There is only one broadcaster. There is only one MPEG2 transport stream, now containing both programs. They must cooperate, as they are sharing one piece of transmission gear. It's not like a cellular network where two different entities are sharing time slices of a common spectrum. Also, I'm not aware of any broadcaster that uses 1080p.

Generally studio shows fare better because they're only 24fps with frame duplication. There's simply much less data to send.

No. Charliemopps was referring to the fact that you do not subdivide your spectrum. Subchannels are separated logically, not physically. Two video streams on a 6MHz channel is two video streams on a single 6MHz channel, not two video streams each with their own 3MHz channel.

Channels don't exist on a carrier. The data stream exists on the carrier, the (MPEG2) transport stream is encoded in the data stream, and as many audio and video streams of whatever resolution you want are multiplexed into that transport stream. Only practicality limits you to two 720p60 MPEG2 video streams in a single 6MHz 8VSB band, as the compression levels needed to push further down than that on typical content starts to become very noticeable.

Old 78s and 45s were never better than digital, in any fashion. They added weight and ceremony to listening to music, because of the care needed in using them. They added distortions that people like to call "warmth". Both of these are form, and run in direct violation to their primary function as a storage medium.

There's no explicit maximum, or at least none that you could ever reasonably reach. It all comes down to how much you compress the data. You can run dozens of HD channels on a single multiplex if they look like shit, or are primarily static images.

That sounds like other changes were made at the same time, independent of the digital transition. Their new transmitters are cheap shit. They dropped to a lower transmit power. They moved to a different antenna or frequency that results in increased interference.

Are you sure about that? ZFS has a "copies" parameter as well. It just means it stores two copies of the block somewhere in the pool. If you give it multiple disks in a pool, it will try to place those copies on different disks, but it will not guarantee it. It's a measure to prevent data loss when you have a damaged sector, not a full disk failure.

If you have disks of different sizes with copies=2, will it refuse to write if you only have one disk with free space remaining?

In the US, if you receive something of monetary value in exchange for a service, you have received income, and that income is taxed. If Google is not being taxed on the data it receives for its free services, then the government itself is saying there is no monetary value on that data. No value means no sale, and thus no customer. Just because you have a contract does not require that one party be a customer.

The argument against allowing expansion of parity arrays is that if you find yourself wanting to add a single disk to a parity array, you didn't properly plan for expansion when you designed the system. ZFS was originally designed for enterprise customers, for whom that was not a feature that would rarely ever see use. It was not intended for the home user piecing together spare parts for a file server.

If you have RAID1 and add a drive, you still have RAID1, and just as much storage as you started with. You only add redundancy, unless you're saying it converted the mirror into a parity array.

On a gigabit network with the standard 64K pipe buffer, you'll trickle along at just a few megabit.

Chances are if you're an enterprise user running enterprise Linux with a support contract, you're going to engineer in immediate needs, future expansion, and replacement when you purchase your server equipment. You're not going to throw something together and get yourself into a situation where you would need dynamic resizing of a stripe. That's more a concern for the home and small business user who may not have the funds to plan for expansion when building a server, but then that's not the market Sun was shooting for when designing ZFS.

Why would I prefer DIF on FC and SAS2 over the drive's internal ECC mechanisms? A single layer of protection means a single layer that has to fail before data loss.

The same can be said for any other filesystem as well. If you have a bad bit in memory, and you write it to disk, that data is corrupted. The only penalty under ZFS is that if you gave it redundancy, and leave checksums enabled, it will detect that fault, try to correct it, and in doing so crush the whole block instead of just one bit.

If you aren't going to use ECC memory, don't use checksums either.