On Mon, 2 May 2022 22:22:38 +0200, Gerhard Hoffmann <dk4xp@arcor.de>
wrote:

>Am 02.05.22 um 21:46 schrieb John Larkin:
>> On Mon, 02 May 2022 17:46:03 GMT, Jan Panteltje
>> <pNaonStpealmtje@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
>>>> Putin is shelling cities and slaughtering possibly millions, and
>>>> setting his people back decades, and it's our fault?
>>>
>>> US provoked it, using NATO slaves
>>> its the same old song, make war, make money.
>>
>> The US has paid to defend europe from the Russians since WWII.
>>
>> As T said, it's time for them to pay for their own defense.
>
>No, you invested a bit to ensure your share of the prey.

The europeans find excuses to be ungrateful and cheap. We should have
let the Russian Empire grow all the way.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_world

>
>Just the lesser evil.

Take your choice.
--

If a man will begin with certainties, he shall end with doubts,
but if he will be content to begin with doubts he shall end in certainties.
Francis Bacon

On Mon, 02 May 2022 12:49:34 -0700, John Larkin
<jlarkin@highland_atwork_technology.com> wrote:

>On Thu, 28 Apr 2022 22:43:35 +0300, Dimiter_Popoff <dp@tgi-sci.com>
>wrote:
>
>>On 4/28/2022 22:16, John Larkin wrote:
>>> On Thu, 28 Apr 2022 02:00:41 -0700 (PDT), whit3rd <whit3rd@gmail.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Wednesday, April 27, 2022 at 12:56:42 PM UTC-7, John Larkin wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> I want everything on one wireless network. Internet, phones, TV, wifi,
>>>>> home automation, cars, utility meters, security, webcams, everything.
>>>>>
>>>>> Privacy is over-rated.
>>>>
>>>> That's a laugh; Internet range is out to near Earth orbit, and you want your
>>>> utility meters to compete for that against your TV remote control? One network
>>>> isn't the answer, any more than one TV channel is the answer.
>>>
>>> What we have is a mess. Many cell companies have various spotty
>>> coverage. Ditto cable TV and internet providers. Once people manage to
>>> get an internet provider, they have to install their own cables and
>>> wifi. Wires are strung on poles, sidewalks are dug up, dishes point
>>> everywhere and rust or get blown away. People pay for multiple
>>> services.
>>>
>>> One uniform microcell mesh system would eliminate all that.
>>>
>>> Imagine progress.
>>>
>>
>>It would be nice for things to evolve this way but - and it is a huge
>>BUT - the standards need to be public. They are anything but at the
>>moment - the layers above IP and perhaps PPP are completely secret.
>>
>
>We have compatible, competitive TV and cell phone and internet
>networks. It's not hard.

Well I've spent thirty years on standards, and actually it *is* hard.
Not to mention glacial.

While the government can push for standards, absent a real shooting
war, the pleas will generally fall on deaf ears. With a shooting war,
there are usually large procurement contract on offer, and time is of
the essence.

Whitworth Screw Threads are a classic example.

..<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Standard_Whitworth>

And it doesn't happen until at least a few big companies decide that
they will gain far more from a standard than (bigger total pie) they
will gain from no standard (my pie is smaller, but I have it all).

Once there is a standard, other companies are eventually forced to
comply.

Nor does maturity and interoperability just happen. Taking Ethernet
as the example, the industry supports and independent test facility
and lab at the University of New Hampshire where various vendors
connect into big "plugfests" where prototypes are cobbled into a
network and the whole system is integrated. And even so, it usually
takes two major revisions of a new standard to achieve reasonable
maturity.

This is done under the aegis of a de-jure standards development
organization (like the IEEE) for exception to anti-trust statutes that
would otherwise forbid such things.

..<https://www.iol.unh.edu/>

Joe Gwinn

But the dark secret of the standards world is that 90% of all
standards fail in the market.

On Monday, May 2, 2022 at 3:46:27 PM UTC-4, John Larkin wrote:
> On Mon, 02 May 2022 17:46:03 GMT, Jan Panteltje
> <pNaonSt...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> >On a sunny day (Mon, 02 May 2022 09:40:44 -0700) it happened John Larkin
> ><jlarkin@highland_atwork_technology.com> wrote in
> ><k7207ht2jh2kplncf...@4ax.com>:
> >
> >>On Sat, 30 Apr 2022 06:13:41 GMT, Jan Panteltje
> >><pNaonSt...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >>
> >>>On a sunny day (Fri, 29 Apr 2022 10:43:44 -0700) it happened John Larkin
> >>><jlarkin@highland_atwork_technology.com> wrote in
> >>><eq8o6htehhqt03esl...@4ax.com>:
> >>>
> >>>>Putin has pounded Ukrainian cities to rubble. And created millions of
> >>>>refugees. And damaged the food supply to millions in other countries.
> >>>
> >>>That is is what you get for your interference.
> >>
> >>Putin is shelling cities and slaughtering possibly millions, and
> >>setting his people back decades, and it's our fault?
> >
> >US provoked it, using NATO slaves
> >its the same old song, make war, make money.
> The US has paid to defend europe from the Russians since WWII.
>
> As T said, it's time for them to pay for their own defense.

Oh, they've been paying. Yeah, they have been paying ever since.

--

Rick C.

---+ Get 1,000 miles of free Supercharging
---+ Tesla referral code - https://ts.la/richard11209

Am 02.05.22 um 22:36 schrieb John Larkin:
> On Mon, 2 May 2022 22:22:38 +0200, Gerhard Hoffmann <dk4xp@arcor.de>
> wrote:
>
>> Am 02.05.22 um 21:46 schrieb John Larkin:
>>> On Mon, 02 May 2022 17:46:03 GMT, Jan Panteltje
>>> <pNaonStpealmtje@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>>> Putin is shelling cities and slaughtering possibly millions, and
>>>>> setting his people back decades, and it's our fault?
>>>>
>>>> US provoked it, using NATO slaves
>>>> its the same old song, make war, make money.
>>>
>>> The US has paid to defend europe from the Russians since WWII.
>>>
>>> As T said, it's time for them to pay for their own defense.
>>
>> No, you invested a bit to ensure your share of the prey.
>
> The europeans find excuses to be ungrateful and cheap. We should have
> let the Russian Empire grow all the way.

There is no such thing as a Russian empire. Russia has a
gross national product the size of Italy, and Italy needed
loans from the EU in the previous years. Plus Russia needs
twice as many people as Italy to reach this rank. Lives
from selling mineral resources / gas, like black Africa.

Just like the "Scheinriese" of the Augsburg puppet box.
The closer you come, the more the giant shrinks.

All that Russia has is some nukes, and with their track
record from the cold war, half of them don't exist and
another quarter is probably defunct, because the money for
keeping them operational trickled into the kleptocracy.
Just note the excellent performance of their tanks.

> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_world
>
>>
>> Just the lesser evil.
>
> Take your choice.

My choice is Europe. We WILL grow together.
Number 2 after China in 10 years. Just count the noses.

Gerhard

On Monday, May 2, 2022 at 12:49:46 PM UTC-7, John Larkin wrote:

> We have compatible, competitive TV and cell phone and internet
> networks. It's not hard.

TV satellite, TV cable, and TV broadcast are NOT compatible.
Neither is Blu-Ray and DVD completely compatible with region
and hardware-license restrictions. Cell phones interconnect,
but the networks aren't 'compatible' hardwares.
As for internet, YES, that's a compatibility layer for networks. It isn't
generally the one phones, utility meters, and TV broadcast use, though.

On Mon, 2 May 2022 23:25:50 +0200, Gerhard Hoffmann <dk4xp@arcor.de>
wrote:

>Am 02.05.22 um 22:36 schrieb John Larkin:
>> On Mon, 2 May 2022 22:22:38 +0200, Gerhard Hoffmann <dk4xp@arcor.de>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Am 02.05.22 um 21:46 schrieb John Larkin:
>>>> On Mon, 02 May 2022 17:46:03 GMT, Jan Panteltje
>>>> <pNaonStpealmtje@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>>> Putin is shelling cities and slaughtering possibly millions, and
>>>>>> setting his people back decades, and it's our fault?
>>>>>
>>>>> US provoked it, using NATO slaves
>>>>> its the same old song, make war, make money.
>>>>
>>>> The US has paid to defend europe from the Russians since WWII.
>>>>
>>>> As T said, it's time for them to pay for their own defense.
>>>
>>> No, you invested a bit to ensure your share of the prey.
>>
>> The europeans find excuses to be ungrateful and cheap. We should have
>> let the Russian Empire grow all the way.
>
>There is no such thing as a Russian empire. Russia has a
>gross national product the size of Italy, and Italy needed
>loans from the EU in the previous years. Plus Russia needs
>twice as many people as Italy to reach this rank. Lives
>from selling mineral resources / gas, like black Africa.
>
>Just like the "Scheinriese" of the Augsburg puppet box.
>The closer you come, the more the giant shrinks.

The Russians have tanks, planes, helicopters, nukes, and a pretty big
army. Ukrainian towns are rubble, refugees number millions, and the
giant is still hungry.

This is an alphabet war, Latin/English vs Cyrillic. Really, it is.

>
>
>All that Russia has is some nukes, and with their track
>record from the cold war, half of them don't exist and
>another quarter is probably defunct, because the money for
>keeping them operational trickled into the kleptocracy.
>Just note the excellent performance of their tanks.
>
>
>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_world
>>
>>>
>>> Just the lesser evil.
>>
>> Take your choice.
>
>My choice is Europe. We WILL grow together.

Russia could be part of europe. But they'd rather be Russian and poor.

>Number 2 after China in 10 years. Just count the noses.
>
>Gerhard
>

Those noses won't be all traditional European noses.

--

If a man will begin with certainties, he shall end with doubts,
but if he will be content to begin with doubts he shall end in certainties.
Francis Bacon

On Mon, 2 May 2022 15:50:41 -0700 (PDT), whit3rd <whit3rd@gmail.com>
wrote:

>On Monday, May 2, 2022 at 12:49:46 PM UTC-7, John Larkin wrote:
>
>> We have compatible, competitive TV and cell phone and internet
>> networks. It's not hard.
>
>TV satellite, TV cable, and TV broadcast are NOT compatible.

My TV works with all of them. I can switch any time.

>Neither is Blu-Ray and DVD completely compatible with region
>and hardware-license restrictions. Cell phones interconnect,
>but the networks aren't 'compatible' hardwares.

I can switch cell providers and my Samsung and my wife's iPhone will
keep working. Over the air and wi-fi.

>As for internet, YES, that's a compatibility layer for networks. It isn't
>generally the one phones, utility meters, and TV broadcast use, though.

I project that one day not too far off we'll have one wireless network
for everything. It makes too much sense to not do.

--

If a man will begin with certainties, he shall end with doubts,
but if he will be content to begin with doubts he shall end in certainties.
Francis Bacon

On a sunny day (Mon, 02 May 2022 16:51:38 -0700) it happened John Larkin
<jlarkin@highland_atwork_technology.com> wrote in
<7cr07hp81i2qmgeoef7sj9od6p5ho7fdll@4ax.com>:

>On Mon, 2 May 2022 15:50:41 -0700 (PDT), whit3rd <whit3rd@gmail.com>
>wrote:
>
>>On Monday, May 2, 2022 at 12:49:46 PM UTC-7, John Larkin wrote:
>>
>>> We have compatible, competitive TV and cell phone and internet
>>> networks. It's not hard.
>>
>>TV satellite, TV cable, and TV broadcast are NOT compatible.
>
>My TV works with all of them. I can switch any time.
>
>>Neither is Blu-Ray and DVD completely compatible with region
>>and hardware-license restrictions. Cell phones interconnect,
>>but the networks aren't 'compatible' hardwares.
>
>I can switch cell providers and my Samsung and my wife's iPhone will
>keep working. Over the air and wi-fi.
>
>>As for internet, YES, that's a compatibility layer for networks. It isn't
>>generally the one phones, utility meters, and TV broadcast use, though.
>
>I project that one day not too far off we'll have one wireless network
>for everything. It makes too much sense to not do.

Make no sense whatsoever.
First there is diversity for security
if your one for all thing is down, nothing works.
Then there are radio frequencies like used by aircraft, ships,
and other services that have totally different requirements.
Use the best system for the required purpose and frequency.
Make sure there is redundancy.
You are just dreaming. Mindless babble, no in depth knowledge, no experience.
US itself always wants to be 'different' we came with DVB-T for terrestrial,
US wanted ATSC.
Market protection really, same way other way around, we had PAL but France wanted Secam.
PAL was better (and better than NTSC).

Over-standardization, forcing things by law, like EU now does force Apple(and I am no Apple fan)
to give up whats it called they have for some USB connector hinders innovation.

Once your same for all system is in place that is like pouring you in concrete
:-)
Man where do I get all this after 4 hour sleep early in the morning.

On Monday, May 2, 2022 at 4:51:49 PM UTC-7, John Larkin wrote:
> On Mon, 2 May 2022 15:50:41 -0700 (PDT), whit3rd <whi...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> >On Monday, May 2, 2022 at 12:49:46 PM UTC-7, John Larkin wrote:
> >
> >> We have compatible, competitive TV and cell phone and internet
> >> networks. It's not hard.
> >
> >TV satellite, TV cable, and TV broadcast are NOT compatible.
> My TV works with all of them. I can switch any time.

Yeah, but the TV isn't cable-ready, nor satellite-ready, you need a leased
or purchased translation box. You cannot switch without a
proprietary box and some license restrictions.

> >Neither is Blu-Ray and DVD completely compatible with region
> >and hardware-license restrictions. Cell phones interconnect,
> >but the networks aren't 'compatible' hardwares.

> I can switch cell providers and my Samsung and my wife's iPhone will
> keep working. Over the air and wi-fi.

It was hard (took legislation) to get phones unlocked, but your phones are still unlikely to
support using two SIMs at the same time. Unless software-SIM gets a boost,
it'll never go to three or more. Buying into ONE at a time, that's supported.

> >As for internet, YES, that's a compatibility layer for networks. It isn't
> >generally the one phones, utility meters, and TV broadcast use, though.

> I project that one day not too far off we'll have one wireless network
> for everything. It makes too much sense to not do.

If it makes sense, someone will claim they have it. And that someone is
a salesman you might not want to do business with.

On Tue, 03 May 2022 05:40:41 GMT, Jan Panteltje
<pNaonStpealmtje@yahoo.com> wrote:

>On a sunny day (Mon, 02 May 2022 16:51:38 -0700) it happened John Larkin
><jlarkin@highland_atwork_technology.com> wrote in
><7cr07hp81i2qmgeoef7sj9od6p5ho7fdll@4ax.com>:
>
>>On Mon, 2 May 2022 15:50:41 -0700 (PDT), whit3rd <whit3rd@gmail.com>
>>wrote:
>>
>>>On Monday, May 2, 2022 at 12:49:46 PM UTC-7, John Larkin wrote:
>>>
>>>> We have compatible, competitive TV and cell phone and internet
>>>> networks. It's not hard.
>>>
>>>TV satellite, TV cable, and TV broadcast are NOT compatible.
>>
>>My TV works with all of them. I can switch any time.
>>
>>>Neither is Blu-Ray and DVD completely compatible with region
>>>and hardware-license restrictions. Cell phones interconnect,
>>>but the networks aren't 'compatible' hardwares.
>>
>>I can switch cell providers and my Samsung and my wife's iPhone will
>>keep working. Over the air and wi-fi.
>>
>>>As for internet, YES, that's a compatibility layer for networks. It isn't
>>>generally the one phones, utility meters, and TV broadcast use, though.
>>
>>I project that one day not too far off we'll have one wireless network
>>for everything. It makes too much sense to not do.
>
>Make no sense whatsoever.
>First there is diversity for security
>if your one for all thing is down, nothing works.

A microcell mesh can have redundancy at all levels. It would be better
than a mess of various services.

>Then there are radio frequencies like used by aircraft, ships,
>and other services that have totally different requirements.

The RF spectrum is chopped up amongst many services. A common band
would be much more efficient.

>Use the best system for the required purpose and frequency.
>Make sure there is redundancy.
>You are just dreaming. Mindless babble, no in depth knowledge, no experience.

Why do so many people refuse to imagine progress? 100 years ago you
would have refused to believe that there could ever be TVs or
computers.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/6G_(network)

--

Anybody can count to one.

- Robert Widlar

On a sunny day (Tue, 03 May 2022 07:16:15 -0700) it happened
jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote in
<mrd27h99ochpb3ougpkko45esjg17f38bi@4ax.com>:

>On Tue, 03 May 2022 05:40:41 GMT, Jan Panteltje
><pNaonStpealmtje@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>>On a sunny day (Mon, 02 May 2022 16:51:38 -0700) it happened John Larkin
>><jlarkin@highland_atwork_technology.com> wrote in
>><7cr07hp81i2qmgeoef7sj9od6p5ho7fdll@4ax.com>:
>>
>>>On Mon, 2 May 2022 15:50:41 -0700 (PDT), whit3rd <whit3rd@gmail.com>
>>>wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Monday, May 2, 2022 at 12:49:46 PM UTC-7, John Larkin wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> We have compatible, competitive TV and cell phone and internet
>>>>> networks. It's not hard.
>>>>
>>>>TV satellite, TV cable, and TV broadcast are NOT compatible.
>>>
>>>My TV works with all of them. I can switch any time.
>>>
>>>>Neither is Blu-Ray and DVD completely compatible with region
>>>>and hardware-license restrictions. Cell phones interconnect,
>>>>but the networks aren't 'compatible' hardwares.
>>>
>>>I can switch cell providers and my Samsung and my wife's iPhone will
>>>keep working. Over the air and wi-fi.
>>>
>>>>As for internet, YES, that's a compatibility layer for networks. It isn't
>>>>generally the one phones, utility meters, and TV broadcast use, though.
>>>
>>>I project that one day not too far off we'll have one wireless network
>>>for everything. It makes too much sense to not do.
>>
>>Make no sense whatsoever.
>>First there is diversity for security
>>if your one for all thing is down, nothing works.
>
>A microcell mesh can have redundancy at all levels. It would be better
>than a mess of various services.
>
>
>>Then there are radio frequencies like used by aircraft, ships,
>>and other services that have totally different requirements.
>
>The RF spectrum is chopped up amongst many services. A common band
>would be much more efficient.
>
>
>>Use the best system for the required purpose and frequency.
>>Make sure there is redundancy.
>>You are just dreaming. Mindless babble, no in depth knowledge, no experience.
>
>Why do so many people refuse to imagine progress? 100 years ago you
>would have refused to believe that there could ever be TVs or
>computers.
>
>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/6G_(network)

Strawman
Look dude, if you just wannabe right why not start a twitter account where your devotees can praise your genius while you play with your teddy bear

On Tue, 03 May 2022 16:27:29 GMT, Jan Panteltje
<pNaonStpealmtje@yahoo.com> wrote:

>On a sunny day (Tue, 03 May 2022 07:16:15 -0700) it happened
>jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote in
><mrd27h99ochpb3ougpkko45esjg17f38bi@4ax.com>:
>
>>On Tue, 03 May 2022 05:40:41 GMT, Jan Panteltje
>><pNaonStpealmtje@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>>>On a sunny day (Mon, 02 May 2022 16:51:38 -0700) it happened John Larkin
>>><jlarkin@highland_atwork_technology.com> wrote in
>>><7cr07hp81i2qmgeoef7sj9od6p5ho7fdll@4ax.com>:
>>>
>>>>On Mon, 2 May 2022 15:50:41 -0700 (PDT), whit3rd <whit3rd@gmail.com>
>>>>wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>On Monday, May 2, 2022 at 12:49:46 PM UTC-7, John Larkin wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> We have compatible, competitive TV and cell phone and internet
>>>>>> networks. It's not hard.
>>>>>
>>>>>TV satellite, TV cable, and TV broadcast are NOT compatible.
>>>>
>>>>My TV works with all of them. I can switch any time.
>>>>
>>>>>Neither is Blu-Ray and DVD completely compatible with region
>>>>>and hardware-license restrictions. Cell phones interconnect,
>>>>>but the networks aren't 'compatible' hardwares.
>>>>
>>>>I can switch cell providers and my Samsung and my wife's iPhone will
>>>>keep working. Over the air and wi-fi.
>>>>
>>>>>As for internet, YES, that's a compatibility layer for networks. It isn't
>>>>>generally the one phones, utility meters, and TV broadcast use, though.
>>>>
>>>>I project that one day not too far off we'll have one wireless network
>>>>for everything. It makes too much sense to not do.
>>>
>>>Make no sense whatsoever.
>>>First there is diversity for security
>>>if your one for all thing is down, nothing works.
>>
>>A microcell mesh can have redundancy at all levels. It would be better
>>than a mess of various services.
>>
>>
>>>Then there are radio frequencies like used by aircraft, ships,
>>>and other services that have totally different requirements.
>>
>>The RF spectrum is chopped up amongst many services. A common band
>>would be much more efficient.
>>
>>
>>>Use the best system for the required purpose and frequency.
>>>Make sure there is redundancy.
>>>You are just dreaming. Mindless babble, no in depth knowledge, no experience.
>>
>>Why do so many people refuse to imagine progress? 100 years ago you
>>would have refused to believe that there could ever be TVs or
>>computers.
>>
>>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/6G_(network)
>
>Strawman
>Look dude, if you just wannabe right why not start a twitter account where your devotees can praise your genius while you play with your teddy bear

You would not have believed that twitter was possible either.

I guess the US Mail delivery and classified ads in newspapers was all
anyone needed.

--

If a man will begin with certainties, he shall end with doubts,
but if he will be content to begin with doubts he shall end in certainties.
Francis Bacon

On Mon, 2 May 2022 23:53:05 -0700 (PDT), whit3rd <whit3rd@gmail.com>
wrote:

>On Monday, May 2, 2022 at 4:51:49 PM UTC-7, John Larkin wrote:
>> On Mon, 2 May 2022 15:50:41 -0700 (PDT), whit3rd <whi...@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>> >On Monday, May 2, 2022 at 12:49:46 PM UTC-7, John Larkin wrote:
>> >
>> >> We have compatible, competitive TV and cell phone and internet
>> >> networks. It's not hard.
>> >
>> >TV satellite, TV cable, and TV broadcast are NOT compatible.
>> My TV works with all of them. I can switch any time.
>
>Yeah, but the TV isn't cable-ready, nor satellite-ready, you need a leased
>or purchased translation box. You cannot switch without a
>proprietary box and some license restrictions.
>
>> >Neither is Blu-Ray and DVD completely compatible with region
>> >and hardware-license restrictions. Cell phones interconnect,
>> >but the networks aren't 'compatible' hardwares.
>
>> I can switch cell providers and my Samsung and my wife's iPhone will
>> keep working. Over the air and wi-fi.
>
>It was hard (took legislation) to get phones unlocked, but your phones are still unlikely to
>support using two SIMs at the same time. Unless software-SIM gets a boost,
>it'll never go to three or more. Buying into ONE at a time, that's supported.
>
>> >As for internet, YES, that's a compatibility layer for networks. It isn't
>> >generally the one phones, utility meters, and TV broadcast use, though.
>
>> I project that one day not too far off we'll have one wireless network
>> for everything. It makes too much sense to not do.
>
>If it makes sense, someone will claim they have it. And that someone is
>a salesman you might not want to do business with.

I think things are possible. Some people insist that things are
impossible. It's more likely that I'm right.

--

If a man will begin with certainties, he shall end with doubts,
but if he will be content to begin with doubts he shall end in certainties.
Francis Bacon

On 5/3/2022 19:58, John Larkin wrote:
> On Mon, 2 May 2022 23:53:05 -0700 (PDT), whit3rd <whit3rd@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> On Monday, May 2, 2022 at 4:51:49 PM UTC-7, John Larkin wrote:
>>> On Mon, 2 May 2022 15:50:41 -0700 (PDT), whit3rd <whi...@gmail.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>> On Monday, May 2, 2022 at 12:49:46 PM UTC-7, John Larkin wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> We have compatible, competitive TV and cell phone and internet
>>>>> networks. It's not hard.
>>>>
>>>> TV satellite, TV cable, and TV broadcast are NOT compatible.
>>> My TV works with all of them. I can switch any time.
>>
>> Yeah, but the TV isn't cable-ready, nor satellite-ready, you need a leased
>> or purchased translation box. You cannot switch without a
>> proprietary box and some license restrictions.
>>
>>>> Neither is Blu-Ray and DVD completely compatible with region
>>>> and hardware-license restrictions. Cell phones interconnect,
>>>> but the networks aren't 'compatible' hardwares.
>>
>>> I can switch cell providers and my Samsung and my wife's iPhone will
>>> keep working. Over the air and wi-fi.
>>
>> It was hard (took legislation) to get phones unlocked, but your phones are still unlikely to
>> support using two SIMs at the same time. Unless software-SIM gets a boost,
>> it'll never go to three or more. Buying into ONE at a time, that's supported.
>>
>>>> As for internet, YES, that's a compatibility layer for networks. It isn't
>>>> generally the one phones, utility meters, and TV broadcast use, though.
>>
>>> I project that one day not too far off we'll have one wireless network
>>> for everything. It makes too much sense to not do.
>>
>> If it makes sense, someone will claim they have it. And that someone is
>> a salesman you might not want to do business with.
>
> I think things are possible. Some people insist that things are
> impossible. It's more likely that I'm right.
>

I don't think humans have the capacity to imagine the impossible.
What we deem impossible is just what we are unable to do at the current
stage of our knowledge. There probably is a limit to how far our
knowledge can go so there will always be impossible things - for us...
:)

On Tue, 3 May 2022 21:14:31 +0300, Dimiter_Popoff <dp@tgi-sci.com>
wrote:

>On 5/3/2022 19:58, John Larkin wrote:
>> On Mon, 2 May 2022 23:53:05 -0700 (PDT), whit3rd <whit3rd@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> On Monday, May 2, 2022 at 4:51:49 PM UTC-7, John Larkin wrote:
>>>> On Mon, 2 May 2022 15:50:41 -0700 (PDT), whit3rd <whi...@gmail.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>> On Monday, May 2, 2022 at 12:49:46 PM UTC-7, John Larkin wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> We have compatible, competitive TV and cell phone and internet
>>>>>> networks. It's not hard.
>>>>>
>>>>> TV satellite, TV cable, and TV broadcast are NOT compatible.
>>>> My TV works with all of them. I can switch any time.
>>>
>>> Yeah, but the TV isn't cable-ready, nor satellite-ready, you need a leased
>>> or purchased translation box. You cannot switch without a
>>> proprietary box and some license restrictions.
>>>
>>>>> Neither is Blu-Ray and DVD completely compatible with region
>>>>> and hardware-license restrictions. Cell phones interconnect,
>>>>> but the networks aren't 'compatible' hardwares.
>>>
>>>> I can switch cell providers and my Samsung and my wife's iPhone will
>>>> keep working. Over the air and wi-fi.
>>>
>>> It was hard (took legislation) to get phones unlocked, but your phones are still unlikely to
>>> support using two SIMs at the same time. Unless software-SIM gets a boost,
>>> it'll never go to three or more. Buying into ONE at a time, that's supported.
>>>
>>>>> As for internet, YES, that's a compatibility layer for networks. It isn't
>>>>> generally the one phones, utility meters, and TV broadcast use, though.
>>>
>>>> I project that one day not too far off we'll have one wireless network
>>>> for everything. It makes too much sense to not do.
>>>
>>> If it makes sense, someone will claim they have it. And that someone is
>>> a salesman you might not want to do business with.
>>
>> I think things are possible. Some people insist that things are
>> impossible. It's more likely that I'm right.
>>
>
>I don't think humans have the capacity to imagine the impossible.

But that's a basic part of electronic design, imagining things that
haven't been done, or can't be done.

Why, sometimes I've believed as many as six impossible things before
breakfast.

- The Red Queen

--

If a man will begin with certainties, he shall end with doubts,
but if he will be content to begin with doubts he shall end in certainties.
Francis Bacon

Dimiter_Popoff wrote:
> On 5/3/2022 19:58, John Larkin wrote:
>> On Mon, 2 May 2022 23:53:05 -0700 (PDT), whit3rd <whit3rd@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> On Monday, May 2, 2022 at 4:51:49 PM UTC-7, John Larkin wrote:
>>>> On Mon, 2 May 2022 15:50:41 -0700 (PDT), whit3rd <whi...@gmail.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>> On Monday, May 2, 2022 at 12:49:46 PM UTC-7, John Larkin wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> We have compatible, competitive TV and cell phone and internet
>>>>>> networks. It's not hard.
>>>>>
>>>>> TV satellite, TV cable, and TV broadcast are NOT compatible.
>>>> My TV works with all of them. I can switch any time.
>>>
>>> Yeah, but the TV  isn't cable-ready, nor satellite-ready, you need a
>>> leased
>>> or purchased translation box.  You cannot switch without a
>>> proprietary box and some license restrictions.
>>>
>>>>> Neither is Blu-Ray and DVD completely compatible with region
>>>>> and hardware-license restrictions. Cell phones interconnect,
>>>>> but the networks aren't 'compatible' hardwares.
>>>
>>>> I can switch cell providers and my Samsung and my wife's iPhone will
>>>> keep working. Over the air and wi-fi.
>>>
>>> It was  hard (took legislation) to get phones unlocked, but your
>>> phones are still unlikely to
>>> support using two SIMs at the same time.  Unless software-SIM gets a
>>> boost,
>>> it'll never go to three or more.  Buying into ONE at a time, that's
>>> supported.
>>>
>>>>> As for internet, YES, that's a compatibility layer for networks. It
>>>>> isn't
>>>>> generally the one phones, utility meters, and TV broadcast use,
>>>>> though.
>>>
>>>> I project that one day not too far off we'll have one wireless network
>>>> for everything. It makes too much sense to not do.
>>>
>>> If it makes sense, someone will claim they have it.   And that
>>> someone is
>>> a salesman you might not want to do business with.
>>
>> I think things are possible. Some people insist that things are
>> impossible. It's more likely that I'm right.
>>
>
> I don't think humans have the capacity to imagine the impossible.

You can't imagine a perpetual motion machine, or a lens that forms an
image hotter than the (thermal) source?

Cheers

Phil Hobbs

--
Dr Philip C D Hobbs
Principal Consultant
ElectroOptical Innovations LLC / Hobbs ElectroOptics
Optics, Electro-optics, Photonics, Analog Electronics
Briarcliff Manor NY 10510

http://electrooptical.net
http://hobbs-eo.com

On 5/3/2022 21:41, John Larkin wrote:
> On Tue, 3 May 2022 21:14:31 +0300, Dimiter_Popoff <dp@tgi-sci.com>
> wrote:
>
>> On 5/3/2022 19:58, John Larkin wrote:
>>> On Mon, 2 May 2022 23:53:05 -0700 (PDT), whit3rd <whit3rd@gmail.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Monday, May 2, 2022 at 4:51:49 PM UTC-7, John Larkin wrote:
>>>>> On Mon, 2 May 2022 15:50:41 -0700 (PDT), whit3rd <whi...@gmail.com>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>> On Monday, May 2, 2022 at 12:49:46 PM UTC-7, John Larkin wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> We have compatible, competitive TV and cell phone and internet
>>>>>>> networks. It's not hard.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> TV satellite, TV cable, and TV broadcast are NOT compatible.
>>>>> My TV works with all of them. I can switch any time.
>>>>
>>>> Yeah, but the TV isn't cable-ready, nor satellite-ready, you need a leased
>>>> or purchased translation box. You cannot switch without a
>>>> proprietary box and some license restrictions.
>>>>
>>>>>> Neither is Blu-Ray and DVD completely compatible with region
>>>>>> and hardware-license restrictions. Cell phones interconnect,
>>>>>> but the networks aren't 'compatible' hardwares.
>>>>
>>>>> I can switch cell providers and my Samsung and my wife's iPhone will
>>>>> keep working. Over the air and wi-fi.
>>>>
>>>> It was hard (took legislation) to get phones unlocked, but your phones are still unlikely to
>>>> support using two SIMs at the same time. Unless software-SIM gets a boost,
>>>> it'll never go to three or more. Buying into ONE at a time, that's supported.
>>>>
>>>>>> As for internet, YES, that's a compatibility layer for networks. It isn't
>>>>>> generally the one phones, utility meters, and TV broadcast use, though.
>>>>
>>>>> I project that one day not too far off we'll have one wireless network
>>>>> for everything. It makes too much sense to not do.
>>>>
>>>> If it makes sense, someone will claim they have it. And that someone is
>>>> a salesman you might not want to do business with.
>>>
>>> I think things are possible. Some people insist that things are
>>> impossible. It's more likely that I'm right.
>>>
>>
>> I don't think humans have the capacity to imagine the impossible.
>
> But that's a basic part of electronic design, imagining things that
> haven't been done, or can't be done.

If you can imagine it it is possible, this is my point.

On 5/3/2022 22:49, Phil Hobbs wrote:
> Dimiter_Popoff wrote:
>> On 5/3/2022 19:58, John Larkin wrote:
>>> On Mon, 2 May 2022 23:53:05 -0700 (PDT), whit3rd <whit3rd@gmail.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Monday, May 2, 2022 at 4:51:49 PM UTC-7, John Larkin wrote:
>>>>> On Mon, 2 May 2022 15:50:41 -0700 (PDT), whit3rd <whi...@gmail.com>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>> On Monday, May 2, 2022 at 12:49:46 PM UTC-7, John Larkin wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> We have compatible, competitive TV and cell phone and internet
>>>>>>> networks. It's not hard.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> TV satellite, TV cable, and TV broadcast are NOT compatible.
>>>>> My TV works with all of them. I can switch any time.
>>>>
>>>> Yeah, but the TV  isn't cable-ready, nor satellite-ready, you need a
>>>> leased
>>>> or purchased translation box.  You cannot switch without a
>>>> proprietary box and some license restrictions.
>>>>
>>>>>> Neither is Blu-Ray and DVD completely compatible with region
>>>>>> and hardware-license restrictions. Cell phones interconnect,
>>>>>> but the networks aren't 'compatible' hardwares.
>>>>
>>>>> I can switch cell providers and my Samsung and my wife's iPhone will
>>>>> keep working. Over the air and wi-fi.
>>>>
>>>> It was  hard (took legislation) to get phones unlocked, but your
>>>> phones are still unlikely to
>>>> support using two SIMs at the same time.  Unless software-SIM gets a
>>>> boost,
>>>> it'll never go to three or more.  Buying into ONE at a time, that's
>>>> supported.
>>>>
>>>>>> As for internet, YES, that's a compatibility layer for networks.
>>>>>> It isn't
>>>>>> generally the one phones, utility meters, and TV broadcast use,
>>>>>> though.
>>>>
>>>>> I project that one day not too far off we'll have one wireless network
>>>>> for everything. It makes too much sense to not do.
>>>>
>>>> If it makes sense, someone will claim they have it.   And that
>>>> someone is
>>>> a salesman you might not want to do business with.
>>>
>>> I think things are possible. Some people insist that things are
>>> impossible. It's more likely that I'm right.
>>>
>>
>> I don't think humans have the capacity to imagine the impossible.
>
> You can't imagine a perpetual motion machine, or a lens that forms an
> image hotter than the (thermal) source?
>
>
> Cheers
>
> Phil Hobbs
>

These are impossible only in our realm. The point is, if we can think
of something it is doable, not necessarily by us or in our reality :).

On Tue, 03 May 2022 16:27:29 GMT, Jan Panteltje
<pNaonStpealmtje@yahoo.com> wrote:

>On a sunny day (Tue, 03 May 2022 07:16:15 -0700) it happened
>jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote in
><mrd27h99ochpb3ougpkko45esjg17f38bi@4ax.com>:
>
>>On Tue, 03 May 2022 05:40:41 GMT, Jan Panteltje
>><pNaonStpealmtje@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>>>On a sunny day (Mon, 02 May 2022 16:51:38 -0700) it happened John Larkin
>>><jlarkin@highland_atwork_technology.com> wrote in
>>><7cr07hp81i2qmgeoef7sj9od6p5ho7fdll@4ax.com>:
>>>
>>>>On Mon, 2 May 2022 15:50:41 -0700 (PDT), whit3rd <whit3rd@gmail.com>
>>>>wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>On Monday, May 2, 2022 at 12:49:46 PM UTC-7, John Larkin wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> We have compatible, competitive TV and cell phone and internet
>>>>>> networks. It's not hard.
>>>>>
>>>>>TV satellite, TV cable, and TV broadcast are NOT compatible.
>>>>
>>>>My TV works with all of them. I can switch any time.
>>>>
>>>>>Neither is Blu-Ray and DVD completely compatible with region
>>>>>and hardware-license restrictions. Cell phones interconnect,
>>>>>but the networks aren't 'compatible' hardwares.
>>>>
>>>>I can switch cell providers and my Samsung and my wife's iPhone will
>>>>keep working. Over the air and wi-fi.
>>>>
>>>>>As for internet, YES, that's a compatibility layer for networks. It isn't
>>>>>generally the one phones, utility meters, and TV broadcast use, though.
>>>>
>>>>I project that one day not too far off we'll have one wireless network
>>>>for everything. It makes too much sense to not do.
>>>
>>>Make no sense whatsoever.
>>>First there is diversity for security
>>>if your one for all thing is down, nothing works.
>>
>>A microcell mesh can have redundancy at all levels. It would be better
>>than a mess of various services.
>>
>>
>>>Then there are radio frequencies like used by aircraft, ships,
>>>and other services that have totally different requirements.
>>
>>The RF spectrum is chopped up amongst many services. A common band
>>would be much more efficient.
>>
>>
>>>Use the best system for the required purpose and frequency.
>>>Make sure there is redundancy.
>>>You are just dreaming. Mindless babble, no in depth knowledge, no experience.
>>
>>Why do so many people refuse to imagine progress? 100 years ago you
>>would have refused to believe that there could ever be TVs or
>>computers.
>>
>>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/6G_(network)
>
>Strawman
>Look dude, if you just wannabe right why not start a twitter account where your devotees can praise your genius while you play with your teddy bear

It's coming a bit sooner than I expected:

https://techxplore.com/news/2022-05-wi-fi-lamppost.html

60 GHz Wifi everywhere.

--

If a man will begin with certainties, he shall end with doubts,
but if he will be content to begin with doubts he shall end in certainties.
Francis Bacon

On Tuesday, May 3, 2022 at 9:59:06 AM UTC-7, John Larkin wrote:
> On Mon, 2 May 2022 23:53:05 -0700 (PDT), whit3rd <whi...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> >On Monday, May 2, 2022 at 4:51:49 PM UTC-7, John Larkin wrote:

> >> I project that one day not too far off we'll have one wireless network
> >> for everything. It makes too much sense to not do.

> >If it makes sense, someone will claim they have it. And that someone is
> >a salesman you might not want to do business with.

> I think things are possible. Some people insist that things are
> impossible. It's more likely that I'm right.

Aha! You said 'likely'; that's not a good sign, when John Larkin gets
statistical. As for me, I'm not eager to let the world have access to
my alarm clock's controls. Short-range access is my best plan.

Global unlimited connection may be possible, but is unworthy of support.

On Tue, 3 May 2022 17:40:38 -0700 (PDT), whit3rd <whit3rd@gmail.com>
wrote:

>On Tuesday, May 3, 2022 at 9:59:06 AM UTC-7, John Larkin wrote:
>> On Mon, 2 May 2022 23:53:05 -0700 (PDT), whit3rd <whi...@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >On Monday, May 2, 2022 at 4:51:49 PM UTC-7, John Larkin wrote:
>
>> >> I project that one day not too far off we'll have one wireless network
>> >> for everything. It makes too much sense to not do.
>
>> >If it makes sense, someone will claim they have it. And that someone is
>> >a salesman you might not want to do business with.
>
>> I think things are possible. Some people insist that things are
>> impossible. It's more likely that I'm right.
>
>Aha! You said 'likely'; that's not a good sign, when John Larkin gets
>statistical. As for me, I'm not eager to let the world have access to
>my alarm clock's controls. Short-range access is my best plan.
>
>Global unlimited connection may be possible, but is unworthy of support.

More likely every day.

https://techxplore.com/news/2022-05-wi-fi-lamppost.html

--

If a man will begin with certainties, he shall end with doubts,
but if he will be content to begin with doubts he shall end in certainties.
Francis Bacon

Dimiter_Popoff wrote:
> On 5/3/2022 22:49, Phil Hobbs wrote:
>> Dimiter_Popoff wrote:
>>> On 5/3/2022 19:58, John Larkin wrote:
>>>> On Mon, 2 May 2022 23:53:05 -0700 (PDT), whit3rd
>>>> <whit3rd@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On Monday, May 2, 2022 at 4:51:49 PM UTC-7, John Larkin
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>> On Mon, 2 May 2022 15:50:41 -0700 (PDT), whit3rd
>>>>>> <whi...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>> On Monday, May 2, 2022 at 12:49:46 PM UTC-7, John Larkin
>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> We have compatible, competitive TV and cell phone and
>>>>>>>> internet networks. It's not hard.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> TV satellite, TV cable, and TV broadcast are NOT
>>>>>>> compatible.
>>>>>> My TV works with all of them. I can switch any time.
>>>>>
>>>>> Yeah, but the TV isn't cable-ready, nor satellite-ready, you
>>>>> need a leased or purchased translation box. You cannot
>>>>> switch without a proprietary box and some license
>>>>> restrictions.
>>>>>
>>>>>>> Neither is Blu-Ray and DVD completely compatible with
>>>>>>> region and hardware-license restrictions. Cell phones
>>>>>>> interconnect, but the networks aren't 'compatible'
>>>>>>> hardwares.
>>>>>
>>>>>> I can switch cell providers and my Samsung and my wife's
>>>>>> iPhone will keep working. Over the air and wi-fi.
>>>>>
>>>>> It was hard (took legislation) to get phones unlocked, but
>>>>> your phones are still unlikely to support using two SIMs at
>>>>> the same time. Unless software-SIM gets a boost, it'll never
>>>>> go to three or more. Buying into ONE at a time, that's
>>>>> supported.
>>>>>
>>>>>>> As for internet, YES, that's a compatibility layer for
>>>>>>> networks. It isn't generally the one phones, utility
>>>>>>> meters, and TV broadcast use, though.
>>>>>
>>>>>> I project that one day not too far off we'll have one
>>>>>> wireless network for everything. It makes too much sense to
>>>>>> not do.
>>>>>
>>>>> If it makes sense, someone will claim they have it. And
>>>>> that someone is a salesman you might not want to do business
>>>>> with.
>>>>
>>>> I think things are possible. Some people insist that things
>>>> are impossible. It's more likely that I'm right.
>>>>
>>>
>>> I don't think humans have the capacity to imagine the
>>> impossible.
>>
>> You can't imagine a perpetual motion machine, or a lens that forms
>> an image hotter than the (thermal) source?

>
> These are impossible only in our realm.

I.e. in the real world.

> The point is, if we can think of something it is doable, not
> necessarily by us or in our reality :).

Ah. Thanks, that explains a lot about your pragmatic outlook. ;)

Cheers

Phil Hobbs

On 05/03/2022 08:16 AM, jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
> Why do so many people refuse to imagine progress? 100 years ago you
> would have refused to believe that there could ever be TVs or
> computers.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YxDTeoeWZeI

Where the hell is my flying car? My baseline is the 1964 World's Fair. I
was in high school so maybe I was young and naive but there was a
feeling in the air of optimism. There have been plenty of technological
advances but that optimism didn't even make it through the '60s.

On Tuesday, May 3, 2022 at 11:42:12 AM UTC-7, John Larkin wrote:
> On Tue, 3 May 2022 21:14:31 +0300, Dimiter_Popoff <d...@tgi-sci.com>
> wrote:

> >I don't think humans have the capacity to imagine the impossible.

> But that's a basic part of electronic design, imagining things that
> haven't been done, or can't be done.

But neither of those categories is 'impossible'.

There's many uses of imagination, but fewer for imagining impossibilities.
The most important, the reductio ad absurdam proof, is ... not so
important that most people would recognize the phrase.

On Tue, 3 May 2022 20:51:56 -0700 (PDT), whit3rd <whit3rd@gmail.com>
wrote:

>On Tuesday, May 3, 2022 at 11:42:12 AM UTC-7, John Larkin wrote:
>> On Tue, 3 May 2022 21:14:31 +0300, Dimiter_Popoff <d...@tgi-sci.com>
>> wrote:
>
>> >I don't think humans have the capacity to imagine the impossible.
>
>> But that's a basic part of electronic design, imagining things that
>> haven't been done, or can't be done.
>
>But neither of those categories is 'impossible'.
>
>There's many uses of imagination, but fewer for imagining impossibilities.
>The most important, the reductio ad absurdam proof, is ... not so
>important that most people would recognize the phrase.

1. Imagining impossibilities exercizes the imagine muscles.

2. Sometimes a great idea is out in the solution space hiding among
impossible ideas. Go poke around out there.

3. Rejecting new ideas is endemic to humanity, for several reasons.
Fight that tendency if you want to design cool stuff.

4. Respect one or two solid conservation principles, but otherwise
mock "good engineering practice."

5. Doodle a lot. Paper is cheap.

--

Anybody can count to one.

- Robert Widlar