The technologies themselves might well continue to be available, but they may not only be rendered wholly obsolete by future technologies,
This exhibits the fallacy that newer technology "wholly obsoletes" older. It demonstrates just one reason why wired networking will not be "wholly" obsoleted by wireless. There are simply too many places where wireless cannot do the job no matter how much bandwidth wireless comes up with, either because wireless signals interfere with other stuff or they interfere with each other. I can run 100 cat6 cables in a conduit all operating at full duplex gigabit speeds. How many channels are there that don't overlap at 2.4 and 5GHz? Can you add frequencies as easily as I can run more cable?
And when you transmit your private data and technology has improved to the point that you might as well transmit it in the clear, my wires will still limit the ability of casual listeners to intercept that private data.
The error, I maintain, was on the part of the managers of the radio telescope, believing that allowing a community to develop there while maintaining a radio-free zone could somehow ever hope to be perpetually viable.
You don't know they believed that, nor do you consider the issue of "allowing" or "not allowing" people to do things under known limitations. Should all human activity that "is allowed" under certain restrictions be prohibited altogether instead?
This cannot be filtered at the Ham antenna. The filtering has to be done at the neighbor's TV.
I didn't say it was filtered at the ham antenna, I said it was filtered at the TV.
What you ignored was that I was speaking from the point of view of the TV OWNER. You helpful ham come over to HIS house with YOUR FILTER in an attempt at filtering out YOUR INTERFERENCE with his TV, attach it to his antenna connection, and if the TV stops working HE SUES YOU FOR BREAKING HIS TV. Do you get it now? Why the hell do you think I'd say anything about him suing you for breaking his TV is all you did is put a filter on YOUR antenna? Stop trying to clarify this for me and start thinking about what was actually said.
But you're still wrong. Hamfests are rife with filters for hams to attach to their antenna feeds to reduce TV interference to their neighbors. They're called "low pass filters", and they are designed to filter out the harmonics from HF radio transmitters that are poorly designed, operated, or connected. They go on the HAM antenna and reduce or eliminate interference in the NEIGHBOR'S TV. In other words, that kind of interference is filtered AT THE HAM ANTENNA.
And you are again wrong in that this kind of interference is, indeed, transmitted BY THE HAM and is OUTSIDE THE HAM BANDS. It is NOT legal for a ham to transmit signals in the TV bands "by accident", and it is the ham's responsibility to clean up his act if he is doing that. You can't install a low pass filter on the neighbor's TV to solve this problem, only on the ham antenna feed.
Right... and why should you have to decrypt that dvd movie you bought to watch it on your Linux computer, when you could have chosen to buy an unencrypted dvd instead? Oh, wait...
What the hell does that have to do with people living in a place where they know the law says they can't do a lot of things using RF? The law CAME FIRST. But you actually prove my point. I have to "decrypt" (I actually don't do anything, it happens automatically) the DVD because that's the way it is sold. I have no right to demand that they sell the DVD without encryption, although you assume the right to demand that the radio telescopes move.
If the radio telescope institution has more right to be there, then the town needs to get the hell out... now. Before the problems get any worse.
If the people there want to use radio for things, then yes, they need to get out. The radio telescope was there first. The law came shortly thereafter.
I want to smoke at work. The law says I cannot. Should the workplace change, or should I?
That interference comes from the audio circuitry on the TV not being properly sheilded - a pulsing relatively high power radio transmitter close to a non-linear circuit.
And the rejection at that point is... not so great. Like I said.
Rejection is not limited to rejection in the first amp or even the first IF.
Designed and tested with the filter, shipped without it because they're expected to be connected to Cable, AFAIK. As for confiscation/destruction, I don't think that's realistic, regardless of whether that's what's "on paper".
In the US, unintentional radiators must comply with Part 15 of the 47 CFR. They must be tested to comply with those rules, and the way they are tested is the way they are certificated for sale.
Sale of unapproved radio equipment is a federal crime. People who have done that have had the equipment confiscated.
Test with, sold without, that's not meeting the certification.
And, sadly, most of the interference issues would not be solved by installing a filter on the antenna,
That wouldn't help at all because the issue is the TV being desensitized by a signal that is out-of-band for TV, but in-band for Ham radio. You cannot filter out the signal that you're trying to transmit, as that defeats the purpose.
If the signal that is interfering with the TV is coming in the antenna connection, then installing a filter on that connection is exactly how you'd solve the problem. Yes, you'd filter out the signal that the ham is transmitting whether it is direct interference (the most common) or desense.
Well, no, not in this case -- remember, we're talking about TVs receiving broadcast TV that are the problem -- the signal causing the TV a problem is coming from the TV antenna, and (generally) not from "leakage".
Yes, in many cases the interference is coming in from someplace besides the antenna.
You've got the right idea, though --
Yes, I know I've got it right. Thanks for agreeing. Where you come up with the bit about installing a filter on the antenna not helping at all is, well, just wrong. If the interference comes in the antenna, which you just said it did, then putting a filter on the antenna connection is going to work. That's why they sell them.
Some filtering between the TV antenna and the TV is all that's required to reduce the mount of the Ham transmission gets to the TV's receiver.
When I said that you said it would not help at all. Now it will.
Pick one and stick with it.
For untuned interference, like your cell phone trying to interfere with your TV, rejection is great.
Funny, but TVs are one of the most common places I hear the "brrzzzztt brrrrzzzzzt" from my GSM cellphone. When I have the ringer off, it's how I know I just got an SMS or someone tried to call me. Rejection not so hot, I think.
So I went to the NAB a couple months later and had a ball going around to the various transmitter makers showing that letter and asking for bids on a 4.78 watt transmitter.
Kewl. QRP commercial television station. Do you QSL?
I think a lot of the "mountain area" VHF TV stations haven't been forced to digital is because, at least in Oregon, they are translators put up by a group of local residents so they could get ANY TV. Those groups are long gone and nobody has much money to buy new equipment, so the residents got their legislators to exempt them. I think.
But if commonplace technology in a nearby town is going to start interfering with that purpose, then it stands to reason that they should relocate.
They were there first. And it is not like the people in that area didn't know about the radio quiet zone and it suddenly snuck up on them while they were napping.
Wow, a small schoolhouse has to use wired networking. What a shame. Maybe they can pick up their cellphones and call their senators to complain. Oh wait, no they can't. They have to use a landline. I wonder why that is?
Yeah? Well, you young whippersnapper, you had luxury. Pure luxury. I remember the days we used cat three. Some fine times those were, since we moved up from that ten-base-two cable stuff.
And before that, twinax. And when you wanted to hook something up, you didn't just "plug it in", you had to drill a hole in the cable and install a "vampire" tap with a MAU and then a whole 15 wires at the same time.
Now, get off my damn NRAO quiet zone, you damn youngster, I'm tryin' to sleep.
Sol is one God almighty powerful AM radio station, forces even KGO in San Fran off the air nights in most other markets.
The terms you are looking for are "propagation" and "ionosphere."
In fact, KGO reaches much further at night than in the daytime, not because the Sun is such a good AM radio source, but because of the ultraviolet radiation that comes from it NOT being there at night. This allows the D layer to dissipate, and the D layer is what absorbs the AM radio signal during the day. Without the D layer, and with a weaker E layer, the AM signal can refract off the F (combined F1 and F2) layer and bounce long distances.
And that improved propagation at night is why KGO has (or probably has, I'm not going to research it) lower power limits at night. They were, however, a clear channel station (three letter callsign tells you that) and thus had a protected frequency in the US. Now that clear channels have been done away with, there are smaller competitors, but still only one KGO.
Why don't you hear the Sun during the daytime on your AM radio? You do, a bit. The same ultraviolet radiation that creates the D layer also causes the AM signal from the Sun to be absorbed before it reaches you. The satellite services certainly do "hear the Sun" whenever the Sun is positioned behind the specific satellite that a dish is pointed at, and that is the cause of the solar outages that happen every year.
However as you mentioned, these liberties also come with the restriction that the transmission not interfere with other frequencies --
Not entirely accurate. Some radio users are primary licensees. That means they get to interfere with everyone else. Not malicious or deliberate, but if there is interference it is the secondary, tertiary, or unlicensed users who have to put up with it.
FRS, wireless baby monitors, and wifi are all unlicensed devices, and as such any interference to them from licensed users is too bad, so sad, but more important, any interference they CAUSE to licensed users is "shut it off" notice time.
That's why people who have unlicensed garage door openers can't sue anyone when Air Force 1 stops them from working.
There's one catch, though: modern TVs lack an input filter that they're supposed to have by design which would normally reject non-TV frequencies,
If they are lacking the filter, then they were designed that way. Those devices are FCC approved and certificated, and if they were designed and tested for compliance with the filter but are being built without it, they are in violation of federal law (47CFR15) and can be confiscated and destroyed.
In those cases filtering needs to be added back to the TV to isolate it from the Ham transmissions -- it's my understandnig that this filter can be provided by the TV manufacturer upon request.
Since it is not really part of the design, and the manual for the TV clearly states that this device must accept interference (as part of the Part 15 Class B conformance statement), probably not. I think you can find commercial filters to use in this case, but the TV owner is stuck paying for them. And good operating practice says that the ham is not going to touch the TV to try to fix it, otherwise he becomes liable for any perceived failures of that TV. "Hey, the day after you installed your filter to stop your interference, the TV stopped working altogether, and I'm suing you, you basterd."
And, sadly, most of the interference issues would not be solved by installing a filter on the antenna, since a lot of the interference issues comes from modern, cheap ass plastic housings on the low price consumer equipment. You can't stop an interfering signal that is leaking into the electronics through the side of the TV by installing a filter on the antenna lead. You need to install shielding on the TV itself.
R F C means "Request for Comment". Sound slike a proposal you publish, and you hope other people of the same profession give usefull comments.
And the RFC process results in an RFC that is the standard for how things are supposed to work on the Internet. You can argue that it is just a "request for comment", but it is much more than the name implies, and anyone who programs things that interact with the Internet should know that.
For example, there is an RFC that specifies exactly what characters are valid in the local part of an email address. These "programmers" are substituting their empirical experience in what they've seen in email addresses and rejecting anything outside that. And they are no doubt native English speakers who are just ignorant and willfully so, based on their refusal to accept documented corrections to their pristine elegant code.
In other countries such a standard is called a Norm.
The Internet is a global thing. There are no "other countries" where RFC are involved.
You need more than the ability to read english to navigate in the documentary space of software.
I think that's why I brought this up in a reply to a comment that said that the issue was non-English programmers. Even native English speakers doing things on the web (Internet) are ignoring Internet standards, so making it a language issue is not putting the blame where it belongs.
I've never seen a UPS driver carry anything but packages, a tablet, and a hand cart.
Well, we know he carries a pen. He also carries a wallet with his driver's license in it, and probably a UPS ID of some kind. So, since a screwdriver that could pry open a locked screen door would fit in one of his pockets with all that other stuff you've never seen him carrying but we know he must be, then... And there's probably a small toolkit in the truck to deal with simple breakdowns and fixes, so I imagine he could walk 20 feet back to the truck to pull a screwdriver out of that, instead of dealing with the paper work of a non-delivery notice and re-sorting the package for the next day.
And the screen door that was allegedly locked, how in the world would you ever know since you apparently never use that entrance?
Because I locked it. Doh! I locked both it and then the main door as I closed them from the inside the last time I used that entrance. Very simple.
And even then, I have had screen doors on my own house which were allegedly locked open in a strong wind, or just by giving them a little tug. At least on mine, the latches are shit.
Mine doesn't open with just a tug. If you pull on it, you know it is locked, and if you know it is locked, you know that you shouldn't break in and hide things behind it. Honest people know that, at least.
Meanwhile: Spam. I routinely have shipping companies send me SMS messages with progress updates, and have never received anything from them that I did not explicitly ask for.
I thought I dealt with that already. You can't ask UPS to send you progress updates for a package you don't know is coming, or don't know the tracking number for. If you know the tracking number and that it is coming, then you'll expect to find it and when the website says "delivered" you'll know you need to look for it. No tracking number, no ability to ask for SMSs or look for delivery.
And spam? UPS has my email address, and they've actually sent me dunning notices for shipments that I had nothing to do with because... I don't know why, really. Maybe you ask for dunning notices for other people's shipments, but I don't, so I can say that I've gotten things from carriers that I did not ask for just because they had my info on file.
You're assuming that the majority of web programmer reads RFCs and the HTML5 spec.
It's not unreasonable to think some people in less anglocentric parts
Given the number of incorrectly programmed things floating about the web, I'd say it was a poor assumption to assume that ANY web programmer has read an RFC. From your own experience, how many websites now include code to "protect the user" from entering an invalid email address, and don't know the correct syntax for an email address?
I'm dealing with a US federal government website that is required for certain members of the public, and the registration form it demands asks for an email address. Not only does it refuse to accept any but a very small number of non-alphanumeric characters in the username, it puts a 2 to 4 character mandate on the TLD. (Most broken email validators just reject many of the valid characters.) If you're email address is in the.museum TLD, you're hosed.
My bank. Daily Steals website -- which used to accept the same addresses it now rejects.
I've even told them the failing URL and given them the correct (or more correct) javascript, and not a single one has been fixed in the several years this has been going on.
Essentially no mail is hand sorted any longer: they have machines that can read handwritten zip codes.
Well, yes, if you happen to be so big that you have your own zip code, then all of your mail will be machine sorted by zip code.
The rest of us are all part of a large area covered by one zip code, and once the mail gets to the local post office the carriers still have to sort the mail by house.
You don't think they stand at your mailbox and sift through their entire bag looking for stuff addressed to you, do you?
...the graph connections that have been growing since Day 1 are a staggering resource for spies. As would be a list of people who don't appear in the graphs.
If they have a list of people who aren't in the graph, and the graph, then don't they have, basically, a list of EVERYONE?
You might as well join the graph, then, since they have you on a list anyway.
It costs money to stock different sizes of boxes and to pick the right one the first time. Or pick the wrong one the first time, I mean. Repacking takes time. Their automated warehouse may also not be set up for tiny boxes...
While the ebay shipper is usually doing things on a small scale by hand to start with.
but I challenge anyone to think of a single instance of "privacy" that isn't also "dishonest" if you assume that withholding the truth is also being dishonest.
I challenge anyone who can think of a single instance of when the sun didn't come up in the west, assuming that "west" means "the direction the sun comes up in".
Yes people let us live in fear. Fear the bogeyman. Hide your truth. Isn't it obvious this is the path to a brighter future.
Interestingly enough, I just did a global birth certificate search, and besides not finding one for a "Barrack Obama" in the US or any protectorate or territory thereof (which we all knew anyway), I did find one listing an official name of "Jmc23". Just "Jmc23". Parents listed as "Run Dmc" and "J-Lo".
This is a good thing: A package that is cannot be seen is a package that will not be casually stolen.
A package that I cannot see is one that I don't know has been delivered.
Here's the full story behind my short comment. My pager company called me one day, said they were changing the system in my area in a couple of months, and could they send me a new pager. Sure, I said. It doesn't cost me anything, right? Nope. Ok.
A couple of months go by. Nothing has arrived, as far as I know. I call them back. Where's the pager? No, I haven't gotten one. We initiate a lost shipment report. They say they'll send another.
A couple of days later I'm coming home and I see my front porch screen door ajar. Just a tiny bit, almost unnoticeable. I almost didn't notice, and I had to think for a minute to realize what was wrong with the picture I was seeing. I go look, and sure enough, there is not just one UPS package there, there are two. Stuffed between the main door and behind the screen door that had been LOCKED. The first package was small enough that the door still closed after the UPS driver pried the door open to hide it. The second one didn't fit, by about 1/8 inch. That's the only way I found either one.
They pried open a locked door to hide the package. I'm supposed to look behind locked doors how many times per week just in case UPS broke one open to hide something there?
Previous example: someone sent me a string of dried fresh peppers as a surprise. UPS hid it around the corner of my house. I found it two weeks later after a few days of rain, with a wonderful coat of mold and fur on the peppers, in a soggy cardboard box. Surprise!
If you want to know when your stuff shows up just have them send you an SMS or an email upon delivery. It's easy to do, right from the tracking page.
If you don't have the tracking number you can't find anything on the tracking page. If you don't know it is coming, you don't know that you are supposed to have a tracking number to go to their web page.
I NEVER have things shipped to my house for specifically this reason. Everything I get there is a surprise and something I didn't order. I don't have the tracking numbers for things I don't know have been sent to me.
As for giving UPS my cell phone number so they can spam SMS me, sure. Right. They pry open locked doors so they don't have to deal with signatures on packages, I'm supposed to trust them with my cell number. Or email address for the same thing. Sure.
You don't seem to realize that this is exactly what we are talking about. Cutting out the Saturday delivery enables cost savings by reducing the number of man-hours sunk delivering the mail.
No, cutting Saturday delivery will do nothing to the volume of mail. Anything not delivered Saturday will show up on Monday. I don't count delivering the mail as "man-hours sunk", it is a valid expense for a valid service. Yes, the man-hours spent delivering will be less, but the time to sort it all will still be the same. He's going to sort it on Saturday or sort twice as much on Monday.
The proposed idea ($5 opt-out) reduces demand even further by also reducing the volume of junk mail,
You think that having the local post office throw my email away for me is going to reduce the volume of mail overall? Of course not. The only way that the volume would go down is if that opt-out system was invoked before the junk mail hit the first processing center. I.e., it never got sent at all. By not sending it at all, the post office will lose much more in postage than they'll make in a $5 fee. (And they'll spend a bundle putting a means of collecting that fee in place, and managing the data that goes with it.)
It will reduce the amount that is delivered, but it takes the same amount of time for the postman to deliver one letter or a handful. It's the sorting that takes the time, and he'll still have to sort it, and do it by individual option.
Where exactly do you live? The US Post Office stopped delivering mail to individual addresses decades ago.
Well, I know that they were still delivering to my individual address as late as the end of last week. I know they delivered to my Mom's individual address as late as the day after Christmas, because I was home to pick up my presents and she got mail that day. She lives a couple of miles out of town.
I haven't gotten anything since last Friday, so maybe they did stop and just didn't tell me about it. In either case, that's much less than "decades ago".
Slashdot Mirror
The technologies themselves might well continue to be available, but they may not only be rendered wholly obsolete by future technologies,
This exhibits the fallacy that newer technology "wholly obsoletes" older. It demonstrates just one reason why wired networking will not be "wholly" obsoleted by wireless. There are simply too many places where wireless cannot do the job no matter how much bandwidth wireless comes up with, either because wireless signals interfere with other stuff or they interfere with each other. I can run 100 cat6 cables in a conduit all operating at full duplex gigabit speeds. How many channels are there that don't overlap at 2.4 and 5GHz? Can you add frequencies as easily as I can run more cable?
And when you transmit your private data and technology has improved to the point that you might as well transmit it in the clear, my wires will still limit the ability of casual listeners to intercept that private data.
The error, I maintain, was on the part of the managers of the radio telescope, believing that allowing a community to develop there while maintaining a radio-free zone could somehow ever hope to be perpetually viable.
You don't know they believed that, nor do you consider the issue of "allowing" or "not allowing" people to do things under known limitations. Should all human activity that "is allowed" under certain restrictions be prohibited altogether instead?
This cannot be filtered at the Ham antenna. The filtering has to be done at the neighbor's TV.
I didn't say it was filtered at the ham antenna, I said it was filtered at the TV.
What you ignored was that I was speaking from the point of view of the TV OWNER. You helpful ham come over to HIS house with YOUR FILTER in an attempt at filtering out YOUR INTERFERENCE with his TV, attach it to his antenna connection, and if the TV stops working HE SUES YOU FOR BREAKING HIS TV. Do you get it now? Why the hell do you think I'd say anything about him suing you for breaking his TV is all you did is put a filter on YOUR antenna? Stop trying to clarify this for me and start thinking about what was actually said.
But you're still wrong. Hamfests are rife with filters for hams to attach to their antenna feeds to reduce TV interference to their neighbors. They're called "low pass filters", and they are designed to filter out the harmonics from HF radio transmitters that are poorly designed, operated, or connected. They go on the HAM antenna and reduce or eliminate interference in the NEIGHBOR'S TV. In other words, that kind of interference is filtered AT THE HAM ANTENNA.
And you are again wrong in that this kind of interference is, indeed, transmitted BY THE HAM and is OUTSIDE THE HAM BANDS. It is NOT legal for a ham to transmit signals in the TV bands "by accident", and it is the ham's responsibility to clean up his act if he is doing that. You can't install a low pass filter on the neighbor's TV to solve this problem, only on the ham antenna feed.
What their consumers really want is for Mountain Dew Throwback to replace regular Mountain Dew.
Don't care about regular Dew. Too much sugar.
This consumer wants Diet Voltage. It was da bomb when it was being tested.
Right... and why should you have to decrypt that dvd movie you bought to watch it on your Linux computer, when you could have chosen to buy an unencrypted dvd instead? Oh, wait...
What the hell does that have to do with people living in a place where they know the law says they can't do a lot of things using RF? The law CAME FIRST. But you actually prove my point. I have to "decrypt" (I actually don't do anything, it happens automatically) the DVD because that's the way it is sold. I have no right to demand that they sell the DVD without encryption, although you assume the right to demand that the radio telescopes move.
If the radio telescope institution has more right to be there, then the town needs to get the hell out... now. Before the problems get any worse.
If the people there want to use radio for things, then yes, they need to get out. The radio telescope was there first. The law came shortly thereafter.
I want to smoke at work. The law says I cannot. Should the workplace change, or should I?
That interference comes from the audio circuitry on the TV not being properly sheilded - a pulsing relatively high power radio transmitter close to a non-linear circuit.
And the rejection at that point is ... not so great. Like I said.
Rejection is not limited to rejection in the first amp or even the first IF.
Designed and tested with the filter, shipped without it because they're expected to be connected to Cable, AFAIK. As for confiscation/destruction, I don't think that's realistic, regardless of whether that's what's "on paper".
In the US, unintentional radiators must comply with Part 15 of the 47 CFR. They must be tested to comply with those rules, and the way they are tested is the way they are certificated for sale.
Sale of unapproved radio equipment is a federal crime. People who have done that have had the equipment confiscated.
Test with, sold without, that's not meeting the certification.
And, sadly, most of the interference issues would not be solved by installing a filter on the antenna,
That wouldn't help at all because the issue is the TV being desensitized by a signal that is out-of-band for TV, but in-band for Ham radio. You cannot filter out the signal that you're trying to transmit, as that defeats the purpose.
If the signal that is interfering with the TV is coming in the antenna connection, then installing a filter on that connection is exactly how you'd solve the problem. Yes, you'd filter out the signal that the ham is transmitting whether it is direct interference (the most common) or desense.
Well, no, not in this case -- remember, we're talking about TVs receiving broadcast TV that are the problem -- the signal causing the TV a problem is coming from the TV antenna, and (generally) not from "leakage".
Yes, in many cases the interference is coming in from someplace besides the antenna.
You've got the right idea, though --
Yes, I know I've got it right. Thanks for agreeing. Where you come up with the bit about installing a filter on the antenna not helping at all is, well, just wrong. If the interference comes in the antenna, which you just said it did, then putting a filter on the antenna connection is going to work. That's why they sell them.
Some filtering between the TV antenna and the TV is all that's required to reduce the mount of the Ham transmission gets to the TV's receiver.
When I said that you said it would not help at all. Now it will. Pick one and stick with it.
For untuned interference, like your cell phone trying to interfere with your TV, rejection is great.
Funny, but TVs are one of the most common places I hear the "brrzzzztt brrrrzzzzzt" from my GSM cellphone. When I have the ringer off, it's how I know I just got an SMS or someone tried to call me. Rejection not so hot, I think.
So I went to the NAB a couple months later and had a ball going around to the various transmitter makers showing that letter and asking for bids on a 4.78 watt transmitter.
Kewl. QRP commercial television station. Do you QSL?
I think a lot of the "mountain area" VHF TV stations haven't been forced to digital is because, at least in Oregon, they are translators put up by a group of local residents so they could get ANY TV. Those groups are long gone and nobody has much money to buy new equipment, so the residents got their legislators to exempt them. I think.
Nice story. Thanks.
But if commonplace technology in a nearby town is going to start interfering with that purpose, then it stands to reason that they should relocate.
They were there first. And it is not like the people in that area didn't know about the radio quiet zone and it suddenly snuck up on them while they were napping.
Wow, a small schoolhouse has to use wired networking. What a shame. Maybe they can pick up their cellphones and call their senators to complain. Oh wait, no they can't. They have to use a landline. I wonder why that is?
Went by the name of CatFive,
Yeah? Well, you young whippersnapper, you had luxury. Pure luxury. I remember the days we used cat three. Some fine times those were, since we moved up from that ten-base-two cable stuff.
And before that, twinax. And when you wanted to hook something up, you didn't just "plug it in", you had to drill a hole in the cable and install a "vampire" tap with a MAU and then a whole 15 wires at the same time.
Now, get off my damn NRAO quiet zone, you damn youngster, I'm tryin' to sleep.
IPoAC would be better. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IP_over_Avian_Carriers
I always use AOL as my ISP, because they send their data on free-range birds, and them's pretty dang tasty if'n I do say so myself.
Sol is one God almighty powerful AM radio station, forces even KGO in San Fran off the air nights in most other markets.
The terms you are looking for are "propagation" and "ionosphere."
In fact, KGO reaches much further at night than in the daytime, not because the Sun is such a good AM radio source, but because of the ultraviolet radiation that comes from it NOT being there at night. This allows the D layer to dissipate, and the D layer is what absorbs the AM radio signal during the day. Without the D layer, and with a weaker E layer, the AM signal can refract off the F (combined F1 and F2) layer and bounce long distances.
And that improved propagation at night is why KGO has (or probably has, I'm not going to research it) lower power limits at night. They were, however, a clear channel station (three letter callsign tells you that) and thus had a protected frequency in the US. Now that clear channels have been done away with, there are smaller competitors, but still only one KGO.
Why don't you hear the Sun during the daytime on your AM radio? You do, a bit. The same ultraviolet radiation that creates the D layer also causes the AM signal from the Sun to be absorbed before it reaches you. The satellite services certainly do "hear the Sun" whenever the Sun is positioned behind the specific satellite that a dish is pointed at, and that is the cause of the solar outages that happen every year.
However as you mentioned, these liberties also come with the restriction that the transmission not interfere with other frequencies --
Not entirely accurate. Some radio users are primary licensees. That means they get to interfere with everyone else. Not malicious or deliberate, but if there is interference it is the secondary, tertiary, or unlicensed users who have to put up with it.
FRS, wireless baby monitors, and wifi are all unlicensed devices, and as such any interference to them from licensed users is too bad, so sad, but more important, any interference they CAUSE to licensed users is "shut it off" notice time.
That's why people who have unlicensed garage door openers can't sue anyone when Air Force 1 stops them from working.
There's one catch, though: modern TVs lack an input filter that they're supposed to have by design which would normally reject non-TV frequencies,
If they are lacking the filter, then they were designed that way. Those devices are FCC approved and certificated, and if they were designed and tested for compliance with the filter but are being built without it, they are in violation of federal law (47CFR15) and can be confiscated and destroyed.
In those cases filtering needs to be added back to the TV to isolate it from the Ham transmissions -- it's my understandnig that this filter can be provided by the TV manufacturer upon request.
Since it is not really part of the design, and the manual for the TV clearly states that this device must accept interference (as part of the Part 15 Class B conformance statement), probably not. I think you can find commercial filters to use in this case, but the TV owner is stuck paying for them. And good operating practice says that the ham is not going to touch the TV to try to fix it, otherwise he becomes liable for any perceived failures of that TV. "Hey, the day after you installed your filter to stop your interference, the TV stopped working altogether, and I'm suing you, you basterd."
And, sadly, most of the interference issues would not be solved by installing a filter on the antenna, since a lot of the interference issues comes from modern, cheap ass plastic housings on the low price consumer equipment. You can't stop an interfering signal that is leaking into the electronics through the side of the TV by installing a filter on the antenna lead. You need to install shielding on the TV itself.
Do you see any programming languages using sanscript or pictograms.
APL. Can't tell if it is sanscrit or pictograms, though.
And, of course, if someone comes out with an actual scripting language called "sanscript", it is probably written using sanscript. Just a guess.
R F C means "Request for Comment". Sound slike a proposal you publish, and you hope other people of the same profession give usefull comments.
And the RFC process results in an RFC that is the standard for how things are supposed to work on the Internet. You can argue that it is just a "request for comment", but it is much more than the name implies, and anyone who programs things that interact with the Internet should know that.
For example, there is an RFC that specifies exactly what characters are valid in the local part of an email address. These "programmers" are substituting their empirical experience in what they've seen in email addresses and rejecting anything outside that. And they are no doubt native English speakers who are just ignorant and willfully so, based on their refusal to accept documented corrections to their pristine elegant code.
In other countries such a standard is called a Norm.
The Internet is a global thing. There are no "other countries" where RFC are involved.
You need more than the ability to read english to navigate in the documentary space of software.
I think that's why I brought this up in a reply to a comment that said that the issue was non-English programmers. Even native English speakers doing things on the web (Internet) are ignoring Internet standards, so making it a language issue is not putting the blame where it belongs.
So the door had pry marks on it?
Yes.
I've never seen a UPS driver carry anything but packages, a tablet, and a hand cart.
Well, we know he carries a pen. He also carries a wallet with his driver's license in it, and probably a UPS ID of some kind. So, since a screwdriver that could pry open a locked screen door would fit in one of his pockets with all that other stuff you've never seen him carrying but we know he must be, then ... And there's probably a small toolkit in the truck to deal with simple breakdowns and fixes, so I imagine he could walk 20 feet back to the truck to pull a screwdriver out of that, instead of dealing with the paper work of a non-delivery notice and re-sorting the package for the next day.
And the screen door that was allegedly locked, how in the world would you ever know since you apparently never use that entrance?
Because I locked it. Doh! I locked both it and then the main door as I closed them from the inside the last time I used that entrance. Very simple.
And even then, I have had screen doors on my own house which were allegedly locked open in a strong wind, or just by giving them a little tug. At least on mine, the latches are shit.
Mine doesn't open with just a tug. If you pull on it, you know it is locked, and if you know it is locked, you know that you shouldn't break in and hide things behind it. Honest people know that, at least.
Meanwhile: Spam. I routinely have shipping companies send me SMS messages with progress updates, and have never received anything from them that I did not explicitly ask for.
I thought I dealt with that already. You can't ask UPS to send you progress updates for a package you don't know is coming, or don't know the tracking number for. If you know the tracking number and that it is coming, then you'll expect to find it and when the website says "delivered" you'll know you need to look for it. No tracking number, no ability to ask for SMSs or look for delivery.
And spam? UPS has my email address, and they've actually sent me dunning notices for shipments that I had nothing to do with because ... I don't know why, really. Maybe you ask for dunning notices for other people's shipments, but I don't, so I can say that I've gotten things from carriers that I did not ask for just because they had my info on file.
You're assuming that the majority of web programmer reads RFCs and the HTML5 spec. It's not unreasonable to think some people in less anglocentric parts
Given the number of incorrectly programmed things floating about the web, I'd say it was a poor assumption to assume that ANY web programmer has read an RFC. From your own experience, how many websites now include code to "protect the user" from entering an invalid email address, and don't know the correct syntax for an email address?
I'm dealing with a US federal government website that is required for certain members of the public, and the registration form it demands asks for an email address. Not only does it refuse to accept any but a very small number of non-alphanumeric characters in the username, it puts a 2 to 4 character mandate on the TLD. (Most broken email validators just reject many of the valid characters.) If you're email address is in the .museum TLD, you're hosed.
My bank. Daily Steals website -- which used to accept the same addresses it now rejects.
I've even told them the failing URL and given them the correct (or more correct) javascript, and not a single one has been fixed in the several years this has been going on.
Essentially no mail is hand sorted any longer: they have machines that can read handwritten zip codes.
Well, yes, if you happen to be so big that you have your own zip code, then all of your mail will be machine sorted by zip code.
The rest of us are all part of a large area covered by one zip code, and once the mail gets to the local post office the carriers still have to sort the mail by house.
You don't think they stand at your mailbox and sift through their entire bag looking for stuff addressed to you, do you?
...the graph connections that have been growing since Day 1 are a staggering resource for spies. As would be a list of people who don't appear in the graphs.
If they have a list of people who aren't in the graph, and the graph, then don't they have, basically, a list of EVERYONE?
You might as well join the graph, then, since they have you on a list anyway.
While the ebay shipper is usually doing things on a small scale by hand to start with.
but I challenge anyone to think of a single instance of "privacy" that isn't also "dishonest" if you assume that withholding the truth is also being dishonest.
I challenge anyone who can think of a single instance of when the sun didn't come up in the west, assuming that "west" means "the direction the sun comes up in".
Yes people let us live in fear. Fear the bogeyman. Hide your truth. Isn't it obvious this is the path to a brighter future.
Interestingly enough, I just did a global birth certificate search, and besides not finding one for a "Barrack Obama" in the US or any protectorate or territory thereof (which we all knew anyway), I did find one listing an official name of "Jmc23". Just "Jmc23". Parents listed as "Run Dmc" and "J-Lo".
This is a good thing: A package that is cannot be seen is a package that will not be casually stolen.
A package that I cannot see is one that I don't know has been delivered.
Here's the full story behind my short comment. My pager company called me one day, said they were changing the system in my area in a couple of months, and could they send me a new pager. Sure, I said. It doesn't cost me anything, right? Nope. Ok.
A couple of months go by. Nothing has arrived, as far as I know. I call them back. Where's the pager? No, I haven't gotten one. We initiate a lost shipment report. They say they'll send another.
A couple of days later I'm coming home and I see my front porch screen door ajar. Just a tiny bit, almost unnoticeable. I almost didn't notice, and I had to think for a minute to realize what was wrong with the picture I was seeing. I go look, and sure enough, there is not just one UPS package there, there are two. Stuffed between the main door and behind the screen door that had been LOCKED. The first package was small enough that the door still closed after the UPS driver pried the door open to hide it. The second one didn't fit, by about 1/8 inch. That's the only way I found either one.
They pried open a locked door to hide the package. I'm supposed to look behind locked doors how many times per week just in case UPS broke one open to hide something there?
Previous example: someone sent me a string of dried fresh peppers as a surprise. UPS hid it around the corner of my house. I found it two weeks later after a few days of rain, with a wonderful coat of mold and fur on the peppers, in a soggy cardboard box. Surprise!
If you want to know when your stuff shows up just have them send you an SMS or an email upon delivery. It's easy to do, right from the tracking page.
If you don't have the tracking number you can't find anything on the tracking page. If you don't know it is coming, you don't know that you are supposed to have a tracking number to go to their web page.
I NEVER have things shipped to my house for specifically this reason. Everything I get there is a surprise and something I didn't order. I don't have the tracking numbers for things I don't know have been sent to me.
As for giving UPS my cell phone number so they can spam SMS me, sure. Right. They pry open locked doors so they don't have to deal with signatures on packages, I'm supposed to trust them with my cell number. Or email address for the same thing. Sure.
You don't seem to realize that this is exactly what we are talking about. Cutting out the Saturday delivery enables cost savings by reducing the number of man-hours sunk delivering the mail.
No, cutting Saturday delivery will do nothing to the volume of mail. Anything not delivered Saturday will show up on Monday. I don't count delivering the mail as "man-hours sunk", it is a valid expense for a valid service. Yes, the man-hours spent delivering will be less, but the time to sort it all will still be the same. He's going to sort it on Saturday or sort twice as much on Monday.
The proposed idea ($5 opt-out) reduces demand even further by also reducing the volume of junk mail,
You think that having the local post office throw my email away for me is going to reduce the volume of mail overall? Of course not. The only way that the volume would go down is if that opt-out system was invoked before the junk mail hit the first processing center. I.e., it never got sent at all. By not sending it at all, the post office will lose much more in postage than they'll make in a $5 fee. (And they'll spend a bundle putting a means of collecting that fee in place, and managing the data that goes with it.)
It will reduce the amount that is delivered, but it takes the same amount of time for the postman to deliver one letter or a handful. It's the sorting that takes the time, and he'll still have to sort it, and do it by individual option.
Where exactly do you live? The US Post Office stopped delivering mail to individual addresses decades ago.
Well, I know that they were still delivering to my individual address as late as the end of last week. I know they delivered to my Mom's individual address as late as the day after Christmas, because I was home to pick up my presents and she got mail that day. She lives a couple of miles out of town.
I haven't gotten anything since last Friday, so maybe they did stop and just didn't tell me about it. In either case, that's much less than "decades ago".