go into thousands and thousands of dollars of debt to record songs for record labels to exploit, the labels are now trying to take away rights to the recordings themselves under Work for Hire laws. Where does that stop, exactly? Do the songwriters lose THEIR rights to the songs they AUTHORED when their song gets cut? Do ASCAP and BMI surrender thier rights once a song is on a label's master reel? This gets ridiculous really fast.
Go capitalism, rah rah rah!
What they're not saying here explicitly is that they still haven't come up with a waveform recognition / microphone setup that they can implement in "normal" usage situations, and still have it recognize consonants with voice and without. The voiced plosive "b" and the voiceless plosive "p", for example, just sound too damn alike.
I think rather than manipulate our computers using "oooh" and "ahh" and "Oh shit!".... perhaps we should just restructure the English language?
I don't know how that reply got in this thread; I never read the parent comment ;) C'est la vie.
Additionally, you might want to consider taking this to class. Just the other day, we were discussing bullying in Japan, and suicides there are very common, too. I'm taking this to class next time; discussion leads to awareness, hopefully awareness leads to prevention.