There are some GNU Radio scripts that will let you broadcast ATSC with a Software Defined Radio (SDR), like the HackRF. Not sure how well they work, as I don't have a SDR, but I've been wanting to get one to try it out.
I did not mean there would be zero radio signal below 350 ft, I meant I'd have to go to 350 ft to get signal that I could actually watch reliably. But really this is all besides the point. My point was that it would be much easier and more reliable for many people, such as myself, if we could use any random Ku band dish and a DVB-S2 tuner to watch the free broadcast channels. And it would greatly expand the broadcasters market. Seems a win-win, except for the local affiliates anyway.
You're not going to get 40 miles with a pair of rabbit ears in the living room.
I feel a "Duh" here is appropriate, but maybe you got confused and thought you were posting on a non-tech user forum. My problem is the large hills/small mountains (whatever you want to call them) in between me and the transmitters. TV Fools says I would need a 350 ft tower to get any signal (and even then most things would be 1Edge). And that's not exactly practical in a built up residential area (not sure if it would even be legal, either... if it fell over, it would be more than long enough to hit a neighbor's house).
As to the freesat thing, in the US there are hundreds of local broadcasters who get to run their own local programming and overlay ads.
Yeah, so cut out the middle man. Seems like a good business move to me. It might take some time and some planning, but they can schedule it so all the affiliate contracts expire at the same time and turn it on then.
One of the biggest limiting factors of OTA is coverage area. I live about 40 miles from the transmitters in the 2nd largest metro area in the US and can't get any signal. And, at least in the US, the FCC is doing it's best to eliminate as much OTA spectrum as possible (so getting new stations in the future is becoming less and less likely). I wouldn't be surprised if we never see MPEG-4 and 1080p/4K ATSC broadcasts in the US, either.
However, I do think there is a better option. It's something they have in the UK: Freesat. All the main broadcast channels are there (plus a bunch that aren't available via OTA) and all you need is a satellite dish and a DVB-S2 tuner (you don't even need to buy the Freesat branded box, it's only really useful for the guide data). Why the US broadcasters haven't come up with a similar plan, when the US is even larger and harder to completely cover, is beyond me.
I've used OBS to live stream on Youtube, no problem. I would assume all you would have to do is just change the settings in OBS to 60 fps and it should work.
WebP already has big compression gains. Just not in comparison to a static jpg. But compared to an animated gif it's a huge savings.
I know I'm not going to convince you or Mozilla to change your positions, but to outsiders, who aren't involved in the browser wars, it seems rather silly that you guys won't add support for this just because something better might come alone a few years down the road, when there's nothing else available to do it now.
WebM is great for what it does. I definitely support tools that use WebM to replace gifs, like gfycat. But it still can't do transparency (except in Chrome) and as I said it's more complicated than creating a WebP with those features. There are some things that only WebP can do at the moment, which is why it shouldn't just be dismissed like Mozilla has done.
The problem with APNG is that it was not adopted and is not supported by the PNG group. That means the official libpng source has no support for it and will never have support for it. Thus making it a non-standard. Instead the PNG group chose to support MNG. So Google chose to go with the standards; they're not just doing it "because reasons."
One problem with your logic is that WebP isn't just a replacement for jpeg. Sure it can be used that way, but WebP also supports alpha channels and animations. And yes, you can argue that we can just use a HTML5 video for that (except I've only heard of Chrome supporting transparent videos at the moment...), but it's much more complicated than creating a WebP with those features, and it can be shown on a website with a simple img tag, IMHO. And being able to take for example a 10 MB animated gif and shrink it down to around a 1 MB animated WebP seems like a worthy enough cause to me.
And one that does 40 mpg will use half the fuel of one that does 20. Yeah, totally unintuitive.
Yes. But that's not the whole story. 40 will use half that 20 does. 20 will use half that 10 does. But 40mpg is 5.88 L/100km, 20 is 11.76 L/100km, 10 is 23.52 L/100km. So switching from a 10 mpg car to a 20 mpg car saves 11.76 L/100km, but switching from a 20 to a 40 mpg car only saves 5.88 L/100km. So that is why mpg is said to be exponential. This is not just me blowing smoke, see https://www.fueleconomy.gov/fe... and look at the section "Fuel Consumption Rate". Even the US department of Energy says Volume/Distance is a better representation (even though they stick to gallons and miles).
I used to drive non-stop from Los Angeles to San Francisco all the time (around 380 miles). And that was in a 1992 Chevy S-10. With modern fuel efficient vehicles that get 40+ mpg it's even more reasonable of a trip. I don't think it's unreasonable to ask for a battery that can go the same distance. Especially when charging the battery is going to take longer than a stop for lunch at some fast food joint.
BTW, there are some advantages to L/100km. MPG is exponential, so as the numbers get higher, there is actually a diminishing amount of savings. So upgrading from a car that gets 14 mpg to one that gets 17 mpg is the same savings as going from one that gets 33 mpg to 50 mpg. With L/100km it is linear so the savings stays the same along the entire scale. All you need to remember when seeing it, is that the lower the number the better the fuel economy (and anything lower than 6L/100km is pretty good efficiency).
I never put my computer on standby because half the time Windows itself crashes, so I never experience that issue. I don't have any problem with it complaining that there are no available tuners or low signal quality, but I have heard that other people have that problem. But even with those problems, I'd still rather save the $10/month (or $40 if you had a STB for every tuner) by using the cablecard tuner, as the hd-pvr isn't any more reliable.
I know this will be unpopular here (and trust me, I hate it as much as you guys do), but just keep using Windows Media Center. I have Time Warner Cable, so pretty much all channels are copy-once, except the broadcast channels. I started off using MythTV + Hauppauge HD-PVR. It was decent, but it wasn't totally reliable. Plus I still had to pay $12/month for the simple cable box (no dvr, only one tuner). So when the CableCard tuners came out, I instantly jumped on it. So for $2/month I can record 4 channels. And sure it sucks to have to run Windows, but WMC is still leaps and bounds better than anything offered by the cable cos even though it hasn't been updated in years. Plus I can use my Xbox 360 to watch tv (both live and recorded) in another room.
I run it for my family as well. All I really care about is google accepting email for my domain and delivering it to the appropriate inbox while weeding out spam. Even if they made it so users had to have a normal gmail account and you can just set it up to deliver email from your domain to that specific gmail account, that'd be fine (I know one could set up and run their own server and have it forward to people's accounts, but I'm talking about having something more integrated than that but less "business" than their current setup).
I have TimeWarner, and my service is advertised as 15Mbps/768Kbps. In actuality, I get 25Mbps/968Kbps when running a speed test (except at peak hours). And this is all over DOCSIS 1.1. They also just recently gave me a new modem, which is only DOCSIS 2 capable (an Ambit U10C018), although it still connects with 1.1.
I'm blissfully unaware of it's existence when driving
It's funny you say that, seeing as how Canada is the #1 country we import our oil and petroleum from. Maybe think about that next time your driving?
I'm not saying anything pro or anti metrification. I'm merely saying that Canada is an important neighbor and trade partner. Mexico is too. These are important countries for our economy and they are on the same continent. So you shouldn't just ignore them. Whether that means we need to adopt metric is another argument altogether and certainly not one I'm going to wade in to.
I'm not sure what you mean by "think laterally", but none of the definitions of continental mean "From San Diego to Bangor ME (4330 km) and Nome to Key West (7250 km)," excluding Canada. I know Americans like to disparage Canada, but it is our neighbor and largest trading partner.
Continental? I know we're known for being bad at geography, but I'm fairly certain there are other countries on the same continent as the US. And those other countries all use the metric system.
This story is about the ability to watch Expanded Basic channels with a simple digital tuner. Expanded Basic (EB) channels are the ones you get in analog channels above 20, such as TBS, TNT, ESPN, CNN, etc. Those are being moved slowly but surely to digital only, and one day your only option to watch EB channels will be through their digital cable box or a Tru2way compatible TV with a cable card (that you have to pay almost the same for per month as a box), with no options available to watch them on a HTPC. And for HD EB channels, you can just forget about them. There is no way you'll ever get any of them without paying the cable company to be able to decrypt them (the fact that for instance you can get ESPN in SD on analog, but to get ESPN in HD you have to have a box or cable card seems ridiculous to me)
Slashdot Mirror
Except webp isn't like jpg. It's like a combination of jpg, png, and gif all rolled in to one (webp supports lossless, alpha channels, and animation).
There are some GNU Radio scripts that will let you broadcast ATSC with a Software Defined Radio (SDR), like the HackRF. Not sure how well they work, as I don't have a SDR, but I've been wanting to get one to try it out.
Woops. I guess I hadn't logged in to Slashdot on this browser and so that was posted anonymously.
I did not mean there would be zero radio signal below 350 ft, I meant I'd have to go to 350 ft to get signal that I could actually watch reliably. But really this is all besides the point. My point was that it would be much easier and more reliable for many people, such as myself, if we could use any random Ku band dish and a DVB-S2 tuner to watch the free broadcast channels. And it would greatly expand the broadcasters market. Seems a win-win, except for the local affiliates anyway.
You're not going to get 40 miles with a pair of rabbit ears in the living room.
I feel a "Duh" here is appropriate, but maybe you got confused and thought you were posting on a non-tech user forum. My problem is the large hills/small mountains (whatever you want to call them) in between me and the transmitters. TV Fools says I would need a 350 ft tower to get any signal (and even then most things would be 1Edge). And that's not exactly practical in a built up residential area (not sure if it would even be legal, either... if it fell over, it would be more than long enough to hit a neighbor's house).
As to the freesat thing, in the US there are hundreds of local broadcasters who get to run their own local programming and overlay ads.
Yeah, so cut out the middle man. Seems like a good business move to me. It might take some time and some planning, but they can schedule it so all the affiliate contracts expire at the same time and turn it on then.
One of the biggest limiting factors of OTA is coverage area. I live about 40 miles from the transmitters in the 2nd largest metro area in the US and can't get any signal. And, at least in the US, the FCC is doing it's best to eliminate as much OTA spectrum as possible (so getting new stations in the future is becoming less and less likely). I wouldn't be surprised if we never see MPEG-4 and 1080p/4K ATSC broadcasts in the US, either.
However, I do think there is a better option. It's something they have in the UK: Freesat. All the main broadcast channels are there (plus a bunch that aren't available via OTA) and all you need is a satellite dish and a DVB-S2 tuner (you don't even need to buy the Freesat branded box, it's only really useful for the guide data). Why the US broadcasters haven't come up with a similar plan, when the US is even larger and harder to completely cover, is beyond me.
I've used OBS to live stream on Youtube, no problem. I would assume all you would have to do is just change the settings in OBS to 60 fps and it should work.
Still haven't fixed UPnP in Mac OS X. I wonder if they'll ever fix it.
WebP already has big compression gains. Just not in comparison to a static jpg. But compared to an animated gif it's a huge savings. I know I'm not going to convince you or Mozilla to change your positions, but to outsiders, who aren't involved in the browser wars, it seems rather silly that you guys won't add support for this just because something better might come alone a few years down the road, when there's nothing else available to do it now.
WebM is great for what it does. I definitely support tools that use WebM to replace gifs, like gfycat. But it still can't do transparency (except in Chrome) and as I said it's more complicated than creating a WebP with those features. There are some things that only WebP can do at the moment, which is why it shouldn't just be dismissed like Mozilla has done.
The problem with APNG is that it was not adopted and is not supported by the PNG group. That means the official libpng source has no support for it and will never have support for it. Thus making it a non-standard. Instead the PNG group chose to support MNG. So Google chose to go with the standards; they're not just doing it "because reasons."
One problem with your logic is that WebP isn't just a replacement for jpeg. Sure it can be used that way, but WebP also supports alpha channels and animations. And yes, you can argue that we can just use a HTML5 video for that (except I've only heard of Chrome supporting transparent videos at the moment...), but it's much more complicated than creating a WebP with those features, and it can be shown on a website with a simple img tag, IMHO. And being able to take for example a 10 MB animated gif and shrink it down to around a 1 MB animated WebP seems like a worthy enough cause to me.
And one that does 40 mpg will use half the fuel of one that does 20. Yeah, totally unintuitive.
Yes. But that's not the whole story. 40 will use half that 20 does. 20 will use half that 10 does. But 40mpg is 5.88 L/100km, 20 is 11.76 L/100km, 10 is 23.52 L/100km. So switching from a 10 mpg car to a 20 mpg car saves 11.76 L/100km, but switching from a 20 to a 40 mpg car only saves 5.88 L/100km. So that is why mpg is said to be exponential. This is not just me blowing smoke, see https://www.fueleconomy.gov/fe... and look at the section "Fuel Consumption Rate". Even the US department of Energy says Volume/Distance is a better representation (even though they stick to gallons and miles).
I used to drive non-stop from Los Angeles to San Francisco all the time (around 380 miles). And that was in a 1992 Chevy S-10. With modern fuel efficient vehicles that get 40+ mpg it's even more reasonable of a trip. I don't think it's unreasonable to ask for a battery that can go the same distance. Especially when charging the battery is going to take longer than a stop for lunch at some fast food joint.
BTW, there are some advantages to L/100km. MPG is exponential, so as the numbers get higher, there is actually a diminishing amount of savings. So upgrading from a car that gets 14 mpg to one that gets 17 mpg is the same savings as going from one that gets 33 mpg to 50 mpg. With L/100km it is linear so the savings stays the same along the entire scale. All you need to remember when seeing it, is that the lower the number the better the fuel economy (and anything lower than 6L/100km is pretty good efficiency).
I never put my computer on standby because half the time Windows itself crashes, so I never experience that issue. I don't have any problem with it complaining that there are no available tuners or low signal quality, but I have heard that other people have that problem. But even with those problems, I'd still rather save the $10/month (or $40 if you had a STB for every tuner) by using the cablecard tuner, as the hd-pvr isn't any more reliable.
I know this will be unpopular here (and trust me, I hate it as much as you guys do), but just keep using Windows Media Center. I have Time Warner Cable, so pretty much all channels are copy-once, except the broadcast channels. I started off using MythTV + Hauppauge HD-PVR. It was decent, but it wasn't totally reliable. Plus I still had to pay $12/month for the simple cable box (no dvr, only one tuner). So when the CableCard tuners came out, I instantly jumped on it. So for $2/month I can record 4 channels. And sure it sucks to have to run Windows, but WMC is still leaps and bounds better than anything offered by the cable cos even though it hasn't been updated in years. Plus I can use my Xbox 360 to watch tv (both live and recorded) in another room.
I run it for my family as well. All I really care about is google accepting email for my domain and delivering it to the appropriate inbox while weeding out spam. Even if they made it so users had to have a normal gmail account and you can just set it up to deliver email from your domain to that specific gmail account, that'd be fine (I know one could set up and run their own server and have it forward to people's accounts, but I'm talking about having something more integrated than that but less "business" than their current setup).
You must've been sleeping for a while, the Apple Airport Extreme already supports IPv6 and has done it since 2007.
The Apple Airport Extreme supports IPv6 (It us under advanced). I also supports running a tunnel for those with an ISP that doesn't support IPv6.
I have TimeWarner, and my service is advertised as 15Mbps/768Kbps. In actuality, I get 25Mbps/968Kbps when running a speed test (except at peak hours). And this is all over DOCSIS 1.1. They also just recently gave me a new modem, which is only DOCSIS 2 capable (an Ambit U10C018), although it still connects with 1.1.
It doesn't impact you directly, but what about indirectly?
I'm blissfully unaware of it's existence when driving
It's funny you say that, seeing as how Canada is the #1 country we import our oil and petroleum from. Maybe think about that next time your driving?
I'm not saying anything pro or anti metrification. I'm merely saying that Canada is an important neighbor and trade partner. Mexico is too. These are important countries for our economy and they are on the same continent. So you shouldn't just ignore them. Whether that means we need to adopt metric is another argument altogether and certainly not one I'm going to wade in to.
I'm not sure what you mean by "think laterally", but none of the definitions of continental mean "From San Diego to Bangor ME (4330 km) and Nome to Key West (7250 km)," excluding Canada. I know Americans like to disparage Canada, but it is our neighbor and largest trading partner.
Continental? I know we're known for being bad at geography, but I'm fairly certain there are other countries on the same continent as the US. And those other countries all use the metric system.
This story is about the ability to watch Expanded Basic channels with a simple digital tuner. Expanded Basic (EB) channels are the ones you get in analog channels above 20, such as TBS, TNT, ESPN, CNN, etc. Those are being moved slowly but surely to digital only, and one day your only option to watch EB channels will be through their digital cable box or a Tru2way compatible TV with a cable card (that you have to pay almost the same for per month as a box), with no options available to watch them on a HTPC. And for HD EB channels, you can just forget about them. There is no way you'll ever get any of them without paying the cable company to be able to decrypt them (the fact that for instance you can get ESPN in SD on analog, but to get ESPN in HD you have to have a box or cable card seems ridiculous to me)