in the 80's
in [Design]
|
From: Joel Koltner on 12 Aug 2010 21:26 "Rich Grise" <richgrise(a)example.net> wrote in message news:pan.2010.08.12.23.57.17.441259(a)example.net... > On Wed, 11 Aug 2010 21:30:34 -0700, Joel Koltner wrote: >> Hey, someone forwarded us the announcement about your systems now >> supporting >> multiple users talking simultaneously <snip> > Do you mean like on extension phones, or like in a computer chat room > where everybody's input just shows up on the screen? Wireless full-duplex intercom systems, like you see the coaches on the NFL sidelines using to talk with the defensive coordinator or whomever. Most systems are set up so that, while you have upwards of a dozen or so users, everyone is constantly listening to one guy talk, but only one other guy at a time can hit "talk" to respond on that same channel. On a short wired connection this is actually pretty much a non-problem -- wired "party line" intercom systems have been around for ages. The problem is the delay between when you speak and any echo that returns -- as that delay gets longer and longer, it's harder for the echo cancellers to perform. You still occasionally have this problem on, e.g., phone connections -- when I dial up my mother in New Zealand from the states, it often takes the echo cancellers a second or two to train and during that time you can still hear your own echo a bit, and on rare occasion the entire system breaks down for some reason and I have to re-dial. Adding multiple parts just makes this all that much harder of a problem. Keith's systems now let you have up to 5 simultaneous talkers, which is a noteworthy achievement. ---Joel
From: Joel Koltner on 12 Aug 2010 21:31 <krw(a)att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz> wrote in message news:2q4966h5vaa9cjk3q3mqcm43338tg3v3e6(a)4ax.com... > It's not really "multiple users simultaneously". We already had that (five > full-duplex mobiles per base). Ah, OK, ignore part of my response to Rich then, I was clearly a bit confused. :-) > This optionally splits one, or more, of these > channels into a "listen-mostly" channel, with a push-to-talk on the "split" > channel(s). Customers seem to like it. ;-) We have another fairly major > announcement coming shortly, I think. Funny how the bulk of what really sells products today is all in the software! ---Joel
From: Bill Bowden on 12 Aug 2010 22:59 On Aug 12, 4:48 pm, Rich the Cynic <cy...(a)example.net> wrote: > On Wed, 11 Aug 2010 20:51:47 -0700, Bill Bowden wrote: > > On Aug 11, 4:54 pm, Richard the Dreaded Libertarian > > >> So, who pays the astronomical bill for this grand socialist scheme? "The > >> Rich?" What happens when they're taxed into poverty? > > > 20% of the population owns 80% of the wealth and pays 80% of the tax. > > And 97% of all stastics are made up of numbers plucked from thin air. ;-) > > Cheers! > Rich I don't think so. There are many references on the web indicating a small percentage of the population pays most of the tax. 50% of the population pays nothing. http://www.ntu.org/tax-basics/who-pays-income-taxes.html Notice it indicates 25% of the population pays 86% of the tax, and the bottom 50% pay less than 3%. -Bill
From: krw on 12 Aug 2010 23:35 On Thu, 12 Aug 2010 18:26:56 -0700, "Joel Koltner" <zapwireDASHgroups(a)yahoo.com> wrote: >"Rich Grise" <richgrise(a)example.net> wrote in message >news:pan.2010.08.12.23.57.17.441259(a)example.net... >> On Wed, 11 Aug 2010 21:30:34 -0700, Joel Koltner wrote: >>> Hey, someone forwarded us the announcement about your systems now >>> supporting >>> multiple users talking simultaneously <snip> >> Do you mean like on extension phones, or like in a computer chat room >> where everybody's input just shows up on the screen? > >Wireless full-duplex intercom systems, like you see the coaches on the NFL >sidelines using to talk with the defensive coordinator or whomever. Most >systems are set up so that, while you have upwards of a dozen or so users, >everyone is constantly listening to one guy talk, but only one other guy at a >time can hit "talk" to respond on that same channel. Except that the NFL uses an all analog VHF system. ;-) All the colleges use ours, though. >On a short wired connection this is actually pretty much a non-problem -- >wired "party line" intercom systems have been around for ages. The problem is >the delay between when you speak and any echo that returns -- as that delay >gets longer and longer, it's harder for the echo cancellers to perform. You >still occasionally have this problem on, e.g., phone connections -- when I >dial up my mother in New Zealand from the states, it often takes the echo >cancellers a second or two to train and during that time you can still hear >your own echo a bit, and on rare occasion the entire system breaks down for >some reason and I have to re-dial. > >Adding multiple parts just makes this all that much harder of a problem. >Keith's systems now let you have up to 5 simultaneous talkers, which is a >noteworthy achievement. Five per base. Up to ten bases can be strung together for fifty talkers. The connection between bases is (2-wire) analog, however. The largest system I know of has eight base units (I think they actually use five).
From: dagmargoodboat on 13 Aug 2010 00:59
On Aug 12, 9:59 pm, Bill Bowden <wrongaddr...(a)att.net> wrote: > On Aug 12, 4:48 pm, Rich the Cynic <cy...(a)example.net> wrote: > > > On Wed, 11 Aug 2010 20:51:47 -0700, Bill Bowden wrote: > > > On Aug 11, 4:54 pm, Richard the Dreaded Libertarian > > > >> So, who pays the astronomical bill for this grand socialist scheme? "The > > >> Rich?" What happens when they're taxed into poverty? > > > > 20% of the population owns 80% of the wealth and pays 80% of the tax. > > > And 97% of all stastics are made up of numbers plucked from thin air. ;-) > > > Cheers! > > Rich > > I don't think so. There are many references on the web indicating a > small percentage of the population pays most of the tax. 50% of the > population pays nothing. > > http://www.ntu.org/tax-basics/who-pays-income-taxes.html > > Notice it indicates 25% of the population pays 86% of the tax, and the > bottom 50% pay less than 3%. > > -Bill And notice that if you gross $66.5K you're in top 25%, paying 87% of the tax. Total income tax revenue is/was roughly $900B in recent years. Multiply by 87% and you get roughly $800B paid by the top 25%. We need roughly $1.4 extra trillion to pay for today's spending. So, to pay for today's spending by taxing alone we'd have to roughly triple the income tax of everyone making less than $67K. -- Cheers, James Arthur |