 VarlikWithout Honor You Will Never Be FreePremium
join:2002-01-06
Anderson, SC
1 edit | Loss of Prospective Or just more of it, since they've gone public. That's what happens when you have suits running the show. Why don't they invest in minks or Clydesdale's while their at it.
--
"Sir SIR! We don't use DHCP servers. We only use IBM & Microsoft servers." From there my call to tech support went steadily downhill. |
|
|
|
| Oh boy, here go the HAMs again. Like pitbulls and a piece of meat and their God-like know-it-all attitude. |
|
 meskinctMad Scientist at WorkPremium
join:2002-01-07
Danbury, CT
 ·Comcast
| ..-. --- .-. -.- ..-
I'm a HAM. Picture this - You are authorized to use a spectrum. Is it really right for someone to just transmit right over you? I'm sure if they were using a frequency used by radio or TV you would see a lot more bitching. At least the HAMs are trying to work with the BPL providers.
Don't blame me, you are the one who brought it up.
--
Rich. My Website - ThisIsPico.Com including the SBC Northeast/SNET Status Page and Graphs |
|
KB2PSM
join:2002-08-06
Long Beach, NY
2 edits | reply to apsinkus
You are so right...how dare those Hams have the exclusive rights to the "Laws of Physics"! How dare these Hams, many who are professionally and largely well-versed in physics and radio propagations, share their knowledge- thus appearing as "G-dlike know-it-alls" to the lesser-informed!
If folks want to be misguided by the promises of BPL and if the Google suits want to ignore these silly "Laws of Physics", they can simply write a company policy canceling them and ask the public to ignore them by completely denying them at press conferences.
We all know that the BPL proponents have been completely honest about the nature of pushing radio waves across unshielded power lines. If they say it's great technology, with non-evasive propagation and will be swiftly and economically deployed with the specific purpose of rewarding rural areas with broadband, who is ANYONE to doubt or challenge their promise? How dare any naysayer bring the hurtful truth to the table? And the nerve of anyone to present hard data against broadband being sent over power lines or the failed attempts and discontinued trials throughout the world.
Apparently for some, if you do not sway to a popular belief fed to a largely misinformed public, you are a nuisance and an annoyingly rabid truth-teller.
And, for those who can't read the fine details- Ham Radio operators, the NTIA, and many other radio-driven public/commercial/military/hobbyist services are NOT against ANYONE having access to broadband. That would be a silly, myopic and rabid stand to take. They are specifically deeply concerned about the inherent and presently indelible interference to local and worldwide radio communications- whether or not others are unaware, disinterested or indifferent to how this may potentially impact on them or others.
Sigh... 
Rob |
|
 extreme50Formerly TwoKDialupPremium
join:2002-06-07
Coloma, MI | reply to apsinkus
said by apsinkus:Oh boy, here go the HAMs again. Like pitbulls and a piece of meat and their God-like know-it-all attitude. LOL! No worries though, BPL can be easily deployed now. If any HAMs complain about neighborhood interference, the local municipality can use its new eminent domain powers to remove the troublemakers from the community. God bless the liberal left.  |
|
| reply to apsinkus
At least they KNOW something, as opposed to you who wouldn't know their butt from a doughnut. |
|
 djrobx
join:2000-05-31
Valencia, CA
kudos:1 | reply to meskinct
quote:
..-. --- .-. -.- ..-
Flaming in morse code. I like it!
--
\\ROB - a part of the SCB local network |
|
vernalexPremium
join:2000-10-19
Manchester, CT | reply to extreme50
Liberal left? What does that have to do with the "liberal left"? |
|
RayWPremium
join:2001-09-01
Layton, UT
kudos:1 | said by vernalex:What does that have to do with the "liberal left"? Would it be because historically speaking, they are the ones who belive the common peon (most of us) should not have property rights, but be property of the state ouselves?
--
I am not lost, I find myself every time. |
|
vernalexPremium
join:2000-10-19
Manchester, CT | No. said by RayW:said by vernalex:What does that have to do with the "liberal left"? Would it be because historically speaking, they are the ones who belive the common peon (most of us) should not have property rights, but be property of the state ouselves? Nope. Actually, the eminent domain judgement in question was passed by the conservative right in support of businesses over individuals, under the guise of business development that will make the lives of individuals better. The decision was passed by the Supreme Court, which just so happens to have nine members and two of which are "liberal". So, you can't blame this decision on "liberals". |
|
RayWPremium
join:2001-09-01
Layton, UT
kudos:1 | said by vernalex: So, you can't blame this decision on "liberals". Note - I said Historically.
But to answer your statement, my reading indicates:
The court has precisely three conservatives: Justices William Rehnquist (Nixon/Reagan), Antonin Scalia (Reagan) and Clarence Thomas (Bush). Anthony Kennedy (Reagan) and Sandra Day O'Connor (Reagan) are wild cards. Justices John Paul Stevens (Ford), Stephen Breyer (Clinton), David Souter (Bush) and Ruth Bader Ginsburg (Clinton) are liberals. One so-called moderate, O'Connor, leans heavily liberal. As of 2003, O'Connor had voted with Ginsburg on 75 percent of the cases on which both had sat.
I added the presidents, the text is from one of several sites that I looked at.
As far as the vote, I read:
Stevens (L), Kennedy (?), Souter (L), Ginsburg (L), and Breyer (L) voted for it.
O'Connor (?), Rehnquist (C), Antonin Scalia (C), and Thomas (C) voted against it.
Your impressions may vary.
--
I am not lost, I find myself every time. |
|
| The problem here is that it was not conservative, liberal, republican nor democrat. This was passed by both sides, not one or the other. Neither side can say "libs did it" or "cons did it." It was both sides that took our right to property ownership.
While the left and right, liberals and conservatives fight amongst themselves, the government (both sides) are taking our rights away from us.
Neither side is right. |
|
 Radio ActiveMy pappy's a pistolPremium
join:2003-01-31
Fullerton, CA
1 edit | reply to apsinkus
Re: Loss of Prospective said by apsinkus:Oh boy, here go the HAMs again. Like pitbulls and a piece of meat and their God-like know-it-all attitude. Oh boy, here go the HAM haters again. Like trolls under a bridge and their need-to get-bent attitude.
Please. At least contribute something meaningful to the thread.
At least we hams can come up with real arguments against BPL. All you can do is take a poke at someone else. BTW, my little sister can hit harder than that.
--
Q: What is- More powerful than God; More evil than Satan; rich people want it and poor people have it; If you eat it you will die? A: Nothing.
»www.folsomtech.com |
|
 Balzer
join:2000-12-18
Owasso, OK | reply to extreme50
And right back at yeah too! The law works both ways. And I will use it too.
Great idea thanks.:o
--
Televangelists are The Pro Wrestlers of religion! |
|
| reply to vernalex
Re: No. The sad thing is, that recent decision regarding "eminent domain", is just another crack in this once great rock of a republic. You see, even the founding fathers of our nation clearly recogized the evils of democracy, and of the "tyranny of the majority". But by their recent court ruling that a majority group of people, once they recognize that they can benefit, by depriving the rights and property of a minority group - they have essentially decided that we are not a republic, with respect for the rights and properties of minorities - but a democracy, whereby the "majority rule" is absolute and crushing. What's next? A decision that all of the people of (insert skin color / racial background here), are a a threat to the economic prosperity of a local region, and that therefore, by this new interpretation of the doctrine of "eminent domain", that the local town / municipality can decide to evict all of those minority residents, to make way for "more prosperous contributors to (their local) society"? It's a very dangerous and slippery slope that those SCJs have embarked upon, and they dont have very far to go before some local jurisdiction decides to attempt exactly what I hypothesized above. Is this the return of "seperate but equal"?
It's secondarily interesting, because of something that I read on someone's blog regarding Bush's statements on his appointments of future SCJs, and choosing someone that will be a "strict constructionist" of the Constitution (strangely, although Bush is not), and the analysis of that mention in the blog, was that if such a thing were followed to the logical extreme, we might well end up again with the "seperate but equal" doctrine regarding racial discrimination.
How strangely coincidental then, that this recent SCJ ruling could well lead us indeed in that very direction, although via a slightly different route. |
|
| reply to apsinkus
Re: Loss of Prospective said by apsinkus:Oh boy, here go the HAMs again. Like pitbulls and a piece of meat and their God-like know-it-all attitude. OK, let's review:
Cable uses radio frequencies used by licensed wireless services and doesn't interfere with wireless communications. Cable is a shielded medium.
The various flavors of DSL use radio frequencies and don't interfere with wireless communications. DSL uses twisted pairs and is self-shielding.
Wireless broadband networks use unlicensed or unlicensed frequencies allocated specifically for such services and doesn't interfere with other services.
Fiber optics use light to transmit gigabits of data, and don't interfere with wireless communications.
And BPL uses an unshielded medium using radio frequencies occupied by licensed wireless services, and has been shown both with theory and field measurements that it radiates whatever frequencies it uses.
So using your infinite wisdom, which broadband medium is the red-headed stepchild of the bunch? |
|
| reply to vernalex
Re: Liberal left? The brainwashed rightwingers need somebody to blame, so it's gotta be the liberals. Even though we liberals have no power in the current government of this country, everything that goes wrong is evidently still our fault because of Clinton's BJ. |
|
| reply to I miss liberty
Re: No. said by I miss liberty:
The sad thing is, that recent decision regarding "eminent domain", is just another crack in this once great rock of a republic. You see, even the founding fathers of our nation clearly recogized the evils of democracy, and of the "tyranny of the majority".
How strangely coincidental then, that this recent SCJ ruling could well lead us indeed in that very direction, although via a slightly different route.
Not intending to trivialize your post by not quoting all of it.Excellent and valid observations eerily bring to mind Germany in the 1930's of naziism doctrine.Fresh out of histories books starting to emerge from our political leaders. |
|
