Virtual Insanity @ v81 @lemmy.world

Posts

1

Comments

142

Joined

2 yr. ago

On the contrary... I've seen the New Zealand mosque shooting in full.

So no one gets to say "you don't get it" to me.

I came here to simply point out that focusing on a single gun is a bad idea.

This seems to be a common trait in the anti gun community.

Pretty much anything semi automatic would fill the vacuum the AR would leave immediately.

I like guns. But I'm wise enough to know they're a problem. A massive problem.

I'm also lucky enough to live in Australia, where guns have always been hard to get and the ownership of them tracked.

This tracking made getting all the semi automatics out of hands relatively easy here.

I now live in a society where an AR-15 is a 1 in a million firearm only allowed for those that can demonstrate a need for it.

What you guys gotta do is stop focusing on 1 firearm by name and focus on the actual issue.

Exactly, you can mow down a bunch of pedestrians with a truck... Europe knows this all too well.

But people here just want to demonize I specific myself of firearm.

Your just proving your stupidity in this post.

There are other guns the have attributes similar to the AR-15, and if you that the AR away the next most popular gun will be the next issue.

I'm not defending the AR, I'm saying all guns are a problem and focusing on one is not a smart move.

It's clear you've still misunderstood me.

Let's not start with the AR-15... But yes, let's back all guns. I totally agree.

Banning 1 gun will do nothing because the next best option will take it's place immediately.

That's my point.

Demonizing a particular gun is dumb and completely misses the issue.

If it wasn't the AR-15 it would be the next most affordable, versatile, durable and reliable model of firearm.

127.0.0.1 is you

Did they blow any lungs out?

Oh shit... I thought the $/hr was a good idea until you mentioned Factorio.

This is exactly what I was going to say.

Lenovo ThinkPad... Not ideapad

Excluding ideapad is important, they are no better than other junk.

raiding it's territory and kills and kidnaps a number of it's citizen.

As Israel has done to Palistinians already for years?

But that just gets swept under the carpet when Israel does it.

Israels actions standing over the Palestine should have had them classed as terrorists long ago.

Hamas is no better though, leaving 2 terrorist organisations fighting while innocents suffer.

I'd be careful with that suggestion. Some external readers will only read SATA M.2, Dube will only read NVMe M.2.

Ideally you'd want I've is each or one that will do both for maximum compatibility.

Though most drives do seem to be NVMe now.

Any more info on this Eufy issue? A came across a camera system if theirs that's having issues. Might have to read up tomorrow.

Ooof... Half that list is illegal to DIY in Australia. We have the dumbest laws for electrical and plumbing.

You'd be surprised just how few search engines the are.

Google and Bing are about all there is.

Most other 'search engines' just offload the hard work onto existing search engines.

Very few people actually know DuckDuckGo sources their results from Bing for example.

The infrastructure Mozilla uses to serve their content is microscopic compared to what they'd need to operate a fully independent and capable modern search engine.

s; most are limited to less than 1m. Even with aerial whip antennas

Wavelength varies from 2.7 to 3.4 metres. Just because that is the size of the wave doesn't meant that a good antenna has to be that size. A very good basic antenna is a 1/4 wave vertical, and we see them pretty often as telescopic antennas on radios and cars. A 1/4 wave FM broadcast antenna will perform excellently, and will be 68cm to 85cm in length. More modern cars have antennas printed into a window similar to a demister strip. They are actually NOT smaller, some can be quite larve, but also very stealth. But the point remains is that they are NOT small as you suggest. Much shorter antennas exist, but there is a gain penalty, and that penalty gets more extreme the smaller the antenna gets. I have such a small antenna on my car and it IS an issue. In physics nothing is free, yes, you can make an antenna small and still have it be resonant, but you'll pay a price on effective gain.

This is a problem that technology has not solved. Sure, clever designs have helped a little, but there is always a price to pay if you try to cheat the physics.

A compromised antenna can work in a very very stong signal area, but it will easily be the difference between a clear solid recieve and no recieve at all in a fringe area.

AM Broadcast is an example of this, with antennas sometimes 2 inches / 50mm long or even less and hidden inside the radio. Buy as a ham myself with a HF setup, even my HF setup, which is a poor compromise on MF broadcast gets me stations from all over Australia. That isn't going to happen with a regular AM receiver.

Ultimately, sure you can have a mobile with no external antenna receive FM broadcast... but only in a VERY VERY strong signal area, within a few miles of the transmitter, while a propper antenna will work at 10x the distance.

Given that the proposal requires a minor redesign of the cellphones to incorporate the broadcast receiving radio, adding a small antenna, or simply using the chassis of the phone as an antenna, would not only be possible but it should be fairly trivial to accommodate for. by no means am I saying it would be the worlds greatest FM antenna system, most certainly it would not be, but it should be sufficient to differentiate the signal from the noise

This would work at very short distance only, it really would be that limited. Would it be useful for the people in those short distances? Maybe. Buy while a regular ordinary transistor radio with a telescopic antenna would work 10-30x further away, comparing those 2 really shows how much of a compromise is going on.

The point I’m dancing around is software-defined radios. The big cost of SDRs is mainly regarding transmission, since they don’t put out a very strong signal This is true for any radio type ever, it's not an SDR specific thing. EVERY radio that puts out more than a few dbm needs some level of amplification. This is NOT and SDR specific thing. It might appear that way because fo how many affordable SDRs just come with a low output. This is just a normal Monday for any radio system from a $50 CB to a broadcast station, SDR or not.

SDR's are not magic. In fact they actually have some drawbacks compared to conventional designs with regards dynamic rage, over loading etc.. Pulling the 'SDR' card and not knowing this i think shows your lack of understanding of the topic (not trying to diss, just an observation). SDR's are a great tool, i have 4 of them in front of me as i type this, so I'm no stranger. Icom IC-705, Icom IC-7300, HackRF and an RTL-SDR. You could also maybe count the University of Twente webSDR i have open in another tab, and an MMDVM at a stretch to make it 6. http://websdr.ewi.utwente.nl:8901/

This is all exciting stuff... but none of it has revolutionised RF physics for human portable commodity radios, nor even come close to an adjacent technology that could be adopted / adapted.

My ~ AUD$1900 IC-705 can go from picking up stations all over the state of Victoria, Australia with it's non optimal antenna tuned for 146MHz, to picking up literally nothing if i hook up a few hundred mm of wire to it's antenna socket on the bench here. And I can engage pass band filtering, up to 2 pre-amp stages, and a variety of Digital Signal Processing features and sill get... nothing.

I appreciate your passiona nd interest, but.... physics.

We can look at other technologies that are great... WiFi.. it's great, but the transmitter location is in your home and still struggles to cover some larger homes... from inside your home itself. Cellular.. again, great, but again, as the name implies it;s made up of 'cells', physics is a massive issue with cellular, each individual cell tower consists of tens or sometimes hundreds of transceivers, each connected to phased arrays of hundreds to thousands of antenna elements... and that's just a single site, many towns will need multiple of these for coverage. Cell is not immune to the limitations of physics, and it has to brute force the situation from the tower end so as we can have small devices in out pockets... and even with all that i get no coverage int he middle of my local supermarket. Do an image search for 'cell panel antenna inside' and see if you can find a picture fo the actual antenna elements, my results mostly got the rear so you might have to scroll a bit.

A lot of the modernisation you refer to is just that given the value we place on connectivity while remaining portable the effort has shifted to needing to bring the signals closer to the user. Looking at that broadly, while some gains have been made what's really happened is that the signal has been bought closer to you, making you think magic has happened.

Yes, antennas are important, but not nearly as important as they were even 10-15 years ago. I couldn't disagree more. The antenna is the single most significant component of any system. I think the best demonstration of this is modern cellular as it shows what has been needed to be done to bring connectivity top the masses and proves there is no way around.

I think FM Broadcast is great, but with regard to phones aren't we missing something here? For a phone to even receive FM broadcast headphones have to be plugged in, it's been a requirement for any FM RX capable phone I've ever had, for antenna purposes. So with regard to the argument for mobiles to have FMrx if such functionality were to become common place we'd need to see the return of headphone jacks and people would need to be carrying corded headphones for it to function.

I think this capability is a great idea, but the limitations forced on us by losing the headphones socket as well as societys fascination with making everything wireless at any cost is a little concerning.

I've always considered average to good quality wired buds to be great, but it seems they really are on their way out.

I still disagree. There are far more significant factors than the frequency.

Longer wavelength isn't an instant blanket solution to better propogation.

Factors like typical transmitter and receiver configurations matter, location matters, object density matters, reflections etc.. etc..

Hence why UHF is preferred in some cases by emergency services and so on.

Ultimately anything above 60MHz is going to be line of sight or a reflection when assuming the receiving station is mobile or portable, and in that case if the user is indoors higher frequencies might reflect better.

Also narrow FM has more power density than wide FM for the same power level, hence why broadcast transmitters need to be so incredibly powerful to get anywhere.

By your logic then why aren't you just suggesting to pack and bring a desktop PC everywhere?

If you got a Lenovo ThinkPad then you can easily replace parts. They're available online from Lenovo themselves along with documentation on how to perform the repairs.

If you got a Lenovo ideapad... they suck.

They're both terrible. Why should anyone have to support either? Does it have to be a choice?