I'm not saying we have to spend out tax dollars fixing Mexico. The history of previous American efforts to intervene in Mexico haven't exactly been positive.
I'm just identifying the problem. No one much discusses the issue of why Mexicans are leaving their country in the first place.
The reason Mexicans come to the US in droves is because their country is broken. Most of the police and half the military are on the take. Even the honest folks have decided to steer clear of the disaster.
Nothing America erects on that border is going to change the fact that Mexicans can make a decent and safe living in Mexico.
I've long wonder whether anti-depressants actually trigger suicidal thoughts or if the higher suicide rate among takers of anti-depressants is simply a function of the sample (depressed people are more likely to commit suicide).
Colors come with a lot of meanings we geeks aren't wired to grasp. It's why corporate websites all look alike. There is a sort of detente with color meanings among the corps. Basically, you're blue and white or red and white, and some shades of gray and a few spot colors tossed in for good measure. Companies want to avoid conveying meanings.
Most states require that a claim of material harm be inherently anti-competitive, and many states require that a material harm claim be built around some claim of malice. You can't just claim material harm because the other guy's idea makes your idea look sucky.
Also, aren't tax maps a matter of public record? I've seen something of the like in the Arcfile data from the Census.
"However some advocates of Domain Tasting say that perhaps no one will be able to serve the niche for some ads and no one will make money on the unserved ads."
Yup. Those niches are going to go completely unserved. The internet just doesn't have enough websites to support the kind of content diversity necessary to serve all marketing niches.
There's FUD, and then there's just plain thinking people are dumber than a bag of hammers.
"Mindless rod-pounding has produced a lot more than that."
Electrocution (one of my sister's boyfriends had a hilarious moment with an unmarked electric line). Ejaculation. And the ever awesome electrocution/ejaculation combo if you're down with that sort of thing.
I gotta disagree. Look at the current business environment. If they ran decent DSL, how long would it be before DSL became the ugly little brother to fiber? The technologies need to settle down for a while before the telecoms are going to commit the effort to the lines.
I'm not aiming to defend the telecoms. I'm just stating their rationale, which is better than it is in many instances.
I don't disagree on any one point. But, considering cable still hasn't been forced into a la carte channel packages, we're a long way from the political will to make cable do anything.
Have you ever looked at the TV reception issues in an area like Alaska? That's some fun.
There are parts of the rural mountainous US where you have to use a 10' satellite dish to get anything, and that's from local channels that are rebroadcast off of satellite. There's an old joke that the state bird of West Virginia is the C-band satellite dish.
The TV channels available depends on a lot of factors. In the right spot here in western PA you can pick up channels from five markets. I can easily get three markets.
The wireless service would be a huge leap forward for internet service. Also, I suspect that Google would like to liberate itself from the entire net neutrality issue.
But, the TV spectrum is a bad place to have this fight. It's hard to pick up signals in some areas, and it will be even harder for devices to figure out that they're causing interference when they can't detect signals that should be there, but maybe an apartment complex or a big rideline is blocking.
A lot of companies in rural areas won't bother running what really amounts to the last mile of lines needed for DSL and cable. The reason is simple -- they will never recover the cost of running the line.
Presently, asynchronous satellite service is the only rural high speed internet available.
A ground-based synchronous wireless system circumvents some of that trouble, but the TV signals are sitting in the only bandwidth useful for reaching down into valleys. The truth is, VHF channels 7 and 8 are the plum spots. They have great range. They are at a low enough freqeuncy that they curve with the shape of the earth, while being high enough that they don't just suck in nearby electrical interference.
Can you even imagine handling TV signal detection in an are like the Northeast Corridor? Anywhere from Richmond, VA to Portland, ME there are so friggin many channels that when you include out-of-DMA channels there simply is no real white space.
Understand that a channel in the eastern US can be reasonably expected to be detectable up to 100 miles away. For example, I live in central Pennsylvania, and even without atmospheric effects with a decent antenna I can get channels from eastern Ohio.
Point being that the device is going to pick up a lot of channels. Also, since it is presumed to be mobile, that device will have to shift channels.
Channel-shifting is where the real nightmare occurs, especially in cities. With path interference, you have total signal dead zones that are three feet away from strong signal. The device could pick a channel, celebrate and start transmitting right into a zone where there would be perfect TV reception and never be able to detect it because of a dead zone.
Trying to avoid this sort of interference in a practical application is impossible.
Slashdot Mirror
Geez. Why would I ever need it!?!
If you ever want a fast OS, run Windows 3.1 on a 300 MHz P2 with 64 Mb of RAM. Blazing fast.
Let's get to 128 Gb of RAM before we start pimping 1 Tb.
The future? Dude... the future must've begun in 2004.
I'm not saying we have to spend out tax dollars fixing Mexico. The history of previous American efforts to intervene in Mexico haven't exactly been positive.
I'm just identifying the problem. No one much discusses the issue of why Mexicans are leaving their country in the first place.
The reason Mexicans come to the US in droves is because their country is broken. Most of the police and half the military are on the take. Even the honest folks have decided to steer clear of the disaster.
Nothing America erects on that border is going to change the fact that Mexicans can make a decent and safe living in Mexico.
I've long wonder whether anti-depressants actually trigger suicidal thoughts or if the higher suicide rate among takers of anti-depressants is simply a function of the sample (depressed people are more likely to commit suicide).
Starcom Mediavest. With clients such as Kraft and Coke. Heavily vested in the old economy.
Work on your bullshit detectors. These guys are trying to drive down advertising rates.
Colors come with a lot of meanings we geeks aren't wired to grasp. It's why corporate websites all look alike. There is a sort of detente with color meanings among the corps. Basically, you're blue and white or red and white, and some shades of gray and a few spot colors tossed in for good measure. Companies want to avoid conveying meanings.
Look at Philadelphia. That city is about as committed to the values of the Democratic Party as a right-wing Banana Republic.
Most states require that a claim of material harm be inherently anti-competitive, and many states require that a material harm claim be built around some claim of malice. You can't just claim material harm because the other guy's idea makes your idea look sucky.
Also, aren't tax maps a matter of public record? I've seen something of the like in the Arcfile data from the Census.
Only laws we have failed to properly describe. "Broken laws" are the domain of religion.
I remember sitting in those college classes and most of the future Slashdot types had that attitude before they took the course.
"However some advocates of Domain Tasting say that perhaps no one will be able to serve the niche for some ads and no one will make money on the unserved ads."
Yup. Those niches are going to go completely unserved. The internet just doesn't have enough websites to support the kind of content diversity necessary to serve all marketing niches.
There's FUD, and then there's just plain thinking people are dumber than a bag of hammers.
"Mindless rod-pounding has produced a lot more than that."
Electrocution (one of my sister's boyfriends had a hilarious moment with an unmarked electric line). Ejaculation. And the ever awesome electrocution/ejaculation combo if you're down with that sort of thing.
The method you described, mindlessly pounding a rod into the earth, can produce a transient signal.
I gotta disagree. Look at the current business environment. If they ran decent DSL, how long would it be before DSL became the ugly little brother to fiber? The technologies need to settle down for a while before the telecoms are going to commit the effort to the lines.
I'm not aiming to defend the telecoms. I'm just stating their rationale, which is better than it is in many instances.
Even if it were possible for a computer to read lips, it would be like the size of a friggin football stadium. Geez!
I don't disagree on any one point. But, considering cable still hasn't been forced into a la carte channel packages, we're a long way from the political will to make cable do anything.
EOM
Have you ever looked at the TV reception issues in an area like Alaska? That's some fun.
There are parts of the rural mountainous US where you have to use a 10' satellite dish to get anything, and that's from local channels that are rebroadcast off of satellite. There's an old joke that the state bird of West Virginia is the C-band satellite dish.
The TV channels available depends on a lot of factors. In the right spot here in western PA you can pick up channels from five markets. I can easily get three markets.
The wireless service would be a huge leap forward for internet service. Also, I suspect that Google would like to liberate itself from the entire net neutrality issue.
But, the TV spectrum is a bad place to have this fight. It's hard to pick up signals in some areas, and it will be even harder for devices to figure out that they're causing interference when they can't detect signals that should be there, but maybe an apartment complex or a big rideline is blocking.
Verizon is doing nothing of the like in western PA, nor is Comcast. Them and a few Atlantic Broadband customers represent the whole target.
Only only one company, Alltel, is running any decent rural service.
When I moved into the new house, part of picking the house was making sure I had at least DSL.
A lot of companies in rural areas won't bother running what really amounts to the last mile of lines needed for DSL and cable. The reason is simple -- they will never recover the cost of running the line.
Presently, asynchronous satellite service is the only rural high speed internet available.
A ground-based synchronous wireless system circumvents some of that trouble, but the TV signals are sitting in the only bandwidth useful for reaching down into valleys. The truth is, VHF channels 7 and 8 are the plum spots. They have great range. They are at a low enough freqeuncy that they curve with the shape of the earth, while being high enough that they don't just suck in nearby electrical interference.
TV sits in the coveted spot.
Can you even imagine handling TV signal detection in an are like the Northeast Corridor? Anywhere from Richmond, VA to Portland, ME there are so friggin many channels that when you include out-of-DMA channels there simply is no real white space.
Understand that a channel in the eastern US can be reasonably expected to be detectable up to 100 miles away. For example, I live in central Pennsylvania, and even without atmospheric effects with a decent antenna I can get channels from eastern Ohio.
Point being that the device is going to pick up a lot of channels. Also, since it is presumed to be mobile, that device will have to shift channels.
Channel-shifting is where the real nightmare occurs, especially in cities. With path interference, you have total signal dead zones that are three feet away from strong signal. The device could pick a channel, celebrate and start transmitting right into a zone where there would be perfect TV reception and never be able to detect it because of a dead zone.
Trying to avoid this sort of interference in a practical application is impossible.
Call me when the robot can control the monkey with its android thoughts.
Robots always crave the blood of those who control them. Monkeys don't get a free ride.