Yes, and UBL's propoganda could potentially be a message to his cells.
What possible reason could there be for shouting his message from the hills then? I think the "slippery slope" argument that the left runs to is just not applicable here. UBL has basically copped to being behind 9/11, and he should answer for it.
Would you like to play that message to someone who lost a family member in the Pentagon? Or would you like to post it at the World Trade Center site? If this would bring hurt and pain to many, why would you want to bring it to them?
The merits of publishing his address are weak at best. In this case, I think even the Supreme Court would agree that censorship is not abridging any US Citizen's right of free press.
Do you think the risk is worth giving Usama the bully pulpit?
He's basically admitted to being behind 9/11, and he deserves to answer for what he has done. Publishing his words can bring nothing of value to me, and I think that %99 of America would agree.
It's not like this is a mystery here. The powers that be have decided Usama bin Laden is a terrorist who wishes to do harm to American. I agree. I have nothing to say to him and I don't want to hear what he has to say to me. I merely wish that justice is done to him and those who perpetrate acts of terror.
The problem is, there is no rationalization for what he has done. It is like listening to the UNAbomber's manifesto. He's a crazy Luddite, but his philosophy doesn't excuse his behaviour. It certainly doesn't merit him a bully pulpit.
Would you have protested the censoring of Hitler's propoganda about Jews? Or is that speech that deserves to be spread? Information that needs to be shared?
I used to think the same way. But then I went to http://www.technicalpursuit.com and I was floored. Just try one of the demos. I think this stuff might be powerful enough to do %80 of your "corporate" desktop tasks (email, calendar, browser, database access, spreadsheet).
Not every answer can fit on a bumper sticker, the world is a pretty complex place.
The world might be so complex as to not allow John Kerry to control other country's troups. Why would France and Germany sudden want to help John Kerry rather than George Bush?
I hope I didn't confuse you with a complex thought.
I'm in the same boat as you, I'm under 30 and have an extra class license. I also live in a heavily populated area, and any desirable home features a shiny covenant that says I can't even think about an antenna.
That being said, I think there is still plenty of utility for HF comms. You are right, the old fart ham crowd is alive and well, reliving their youth with CW and SSB. But there is room for digital modes on HF. The military and other professionals use long-haul HF links reliably, but they use ALE, high speed digital modes, and other stuff.
Basically, stuff that would get you kicked off 80m, because you were "taking up 4 khz with that racket!"
Meanwhile, other hams view it as a great technical feat to use AM transmitters. "Your voice sounds so clean!"
Sure, because you are using 11 khz of bandwidth. But SSB is golden, we can't give up that bandwidth for a useful digital mode.
You forgot about HF NVIS (Near Vertical Incidence). If you use the right antenna (one that has a gain at high angles), and the right frequency (3-10 mhz typical) you can provide REGIONAL communications with only a few watts of power. Regional being 300 miles or so.
Let's see your FRS, GMRS, WiMax, 3G and 802.11g/whatever trunked VHF/UHF system your fire unit uses talk to someone in a canyon 150 miles away on the other side of the mountain range.
Or a ship 300 miles offshore.
I guess those scenarios are irrelevant to our day and age.
I guess you can tell the family that their kid died in a forest fire because he couldn't raise help from base camp on the other side of the mountain, because little Johnny was playing Doom III on his BPL line.
Instead of using the wires as transmission media, wrap fiber optic cables in the power lines. Then you can use the power lines to move massive amounts of data interference free.
The problem with this is the fact that it wouldn't make economic sense. Bandwidth is pretty cheap already. The real problem is the "last mile" which the power companies purport to solve.
It's not worth worrying about because the whole scheme is going to collapse under its own technical stupidity. The infrastructure doesn't support it, and the amount of money it would take to fix it doesn't justify the business case.
People with little technical knowlege are easily impressed, though.
"We could make the Internet come out of your power socket!"
Not only are all Part 97 devices licensed (Part 97 is the Amateur Radio Service regulations), but they have first class privledges on many of the bands they operate on. If there is a broadcaster anywhere near the frequency of a ham station (except on secondary bands like 40 meters), it is the broadcaster who will be shut down and fined.
Dude, you didn't even read your own link. The link states that the tube has nothing to do with the sound, it is the circuit topology. You could easily create a transistor circuit that sounds like your "valve sound". It would also be a waste of electricity, because class A amplifiers waste alot of power. If you like the linearity in exchange, I guess it is worth it for you. I would rather have higher power, in exchange for inaudible nonlinearities.
Socialism is a good idea, but not if you want a growing, vibrant economy.
Capitalism assures that those who are best able to use resources to produce more will end up controlling them.
In the case of the article, is it well-known that capitalist economies are usually lacking in basic research. Government stimulation of the economy through subsidized research is a good idea, if you want the health care system to improve.
The way to not improve the health care system is to subject everyone to the same low standard of treatment.
Mr. Fernhout: I read your "THE ABOLITION OF WORK" link.
I am mainly refering to this part:
Twenty years ago, Paul and Percival Goodman estimated that just five per cent of the work then being done--presumably the figure, if accurate, is lower now--would satisfy our minimal needs for food, clothing and shelter. Theirs was only an educated guess but the main point is quite clear: directly or indirectly, most work serves the unproductive purposes of commerce or social control. Right off the bat we can liberate tens of millions of salesmen, soldiers, managers, cops, stockbrockers, clergymen, bankers, lawyers, teachers, landlords, security guards, ad-men and everyone who works for them. There is a snowball effect since every time you idle some bigshot you liberate his flunkeys and underlings also. Thus the economy implodes.
I think anyone who assumes that we can get rid of all of those roles in a society, and still have a functioning society, can be properly classified as an anarchist.
It is true that only 5 percent of the population is needed for the entire popluation to have basic needs satisfied. However, in order to do that, those 5 percent would have to use automation of some sort.
That automation would require a significant base of trained people who know how to design and use it. And those people would need their tools created from somewhere.
After awhile, you have the economy again.
The article suggests Marxism with the social classes removed. It suggests a "player's paradise" would arise if we just unbound the player from the droll of his everyday responsibilities.
It would work really well, until someone down the block had a better toy to play with.
Money, economics, et. al. are merely means to measure work that is produce. People don't talk about work, because it would be silly to talk about the benefits of a non existant job. Or the rates on a non-existant loan.
You and your anarchist kind can go to to some tropical island and see if it turns out like Swiss Family Robinson or Lord of the Flies.
Just be careful that someone doesn't shoot you because they had the sun in their eyes.
I am senior in Electrical Engineering at Purdue, (focus in communications design) and I am also the recent purchaser of a GSM cell phone from AT&T Wireless (they cover Indy, Lafayette, and Miami).
I got the new Ericsson T68, which is a great phone if you want bluetooth and lots of features in a small package. It is a very poor phone if you want to be able to pull in a distant cell site or if you are being overloaded with intermod.
I am disappointed with the coverage provided by AT&T here in general, but I am also happy about one thing: once my contract is up, I can keep the phone and move to a different provider. That is the key to getting the cell phone providers to truly compete on the quality factor.
Right now the Europeans who manufacture the GSM phones are providing the 1900 Mhz band as an afterthought in terms of RF design quality, but I see that as slowly changing. I think that the number of GSM providers is growing to begin to reach a critical mass, and when that happens, I think you will see the European style of pay-as-you go type service packages with increasing coverage.
American GSM is at a disadvantage being at 1900 Mhz compared to European GSM when you talk about attenuation through buildings and such. However, I think that if enough providers get into the American GSM market, they are going to end up competing over subscribers who have enough portability to choose a service provider based on their quality of service, rather than how many minutes they are offering for their 5 year contract. Heck, maybe one day a provider will offer incoming calls for free (woah, what a concept)
Of course, maybe this just means that American GSM will die an ugly death because no company will be willing to spend down the infrastructure costs to produce a truly good network. That does not seem to be the case right now though.
While this is correct, there is a mystery as to why the surface of the sun is relatively cold compared to the other regions below and above it. Current theory is that it is due to the magnetic swirl that occurs near the surface, which gives the Sun a granular appearance. The power output figure you calcuated assumes a point source.
Slashdot Mirror
I've been wanting to smack Bush with a stick that says "Love thy neighbor" for a long time.
I hope that the smacking is a loving smack, or else you just contridicted yourself.
Yes, and UBL's propoganda could potentially be a message to his cells.
What possible reason could there be for shouting his message from the hills then? I think the "slippery slope" argument that the left runs to is just not applicable here. UBL has basically copped to being behind 9/11, and he should answer for it.
Would you like to play that message to someone who lost a family member in the Pentagon? Or would you like to post it at the World Trade Center site? If this would bring hurt and pain to many, why would you want to bring it to them?
The merits of publishing his address are weak at best. In this case, I think even the Supreme Court would agree that censorship is not abridging any US Citizen's right of free press.
Yeah, they could. How do you know?
Do you think the risk is worth giving Usama the bully pulpit?
He's basically admitted to being behind 9/11, and he deserves to answer for what he has done. Publishing his words can bring nothing of value to me, and I think that %99 of America would agree.
It's not like this is a mystery here. The powers that be have decided Usama bin Laden is a terrorist who wishes to do harm to American. I agree. I have nothing to say to him and I don't want to hear what he has to say to me. I merely wish that justice is done to him and those who perpetrate acts of terror.
The problem is, there is no rationalization for what he has done. It is like listening to the UNAbomber's manifesto. He's a crazy Luddite, but his philosophy doesn't excuse his behaviour. It certainly doesn't merit him a bully pulpit.
Would you have protested the censoring of Hitler's propoganda about Jews? Or is that speech that deserves to be spread? Information that needs to be shared?
Yeah, if by "free speech" you mean "allow terrorists to broadcast propoganda with possible underlying go codes for their cells".
Gee, it's a shame to lose that kind of speech.
I used to think the same way. But then I went to
http://www.technicalpursuit.com and I was floored. Just try one of the demos. I think this stuff might be powerful enough to do %80 of your "corporate" desktop tasks (email, calendar, browser, database access, spreadsheet).
Not every answer can fit on a bumper sticker, the world is a pretty complex place.
The world might be so complex as to not allow John Kerry to control other country's troups. Why would France and Germany sudden want to help John Kerry rather than George Bush?
I hope I didn't confuse you with a complex thought.
I'm in the same boat as you, I'm under 30 and have an extra class license. I also live in a heavily populated area, and any desirable home features a shiny covenant that says I can't even think about an antenna.
That being said, I think there is still plenty of utility for HF comms. You are right, the old fart ham crowd is alive and well, reliving their youth with CW and SSB. But there is room for digital modes on HF. The military and other professionals use long-haul HF links reliably, but they use ALE, high speed digital modes, and other stuff.
Basically, stuff that would get you kicked off 80m, because you were "taking up 4 khz with that racket!"
Meanwhile, other hams view it as a great technical feat to use AM transmitters.
"Your voice sounds so clean!"
Sure, because you are using 11 khz of bandwidth. But SSB is golden, we can't give up that bandwidth for a useful digital mode.
You forgot about HF NVIS (Near Vertical Incidence). If you use the right antenna (one that has a gain at high angles), and the right frequency (3-10 mhz typical) you can provide REGIONAL communications with only a few watts of power. Regional being 300 miles or so.
Let's see your FRS, GMRS, WiMax, 3G and 802.11g/whatever trunked VHF/UHF system your fire unit uses talk to someone in a canyon 150 miles away on the other side of the mountain range.
Or a ship 300 miles offshore.
I guess those scenarios are irrelevant to our day and age.
I guess you can tell the family that their kid died in a forest fire because he couldn't raise help from base camp on the other side of the mountain, because little Johnny was playing Doom III on his BPL line.
There is an easy way around the problem:
Instead of using the wires as transmission media, wrap fiber optic cables in the power lines.
Then you can use the power lines to move massive amounts of data interference free.
The problem with this is the fact that it wouldn't make economic sense. Bandwidth is pretty cheap already. The real problem is the "last mile" which the power companies purport to solve.
It's not worth worrying about because the whole scheme is going to collapse under its own technical stupidity. The infrastructure doesn't support it, and the amount of money it would take to fix it doesn't justify the business case.
People with little technical knowlege are easily impressed, though.
"We could make the Internet come out of your power socket!"
the bane of slashdot.
A few loudmouth idiots can overtake the whole debate.
Not only are all Part 97 devices licensed (Part 97 is the Amateur Radio Service regulations), but they have first class privledges on many of the bands they operate on. If there is a broadcaster anywhere near the frequency of a ham station (except on secondary bands like 40 meters), it is the broadcaster who will be shut down and fined.
I don't have a problem with it, except in the case that people karma-whore and then use it for commercial gain.
Whatever.
Dude, you didn't even read your own link. The link states that the tube has nothing to do with the sound, it is the circuit topology. You could easily create a transistor circuit that sounds like your "valve sound". It would also be a waste of electricity, because class A amplifiers waste alot of power. If you like the linearity in exchange, I guess it is worth it for you. I would rather have higher power, in exchange for inaudible nonlinearities.
Socialism is a good idea, but not if you want a growing, vibrant economy.
Capitalism assures that those who are best able to use resources to produce more will end up controlling them.
In the case of the article, is it well-known that capitalist economies are usually lacking in basic research. Government stimulation of the economy through subsidized research is a good idea, if you want the health care system to improve.
The way to not improve the health care system is to subject everyone to the same low standard of treatment.
Dude, Verizon is a merger of Bell Atlantic and GTE.
I read your "THE ABOLITION OF WORK" link.
I am mainly refering to this part:
I think anyone who assumes that we can get rid of all of those roles in a society, and still have a functioning society, can be properly classified as an anarchist.
It is true that only 5 percent of the population is needed for the entire popluation to have basic needs satisfied. However, in order to do that, those 5 percent would have to use automation of some sort.
That automation would require a significant base of trained people who know how to design and use it. And those people would need their tools created from somewhere.
After awhile, you have the economy again.
The article suggests Marxism with the social classes removed. It suggests a "player's paradise" would arise if we just unbound the player from the droll of his everyday responsibilities.
It would work really well, until someone down the block had a better toy to play with.
Alright, Mr. Iconoclast:
How do you define a society that has no work?
Money, economics, et. al. are merely means to measure work that is produce. People don't talk about work, because it would be silly to talk about the benefits of a non existant job. Or the rates on a non-existant loan.
You and your anarchist kind can go to to some tropical island and see if it turns out like Swiss Family Robinson or Lord of the Flies.
Just be careful that someone doesn't shoot you because they had the sun in their eyes.
Well a genious Perl programmer would have his code look like it came from /dev/urandom too.
Perl is a write-only language.
Dude, 1996 called, they want their linux distro back.
Wow, AC! What a great idea.
If only we could convert "objectivity" to
a numerical scale in an objective fashion.
Oh wait.
Good plan, but your UID is a bit too high to make it work.
There was a factory sign that said
"Thank you for working"
Seriously!
I am senior in Electrical Engineering at Purdue, (focus in communications design) and I am also the recent purchaser of a GSM cell phone from AT&T Wireless (they cover Indy, Lafayette, and
Miami).
I got the new Ericsson T68, which is a great phone if you want bluetooth and lots of features in a small package. It is a very poor phone if you want to be able to pull in a distant cell site or if you are being overloaded with intermod.
I am disappointed with the coverage provided by AT&T here in general, but I am also happy about one thing: once my contract is up, I can keep the phone and move to a different provider. That is the key to getting the cell phone providers to truly compete on the quality factor.
Right now the Europeans who manufacture the GSM phones are providing the 1900 Mhz band as an afterthought in terms of RF design quality, but I see that as slowly changing. I think that the number of GSM providers is growing to begin to reach a critical mass, and when that happens, I think you will see the European style of pay-as-you go type service packages with increasing coverage.
American GSM is at a disadvantage being at 1900 Mhz compared to European GSM when you talk about attenuation through buildings and such. However, I think that if enough providers get into the American GSM market, they are going to end up competing over subscribers who have enough portability to choose a service provider based on their quality of service, rather than how many minutes they are offering for their 5 year contract. Heck, maybe one day a provider will offer incoming calls for free (woah, what a concept)
Of course, maybe this just means that American GSM will die an ugly death because no company will be willing to spend down the infrastructure costs to produce a truly good network. That does not seem to be the case right now though.
While this is correct, there is a mystery as to why the surface of the sun is relatively cold compared to the other regions below and above it. Current theory is that it is due to the magnetic swirl that occurs near the surface, which gives the Sun a granular appearance. The power output figure you calcuated assumes a point source.