>>>Boot time is a pain that we have had since the first IBM PC was released. And it's not only boot time but also shut down time that can be painful.
I disagree. Shutdown time is no big deal because you can go grab a snack while the computer shutsdown. You don't have to wait.
As for startup time, back in the days of floppy-based OSes like the IBM or Commodore Amiga, it only took 5 seconds to go from turn-on to a CLI or Workbench interface. Even faster with a hard drive.
The reason today's computers are so ridiculously slow is because they load a bunch of crap. Why? Do I need to have Itunes or Quicktime or Microsoft Office preloaded in the background? Absolutely not. If they followed the philosophy of earlier OSes, where programs were only loaded *when needed*, then the bootup time would be very short.
>>>the authorities have tried to shut down all Orthodox seminaries in Turkey
A lot of this could be fixed by the E.U. (after Turkey becomes a member state). We had similar problems in the early United States, but the force of the central government forced the states to abandon their state-mandated religions & provide freedom. Likewise the European Union's central government could use its authority, backed by a Constitutional central court, to gradually but firmly force Turkey to stop persecuting Christian churches.
It might take 100 years, but eventually the central government would prevail, because the central government holds the power of the purse & can withhold funds to non-compliant states.
>>>I'm sure a lot of people come across Child Porn searching for completely unrelated things, or even searching for adult porn. It seems a waste to not have a way to report these things >>>
They do? I've never seen any child pornography. Never. I've seen lots of Nudist websites displaying Mom, dad, and child naked at the beach, but that is NOT porn. The human body was created by God, and what Gods creates is not sinful. A naked human is not porn.
If you want to see child porn (read: sex), you have to go into dark corners of the internet. It is well hidden. You can't just stumble upon it "by accident".
Child porn is not illegal, unless it involves actual children. If child porn involved adults who look like children, or computer-generated images (ala the vixens in DOA Volleyball), then child porn is perfectly legal in the USA.
I don't know how it is in Australia, but it should be the same. The crime is the victimization of children, NOT the faked photograph.
He shouldn't be marked "troll" or "flamebait". He's voiced EXACTLY what I was thinking. I just read an article about how the U.S.-FCC wants to gradually phasing-out free television and replacing it with subscription-only whitespace devices. Meanwhile Australia is trying to dumb-down the internet (via filtering) so it's harmless fluff even a 5-year-old could read.
Government is supposed to be "of, by, and for the People" and instead they seem to be working for Google, Microsoft, et cetera.
NBC.com can't handle 30 million Heroes HD viewers at 15 Mbit/s each (~500,000 gigabit-wide streaming). BROADcast, rather than single-cast, is still the best way to serve millions of people at the same time. With broadcasting NBC can send just 200 copies of the Heroes program, from 200 stations spread across the continent, rather than 30 million copies to each individual internet device.
Dumbass answer. You use ALL the devices that are available (radio, tv, and if the power still works, internet). To handicap yourself by not using the tv with its visual-images of maps, storms, and tornadoes is stupid. ----- Also many communities in rural Oklahoma, Kansas, Colorado, Wyoming don't have any service except the VHF (read: very long-distance) TV. "Use the radio" is not a solution because the radio doesn't exist.
I stand by what I said before: "The last thing I want is for some Ipod to start broadcasting over-top or next-to my TV channel..... and block out the station while a major storm is blasting through, cutting me off from life-critical information."
As I stated: "The only region of the United States that is truly "open" is west of the Mississippi River & east of the California border. There are lots of empty non-assigned channels (mostly 21-51)..." Using your location of 12+ receivable channels, which also includes 24 guard channels to prevent interference, that still leaves only 15 open channels for internet whitespace devices (approximately 300 Mbit/s total space).
Of course that does absolutely nothing to help those of us on the populous east coast, where the average number of open channels (that are Not next to an existing television signal) is only 6 or 7. About 150 Mbit/s.
It doesn't seem worth the effort for just a few megabits, subdivided amongst ~1 million local residents, or about 0.3 kbit/s each. Ooo. I'd rather use a 50k phone line.
Even your cable television will be "blocked" by white-space devices. Quote:
"The National Cable & Telecommunications Association filed lengthy comments with the FCC on September 10, concluding that "unlicensed TV band devices, as currently proposed, will interfere with cable service." Not only can home cable wiring be subject to direct pickup (DPU) interference, but local cable offices around the country could find their high-gain local antennas affected (which could mess up local TV channels served to all cable subscribers in the area)."
"Every time a consumer in a single family home uses a personal/portable TV band device as currently proposed, its signal output will interfere with cable services. For example, a family member using a TV band device in one room for home networking could foreclose another family member from watching a particular TV channel in another room. The affected channel would go blank or be seriously degraded."
"The problem could get even worse in apartment buildings, and the group points out that even Ed Thomas has conceded that the issue "needs to be looked at"...... the group would like to see unlicensed white space devices limited to 10mW, or one-tenth the amount of power that white space backers want to use. As for headends, NCTA wants to use the geolocation database to clear a swath of space around them that would be free of white space devices."
No. The power levels decrease according to an ever-expanding sphere, which is the original power divided by 4*pi*(r^2). Using meters not miles.
By the time a 400,000 watt signal gets to 50 miles (80,000 meters), it's degraded to only ~4 milliwatts. A low-power cellphone or whitespace broadcast is enough to overwhelm that weak signal.
* "[i]n a few years a second phase of the DTV transition should get TV off the air." * "Take TV off the air' in a few years." * "[O]ver-the-air broadcasts should be replaced entirely by cable, satellite and Internet viewing."
The broadcasters also cited white space proponents' plans to increase their power levels over time. "The FCC proposes to limit devices to 40 milliwatts of power in white-space channels adjacent to TV stations, but 'we're going to push that up over time,'" the broadcasters quote one executive as saying. Mark McHenry, CEO of Shared Spectrum Co., said, according to the broadcasters, "The FCC is going to start conservatively, but we're going to wear them down. In a few years, we're going to be at 10 W all over the place." Of course, at these power levels, not only will free over-the-air TV reception be impossible in locations where WSDs are in use, but[b] cable TV reception will be impaired as well.[/b]
Excellent article. Especially this part: "Millions of people in the United States cannot afford cable or satellite TV. They won't be buying a smartphone, and they won't be using Google to find coffee shops selling lattes with just the right amount of foam. These people are living from paycheck to paycheck, and the one respite they get after a day's work may be watching free broadcast television. Just because Google and the cell-phone companies have better lobbyists and more money than the broadcasting industry is no reason to abuse these people."
And: "A few watts from a cell phone are enough to interfere with the microvolt TV signals your tuner is trying to pick up... RF artifacts, including side-lobe and multipath effects--inherent in the real-world transmission of radio waves--will occur with white-space broadcasts, too [interfering with the TV transmissions."
By my own calculations, my current level of reception will drop... From: ~20 channel (locals plus Baltimore, Philly, Harrisburg) To: ~5 channels (locals only)...due to the interference of broadcasting whitespace devices. This 75% drop in channel count is not acceptable in any way, shape, or form. I need television not just for free entertainment (see paragraph one), but also for access to storm warning which are life-critical events.
Oh really? Well how are you going to watch Heroes in HD without broadcast television? Certainly not on your SD-quality Iphone, and not on your PC either since nbc.com can't handle 30 million viewerss at 15 gbit/s each (500 gigabit-wide streaming). No website can meet that demand.
>>>in a thread where many readers may not be as familiar with this topic
Let's simplify it then. I currently get around 20 channels from local cities and from long-distance cities (Philly, Baltimore, Harrisburg). With Whitespace Devices polluting the TV band, I'll be blocked from watching Philly, Baltimore, or Harrisburg since the WSDs will interfere with long-distance reception. I'll only be able to get the local channels. From circa 20 downto 5. I don't find this acceptable.
>>> At 50 miles from the television tower, a whitespace device within [160 feet] from a set could cause interference.
Unacceptable. I'm speaking from the point-of-view of the User, who is concerned about losing his ability to watch free television like Heroes, Lost, CSI, Smallville, Prison Break, and of course the local news & weather. Since I live in the densely-populated Northeast, almost every channel is filled. There's only 4 non-adjacent open channels where I live; I don't see how WSDs are going to operate without causing me to lose my picture.
If I'm trying to watch the Phillies match on WPHL-17, the last thing I want is for some Ipod to start broadcasting over top of 17 (because it believes it's empty) or neighboring channels 16/18. That would instantly block-out my viewing of the World Series. Or worse, block out the station while a major snowstorm is blasting through, and I get cut-off from life-critical information. See my signature. Whitespace gadgets are fine. Just keep them off the TV band. I need my television; I like my television. According to a quick calculation, the addition of whitespace interference on TV channels would drop my receivable stations.....
Unacceptable. I just invested $300 on four DTV tuner boxes, and another $100 on brand-new rooftop antennas, in order to prepare myself for the 2009 transition. I don't want my investment to be a waste because the antennna is blocked by an Ipod from seeing Heroes or CSI in high-definition video.
Is Ubuntu the easiest version of Linux to set up? I like the ease of just clicking "install" and everything automagically takes care of itself. (Like my Windows XP disc.)
>>>they do not license adjacent channels in the same geographic market.
That is true, however the FCC guarantees to broadcasters the use of their designated channel *to be free from interference* of neighboring channels. That is why there is a two channel minimum gap on TV, on FM, and on AM. If stations co-existed side-by-side within the same market, they would interfere with one another. Likewise if a Whitespace Device Broadcast exists side-by-side with a TV broadcast, then the WSD's signal will "spillover" onto the existing local station, and violate that station's exclusive right to that channel.
IMHO if the FCC would not allow a TV station 16 or 18 to exist adjacent to WPHL-17, then they should not allow a WSD to be there either. The WSD should be blocked from using that entire range: 16, 17, and 18 when in the presence of WPHL. ----- And once you make that assumption, and you examine my local market near Philly, you discover there are only 4 channels that fit the criteria as open (2,3,4,25).
According to the U.S. Supreme Court, they are not allowed to stop every car. They are only supposed to stop "suspect" cars and direct them to the side-of-the-road. All other cars are allowed to continue without stopping.
Furthermore SCOTUS has ruled that border agents may only ask immigration-related questions. They are not allowed to do searches for other things like drugs, unless they obtain a search warrant, or have probable cause (they see a needle laying in the back seat). Otherwise they are committing an unConstitutional act; an illegal search.
A 56k dialup is approximately 10 gigabytes per month...ten times what his current service provides and far cheaper ($7-10). If you use Netzero or Netscape with on-the-fly image/text compression, then the effective speed is increased to ~500k during web-browsing, or 100 gigabytes per month.
I use 56k while stuck in hotels, and the image/text-compressed web-browsing is almost as fast as my home DSL connection.
I don't believe in going that far back. Otherwise we could argue Lord Byron's daughter's insight about information would have been worthless without the invention of the printing press to distribute it. And the printing press would be worthless without the invention of paper by Egyptians. And of course having paper is pointless is you don't have a wheel to
A more-reasonable answer is that modern electronic (keyword) computers were invented shortly after the vacuum tube provided the ability to represent logic & do rapid automatic calculations.
Remember the Original Poster has a 1 gigabyte limit he's trying to stay under, in order to minimize his fees. That's his goal, not downloading. I only mentioned it to demonstrate how a Dialup connection is actually better than what he has now (the dialup has no limits).
One of the best ways to achieve the goal of staying under 1 gigabyte is to impose a speedlimit upon yourself. Using a slow phoneline connection is one method. And if you use Netscape ISP, since it compresses webpages downto 15% their original size, the web-browsing will APPEAR to be as fast as a DSL connection.
The flaw with that reasoning is that there are NO unused television frequencies. The entire east and west coast is densely-packed and every channel from 2 to 51 is assigned a station. In my area (near Philly) there's only 4 non-adjacent open channels (2,3,4, and 25). That's it. And only one of them is useful for small devices (25).
The only region of the United States that is truly "open" is west of the Mississippi River & east of the California border. There are lots of empty non-assigned channels (mostly 21-51), but very few people live in this area.
Slashdot Mirror
>>>Boot time is a pain that we have had since the first IBM PC was released. And it's not only boot time but also shut down time that can be painful.
I disagree. Shutdown time is no big deal because you can go grab a snack while the computer shutsdown. You don't have to wait.
As for startup time, back in the days of floppy-based OSes like the IBM or Commodore Amiga, it only took 5 seconds to go from turn-on to a CLI or Workbench interface. Even faster with a hard drive.
The reason today's computers are so ridiculously slow is because they load a bunch of crap. Why? Do I need to have Itunes or Quicktime or Microsoft Office preloaded in the background? Absolutely not. If they followed the philosophy of earlier OSes, where programs were only loaded *when needed*, then the bootup time would be very short.
>>>the authorities have tried to shut down all Orthodox seminaries in Turkey
A lot of this could be fixed by the E.U. (after Turkey becomes a member state). We had similar problems in the early United States, but the force of the central government forced the states to abandon their state-mandated religions & provide freedom. Likewise the European Union's central government could use its authority, backed by a Constitutional central court, to gradually but firmly force Turkey to stop persecuting Christian churches.
It might take 100 years, but eventually the central government would prevail, because the central government holds the power of the purse & can withhold funds to non-compliant states.
>>>I'm sure a lot of people come across Child Porn searching for completely unrelated things, or even searching for adult porn. It seems a waste to not have a way to report these things
>>>
They do? I've never seen any child pornography. Never. I've seen lots of Nudist websites displaying Mom, dad, and child naked at the beach, but that is NOT porn. The human body was created by God, and what Gods creates is not sinful. A naked human is not porn.
If you want to see child porn (read: sex), you have to go into dark corners of the internet. It is well hidden. You can't just stumble upon it "by accident".
Child porn is not illegal, unless it involves actual children. If child porn involved adults who look like children, or computer-generated images (ala the vixens in DOA Volleyball), then child porn is perfectly legal in the USA.
I don't know how it is in Australia, but it should be the same. The crime is the victimization of children, NOT the faked photograph.
Is this an excerpt from 1984? It seems to have the same nonsense speak that redefines words away from their true meaning (obfucation).
He shouldn't be marked "troll" or "flamebait". He's voiced EXACTLY what I was thinking. I just read an article about how the U.S.-FCC wants to gradually phasing-out free television and replacing it with subscription-only whitespace devices. Meanwhile Australia is trying to dumb-down the internet (via filtering) so it's harmless fluff even a 5-year-old could read.
Government is supposed to be "of, by, and for the People" and instead they seem to be working for Google, Microsoft, et cetera.
Of, by, and for the Corporations.
Correction:
NBC.com can't handle 30 million Heroes HD viewers at 15 Mbit/s each (~500,000 gigabit-wide streaming). BROADcast, rather than single-cast, is still the best way to serve millions of people at the same time. With broadcasting NBC can send just 200 copies of the Heroes program, from 200 stations spread across the continent, rather than 30 million copies to each individual internet device.
Dumbass answer. You use ALL the devices that are available (radio, tv, and if the power still works, internet). To handicap yourself by not using the tv with its visual-images of maps, storms, and tornadoes is stupid. ----- Also many communities in rural Oklahoma, Kansas, Colorado, Wyoming don't have any service except the VHF (read: very long-distance) TV. "Use the radio" is not a solution because the radio doesn't exist.
I stand by what I said before: "The last thing I want is for some Ipod to start broadcasting over-top or next-to my TV channel..... and block out the station while a major storm is blasting through, cutting me off from life-critical information."
As I stated: "The only region of the United States that is truly "open" is west of the Mississippi River & east of the California border. There are lots of empty non-assigned channels (mostly 21-51)..." Using your location of 12+ receivable channels, which also includes 24 guard channels to prevent interference, that still leaves only 15 open channels for internet whitespace devices (approximately 300 Mbit/s total space).
Of course that does absolutely nothing to help those of us on the populous east coast, where the average number of open channels (that are Not next to an existing television signal) is only 6 or 7. About 150 Mbit/s.
It doesn't seem worth the effort for just a few megabits, subdivided amongst ~1 million local residents, or about 0.3 kbit/s each. Ooo. I'd rather use a 50k phone line.
P.P.S.
Even your cable television will be "blocked" by white-space devices. Quote:
"The National Cable & Telecommunications Association filed lengthy comments with the FCC on September 10, concluding that "unlicensed TV band devices, as currently proposed, will interfere with cable service." Not only can home cable wiring be subject to direct pickup (DPU) interference, but local cable offices around the country could find their high-gain local antennas affected (which could mess up local TV channels served to all cable subscribers in the area)."
"Every time a consumer in a single family home uses a personal/portable TV band device as currently proposed, its signal output will interfere with cable services. For example, a family member using a TV band device in one room for home networking could foreclose another family member from watching a particular TV channel in another room. The affected channel would go blank or be seriously degraded."
"The problem could get even worse in apartment buildings, and the group points out that even Ed Thomas has conceded that the issue "needs to be looked at"...... the group would like to see unlicensed white space devices limited to 10mW, or one-tenth the amount of power that white space backers want to use. As for headends, NCTA wants to use the geolocation database to clear a swath of space around them that would be free of white space devices."
Source: http://www.saschameinrath.com/2008/sep/24/ars_technica_covers_white_space_device_debate
Here's another useful site. It's a discussion forum, but it's filled with lots of RF engineers and hobbyists that are experts in the field.
http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?t=1048951
No. The power levels decrease according to an ever-expanding sphere, which is the original power divided by 4*pi*(r^2). Using meters not miles.
By the time a 400,000 watt signal gets to 50 miles (80,000 meters), it's degraded to only ~4 milliwatts. A low-power cellphone or whitespace broadcast is enough to overwhelm that weak signal.
Here's an interesting article that reveals the Whitespace Coalition's true goals: http://www.tvtechnology.com/article/68654
* "[i]n a few years a second phase of the DTV transition should get TV off the air."
* "Take TV off the air' in a few years."
* "[O]ver-the-air broadcasts should be replaced entirely by cable, satellite and Internet viewing."
The broadcasters also cited white space proponents' plans to increase their power levels over time. "The FCC proposes to limit devices to 40 milliwatts of power in white-space channels adjacent to TV stations, but 'we're going to push that up over time,'" the broadcasters quote one executive as saying. Mark McHenry, CEO of Shared Spectrum Co., said, according to the broadcasters, "The FCC is going to start conservatively, but we're going to wear them down. In a few years, we're going to be at 10 W all over the place." Of course, at these power levels, not only will free over-the-air TV reception be impossible in locations where WSDs are in use, but[b] cable TV reception will be impaired as well.[/b]
Excellent article. Especially this part: "Millions of people in the United States cannot afford cable or satellite TV. They won't be buying a smartphone, and they won't be using Google to find coffee shops selling lattes with just the right amount of foam. These people are living from paycheck to paycheck, and the one respite they get after a day's work may be watching free broadcast television. Just because Google and the cell-phone companies have better lobbyists and more money than the broadcasting industry is no reason to abuse these people."
And: "A few watts from a cell phone are enough to interfere with the microvolt TV signals your tuner is trying to pick up... RF artifacts, including side-lobe and multipath effects--inherent in the real-world transmission of radio waves--will occur with white-space broadcasts, too [interfering with the TV transmissions."
By my own calculations, my current level of reception will drop... ...due to the interference of broadcasting whitespace devices. This 75% drop in channel count is not acceptable in any way, shape, or form. I need television not just for free entertainment (see paragraph one), but also for access to storm warning which are life-critical events.
From: ~20 channel (locals plus Baltimore, Philly, Harrisburg)
To: ~5 channels (locals only)
The mountain and plains region represents just 25% of the total U.S. - not a very big potential market for WSDs
>>>remember that TV is soooooo last millennium.
Oh really? Well how are you going to watch Heroes in HD without broadcast television? Certainly not on your SD-quality Iphone, and not on your PC either since nbc.com can't handle 30 million viewerss at 15 gbit/s each (500 gigabit-wide streaming). No website can meet that demand.
>>>in a thread where many readers may not be as familiar with this topic
Let's simplify it then. I currently get around 20 channels from local cities and from long-distance cities (Philly, Baltimore, Harrisburg). With Whitespace Devices polluting the TV band, I'll be blocked from watching Philly, Baltimore, or Harrisburg since the WSDs will interfere with long-distance reception. I'll only be able to get the local channels. From circa 20 downto 5. I don't find this acceptable.
>>> At 50 miles from the television tower, a whitespace device within [160 feet] from a set could cause interference.
Unacceptable. I'm speaking from the point-of-view of the User, who is concerned about losing his ability to watch free television like Heroes, Lost, CSI, Smallville, Prison Break, and of course the local news & weather. Since I live in the densely-populated Northeast, almost every channel is filled. There's only 4 non-adjacent open channels where I live; I don't see how WSDs are going to operate without causing me to lose my picture.
If I'm trying to watch the Phillies match on WPHL-17, the last thing I want is for some Ipod to start broadcasting over top of 17 (because it believes it's empty) or neighboring channels 16/18. That would instantly block-out my viewing of the World Series. Or worse, block out the station while a major snowstorm is blasting through, and I get cut-off from life-critical information. See my signature. Whitespace gadgets are fine. Just keep them off the TV band. I need my television; I like my television. According to a quick calculation, the addition of whitespace interference on TV channels would drop my receivable stations.....
From: ~19 channels (Baltimore, Philly, Harrisburg, Lancaster)
To: 5 channels (local market only)
Unacceptable. I just invested $300 on four DTV tuner boxes, and another $100 on brand-new rooftop antennas, in order to prepare myself for the 2009 transition. I don't want my investment to be a waste because the antennna is blocked by an Ipod from seeing Heroes or CSI in high-definition video.
Is Ubuntu the easiest version of Linux to set up? I like the ease of just clicking "install" and everything automagically takes care of itself. (Like my Windows XP disc.)
>>>they do not license adjacent channels in the same geographic market.
That is true, however the FCC guarantees to broadcasters the use of their designated channel *to be free from interference* of neighboring channels. That is why there is a two channel minimum gap on TV, on FM, and on AM. If stations co-existed side-by-side within the same market, they would interfere with one another. Likewise if a Whitespace Device Broadcast exists side-by-side with a TV broadcast, then the WSD's signal will "spillover" onto the existing local station, and violate that station's exclusive right to that channel.
IMHO if the FCC would not allow a TV station 16 or 18 to exist adjacent to WPHL-17, then they should not allow a WSD to be there either. The WSD should be blocked from using that entire range: 16, 17, and 18 when in the presence of WPHL. ----- And once you make that assumption, and you examine my local market near Philly, you discover there are only 4 channels that fit the criteria as open (2,3,4,25).
According to the U.S. Supreme Court, they are not allowed to stop every car. They are only supposed to stop "suspect" cars and direct them to the side-of-the-road. All other cars are allowed to continue without stopping.
Furthermore SCOTUS has ruled that border agents may only ask immigration-related questions. They are not allowed to do searches for other things like drugs, unless they obtain a search warrant, or have probable cause (they see a needle laying in the back seat). Otherwise they are committing an unConstitutional act; an illegal search.
A 56k dialup is approximately 10 gigabytes per month...ten times what his current service provides and far cheaper ($7-10). If you use Netzero or Netscape with on-the-fly image/text compression, then the effective speed is increased to ~500k during web-browsing, or 100 gigabytes per month.
I use 56k while stuck in hotels, and the image/text-compressed web-browsing is almost as fast as my home DSL connection.
I don't believe in going that far back. Otherwise we could argue Lord Byron's daughter's insight about information would have been worthless without the invention of the printing press to distribute it. And the printing press would be worthless without the invention of paper by Egyptians. And of course having paper is pointless is you don't have a wheel to
A more-reasonable answer is that modern electronic (keyword) computers were invented shortly after the vacuum tube provided the ability to represent logic & do rapid automatic calculations.
Remember the Original Poster has a 1 gigabyte limit he's trying to stay under, in order to minimize his fees. That's his goal, not downloading. I only mentioned it to demonstrate how a Dialup connection is actually better than what he has now (the dialup has no limits).
One of the best ways to achieve the goal of staying under 1 gigabyte is to impose a speedlimit upon yourself. Using a slow phoneline connection is one method. And if you use Netscape ISP, since it compresses webpages downto 15% their original size, the web-browsing will APPEAR to be as fast as a DSL connection.
The flaw with that reasoning is that there are NO unused television frequencies. The entire east and west coast is densely-packed and every channel from 2 to 51 is assigned a station. In my area (near Philly) there's only 4 non-adjacent open channels (2,3,4, and 25). That's it. And only one of them is useful for small devices (25).
The only region of the United States that is truly "open" is west of the Mississippi River & east of the California border. There are lots of empty non-assigned channels (mostly 21-51), but very few people live in this area.