Slashdot stories can be listened to in audio form via an RSS feed, as read by our own robotic overlord.


Forgot your password?

Slashdot videos: Now with more Slashdot!

  • View

  • Discuss

  • Share

We've improved Slashdot's video section; now you can view our video interviews, product close-ups and site visits with all the usual Slashdot options to comment, share, etc. No more walled garden! It's a work in progress -- we hope you'll check it out (Learn more about the recent updates).


Comment: Re:Kids these days... Re:Slashdot lucks out (Score 1) 294

by fyngyrz (#49143083) Attached to: Reddit Imposes Ban On Sexual Content Posted Without Permission

Brings to mind the Maxell ad where the guy is sitting in the chair, hair blown back by the JBL-L100 in front of him.

Imagine the paper tapes instead of the L100. Except no hair would be blowing back, and I suspect the fellow would be asleep. Other than that, exactly the same.

Comment: SDR details and support (Score 1) 129

by fyngyrz (#49143065) Attached to: Developers Disclose Schematics For 50-1000 MHz Software-Defined Transceiver

To answer your question about connectivity, the device has 10/100 Ethernet with the Linux networking stack built in.

That's excellent. Did you build your own protocol, or did you use the mechanism RFSPACE, Andrus, AFEDRI and the various USB-to-Ethernet servers have established?

I try -- hard -- to support all ethernet based SDRs for which I can obtain protocol information.

It also has USB-OTG, and I already know WiFi and USB Sound Cards work with no additional work.

Sound card I/Q is no problem for SdrDx -- that gets the RF in, and of course I support that. The problem with the rest is controlling the SDR's settings: center frequency, attenuator, sample rate, and so on. This is because of the radical differences in USB interfacing from platform to platform.

Having said that, if you've got a working command line utility that talks to the control systems on your SDR, then SdrDx emits information via TCP that can be used to drive the command line client from a script. We've pulled this off with the Peabody and Softrock SDRs pretty well. Again, though, we run into the issue of which platform(s) the utility is available for, seeing as how they'd have to be radically different from one another.

Comment: Re:50 Mhz lower limit? Ouch. (Score 3, Interesting) 129

by fyngyrz (#49134185) Attached to: Developers Disclose Schematics For 50-1000 MHz Software-Defined Transceiver

What's the point of a fancy SDR on the lower bands though? At least in the States most of the amateur bands with any kind of useful propagation are so narrow that one of the brain dead simple sound card SDR rigs can cover the majority of your band of choice.

This is going to be long-winded; there's quite a bit to cover. Sorry. :)

Cover, yes. Cover well, no. You need lots of bit depth for adequate dynamic range without filters, bit depth almost no one offers, and if you don't have adequate bit depth, then you really need front end filtering and probably a stepped attenuator as well. You need EM protection because HF antennas tend to be large and prone to large induced voltages. You need good frequency linearity if you want to use the SDR to get accurate measurements (even the s-meter.) For the ham bands, it's also nice if the SDR supports a sample rate of 400 khz or better, which is tough for a sound card SDR. Then there is frequency accuracy and stability, not to mention external reference sources (there all kinds of cool things you can do with a very stable SDR, like this AM graveyard band carrier forest), and then we get into multiple front ends for diversity reception and noise reduction. If you want to remote the SDR for any reason, you really need ethernet, and if you need ethernet, you need some smarts. And you need ethernet anyway, because USB bloody sucks (speaking as a cross-platform developer.) So If you want a good SDR, you just don't end up with a "brain dead simple" SDR.

As to narrow ham bands in the HF range, well, not really. 160 meters is 200 kHz. 80 meters is 500 kHz. 20 meters is 350 KHz. 15 meters is 450 kHz. 10 meters is 1.7 MHz. The WARC bands are all pretty tiny. Also, for SWL, some of those are quite wide, and even more so if you include the out of band regions where the pirates are. Pirates being quite unpredictable, you want them in the spectrum so you can see them when they pop up, so bandwidth is quite relevant if they are of interest (personally, I find them fascinating.) Come to that, if you want to see what overall prop/activity is looking like, you need 30 MHz of bandwidth to do it live.

I will grant you that someday, we may be able to put a 48 bit, multiple Gs/s A/D on a chip with a full ethernet interface cheap enough for anyone to own; but not right now. Until that day, good SDRs will not be "brain dead simple."

More on frequency range: If you want to use the SDR for a panadaptor for an existing receiver (very common use), then it has to cover one of the IF frequencies and associated bandwidth of the receiver, which tends to be in the HF range (not always, though.) Then there are cray-cray folk like myself; among other things, I use my SDR to monitor bats in our attic. To do that, the SDR has to be able to do a good job with the first 100 KHz, also true of experimentation with sonar and other audio ranging and detecting tech.

I'm not saying there isn't stuff up higher than HF; of course there is. Some of the really cool stuff (wifi, for instance) is as high as 5 GHz. Satellites, public utilities, etc. Any motion video needs to be up pretty high (but it also needs very significant bandwidth.) But HF has a huge amount of interest, it's where most hams actually hang out, and as it's a very challenging reception environment, higher end designs are of great interest. So are hackable designs one can get at. For instance, if you built yourself a multi-stage filter bank for the various HF bands, you could have them switch automatically as you tune. Likewise you could control add-on attenuators, RF preamps, and switchable transverters (which can give a nominally lower freq range SDR excellent access to higher bands.)

I have a variety of SDRs, and switching is simply a matter of prodding a menu. I have access from about 1 Hz to 3 GHz across the group, with varying features as described above. In the end, as HF is so very active, that's where I usually end up listening. Although I'm an extra and have a full station, I do a lot more listening than transmitting. In the day, I lurk on 20 meters and up, though again as the sunspot count drops, that'll go back to only 20 meters. In the evening, 40 through 160 come alive, as well as many of the SW bands, and it's DX time, trying to catch the low power African and South American stations.

I think it's fair to say that most hams are, to coin a usage, "HF hams" first, and "VHF and above hams" second, if at all. VHF never offered much in terms of DX contacts or reliable prop events, so it was always about just communicating. With cellphones, that hook went away, and I'm guessing that's what accounts for the dead 2m and 70cm bands. But the HF bands are busy, and the number of hams keeps growing... so that leads me to think that an SDR aimed at hams can really use low band capability.

PS - I have VHF and UHF in the car and several units at home, plus an HT I carry in my man-bag (ie, purse.) I have a 14 element 2m beam. I can hit about eight repeaters from here, covering thousands of square miles. I hear *nothing* at home. I'm not hearing any VHF packet any longer, either. My lonely packet BBS beacon squirts out there by itself, no visitors and no digipeating and it has been that way for I don't even know how long. Trips to the cities nearest me result in dead silence on the calling frequencies and local repeaters, though I have to admit I don't make any calls myself -- I'm just curious so I listen.

Anyway, it's just one guy's opinion / anecdote, it isn't data, you have to listen to your own area and draw your own conclusions. Perhaps it's just Montana and surrounds. It certainly won't hurt anyone if I don't use a particular SDR. It'll have an effect if I don't support it, though, so hopefully, frequency range of 50-1000 or not, it has a protocol-compliant ethernet interface or some kindhearted person writes a USB-to-ethernet server on at least one platform so I can do so. :)

Comment: 50 Mhz lower limit? Ouch. (Score 4, Informative) 129

by fyngyrz (#49133347) Attached to: Developers Disclose Schematics For 50-1000 MHz Software-Defined Transceiver

Most hams (including myself) are interested in HF (and others are interested in SWL and the new below-AM BCB ham frequencies.)

50 MHz means 6 meters and above -- basically, nothing that has any regularly occurring usable propagation modes. Many of these upper bands are almost dead -- I've not heard anyone on 2 meters or 70 cm around here in the last year -- but 10 through 160 meters (28 MHz through 1.8 MHz) are busy as heck, and of course all the SW spectrum in between.

Worse, we're almost certain to be about to slide down the sunspot curve, making the already mostly dead-by-choice bands completely dead-by-nature, propagation-wise.

RFSPACE's upcoming new unit is .009 (9khz) through 50 MHz. That's a lot more attractive to me. Both to use, and to support.

Then there's funcube dongle pro plus... 50 khz through 1.8 GHz, albeit without adequate filtering up front. But it's reasonably cheap, so there's that. (and I already supported it, PITA though it was, so it's not subject to the no-more-USB-devices rule.)

Well, whatever they end up with, I sure hope it's ethernet-connected and uses the standard SDR protocol as do Andrus, AFEDRI and RFSPACE. I've supported my last black sheep USB device (every darned OS has radically different USB interfacing and requirements... building my free cross-platform SDR software is most tricky with regard to USB issues. Ethernet, by comparison, is almost identical on all platforms -- the same SDR protocol / interfacing code works fine across linux, Windows and OS X.)

Comment: Most important limits (Score 1) 162

by fyngyrz (#49132739) Attached to: Should a Service Robot Bring an Alcoholic a Drink?

Keep the Jehovahs and Mormons from getting in the house. Bonus if it can hold off people pushing meritless products. But I repeat myself.

As for serving drinks or drugs, the damn things should do what they're told. I don't need robots to take agency from me. Lard knows the frigging government is spending more than enough effort on that already. For me personally, all I have to say is "I already have (had) a mother, and her last bit of authority over me expired in 1977."

First time a (non-conscious) robot refused to do what I told it to, presuming only it was within its comprehension and skill set, I think I'd take a hammer to it.

Comment: Oh, please. (Score 4, Insightful) 581

by fyngyrz (#49129199) Attached to: Republicans Back Down, FCC To Enforce Net Neutrality Rules

Look. The only reason you wouldn't be able to keep your insurance that the ACA could even *vaguely* be named responsible for is if it was so bad that it didn't meet the minimum standards of the ACA, and your insurance company didn't upgrade the policy accordingly -- most likely, they cancelled it in favor of new policies that *did* meet the minimum requirements. The whole *point* of the ACA was to see to it that people were *sufficiently* insured.

Otherwise, the only reasons you would lose your current insurance would be if the insurance company cancelled your policy -- and in that case, the blame lands squarely on the insurance company; or your employer decided to take the opportunity to cut your benefits and blame it on the ACA. In that case, look to your employer.

As for your doctor, the only ACA-related reason you might not be able to keep your doctor is if they don't bother to register with the pool you chose -- and all you have to do there is tell your doctor which one it is. And if they fail to register, you can blame your doctor. My doctor did the right thing, and she's still my doctor. I specifically asked, and she said there was almost nothing to it.

Now, let's look this issue right in the face. Are there conditions where you couldn't keep your doctor? Sure. For instance, if your doctor got run over by a bus. Or retired. Or committed suicide. Or moved to Botswana. Or switched jobs. So "Obama lied", right? But of course, if you're a sane person and not trying to shill your way through a bout of Obama-hate, you would understand that there will be some exceptions, and generally, they're going to be related to the doctor's circumstance -- just as the bus incident would be. Because there isn't one damn thing in the ACA that says "this here doctor can't be used."

As with the previous poster, my circumstances were enormously improved by the ACA. I did get to keep my doctor (it was no problem at all, she just did a little paperwork, that was it) and my coverage is now excellent.

Is everything perfect? No. Republicans are blocking the medicaid expansion here, so many no- and low-income individuals who were intended to be covered by the ACA, aren't. While this goes on, the taxes we paid here to cover them go to another state as the already-allocated funds are disbursed elsewhere. Consequently, our medical and insurance costs here are rising because we are paying the hospitals for uncompensated care for people who should have been covered, and for which the funds were already allocated.

Comment: Re:Constitutionality (Score 1) 395

Perhaps it should be the job of the president. Oh, that'd stir up the hornet's nest a bit. :)

Executive order #xxx: congressman Ex P. Facto, supporter of the Add Punishment After Conviction bill (APAC, HR 666), goes home to [State] today, never to return to legislative service. [State], if you want representation this term, time for an off-season election. Try a little harder so you pick someone who can read this time around, and see to it that they read and understand that thing they swear an oath to.

Comment: Re:Constitutionality (Score 1) 395

We don't need a vague demand for justice, but an actual accountable process for determining and doing away with unconstitutional laws.

Well, see, if we say you are forbidden from doing X, and you do X, and we do nothing, what we have done is set up a situation where when forbidden from doing Y, you will see absolutely no reason not to do Y, too. Welcome to the US state and federal legislatures.

To these people, no does not mean no. Because they are sophist bullshit artists. And we won't show them no does mean no. So that's the end of it.

Comment: Re:Constitutionality (Score 1) 395

If the citizens cared, any number of means could be provided. But frankly, no one cares. The number of people I have met who actually know what the constitution says is appallingly small. We live in a corporate oligarchy inside a banana dictatorship shell, in the main populated with ignorant couch potatoes.

except for the part where legislators that pass unconstitutional laws are punished

Yeah... the part that might have made it work. :/ Instead, they just arrogated article 5 powers unto themselves, also without oversight (and they have used that freedom from oversight to outright ignore the constitution over and over again.)

You notice how laws have consequences? And that's the basis, we hope anyway, for people to obey them even if they'd like to disobey? Notice that the laws, supposedly the highest in the land, in the constitution have zero punishment / teeth? You know why that was? Because people were expected to act with honor in public service. Good grief, what an error that was.

Comment: Death by Pot (Score 1) 395

There are only three ways you can easily kill someone with pot.

First, put them in jail. Rape and murder are potential outcomes. Then, once released as a felon, suicide may get them when they find the doors of (legal) opportunity have closed and they are permanently ranked lowest-class-irredeemable by society's permanent retribution stick. Finally, if they try to make it in the underground economy, the system will likely get another whack at them in its rape-and-murder parlors. Also, as the government has created a violent black market in pot with its laws, competition in the underground economy is also a potential source of death.

Second, stuff enough pot into their windpipe to completely block their breathing. That'll do it.

Third, drop a 100 kg bale of pot on their head from about 100 meters above. That'll do it pretty much every time. See? Pot can be dangerous.

There are other ways, but they are more difficult to set up and generally require many bales of pot and restraint of the victim.

Comment: Not a good reason (Score 1) 395

That is NOT the responsibility of the individual. It is the responsibility of the legislature that decided they were going to pay for it. The taxpayers have recourse, too -- tell their legislators they don't accept paying for it. If enough do so, it'll stop. You see the government paying for housing for those the taxpayers are happy to see living under a bridge? No. Think about it.

On the other hand, if the representatives get the message that we're compassionate enough to offer to help those who want to be helped? Well then, that's how it'll go. And of course, there is some small chance that private charity will address a problem. Very small.

It still doesn't give anyone the right to tell another person what to do, or not do, with their own body or those of others who consent (and even if you try to arrogate such a right, you will inevitably find that it won't "take." Witness the failure of prohibition and the drug war and the sex worker / sex client war and the pro-heterosexuality war and slavery.)

These things have two obvious things in common: First, the laws themselves, far more than the things they make illegal, cause immense harm. The second is that they make legislators look incredibly stupid in front of anyone who can think their way out of a paper bag. The former is a damned shame. The latter, I'm afraid, we already had ample proof of.

Comment: Neck deep in bananas (Score 1) 395

If the judiciary has the power to consider cases and controversies arising under the Constitution (this is spelled out in Article III, so I don't think you can dispute that it has such power) then how do you purpose that it exercise such power?

Just the way a circuit judge exercises the power of laws at his/her level: By enforcing them. Not by re-defining or ignoring for some trumped-up "cause."

INTRASTATE commerce. Make NO law. shall NOT infringe. ...powers not assigned here SHALL go to the states. NO ex post facto laws, state OR federal. Warrant REQUIRED. And so on. Where's the (honest) controversy? This stuff is forbidden, plain and simple, and any time it comes up, and I mean *any* time, the whole thing is an exercise in constitutional violation and unauthorized use, or attempted use, of power.

The constitution wasn't written for sophist lawyers to dance on the head of a pin. It was written to restrict and define the role of government in plain English, by and for the citizens. Step outside that, it's not government -- it's just a banana dictatorship -- "because the government says so." Yeah, we're neck deep in this crap and sinking fast, but that does not, and never will, make it right.

Comment: Constitutionality (Score 1) 395

Congress passes a law, the President signs it, some aggrieved third party says it's unconstitutional. Exactly who do you think should review said law and make the final determination?

Congress shall make no law. Congress makes a law. We should send the congresspersons home and tear the law up. No third party required. No delay required. No court required.

[thing] shall not be infringed upon. Congress makes a law that infringes. We should send the congresspersons home and tear the law up. No third party required. No delay required. No court required.

All other rights and powers go to the states. Congress makes a law that takes some of those powers unto itself. We should send the congresspersons home and tear the law up. No third party required. No delay required. No court required.

Congress nor states may make ex post facto laws. They make ex post facto laws. We should send the makers home and tear the laws up. No third party required. No delay required. No court required.

Search and seizure may not be pursued without probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, which allows a judge to choose to issue a warrant, which in turn must specify the things to be searched for and the place(s) to be searched. Congress or a state (or a TLA, effectively) makes a law that breaks this chain: We should send the makers/breakers home and tear the law/rule up. No third party required. No delay required. No court required.

Authority? The US constitution, which lays out the limits of government, barring use of article five. As these people are all obviously in violation of the limits, they are no longer qualified to be a part of it, and sending them home amounts to no more than the courtesy of paying for their ticket. They clearly didn't belong where they were.

"Well, if you can't believe what you read in a comic book, what *can* you believe?!" -- Bullwinkle J. Moose