Re: [colorforth] /. and the new bios

["Samuel A. Falvo II" <kc5tja@xxxxxxxx>]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

On Sunday 20 June 2004 10:42 am, Kurt B. Kaiser wrote:
> You're right about that....although I prefer email lists like this
> over BB (so long as they have archives).

Is there really any practical difference?

> Well, given the software systems I use and develop on a daily basis,
> it would be a pain to go back to 52Kbit downloads.  It's not unusual
> to download 100 MB for an update.

You seem to be mistaken about the correlation of bandwidth versus 
point-to-point connections.  There is nothing inherent in a 
circuit-switched connection that mandates that low a throughput.  Or am 
I missing something?

> regarding a more efficient Forth-based net not using TCP/IP.  It's
> not clear to me that great improvements in efficiency are actually
> possible on non-switched channels, though.

They are readily improvable.  IP is a *great* protocol.  TCP is a horrid 
protocol.  On any network link with 5% packet loss or more, TCP all but 
bails out of any connection.  This is why TCP is *horrible* for use on 
wireless networks, where the average packet loss will almost certainly 
be closer to 20% just because of natural phenomina, and not due to 
tampering or signal strength issues.

> People have gotten used to downloading large amounts of data off the
> web.  Once you get used to that, it's hard to go back.

So don't do that.  A return to a simpler communications infrastructure 
will almost certainly result in a return to more efficient coding, 
purely out of convenience and consideration's sake.

> Is it practical to use Part 15 devices for a communication net?

Yes.

> I hope you are correct.  But it can still be illegal, with significant
> penalties, and that would have a major chilling effect.

Certainly.  And I didn't say it was *impossible* for the FCC to track 
someone.  Just incredibly hard.  The question boils down to how much 
resources the FCC is willing to donate to the enforcement problem.  
Remember the FCC is a "business" too, in a way, and they won't spend 
money on anything that won't produce a return on investment.

> I thought it was illegal to descramble a commercial satellite
> broadcast.

The act of descrambling is not in itself illegal.  Watching the 
descrambled content, however, technically is.  Assuming you can 
descramble it to begin with.

> I believe they were being lenient for awhile, then clamped down
> following complaints from the majors.  I hope you're right about the
> new rule-making, I haven't been subscribed to QST for a couple of
> years.  It certainly seems to me that the community FM stations don't
> cause objectionable interference and do serve community interests.

Well, an NPRM isn't the same as a new rule-making.  It's merely a 
proposal.  And I have no idea whether the NPRM was accepted or not.

- --
Samuel A. Falvo II
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.4 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQFA1iR6vwDm/l0jx/IRAhneAKC2IlK530wF44fMmSLEcuyxro2ULACgkE2R
WvlOua0YQsCkpax5CVRgIjY=
=abLb
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----


---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: colorforth-unsubscribe@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
For additional commands, e-mail: colorforth-help@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Main web page - http://www.colorforth.com