There are those that want to draw lines, so as to refine their concept of definition.
Turns out, you can be a Buddhist Catholic/Christian, as Buddhism is a philosophy. Buddhism is mostly cast as monotheistic. But you can check Buddhism on a census form, and on other legal docs that describe a tick box as "your religion".
There are polytheistic religions, too, the largest following as Hinduism.
Following the tenets of Confucius, or Lao Tze, can also be described as religion or philosophy or both.
The commonality is that a philosophy can be religious. Atheism is a philosophy, and for some, a religion expressed as humanism, or secular humanism.
Each philosophy/religious branch has their radical orthodoxy, non-benign branches, although some would shun these branches, calling them heretics, apostates, and worse. Such a state may also mean that those believing the heresy to be worthy of death, as now is the strangeness between Sunni, Shiite, and other branches of Islam.
This occurred before in Christianity, many times. The Cathars, Bogomils, Protestants, Catholics, and others have often sent armies to kill, or terrorists (Guy Fawkes is a notable) to do their dirty work.
None of this is particularly new.
All this said, atheism just rejects god/God/Gods in toto as a philosophy. Organized or not, atheists can be self-described if they choose, as practicing atheism as a religion.
Underwriting and sponsorship are the briefest of ads. It's because people won't open their wallets, and electricity, facility, and meager salaries add up to money.
The FCC also has to ensure that there is staff to review and enforce licensing, the engineering that goes behind it, and the ongoing management of spectrum, as well as common carrier infrastructure, telephony, etc. None of this stuff comes free.
It's not ClearChannel that's made licensing expensive; an act of Congress allowed networks to own more than their fair share, and then this created a money-making opportunity to conglomerate and share resources, while dumbing down content to suit some MBA's target. The good turf was bought up and subsumed into a pit of trash radio.
Who to blame: Congress, for allowing the conglomeration and monopolizing of the airwaves by too few organizations. They allow this with telcos, wireless carriers, and many other industry segments.
The license expense, however, is real. It does take money to run the FCC. Without it, there'd be chaos. This isn't to defend the FCC, rather, to explain that licensing isn't a trivial, go to the license branch sort of activity. I can bounce a beam off the moon from my back yard as a ham radio operator. But I can't do this: run a pirate station-- without consequences. Spectrum management is non-trivial. There are many competing factions wanting spectrum. On a cable, or via the Internet, there is much "spectrum".
It's more complicated than lobbying. In the late '40s and early '50s, FM was just born. The FCC gave a few stations incredible turf-- unknowingly setting them up for high future asset value.
Tall antennas and a lot of power gave them reach. Reach gave them advertising power. Spectrum was set aside for public use, educational use at first, then non-commercial use. Political agenda aside, community radio can be marvelous. So are LPFM stations. The lifeless crap we listen to is driving ClearChannel, Emmis, and others, right into the ground. People cutting cable have also killed local TV stations, and with good reason. We have alternatives.
I cut my cable long ago. There are a few local decent public media stations in my area, and I listen to them, and they're relevant, if not with their own constant underfunding problems. They play great mixes, have local news, and are focused on their community, because they don't take ads.
Every single licensed stations has a community advisory board, and you can send your complaints-- even about programming-- to the FCC, where indeed they're required to read them, and make stations address them.
I believe that the motives of most pirate stations is ego, with a dash of community focus added as ostensible motivation.
You need community radio. Such stations really do respond to local tastes and needs. IMHO, NPR is corporate media, although not as awful as ClearChannel, Emmis, etc.
Starting a community station takes vision, but they do well because as you cite, they fit the local needs, not the automated crap today. Get one of these, rather than the pirate version. Eventually, it's more sustainable for the community.
It's true that many stations have enormous strength and tall antennas, a historical domination process. But there are many low-power stations, struggling to be heard, especially in the high school, college, community, public media, and specialty areas.
Your assessment of what pirates covers only ones that think about what they're doing. Many do not. You can make an FM station from an Arduino, put a cheap 100w amp on it, a crappy antenna, and interfere with licensed stations for quite a radius.
I disagree with your assessment highly, and as an engineer, find the loose-and-fast mentality to be like I said: not civil. Licensed stations pay a lot of $$ for engineering studies subsequently submitted to the FCC to ensure lack of interference. Not a pirate alive does the same thing. It's all about them and their perceived entitlement.
Think about community public radio stations. Consider those that make investments into for-profit ones, too.
Like other confined resources, there is only so much spectrum. It's juvenile to believe that a 100w station doesn't interfere with others.
Yes, some stations trade for major bucks. It's called: business. Still others are community supported.
Want the facts? Grow up and understand how we got here, and that the radio waves aren't a private little party. Wanna be a DJ? You can be. Wanna serve your sense of community? You can. There are lots of legal indy radio stations out there. They play by a set of rules designed to allow sharing of the airwaves, through the same set of rules that all people to have FM receivers and HD receivers with great audio fidelity.
People that live within the constraints of civility understand the need for rules-- because there are lots of people that desire to do whatever the fuck they want for any reason they want, e.g. uncivil behavior. I don't believe in mandated conformance but I do believe in civil rules regarding finite resources.
No, this is NOT about ClearChannel's revenue, it's about the fact that the 100w station's signal wanders for a far wider, uncontrolled range, then interfering with the fringes of others that have paid for lots of engineering plans, capital infrastructure, and the operational expenses in hopes of a profit from their station.
There are few locales in the US that aren't highly constrained for new licensees of even LPFM stations. This is about your ego and assholery, not about a supposed fanboi pirate project.
If you want to podcast or stream, have at it. Enjoy. Lots of those. Tell your friends. Let the three stations that suck in your area fail. Buy one. Do the real work, the real job, pay the real money as an investment, and get the real reward of a following and perhaps profit.
No. Not a kludge. And has more users than Unix ever had. With Android, 4x the users that MacOS has. Remember not to OD on that Apple juice. You never wake up.
In each case, you get exactly what I stated, don't you?
Enjoy. This is Apple. If they wanted it, it would be done in a finger-snap. Note that it is not. Their hubris matches that of their competition at the top. They're all that way, and they all suck.
Linux/GNU/etc actually overcomes such things, not that they're targeted at civilians. Apple? They're fixated on their ecosystems, and screw the rest-- until a loud enough hue and cry makes them relent. Until then, they're the same monoliths as the rest. By the way, does Apple pay you or do you just rope off an arm, fill the syringe up with Apple, and inject directly into a vein each day?
No, it's a license, because it's closed source. But hey, open up a flash drive on your Linux box. Reads and writes. Now, do this with the same drive on MacOS. Oh, dear, RO you say?
You can open up an Android device as a logical drive under Windows and Linux, but not MacOS. Same answer.
Yes, you can mount shares-- but that's because of SAMBA, which works because of the incredible efforts of sane people, and actual help from Microsoft, who got tired of being bashed (pun intended).
NFS3 is another long, sordid story. Wait, I'll use my Xserve! Oh, wait.....
In some yes, but when it comes to ACTUAL interoperability, there is a long list of stuff that they simply ignore. Take for instance: NTFS. Android. NFS3.
I own and use a Mac. I have an iPhone and a Samsung S3. I have Windows servers, and Windows VMs (and many others). Direct experience says: you live in a monolithic world, and don't actually use a very wide variety of stuff on a daily basis, or you wouldn't come to this conclusion.
They gain part of the trustworthyness deliberately. They very highly control, to the exclusion of compatibility with non-Apple *stuff*, their ecosystems, building walls around them, and letting all other competitors play second and third fiddle to their infrastructures.
It's delicate, as you mention. It's by design. It also fails smell tests in so many areas where the first bit of heterogeneity is required. They are ruled by their contracts with the media companies-- which they initially developed and evolved, to their credit. Their devices functionality, however, is directly controlled by a delicate balance of the RIAA, MPAA, their developers, and their draconian control of their supply chain.
The trustworthyness, when viewed in light of the rest of the world, is the RDF. When looked at from an outsider, or partial insider's perspective, they are quite fallible, rarely make apologies, and then blurt crap like the iWatch, Apple TV, make recent working products obsolete (like the iPad1), and their visionary halo, while very hard fought-and-won, comes at the cost of many, many problems. They control their press with military precision, and are about as open and forthcoming as their enemy, the NSA/FBI.
Apple is really good at directing their energy towards their intended end-user. They're not interested in businesses or bulk-buyers like the governments of the world because it's not their philosophy, counter to that of Microsoft-- which targets developers and business.
This magical layer of trust and customer schmoozing is at the very heart of what Apple does well. They are monolithic, and don't want their OS (as an example) used on other hardware, because they want to control the "experience".
The RDF that's imbued by their "just works", support mechanisms (creaking as they are), retail, are all designed to make customers trust them, and whatever they come out with next. In the case of the iWatch, and the constraints imposed on Apple TV by their media partners, they've cracked their trust. The iWatch isn't jewelry, isn't very functional (what can you do in the space of wrist-enabled device, after all?), and was poorly speculative. The reason there's no FM radio inside an iPhone is that they'd lose iTunes revenue, and the RIAA makes NO MONEY when you listen to a song on the radio, and so the radio is their odd enemy.
Apple ignores other products handily. Go ahead and try to connect it to Windows in a Windows meaningful way. Same answer with Android phones, or many, many other products. Apple is a master at controlling their ecosystems in the extreme, and making people love it because, hey, stuff works and it's "kewl". They invented zero of what they sell, but their are emperors of refinement and ecosystem. Their halo and legend and trust constitute the RDF, and that RDF is cracking because their dogged leader is gone, and they've become leaden and less able to attract outstanding talent because other organizations have figured out the means to attract really smart and enabled people.
It would be unwise to write them off. They have more cash than imaginable, and when they secrecy around the iCar is taken off, they with Tesla will attempt to validate the driverless electric market.
I'm not sure it's junk, but it shows that the Apple "halo-effect" is a crack in its reality distortion field. It work up the world to IoT, but just because Apple makes it, doesn't mean people will come.
Now that they're being seen dumped on the secondary market (dailysteals, woot, etc etc), it's a sign that there's a product manager with a new job in the warehouse in Cupertino.
Time domain reflectometry is a well-known science. What the article doesn't cite is that it needs a frame of reference to build a 3D model of a freespace. Otherwise, it takea an achingly long time to use small motions within a space to learn how the room reflects and how the geometry time-decays.
But it's from MIT, and uses WiFi, and sounds like it could have patent-worthy Breakthrough Technology! Must be great! We are saved again by MIT!. Sorry. Got carried away.
Once in a while, I'll get to kill an account, but gmail and yahoo seem to be the favorites among the non-UTF8 senders. We have a honeypot account that catches lots of mud. These days, I just delete it, rather than make the filters even more clogged than they already are.
The truth is: these are corporations that act in their best interest, and that means sales. Very few of them think in terms of bandwidth costing the money, because spam is so cheap to send. The day Yahoo gets sold, my spam will drop by 10%. I hope.
Slashdot Mirror
There is much evidence for spirituality, which some relate to religion, some to philosophy, and others as mumbo jumbo. To each their own.
There are those that want to draw lines, so as to refine their concept of definition.
Turns out, you can be a Buddhist Catholic/Christian, as Buddhism is a philosophy. Buddhism is mostly cast as monotheistic. But you can check Buddhism on a census form, and on other legal docs that describe a tick box as "your religion".
There are polytheistic religions, too, the largest following as Hinduism.
Following the tenets of Confucius, or Lao Tze, can also be described as religion or philosophy or both.
The commonality is that a philosophy can be religious. Atheism is a philosophy, and for some, a religion expressed as humanism, or secular humanism.
Each philosophy/religious branch has their radical orthodoxy, non-benign branches, although some would shun these branches, calling them heretics, apostates, and worse. Such a state may also mean that those believing the heresy to be worthy of death, as now is the strangeness between Sunni, Shiite, and other branches of Islam.
This occurred before in Christianity, many times. The Cathars, Bogomils, Protestants, Catholics, and others have often sent armies to kill, or terrorists (Guy Fawkes is a notable) to do their dirty work.
None of this is particularly new.
All this said, atheism just rejects god/God/Gods in toto as a philosophy. Organized or not, atheists can be self-described if they choose, as practicing atheism as a religion.
Mesh networking is the Great White Hope of IoT makers. With IPv6, you can mesh together much of the known universe.
I imagine new malware that injects itself into the mesh, much like browser ad insertions that pop up now and then (pun intended).
Aye, thar's the rub!
Someone clever will figure a method to find the data in an automated if perhaps convoluted way.
Profit!
It's easier inside the API, than outside the API, of course. This thwarts many potential business models.
It's a bit Catch 22 with a dash of unforeseen irony.
Uber figures out how to collapse the moderately monopolistic taxi/limo biz.
Uberhail figures they'd snack on that.
Paradoxical? No, just the insistence of capitalism.
I find that anyone's surprised to be totally stunning. What part of the word Uber doesn't the author understand?
Underwriting and sponsorship are the briefest of ads. It's because people won't open their wallets, and electricity, facility, and meager salaries add up to money.
The FCC also has to ensure that there is staff to review and enforce licensing, the engineering that goes behind it, and the ongoing management of spectrum, as well as common carrier infrastructure, telephony, etc. None of this stuff comes free.
It's not ClearChannel that's made licensing expensive; an act of Congress allowed networks to own more than their fair share, and then this created a money-making opportunity to conglomerate and share resources, while dumbing down content to suit some MBA's target. The good turf was bought up and subsumed into a pit of trash radio.
Who to blame: Congress, for allowing the conglomeration and monopolizing of the airwaves by too few organizations. They allow this with telcos, wireless carriers, and many other industry segments.
The license expense, however, is real. It does take money to run the FCC. Without it, there'd be chaos. This isn't to defend the FCC, rather, to explain that licensing isn't a trivial, go to the license branch sort of activity. I can bounce a beam off the moon from my back yard as a ham radio operator. But I can't do this: run a pirate station-- without consequences. Spectrum management is non-trivial. There are many competing factions wanting spectrum. On a cable, or via the Internet, there is much "spectrum".
It's more complicated than lobbying. In the late '40s and early '50s, FM was just born. The FCC gave a few stations incredible turf-- unknowingly setting them up for high future asset value.
Tall antennas and a lot of power gave them reach. Reach gave them advertising power. Spectrum was set aside for public use, educational use at first, then non-commercial use. Political agenda aside, community radio can be marvelous. So are LPFM stations. The lifeless crap we listen to is driving ClearChannel, Emmis, and others, right into the ground. People cutting cable have also killed local TV stations, and with good reason. We have alternatives.
I cut my cable long ago. There are a few local decent public media stations in my area, and I listen to them, and they're relevant, if not with their own constant underfunding problems. They play great mixes, have local news, and are focused on their community, because they don't take ads.
Every single licensed stations has a community advisory board, and you can send your complaints-- even about programming-- to the FCC, where indeed they're required to read them, and make stations address them.
I believe that the motives of most pirate stations is ego, with a dash of community focus added as ostensible motivation.
You need community radio. Such stations really do respond to local tastes and needs. IMHO, NPR is corporate media, although not as awful as ClearChannel, Emmis, etc.
Starting a community station takes vision, but they do well because as you cite, they fit the local needs, not the automated crap today. Get one of these, rather than the pirate version. Eventually, it's more sustainable for the community.
It's true that many stations have enormous strength and tall antennas, a historical domination process. But there are many low-power stations, struggling to be heard, especially in the high school, college, community, public media, and specialty areas.
Your assessment of what pirates covers only ones that think about what they're doing. Many do not. You can make an FM station from an Arduino, put a cheap 100w amp on it, a crappy antenna, and interfere with licensed stations for quite a radius.
I disagree with your assessment highly, and as an engineer, find the loose-and-fast mentality to be like I said: not civil. Licensed stations pay a lot of $$ for engineering studies subsequently submitted to the FCC to ensure lack of interference. Not a pirate alive does the same thing. It's all about them and their perceived entitlement.
Rich? No.
Think about community public radio stations. Consider those that make investments into for-profit ones, too.
Like other confined resources, there is only so much spectrum. It's juvenile to believe that a 100w station doesn't interfere with others.
Yes, some stations trade for major bucks. It's called: business. Still others are community supported.
Want the facts? Grow up and understand how we got here, and that the radio waves aren't a private little party. Wanna be a DJ? You can be. Wanna serve your sense of community? You can. There are lots of legal indy radio stations out there. They play by a set of rules designed to allow sharing of the airwaves, through the same set of rules that all people to have FM receivers and HD receivers with great audio fidelity.
People that live within the constraints of civility understand the need for rules-- because there are lots of people that desire to do whatever the fuck they want for any reason they want, e.g. uncivil behavior. I don't believe in mandated conformance but I do believe in civil rules regarding finite resources.
No, this is NOT about ClearChannel's revenue, it's about the fact that the 100w station's signal wanders for a far wider, uncontrolled range, then interfering with the fringes of others that have paid for lots of engineering plans, capital infrastructure, and the operational expenses in hopes of a profit from their station.
There are few locales in the US that aren't highly constrained for new licensees of even LPFM stations. This is about your ego and assholery, not about a supposed fanboi pirate project.
If you want to podcast or stream, have at it. Enjoy. Lots of those. Tell your friends. Let the three stations that suck in your area fail. Buy one. Do the real work, the real job, pay the real money as an investment, and get the real reward of a following and perhaps profit.
But dogs have teeth. Imagine an untamed Rott challenging a delivery unit on a sidewalk. Or more harmful still: a four year old with a squirt gun.
No. Not a kludge. And has more users than Unix ever had. With Android, 4x the users that MacOS has. Remember not to OD on that Apple juice. You never wake up.
You can kludge anything.
In each case, you get exactly what I stated, don't you?
Enjoy. This is Apple. If they wanted it, it would be done in a finger-snap. Note that it is not. Their hubris matches that of their competition at the top. They're all that way, and they all suck.
Linux/GNU/etc actually overcomes such things, not that they're targeted at civilians. Apple? They're fixated on their ecosystems, and screw the rest-- until a loud enough hue and cry makes them relent. Until then, they're the same monoliths as the rest. By the way, does Apple pay you or do you just rope off an arm, fill the syringe up with Apple, and inject directly into a vein each day?
Open? You said Open?
No, it's a license, because it's closed source. But hey, open up a flash drive on your Linux box. Reads and writes. Now, do this with the same drive on MacOS. Oh, dear, RO you say?
You can open up an Android device as a logical drive under Windows and Linux, but not MacOS. Same answer.
Yes, you can mount shares-- but that's because of SAMBA, which works because of the incredible efforts of sane people, and actual help from Microsoft, who got tired of being bashed (pun intended).
NFS3 is another long, sordid story. Wait, I'll use my Xserve! Oh, wait.....
In some yes, but when it comes to ACTUAL interoperability, there is a long list of stuff that they simply ignore. Take for instance: NTFS. Android. NFS3.
I own and use a Mac. I have an iPhone and a Samsung S3. I have Windows servers, and Windows VMs (and many others). Direct experience says: you live in a monolithic world, and don't actually use a very wide variety of stuff on a daily basis, or you wouldn't come to this conclusion.
Um, no. Try again. Other smartphones makers have plans to enable SDR on their phones. Your earphones can be used as an antenna-- no, really.
They gain part of the trustworthyness deliberately. They very highly control, to the exclusion of compatibility with non-Apple *stuff*, their ecosystems, building walls around them, and letting all other competitors play second and third fiddle to their infrastructures.
It's delicate, as you mention. It's by design. It also fails smell tests in so many areas where the first bit of heterogeneity is required. They are ruled by their contracts with the media companies-- which they initially developed and evolved, to their credit. Their devices functionality, however, is directly controlled by a delicate balance of the RIAA, MPAA, their developers, and their draconian control of their supply chain.
The trustworthyness, when viewed in light of the rest of the world, is the RDF. When looked at from an outsider, or partial insider's perspective, they are quite fallible, rarely make apologies, and then blurt crap like the iWatch, Apple TV, make recent working products obsolete (like the iPad1), and their visionary halo, while very hard fought-and-won, comes at the cost of many, many problems. They control their press with military precision, and are about as open and forthcoming as their enemy, the NSA/FBI.
Were it only true.
Apple is really good at directing their energy towards their intended end-user. They're not interested in businesses or bulk-buyers like the governments of the world because it's not their philosophy, counter to that of Microsoft-- which targets developers and business.
This magical layer of trust and customer schmoozing is at the very heart of what Apple does well. They are monolithic, and don't want their OS (as an example) used on other hardware, because they want to control the "experience".
The RDF that's imbued by their "just works", support mechanisms (creaking as they are), retail, are all designed to make customers trust them, and whatever they come out with next. In the case of the iWatch, and the constraints imposed on Apple TV by their media partners, they've cracked their trust. The iWatch isn't jewelry, isn't very functional (what can you do in the space of wrist-enabled device, after all?), and was poorly speculative. The reason there's no FM radio inside an iPhone is that they'd lose iTunes revenue, and the RIAA makes NO MONEY when you listen to a song on the radio, and so the radio is their odd enemy.
Apple ignores other products handily. Go ahead and try to connect it to Windows in a Windows meaningful way. Same answer with Android phones, or many, many other products. Apple is a master at controlling their ecosystems in the extreme, and making people love it because, hey, stuff works and it's "kewl". They invented zero of what they sell, but their are emperors of refinement and ecosystem. Their halo and legend and trust constitute the RDF, and that RDF is cracking because their dogged leader is gone, and they've become leaden and less able to attract outstanding talent because other organizations have figured out the means to attract really smart and enabled people.
It would be unwise to write them off. They have more cash than imaginable, and when they secrecy around the iCar is taken off, they with Tesla will attempt to validate the driverless electric market.
I'm not sure it's junk, but it shows that the Apple "halo-effect" is a crack in its reality distortion field. It work up the world to IoT, but just because Apple makes it, doesn't mean people will come.
Now that they're being seen dumped on the secondary market (dailysteals, woot, etc etc), it's a sign that there's a product manager with a new job in the warehouse in Cupertino.
Time domain reflectometry is a well-known science. What the article doesn't cite is that it needs a frame of reference to build a 3D model of a freespace. Otherwise, it takea an achingly long time to use small motions within a space to learn how the room reflects and how the geometry time-decays.
But it's from MIT, and uses WiFi, and sounds like it could have patent-worthy Breakthrough Technology! Must be great! We are saved again by MIT!. Sorry. Got carried away.
Once in a while, I'll get to kill an account, but gmail and yahoo seem to be the favorites among the non-UTF8 senders. We have a honeypot account that catches lots of mud. These days, I just delete it, rather than make the filters even more clogged than they already are.
The truth is: these are corporations that act in their best interest, and that means sales. Very few of them think in terms of bandwidth costing the money, because spam is so cheap to send. The day Yahoo gets sold, my spam will drop by 10%. I hope.