but I doubt T-Mobile's business partnerships department has the time to talk to me (or the millions upon millions of other non-commercial operators).
That you think there are millions upon millions of content providers who would want to qualify for Binge On shows how far out in left field you really are. And the fact that you are basing your rant against T-Mobile on "I doubt that" instead of "they won't let me" shows a lot, too.
As with the Music Freedom offering that came before it, T-Mobile wants to encourage as many
content providers as possible to participate. In any event, there is no charge regardless of your
choice.
No charge to the provider. All you have to do is coordinate your service with T-Mobile. Your customer gets cheaper service, you get a happier customer, and T-Mobile is able to better manage the limited 4G data service they provide. They also get to advertise you as a Binge On content provider. Win-win-win.
If you want to be a dick and screw your customer by first refusing to participate, and then trying to demand that he has to pay for every byte he gets, then why should he be your customer in the first place?
The issue is they get to pick and choose which services they allow a zero rating on. If that doesn't worry you a lot,
No, they don't pick and choose, so no, that doesn't worry me a lot. In fact, even if they DID pick and choose it wouldn't worry me at all. If someone will voluntarily slow their traffic down so that everyone else can get a bigger piece of the limited pie, then I'm fine with that, and if their data doesn't get counted because of that, I don't really care.
T-Mobile's Binge on does offer free streaming (both radio and tv) for qualified rate plans.
No, it offers streaming that does not count against your 4G data limits. You pay for the streaming, just not on a per-byte basis.
But I was under the impression that any provider could opt in or out of the program once they met the technical criteria for the reduced bitrate streams.
That's right.
It saves the provider bandwidth to get the stream to T-mobile, and it saves t-mobile bandwidth to get it to the customer.
Yes, and that's why it's a good deal for everyone involved. EVERYONE. And that's also why it doesn't prove that bandwidth caps are unnecessary, because this is, in effect, a bandwidth cap too. If you voluntarily limit your bandwidth so that other people can share the same resources, then your bandwidth doesn't get counted.
Let me say that again: Binge On is a bandwidth cap. It is not a total use cap, it is a speed cap. And speed is more important in determining service levels than totals.
nor prioritizing any service over another as far as I can tell (but could be wrong).
You are right. Content providers who complain about Binge On only do so because they choose not to limit streaming speeds and don't charge rates that can compete once you include the data plan charges that their service would incur.
And consumers who complain about this are just dog-in-the-manger or sour-grapes fools.
If you're in an accident, you're going to the hospital, regardless of any stated belief or political persuasion.
Not correct. Individuals can refuse medical treatment from emergency service providers, which includes telling them you do not want to be transported to a hospital or other care facility.
The question comes up almost every time I am in a first responder care class. You are required to ask the potential patient if they accept your services before you do anything. So, for example, you happen across a choking victim who is still conscious and you ask if you can help. If they shake their head "no", you cannot touch them. This sometimes surprises the newer students, who then ask "what do you do"? The answer is that you stand there until the patient passes out and then you provide assistance. Passing out is a change in status, and he's no longer refusing care, so you are ok to act.
In other words, if you are a paramedic at an accident scene and a conscious and alert victim tells you "I am a Jehovah's Witness and I decline medical care", you move on to the next victim and come back to the JW after he passes out. If he doesn't pass out, even if he's bleeding and has broken stuff, his stated belief means he isn't going to the hospital.
Rights are granted by the people. Nothing is inate.
That was not the assumption of the people who wrote the Constitution, and it is not a reasonable assumption from a societal standpoint. The Bill of Rights was written from the view of people who believed in inalienable rights granted by a creator, and that the government needed written limits to make sure those rights were protected.
You only have the rights that everyone around you allows you to have.
You are confusing the right with the ability to exercise that right. When people complain about "human rights abuse" in some third world country, they never say "those people have only the rights that the people around them allow them to have" and simply walk away from the issue. If someone has only the rights that "the people around them allow them to have", then how can anyone claim that someone's rights are being violated? No, they start from a basis that there are, indeed, "basic human rights" that inherently belong to the individual, but that the "people around them" are improperly restricting the exercise of those rights.
We have more rights today because
We have more "rights" today because we have more people thinking that everything they want should be a basic human right, like the "right to Internet access" and such.
These rights were written into the laws and constitution by the people as an agreement that they would not be infringed.
No. They were written into the US Constitution specifically to keep the US Government from infringing them. The people need not agree upon this, it was an assumed starting point by the founders.
They were not god given, especially considering many of these rights were denied in most major countries at the time.
Again, you demonstrate a serious lack of comprehension of the difference between the existence of a right and the infringement of those rights by abusive governments.
If this means I'm too old to be in the militia that I can be theoretically denied the right to own an assault rifle?
You already need to jump through extra hoops to own what would be honestly referred to as "an assault rifle". Note: an AR-15 is not an assault rifle, except in the mouths of people who think fear is a reason to confiscate inalienable rights from others.
What about females?
They can have my females when they pry them out of my cold, dead hands.
Odds of me shooting someone while I don't own a gun: 0.
You lie. You don't need to own the gun you use to shoot someone, it just has to be in your hands at the time it happens. You cannot guarantee that you will never have a gun in your hands, and thus you cannot guarantee that you will never shoot someone.
The difference between us is that I will never kill you, but you cannot guarantee that you will not kill me.
Another lie. You cannot guarantee that you will never kill anyone. You may run someone down while you drive a car, you may drop something heavy on them from a height, you may accidentally replace the contents of their salt shaker with arsenic, etc. There are many more ways of killing someone than with a gun you own, and your mouth makes guarantees that your butt cannot cash.
If you meant to say that you don't intend on killing me, then there is no difference between us at all, even though you claim not to own a gun and I admit that I do. (I don't take your claim at face value, however, because you've already lied.) I also don't intend on killing you, and I can make exactly as binding a guarantee on that intent as you can.
Your argument devolves into a statement of fear of things you don't understand, and that's a marvelously bad reason to create laws and abridge rights.
The US Constitution does not give us our rights, it enumerates specific rights that were assumed to already belong to the people but were considered important enough to be explictly documented in the Constitution. The rights listed in the Bill of Rights and additional amendments were limits put upon the government to keep those inalienable rights from being restricted by future generations of government abuse.
It's not working very well, but that's the concept and the purpose. To claim that the Constitution gives rights is patently absurd and profoundly ignorant.
And the argument about what constitutes a militia is irrelevant, because the clause in the 2nd Amendment that uses that word is descriptive, not prescriptive. In other words, it is a subordinate clause that lists one of many possible reasons why the founders thought it important to enumerate the right to keep and bear arms, not the ONLY reason they thought so.
The subject on this thread is asinine. There is nothing secret about what's going on. The cameras are turned off because the house is not in session. That's something that benefits BOTH sides at various times.
Why would you bar an innocent, legally competent person from their Second Amendment rights?
Because they scare me, that's why. My right not to be scared of you trumps your right to keep and bear arms, don't you know?
One of the stupidest comments I ever heard was from a Portland OR area politician (state rep, I think it was) who claimed that she was scared of people who have concealed carry permits. This ignores the fact that getting a CCP requires a vetting by the local sheriff and, the last time I checked, character references from three people. It made me wonder exactly how she behaved in public if she was seriously worried that she was going to piss a concealed carry holder off enough that they would shoot her. Does she routinely go around assaulting people just to see if they'll pull a gun in self defense? But these are the people we elect.
Today I learned that "not wanting people to find out about my furry porn fetish" is the polar opposite of "not wanting to be shot by a crazy person with a gun."
And in a few moments you might learn that "banning the sale of weapons that scare me" doesn't equate to "not being able to be shot by a crazy person with a gun." And then, in a few seconds, that the "right to privacy" (which is not explicit in the US Constitution) is on a par with the "right to keep and bear arms" -- which is.
First, they'd give you Lightning ear buds in the box.
You mean the standard hard plastic crap that don't fit and are painful to wear? Thanks, Apple, but no thanks.
Second, if you want third party headphones, you don't need an adaptor:
So instead of buying a $40 adapter, you think people should buy a new pair of $800 headphones ("Audeze EL-8 Titanium Closed-Back") as suggested by the click-bait reference you provided?
Thanks, I already have third party ear buds. Many of them. They have nice rubber ear pieces that help seal out external noise and are comfortable. When I find a pair I like I buy two or three more, just in case the one I'm carrying winds up in the washing machine. So thanks but no thanks Apple, I've already got what I need.
Personally I think Apple should either "give" Lightning to the IEEE (like FireWire)
Personally, I think a device which by default MUST have an analog output (the speaker) should provide a simple, standard connector to access that analog output. Not a proprietary digital output that is limited to a few companies and costs a bundle.
There were originally very few cable channels and generally you needed specialty hardware to even access them
Hilarious. Original cable systems distributed analog signals that were tuned by something called a "tuner" that every TV had built in. You needed no specialty hardware. It wasn't until the premium services came along much later that cable companies needed a system to limit what people could watch. For a long time they used simple traps to notch out the premium channels, and your television tuner was still the way you accessed them. As more and more channels became premium physical traps became a management issue. That's when scrambling became the norm.
Sometimes it was as simple as an interfering signal embedded in the channel so your TV couldn't tune it properly, and the "cable box" had a filter in it that could be switched in and out to remove the interference, or the company used a trap to do that.
Another scrambling system was sync inversion, and the descrambler was simple device that detected the inverted sync signal and replaced it with the correct one. I used to have one of the "remote head" cable boxes that actually had a five pin connector between the channel selector and the electronics. One of the wires was the "enable descrambler" signal, and it was pretty easy to insert a switch in the line to enable the scrambled channels.
As the number of channels increased, there became a requirement for a box that allowed a TV to receive a channel from in between 6 and 7. And then TV manufacturers started making tuners that were cable-ready so you didn't need the box to do that.
But to claim that original cable systems required users to have special hardware is just wrong. The only "special" thing about them was that usually the broadcast channel would not appear on the same cable channel to avoid ingress issues. It takes very little ingress to create an obvious ghost (or rolling sync bars if the cable headend has a timebase corrector on the channel) if you have broadcast channel 7 on cable channel 7.
whereas cable was originally an extra premium cost for specific channels that....no surprise, had no commercials and pushed that
No. Cable was originally intended to carry broadcast signals to people who either couldn't get them very well to start with, or who wanted to see stations from further away than they could get with a reasonable antenna of their own.
It wasn't until the satellite services started popping up that cable turned into a cable-distribution of satellite services medium. Even then, the presence of ads was determined not by the cable company but by the content provider -- so any cable company that promised "no ads" was promising something they could not deliver. It's patently obvious that they couldn't remove the ads from the broadcast content they were delivering, so why anyone believed any "no ads" claim is beyond imagination.
You're too young to know what you are talking about, since some of us were actually alive decades before the internet.
To think that "cable TV" started with satellite-distributed content is demonstrating a lack of historical knowledge.
No, the original reason for cable television systems wasn't for "actual content". It was for better reception of the existing broadcast television signals. MATV (master antenna) and CATV (community antenna) were two early acronyms. People who lived in dense apartment buildings had a hard time getting a good signal; the landlord (or tenants) would pay for a "community antenna" on the roof to deliver the RF signal to their indoor sets. Or a rural community would do the same thing for the residents.
It wasn't until someone got the bright idea of distributing content via satellite (and the costs became reasonable) that "cable TV" started selling distribution of non-broadcast content. Ted Turner and TBS was one of the pioneers, and all he did was distribute a satellite feed of his WTBS independent station in Atlanta. And yes, you got to see the Atlanta ads, until they got national advertiser's attention and could sell ads that replaced them in the national feed.
Anyone who claims that "cable TV was created to sell ad-free content" is ignoring all the history prior to HBO. It would be like trying to explain to someone why all of the area codes used to have either 0 or 1 as the middle digit. Or to people who have never read the RFC for mailboxes what all the valid characters are in an email address, and they assume since they've never seen a '+' or a '!' in one that those certainly must be illegal.
Except the cable companies aren't selling you the content, they're selling the delivery. You're paying for the delivery of ESPN or a broadcast channel; it's ESPN and the broadcast channel that are showing you the ads. Considering the history and original purpose of cable TV, it's a bit silly to expect them to strip the ads from the broadcast channels just so you don't get ads while you're paying for the "service". Or to strip ads from any of the content providers, for that matter. I'm not sure anyone would rather see dead air in place of the ads they'd have to take out. Some might, but most of them would then complain about the long periods of blank screen. "We're paying for the show, not three minutes of black!"
Yes, there are cable ads inserted into the delivery, called "local avails" ("time available for local ads"). But they're not changing the amount of ads you get, they're covering up an ad that the content provider would have been showing you anyway.
You might want to recheck the rules for hobby flying, because VLOS certainly is a requirement for hobby flight, and the preceding two are also part of the "knowbeforeyoufly" list.
The only major difference twixt hobby and 107 is the RPC, and the commercial authorization.
There is nothing pertaining about use of drones in concert
I guess you missed the bit in the regulations about not flying over people:
What does flying in concert have to do with flying over people? You're confusing "in concert", as in "multiple devices cooperating to accomplish a task", which is what the rest of that sentence clearly talked about, with "at a concert", which is something completely different.
The requirements I cited were from an FAA-approved training center.
The rules don't talk about "FAA approved training centers", they say "knowledge test" and "FAA TESTING center". This training you're talking about is not a requirement for the RPC as you claimed it is, and it is irrelevant. It's a good money-maker for the drone manufacturers, however. "Come take our classes and buy our simulators...".
If you have a Part 61 certificate, you've had a BFR within the last 24 months anyway, right? You have to do that to maintain your pilot's license anyway.
Actually, no you don't. The "pilot's license" doesn't expire. Unless it is revoked for some reason, your "Part 61 certificate" is yours for life. You may not exercise the privileges under Part 91 without a demonstration of currency, but even then, it doesn't need to be a BFR.
There still is no reason to require a demonstration of flight ability in a manned aircraft so someone can fly a drone. Two different skill sets.
As far as being more than what's required under a COA, that isn't exactly surprising.
I didn't say it was surprising. I said it was. I wouldn't expect the final requirements to be more stringent than any temporary ones, though, and these are. But if it isn't surprising, why are you arguing with me about it?
To qualify for a remote pilot certificate, a person must:
So you have at least located the requirements in the rules, but didn't notice that "10 hours of yada and 16 hours of yada" weren't part of them. Whatever those "FAA approved training centers" told you to try to sell you their services was a lie. Don't listen to them. Read the rules instead.
I did look. 16 hours of web-based in-home ground school, 10 hours of in-home UAV/Drone PC-based simulator, and 16 hours of hands-on flight training at a training facility.
I'm sorry, but which part of 107 specifies that? I see nothing in the list of requirements that is that specific. In fact, the only aeronautical part of the requirements as listed in 107.61 are passing a knowledge test (for non Part 61 certificate holders), or a BFR and a shorter test otherwise.
That doesn't sound to onerous to me.
I said it was more than what is required under the COA I work under. And yes, I think what you listed is pretty onerous compared to the truth.
And having to get a BFR for a manned aircraft in order to prove you know how to fly a 5 pound drone is ridiculous.
Under the new rules, the requirement is for an operator to "be at least 16 years old and have a remote pilot certificate with a small UAS rating, or be directly supervised by someone with such a certificate."
This rule is more restrictive than the current COA that I am covered by at work. If you look at the requirements for a "remote pilot certificate" you'll see that they require more than just a 2nd class medical and an existing pilot certificate. For example, for an existing "Part 61" certificate holder, you have to prove you can fly a real aircraft carrying people (BFR) before you can fly an unmanned 5 pound drone in your backyard.
And the summary isn't clear on who needs the RPC, it just outlines what it takes to get one. If it truly is only for commercial use, then fine.
This isn't AM radio we're talking about - it's 'communication' ; which is different than broadcast.
One-way pagers, which in the context of the discussion is what are being referred to, are no different than broadcast. The transmitters do not know where the pager is located because the pager emits nothing more than the miniscule signals leaked from the local oscillator. Those can be picked up no further than a yard, possibly two in the worst case, from the pager. Nobody is tracking the pager user.
And that means that no, it isn't true "communication", because it truly is one-way and there is no ACK to go with your asinine waterfall in Arizona.
A pager routinely hits a cell tower and emits user-identifiable data that will always be relayed through a carrier network that is part of the state apparatus for spycraft.
Uhhh, no. My pager "hits" nothing. It is a receive-only device. It has nothing to do with cell towers.
The only "spycraft" is that the pager company can record the phone number of the caller. The message itself can be completely meaningless to anyone who intercepts it.
Pagers havent been safe since the DEA realized they could intercept them during drug investigations.
Depends. If the caller is using a burner or a phone unattached to him, then the DEA can intercept all they want. They aren't going to know that "34592" as a message means "the kilo of coke is ready for pickup at the regular location" unless they've extracted that info from one of the two parties involved. In that case, we're already toast.
I don't like the idea of a computer inside my computer I don't have any control over.
Then you are destined for a life of unhappiness. Most of the I/O processing in your "computer" is done by dedicated computers that you have no control over. The video card, the network card, the IEEE1394 or USB.b The disk drives. Even the audio. Things that have DMA so they an access memory without the CPU knowing about it...
You may look at the device and see a part number that you can look up, but dollars to donuts that the part is programmable in some way that makes it be what it is. FPGA, perhaps. Or just a microprocessor with firmware in EEPROM.
I figure I have a legal right to be able to access it and run an audit on it.
If they make it so you can "audit" it (whatever that means) then they've made it accessible to bad guys, too.
Conflict of interest and right of first sale and a few more things spring to mind as to why that's not a something I'd want to do.
How do you imagine that this "unauditable" CPU is hindering you from reselling the computer? I'm really fascinated to hear the reasoning behind that.
Slashdot Mirror
but I doubt T-Mobile's business partnerships department has the time to talk to me (or the millions upon millions of other non-commercial operators).
That you think there are millions upon millions of content providers who would want to qualify for Binge On shows how far out in left field you really are. And the fact that you are basing your rant against T-Mobile on "I doubt that" instead of "they won't let me" shows a lot, too.
If you go look at the requirements, you'll see:
No charge to the provider. All you have to do is coordinate your service with T-Mobile. Your customer gets cheaper service, you get a happier customer, and T-Mobile is able to better manage the limited 4G data service they provide. They also get to advertise you as a Binge On content provider. Win-win-win.
If you want to be a dick and screw your customer by first refusing to participate, and then trying to demand that he has to pay for every byte he gets, then why should he be your customer in the first place?
The issue is they get to pick and choose which services they allow a zero rating on. If that doesn't worry you a lot,
No, they don't pick and choose, so no, that doesn't worry me a lot. In fact, even if they DID pick and choose it wouldn't worry me at all. If someone will voluntarily slow their traffic down so that everyone else can get a bigger piece of the limited pie, then I'm fine with that, and if their data doesn't get counted because of that, I don't really care.
T-Mobile's Binge on does offer free streaming (both radio and tv) for qualified rate plans.
No, it offers streaming that does not count against your 4G data limits. You pay for the streaming, just not on a per-byte basis.
But I was under the impression that any provider could opt in or out of the program once they met the technical criteria for the reduced bitrate streams.
That's right.
It saves the provider bandwidth to get the stream to T-mobile, and it saves t-mobile bandwidth to get it to the customer.
Yes, and that's why it's a good deal for everyone involved. EVERYONE. And that's also why it doesn't prove that bandwidth caps are unnecessary, because this is, in effect, a bandwidth cap too. If you voluntarily limit your bandwidth so that other people can share the same resources, then your bandwidth doesn't get counted.
Let me say that again: Binge On is a bandwidth cap. It is not a total use cap, it is a speed cap. And speed is more important in determining service levels than totals.
nor prioritizing any service over another as far as I can tell (but could be wrong).
You are right. Content providers who complain about Binge On only do so because they choose not to limit streaming speeds and don't charge rates that can compete once you include the data plan charges that their service would incur.
And consumers who complain about this are just dog-in-the-manger or sour-grapes fools.
If you're in an accident, you're going to the hospital, regardless of any stated belief or political persuasion.
Not correct. Individuals can refuse medical treatment from emergency service providers, which includes telling them you do not want to be transported to a hospital or other care facility.
The question comes up almost every time I am in a first responder care class. You are required to ask the potential patient if they accept your services before you do anything. So, for example, you happen across a choking victim who is still conscious and you ask if you can help. If they shake their head "no", you cannot touch them. This sometimes surprises the newer students, who then ask "what do you do"? The answer is that you stand there until the patient passes out and then you provide assistance. Passing out is a change in status, and he's no longer refusing care, so you are ok to act.
In other words, if you are a paramedic at an accident scene and a conscious and alert victim tells you "I am a Jehovah's Witness and I decline medical care", you move on to the next victim and come back to the JW after he passes out. If he doesn't pass out, even if he's bleeding and has broken stuff, his stated belief means he isn't going to the hospital.
Rights are granted by the people. Nothing is inate.
That was not the assumption of the people who wrote the Constitution, and it is not a reasonable assumption from a societal standpoint. The Bill of Rights was written from the view of people who believed in inalienable rights granted by a creator, and that the government needed written limits to make sure those rights were protected.
You only have the rights that everyone around you allows you to have.
You are confusing the right with the ability to exercise that right. When people complain about "human rights abuse" in some third world country, they never say "those people have only the rights that the people around them allow them to have" and simply walk away from the issue. If someone has only the rights that "the people around them allow them to have", then how can anyone claim that someone's rights are being violated? No, they start from a basis that there are, indeed, "basic human rights" that inherently belong to the individual, but that the "people around them" are improperly restricting the exercise of those rights.
We have more rights today because
We have more "rights" today because we have more people thinking that everything they want should be a basic human right, like the "right to Internet access" and such.
These rights were written into the laws and constitution by the people as an agreement that they would not be infringed.
No. They were written into the US Constitution specifically to keep the US Government from infringing them. The people need not agree upon this, it was an assumed starting point by the founders.
They were not god given, especially considering many of these rights were denied in most major countries at the time.
Again, you demonstrate a serious lack of comprehension of the difference between the existence of a right and the infringement of those rights by abusive governments.
If this means I'm too old to be in the militia that I can be theoretically denied the right to own an assault rifle?
You already need to jump through extra hoops to own what would be honestly referred to as "an assault rifle". Note: an AR-15 is not an assault rifle, except in the mouths of people who think fear is a reason to confiscate inalienable rights from others.
What about females?
They can have my females when they pry them out of my cold, dead hands.
Odds of me shooting someone while I don't own a gun: 0.
You lie. You don't need to own the gun you use to shoot someone, it just has to be in your hands at the time it happens. You cannot guarantee that you will never have a gun in your hands, and thus you cannot guarantee that you will never shoot someone.
The difference between us is that I will never kill you, but you cannot guarantee that you will not kill me.
Another lie. You cannot guarantee that you will never kill anyone. You may run someone down while you drive a car, you may drop something heavy on them from a height, you may accidentally replace the contents of their salt shaker with arsenic, etc. There are many more ways of killing someone than with a gun you own, and your mouth makes guarantees that your butt cannot cash.
If you meant to say that you don't intend on killing me, then there is no difference between us at all, even though you claim not to own a gun and I admit that I do. (I don't take your claim at face value, however, because you've already lied.) I also don't intend on killing you, and I can make exactly as binding a guarantee on that intent as you can.
Your argument devolves into a statement of fear of things you don't understand, and that's a marvelously bad reason to create laws and abridge rights.
It's not working very well, but that's the concept and the purpose. To claim that the Constitution gives rights is patently absurd and profoundly ignorant.
The subject on this thread is asinine. There is nothing secret about what's going on. The cameras are turned off because the house is not in session. That's something that benefits BOTH sides at various times.
Why would you bar an innocent, legally competent person from their Second Amendment rights?
Because they scare me, that's why. My right not to be scared of you trumps your right to keep and bear arms, don't you know?
One of the stupidest comments I ever heard was from a Portland OR area politician (state rep, I think it was) who claimed that she was scared of people who have concealed carry permits. This ignores the fact that getting a CCP requires a vetting by the local sheriff and, the last time I checked, character references from three people. It made me wonder exactly how she behaved in public if she was seriously worried that she was going to piss a concealed carry holder off enough that they would shoot her. Does she routinely go around assaulting people just to see if they'll pull a gun in self defense? But these are the people we elect.
Today I learned that "not wanting people to find out about my furry porn fetish" is the polar opposite of "not wanting to be shot by a crazy person with a gun."
And in a few moments you might learn that "banning the sale of weapons that scare me" doesn't equate to "not being able to be shot by a crazy person with a gun." And then, in a few seconds, that the "right to privacy" (which is not explicit in the US Constitution) is on a par with the "right to keep and bear arms" -- which is.
First, they'd give you Lightning ear buds in the box.
You mean the standard hard plastic crap that don't fit and are painful to wear? Thanks, Apple, but no thanks.
Second, if you want third party headphones, you don't need an adaptor:
So instead of buying a $40 adapter, you think people should buy a new pair of $800 headphones ("Audeze EL-8 Titanium Closed-Back") as suggested by the click-bait reference you provided?
Thanks, I already have third party ear buds. Many of them. They have nice rubber ear pieces that help seal out external noise and are comfortable. When I find a pair I like I buy two or three more, just in case the one I'm carrying winds up in the washing machine. So thanks but no thanks Apple, I've already got what I need.
Personally I think Apple should either "give" Lightning to the IEEE (like FireWire)
Personally, I think a device which by default MUST have an analog output (the speaker) should provide a simple, standard connector to access that analog output. Not a proprietary digital output that is limited to a few companies and costs a bundle.
I believe that the rules that creates the limits of 0.55 to 55 pounds for hobby also include a maximum speed, but it won't matter for most people.
There were originally very few cable channels and generally you needed specialty hardware to even access them
Hilarious. Original cable systems distributed analog signals that were tuned by something called a "tuner" that every TV had built in. You needed no specialty hardware. It wasn't until the premium services came along much later that cable companies needed a system to limit what people could watch. For a long time they used simple traps to notch out the premium channels, and your television tuner was still the way you accessed them. As more and more channels became premium physical traps became a management issue. That's when scrambling became the norm.
Sometimes it was as simple as an interfering signal embedded in the channel so your TV couldn't tune it properly, and the "cable box" had a filter in it that could be switched in and out to remove the interference, or the company used a trap to do that.
Another scrambling system was sync inversion, and the descrambler was simple device that detected the inverted sync signal and replaced it with the correct one. I used to have one of the "remote head" cable boxes that actually had a five pin connector between the channel selector and the electronics. One of the wires was the "enable descrambler" signal, and it was pretty easy to insert a switch in the line to enable the scrambled channels.
As the number of channels increased, there became a requirement for a box that allowed a TV to receive a channel from in between 6 and 7. And then TV manufacturers started making tuners that were cable-ready so you didn't need the box to do that.
But to claim that original cable systems required users to have special hardware is just wrong. The only "special" thing about them was that usually the broadcast channel would not appear on the same cable channel to avoid ingress issues. It takes very little ingress to create an obvious ghost (or rolling sync bars if the cable headend has a timebase corrector on the channel) if you have broadcast channel 7 on cable channel 7.
whereas cable was originally an extra premium cost for specific channels that....no surprise, had no commercials and pushed that
No. Cable was originally intended to carry broadcast signals to people who either couldn't get them very well to start with, or who wanted to see stations from further away than they could get with a reasonable antenna of their own.
It wasn't until the satellite services started popping up that cable turned into a cable-distribution of satellite services medium. Even then, the presence of ads was determined not by the cable company but by the content provider -- so any cable company that promised "no ads" was promising something they could not deliver. It's patently obvious that they couldn't remove the ads from the broadcast content they were delivering, so why anyone believed any "no ads" claim is beyond imagination.
You're too young to know what you are talking about, since some of us were actually alive decades before the internet.
To think that "cable TV" started with satellite-distributed content is demonstrating a lack of historical knowledge.
not to mention actual content.
No, the original reason for cable television systems wasn't for "actual content". It was for better reception of the existing broadcast television signals. MATV (master antenna) and CATV (community antenna) were two early acronyms. People who lived in dense apartment buildings had a hard time getting a good signal; the landlord (or tenants) would pay for a "community antenna" on the roof to deliver the RF signal to their indoor sets. Or a rural community would do the same thing for the residents.
It wasn't until someone got the bright idea of distributing content via satellite (and the costs became reasonable) that "cable TV" started selling distribution of non-broadcast content. Ted Turner and TBS was one of the pioneers, and all he did was distribute a satellite feed of his WTBS independent station in Atlanta. And yes, you got to see the Atlanta ads, until they got national advertiser's attention and could sell ads that replaced them in the national feed.
Anyone who claims that "cable TV was created to sell ad-free content" is ignoring all the history prior to HBO. It would be like trying to explain to someone why all of the area codes used to have either 0 or 1 as the middle digit. Or to people who have never read the RFC for mailboxes what all the valid characters are in an email address, and they assume since they've never seen a '+' or a '!' in one that those certainly must be illegal.
Yes, there are cable ads inserted into the delivery, called "local avails" ("time available for local ads"). But they're not changing the amount of ads you get, they're covering up an ad that the content provider would have been showing you anyway.
The only major difference twixt hobby and 107 is the RPC, and the commercial authorization.
There is nothing pertaining about use of drones in concert
I guess you missed the bit in the regulations about not flying over people:
What does flying in concert have to do with flying over people? You're confusing "in concert", as in "multiple devices cooperating to accomplish a task", which is what the rest of that sentence clearly talked about, with "at a concert", which is something completely different.
The requirements I cited were from an FAA-approved training center.
The rules don't talk about "FAA approved training centers", they say "knowledge test" and "FAA TESTING center". This training you're talking about is not a requirement for the RPC as you claimed it is, and it is irrelevant. It's a good money-maker for the drone manufacturers, however. "Come take our classes and buy our simulators...".
If you have a Part 61 certificate, you've had a BFR within the last 24 months anyway, right? You have to do that to maintain your pilot's license anyway.
Actually, no you don't. The "pilot's license" doesn't expire. Unless it is revoked for some reason, your "Part 61 certificate" is yours for life. You may not exercise the privileges under Part 91 without a demonstration of currency, but even then, it doesn't need to be a BFR.
There still is no reason to require a demonstration of flight ability in a manned aircraft so someone can fly a drone. Two different skill sets.
As far as being more than what's required under a COA, that isn't exactly surprising.
I didn't say it was surprising. I said it was. I wouldn't expect the final requirements to be more stringent than any temporary ones, though, and these are. But if it isn't surprising, why are you arguing with me about it?
To qualify for a remote pilot certificate, a person must:
So you have at least located the requirements in the rules, but didn't notice that "10 hours of yada and 16 hours of yada" weren't part of them. Whatever those "FAA approved training centers" told you to try to sell you their services was a lie. Don't listen to them. Read the rules instead.
I did look. 16 hours of web-based in-home ground school, 10 hours of in-home UAV/Drone PC-based simulator, and 16 hours of hands-on flight training at a training facility.
I'm sorry, but which part of 107 specifies that? I see nothing in the list of requirements that is that specific. In fact, the only aeronautical part of the requirements as listed in 107.61 are passing a knowledge test (for non Part 61 certificate holders), or a BFR and a shorter test otherwise.
That doesn't sound to onerous to me.
I said it was more than what is required under the COA I work under. And yes, I think what you listed is pretty onerous compared to the truth.
And having to get a BFR for a manned aircraft in order to prove you know how to fly a 5 pound drone is ridiculous.
Under the new rules, the requirement is for an operator to "be at least 16 years old and have a remote pilot certificate with a small UAS rating, or be directly supervised by someone with such a certificate."
This rule is more restrictive than the current COA that I am covered by at work. If you look at the requirements for a "remote pilot certificate" you'll see that they require more than just a 2nd class medical and an existing pilot certificate. For example, for an existing "Part 61" certificate holder, you have to prove you can fly a real aircraft carrying people (BFR) before you can fly an unmanned 5 pound drone in your backyard.
And the summary isn't clear on who needs the RPC, it just outlines what it takes to get one. If it truly is only for commercial use, then fine.
Not only that, but the frequencies used are far lower - I believe between the upper end of the aviation band to the lower end of the 2m ham band.
The pager I have operates at above 900MHz.
This isn't AM radio we're talking about - it's 'communication' ; which is different than broadcast.
One-way pagers, which in the context of the discussion is what are being referred to, are no different than broadcast. The transmitters do not know where the pager is located because the pager emits nothing more than the miniscule signals leaked from the local oscillator. Those can be picked up no further than a yard, possibly two in the worst case, from the pager. Nobody is tracking the pager user.
And that means that no, it isn't true "communication", because it truly is one-way and there is no ACK to go with your asinine waterfall in Arizona.
A pager routinely hits a cell tower and emits user-identifiable data that will always be relayed through a carrier network that is part of the state apparatus for spycraft.
Uhhh, no. My pager "hits" nothing. It is a receive-only device. It has nothing to do with cell towers.
The only "spycraft" is that the pager company can record the phone number of the caller. The message itself can be completely meaningless to anyone who intercepts it.
Pagers havent been safe since the DEA realized they could intercept them during drug investigations.
Depends. If the caller is using a burner or a phone unattached to him, then the DEA can intercept all they want. They aren't going to know that "34592" as a message means "the kilo of coke is ready for pickup at the regular location" unless they've extracted that info from one of the two parties involved. In that case, we're already toast.
I don't like the idea of a computer inside my computer I don't have any control over.
Then you are destined for a life of unhappiness. Most of the I/O processing in your "computer" is done by dedicated computers that you have no control over. The video card, the network card, the IEEE1394 or USB.b The disk drives. Even the audio. Things that have DMA so they an access memory without the CPU knowing about it...
You may look at the device and see a part number that you can look up, but dollars to donuts that the part is programmable in some way that makes it be what it is. FPGA, perhaps. Or just a microprocessor with firmware in EEPROM.
I figure I have a legal right to be able to access it and run an audit on it.
If they make it so you can "audit" it (whatever that means) then they've made it accessible to bad guys, too.
Conflict of interest and right of first sale and a few more things spring to mind as to why that's not a something I'd want to do.
How do you imagine that this "unauditable" CPU is hindering you from reselling the computer? I'm really fascinated to hear the reasoning behind that.