Satellite lag

[PeterD]

On Sat, 01 Nov 2008 17:54:57 -0000, "Peter Hucker" <none@spam.com>
wrote:

On Sat, 01 Nov 2008 14:29:37 -0000, PeterD <peter2@hipson.net> wrote:

On Fri, 31 Oct 2008 18:09:48 -0400, Claude Hopper
boobooililililil@roadrunner.com> wrote:

nobody > wrote:
Claude Hopper wrote:
Why the lag? Light and microwaves travel at 186,000 miles a second.
That means a microwave could go around the earth 7.7 times in a second.
A satellite is only 500 miles up, that's 1000 miles round trip for a
microwave. That means a signal should be able to travel to a satellite
and back to earth 186 times a second or once in .005 seconds.
So why is there such a lag in satellite internet and TV??? Answer me
that. They keep telling me its the distance to travel. I don't think so.




So you think the satllites involved are only 500 miles up?

Google GEOSTATIONARY, dipshit

I did dipshit, some are 850km which is 500 miles, dipshit.

IDIOT...

[PHIL-MODE]
YOU FUCKING MORON, YOU'VE GOT SHIT FOR BRAINS.

YOU COULD NOT UNDERSTAND EVEN A SIMPLE THING, LET ALONE THE CONCEPT OF
GEOSTATIONARY SATELITES, YOU IDIOT!

[/PHIL-MODE]

Try this, idiot:

Geostationary orbits can be achieved only very close to the ring

What is "the ring"?

A narrow ring of space directly above the equator, AKA the Clarke
Belt. CLarke wrote about geostationary satellites in his books many
years before it was actually done, and the region was named after him.

35,786 km (22,236 mi) directly above the equator. This equates to an
orbital velocity of 3.07 km/s (1.91 mi/s) or a period of 1436 minutes.

reference: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geostationary

which is as good as any for this basic shit.

NOW FUCKING PISS OFF, TROLL...

 

[Meat Plow]

On Sat, 01 Nov 2008 17:56:03 +0000, Peter Hucker wrote:

On Fri, 31 Oct 2008 22:15:26 -0000, Claude Hopper
boobooililililil@roadrunner.com> wrote:

nobody > wrote:
Claude Hopper wrote:
Why the lag? Light and microwaves travel at 186,000 miles a second.
That means a microwave could go around the earth 7.7 times in a
second. A satellite is only 500 miles up, that's 1000 miles round
trip for a microwave. That means a signal should be able to travel to
a satellite and back to earth 186 times a second or once in .005
seconds. So why is there such a lag in satellite internet and TV???
Answer me that. They keep telling me its the distance to travel. I
don't think so.




So you think the satllites involved are only 500 miles up?

Google GEOSTATIONARY, dipshit

So, 24,000 miles dipshit, that's the same as around the world 7.7 times
in a second. The earth is 24,000 miles in circumference. That's still
less than a second up and back.

It's 0.2 seconds. I can vouch for this with satellite internet.

Yeh sure LOL. You had the "Faster Than the Speed Of Light" internet.

 

[Meat Plow]

On Sat, 01 Nov 2008 19:00:18 +0000, Peter Hucker wrote:

On Sat, 01 Nov 2008 18:46:58 -0000, Meat Plow <meat@petitmorte.net
wrote:

On Sat, 01 Nov 2008 17:56:03 +0000, Peter Hucker wrote:

On Fri, 31 Oct 2008 22:15:26 -0000, Claude Hopper
boobooililililil@roadrunner.com> wrote:

nobody > wrote:
Claude Hopper wrote:
Why the lag? Light and microwaves travel at 186,000 miles a
second. That means a microwave could go around the earth 7.7 times
in a second. A satellite is only 500 miles up, that's 1000 miles
round trip for a microwave. That means a signal should be able to
travel to a satellite and back to earth 186 times a second or once
in .005 seconds. So why is there such a lag in satellite internet
and TV??? Answer me that. They keep telling me its the distance to
travel. I don't think so.




So you think the satllites involved are only 500 miles up?

Google GEOSTATIONARY, dipshit

So, 24,000 miles dipshit, that's the same as around the world 7.7
times in a second. The earth is 24,000 miles in circumference.
That's still less than a second up and back.

It's 0.2 seconds. I can vouch for this with satellite internet.

Yeh sure LOL. You had the "Faster Than the Speed Of Light" internet.

Do the calculations and you'll find that 0.2 is about right for 24000
miles.

I tested HughsNet for a former client who had no access to broadband by
other means. Ping times were 700+ ms. Radio Shack had HughsNet, ping
times were 900+ ms. And if you think these ping times are based soley
upon distance, you're more of a fucking fool than I originally thought.

P.S. you're plonked for trolling with followup headers. Grow up.

LOL I love being plonked by people full of bullshit. Go back to
alt.usenet.kooks where you can find other idiots like yourself who post
1000's of times a week.

 

[Peter Hucker]

On Sat, 01 Nov 2008 19:32:22 -0000, PeterD <peter2@hipson.net> wrote:

On Sat, 01 Nov 2008 17:54:57 -0000, "Peter Hucker" <none@spam.com
wrote:

On Sat, 01 Nov 2008 14:29:37 -0000, PeterD <peter2@hipson.net> wrote:

On Fri, 31 Oct 2008 18:09:48 -0400, Claude Hopper
boobooililililil@roadrunner.com> wrote:

nobody > wrote:
Claude Hopper wrote:
Why the lag? Light and microwaves travel at 186,000 miles a second.
That means a microwave could go around the earth 7.7 times in a second.
A satellite is only 500 miles up, that's 1000 miles round trip for a
microwave. That means a signal should be able to travel to a satellite
and back to earth 186 times a second or once in .005 seconds.
So why is there such a lag in satellite internet and TV??? Answer me
that. They keep telling me its the distance to travel. I don't think so.




So you think the satllites involved are only 500 miles up?

Google GEOSTATIONARY, dipshit

I did dipshit, some are 850km which is 500 miles, dipshit.

IDIOT...

[PHIL-MODE]
YOU FUCKING MORON, YOU'VE GOT SHIT FOR BRAINS.

YOU COULD NOT UNDERSTAND EVEN A SIMPLE THING, LET ALONE THE CONCEPT OF
GEOSTATIONARY SATELITES, YOU IDIOT!

[/PHIL-MODE]

Try this, idiot:

Geostationary orbits can be achieved only very close to the ring

What is "the ring"?

A narrow ring of space directly above the equator, AKA the Clarke
Belt. CLarke wrote about geostationary satellites in his books many
years before it was actually done, and the region was named after him.

I thought it might be something like that. What confused me is surely the satellite would have to be PRECISELY over the equator?


--
http://www.petersparrots.com http://www.insanevideoclips.com http://www.petersphotos.com

Scientists recently conducted a marijuana taste test.
Nobody seems to be able to remember the results.

 

[Jeff Liebermann]

On Sat, 01 Nov 2008 17:57:40 -0000, "Peter Hucker" <none@spam.com>
wrote:

On Sat, 01 Nov 2008 04:58:52 -0000, Jeff Liebermann <jeffl@cruzio.com> wrote:

On Fri, 31 Oct 2008 17:38:10 -0400, Claude Hopper
boobooililililil@roadrunner.com> wrote:

Why the lag?

It's to give the censors time to block the video and/or add the
bleeps. If transmissions were instantaneous, who knows what immoral
evil you might be allowed to view.

When are we going to grow out of this childishness? It took decades to get the word "bloody" onto the BBC.

Profanity is the last refuge of the fu****ng inarticulate.
The real purpose of logical discourse is to present a point of view
without resorting to profanity, violence, intimidation, or acronyms.

A while back, I expected our government to demand that that the
internet and usenet be censored for political correctness, profanity,
inappropriate behavior, etc. The resultant demand for trained censors
was sufficiently obvious that I threw together a business plan and
curriculum, with plans to open a school for professional censors.
Unfortunately, there was no revenue in censorship for the government,
so the idea and my business plan died a merciful death.

--
Jeff Liebermann jeffl@cruzio.com
150 Felker St #D http://www.LearnByDestroying.com
Santa Cruz CA 95060 http://802.11junk.com
Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558

 

[Jeff Liebermann]

On Sat, 01 Nov 2008 17:58:43 -0000, "Peter Hucker" <none@spam.com>
wrote:

On Sat, 01 Nov 2008 15:59:58 -0000, Meat Plow <meat@petitmorte.net> wrote:

At least you got your nickname right.

Nonsense. If he lived in the clouds, the distance to the satellite would be shorter.

Nope. Search Google for "clodhopper". It's a type of shoe worn by
farmers, but also refers to a clumsy and stupid person. In American
jargon, a lout, hick, rustic, or yokel.

--
Jeff Liebermann jeffl@cruzio.com
150 Felker St #D http://www.LearnByDestroying.com
Santa Cruz CA 95060 http://802.11junk.com
Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558

 

[Peter Hucker]

On Sat, 01 Nov 2008 21:03:14 -0000, Jeff Liebermann <jeffl@cruzio.com> wrote:

On Sat, 01 Nov 2008 17:57:40 -0000, "Peter Hucker" <none@spam.com
wrote:

On Sat, 01 Nov 2008 04:58:52 -0000, Jeff Liebermann <jeffl@cruzio.com> wrote:

On Fri, 31 Oct 2008 17:38:10 -0400, Claude Hopper
boobooililililil@roadrunner.com> wrote:

Why the lag?

It's to give the censors time to block the video and/or add the
bleeps. If transmissions were instantaneous, who knows what immoral
evil you might be allowed to view.

When are we going to grow out of this childishness? It took decades to get the word "bloody" onto the BBC.

Profanity is the last refuge of the fu****ng inarticulate.
The real purpose of logical discourse is to present a point of view
without resorting to profanity, violence, intimidation, or acronyms.

Oh dear oh dear, you can't tolerate anyone different to yourself can you?

Profanities do get a little tedious if used in every sentence, but now and again to emphasise a point is perfectly fine.

A while back, I expected our government to demand that that the
internet and usenet be censored for political correctness, profanity,
inappropriate behavior, etc. The resultant demand for trained censors
was sufficiently obvious that I threw together a business plan and
curriculum, with plans to open a school for professional censors.
Unfortunately, there was no revenue in censorship for the government,
so the idea and my business plan died a merciful death.

You sad git.

--
http://www.petersparrots.com http://www.insanevideoclips.com http://www.petersphotos.com

British Rail Customer: "How much does it cost to Bath on the train?"
Operator: "If you can get your feet in the sink, then it's free".

 

[Peter Hucker]

On Sat, 01 Nov 2008 21:09:28 -0000, Jeff Liebermann <jeffl@cruzio.com> wrote:

On Sat, 01 Nov 2008 17:58:43 -0000, "Peter Hucker" <none@spam.com
wrote:

On Sat, 01 Nov 2008 15:59:58 -0000, Meat Plow <meat@petitmorte.net> wrote:

At least you got your nickname right.

Nonsense. If he lived in the clouds, the distance to the satellite would be shorter.

Nope. Search Google for "clodhopper". It's a type of shoe worn by
farmers, but also refers to a clumsy and stupid person. In American
jargon, a lout, hick, rustic, or yokel.

Maybe he's just a farmer?

--
http://www.petersparrots.com http://www.insanevideoclips.com http://www.petersphotos.com

British Rail Customer: "How much does it cost to Bath on the train?"
Operator: "If you can get your feet in the sink, then it's free".

 

[Jeff Liebermann]

On Sun, 02 Nov 2008 15:33:07 -0000, "Peter Hucker" <none@spam.com>
wrote:

Oh dear oh dear, you can't tolerate anyone different to yourself can you?

You have it backwards. Likes repel, opposites attract. I get along
quite well with people that have contrary opinions. I get very
suspicious when someone actually agrees with me.

Profanities do get a little tedious if used in every sentence, but now and again to emphasise a point is perfectly fine.

I see. Could you be a bit more specific? What ratio of profanity to
normal discourse do you consider acceptable? For example, would you
consider 1 profanity in every 100 words acceptable, but 2 profanities
in the same 100 words to be tedious?

The real problem with profanity is the common lack of an adequate
selection. Most of the GUM (great unwashed masses) know perhaps 10
assorted expletives, which they use repetitively and apparently
without much concern for grammatical or even topical correctness.
<http://www.analytictech.com/mb870/bwfldata.htm>
It's this lack of creativity and accompanying monotonous repetition
that I find offensive. Perhaps converting the purpose of media
censorship into some manner of creativity evangelist might make the
job function more acceptable.
<http://www.socyberty.com/Education/Evolution-of-Profanity--How-Swear-Words-Came-to-be-.17433>

A while back, I expected our government to demand that that the
internet and usenet be censored for political correctness, profanity,
inappropriate behavior, etc. The resultant demand for trained censors
was sufficiently obvious that I threw together a business plan and
curriculum, with plans to open a school for professional censors.
Unfortunately, there was no revenue in censorship for the government,
so the idea and my business plan died a merciful death.

You sad git.

How so? It's a perfectly legitimate business plan. I have no
intention of actually performing any censorship, but merely to educate
and supply the necessary censors.

--
Jeff Liebermann jeffl@cruzio.com
150 Felker St #D http://www.LearnByDestroying.com
Santa Cruz CA 95060 http://802.11junk.com
Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558

 

[Peter Hucker]

On Sun, 02 Nov 2008 16:29:04 -0000, Jeff Liebermann <jeffl@cruzio.com> wrote:

On Sun, 02 Nov 2008 15:33:07 -0000, "Peter Hucker" <none@spam.com
wrote:

Oh dear oh dear, you can't tolerate anyone different to yourself can you?

You have it backwards. Likes repel, opposites attract. I get along
quite well with people that have contrary opinions. I get very
suspicious when someone actually agrees with me.

The why are you objecting to people who use profanities?

Profanities do get a little tedious if used in every sentence, but now and again to emphasise a point is perfectly fine.

I see. Could you be a bit more specific? What ratio of profanity to
normal discourse do you consider acceptable? For example, would you
consider 1 profanity in every 100 words acceptable, but 2 profanities
in the same 100 words to be tedious?

There is no sudden point at which I'd change my opinion of someone. Just as there is no sudden point at which you'd consider the weather to be cold instead of warm. There are grey areas.

But the people I consider "tedious" are people who use a swearword in very sentence - a group of teenagers on a street corner for example. Acceptable is one used every so often, perhaps once in 5 minutes of discussion. Of course that could be once every 20 seconds if you're talking about something which really ticks you off.

The real problem with profanity is the common lack of an adequate
selection. Most of the GUM (great unwashed masses) know perhaps 10
assorted expletives, which they use repetitively and apparently
without much concern for grammatical or even topical correctness.
http://www.analytictech.com/mb870/bwfldata.htm
It's this lack of creativity and accompanying monotonous repetition
that I find offensive.

Agreed. But there is no need to censor expletives altogether.

Although I wouldn't say offensive. I'd say irritating. Just as other things in speech can be irritating - repeatedly misuing words for exmaple.

Perhaps converting the purpose of media
censorship into some manner of creativity evangelist might make the
job function more acceptable.
http://www.socyberty.com/Education/Evolution-of-Profanity--How-Swear-Words-Came-to-be-.17433

A while back, I expected our government to demand that that the
internet and usenet be censored for political correctness, profanity,
inappropriate behavior, etc. The resultant demand for trained censors
was sufficiently obvious that I threw together a business plan and
curriculum, with plans to open a school for professional censors.
Unfortunately, there was no revenue in censorship for the government,
so the idea and my business plan died a merciful death.

You sad git.

How so? It's a perfectly legitimate business plan. I have no
intention of actually performing any censorship, but merely to educate
and supply the necessary censors.

Er.... you're supplying something which gives someone the ability to censor. That's like saying you sold an AK47 to your neighbour and you're not resposible for what he did with it.

--
http://www.petersparrots.com http://www.insanevideoclips.com http://www.petersphotos.com

British Rail Customer: "How much does it cost to Bath on the train?"
Operator: "If you can get your feet in the sink, then it's free".