spacemule
The Peanut Gallery
.-- - ..-.
pictures
- Thread starter Mike Barcaskey
- Start date
Help Support Arborist Forum:
Mike Barcaskey
ArboristSite Operative
I have dail-up and dont find it to be a problem, except those pics that are about 3 feet square
of the 5 or 6 forums I visit regularly, this is the only one where links are prefered.
just curious
fmueller, nice crane it was, too bad it was a rental and not mine!
of the 5 or 6 forums I visit regularly, this is the only one where links are prefered.
just curious
fmueller, nice crane it was, too bad it was a rental and not mine!
MasterBlaster
TreeHouse Elder
Yah, I've noticed that myself, Mike. RJS would poop his pants if he ever saw my sig at the musician forum I frequent. And I embed pics(like everyone else there) all the time.
Dadatwins
Addicted to ArboristSite
Originally posted by netree
If I ever get my low-band antennas set right, I might have half a chance. It's hard when you just don't have the room, though.
Up and operational so far:
10 meter vertical
6 meter vertical
2 meter 15 element beam
10/15/20 meter tri-bander
40 meter dipole
70cm 23 element homebrew beam
2 meter j-pole (dedicated to packet/aprs)
70cm j-pole (for x-band repeat when out in the yard)
20 meter vertical dipole strung down the chimney (why not)
In the works:
40/80 dual-band beam
80 meter dipole
160 meter folded dipole
A couple of weeks ago you were cutting couches in half with a chainsaw in the house, now you are building a radio station, really giving the neighbors quiet a bit to talk about aren't we?
Nathan Wreyford
ArboristSite Operative
In Texas, my parents live 4 miles from the nearest public road and 6 miles from the nearest paved road. They got a satellite connection last week. I tried it out when I was there. VERY fast connection.
So the argument about proximity to polulation density just went bye bye
So the argument about proximity to polulation density just went bye bye
Nathan Wreyford
ArboristSite Operative
That article is old. The next generation may already be here
Newfie
Addicted to ArboristSite
Originally posted by Nathan Wreyford
So the argument about proximity to polulation density just went bye bye
I don't think glens problem is so much proximity, rather more than he's just a cheap bastard.
Well, I'm cheap, there's no arguing that, but it's only part of the reason I can't do satellite. The two more important aspects are related to performance and ideology (maybe that's not the perfect word -- something more encompassing morality might be better).
The performance problem is a somewhat tricky thing to describe, but I'll try. The article Cary linked to only touched briefly on some of the factors involved. Latency is really the biggest performance downside to the system, but the way it factors in doesn't directly correlate with the way things "normally" work. There are really two components to the latency issue here.
Latency is "normally" a function of the bandwidth available (the amount of data which <i>can</i> be trafficked in a given time in this context). In this aspect, the satellite systems are indeed broadband (high bandwidth) so they should exhibit low latency.
But the distance the data has to travel at roughly the speed of light is extremely disproportionate and that's where normal comparison fails. A fiber optic or wire cable encircling the earth would be approximately 8,000 miles in length. Geosynchronous orbit for a satellite is approximately 24,000 miles from the earth. A signal could travel 6 times around the earth on the cable before it could make one round trip to the satellite, excluding the delays incurred at the routing points along the cable. (don't forget that the data in a satellite communication must still travel along the earth-bound cabling system between its two bounces to the satellite). Make that 12 times around the earth since the satellite communication must make another full bounce to complete the round trip.
This massive time delay creates a really awkward condition. Ever talk to someone over the phone, or watched a news anchor interact with a remote reporter, via a satellite connection? How about being within ear-shot of two televisions tuned to the same program with one being on satellite and the other "conventional"? In those cases, the delay in transmission is quite obvious.
The extra delay really wreaks havoc with the way computers "talk" to each other over the network.
The satellite systems use methods of altering the traffic patterns in order to somewhat alleviate the "worst" symptoms of the high latency. The mechanism works admirably for such things as fetching large files, but they merely compound the problem for highly interactive tasks. It's a maddening situation.
If you're accustomed to reading large web pages with large amounts of large graphics, a satellite connection would certainly be more pleasing to you than a telephone dial-up. If what you do is more along the lines of just text and "reasonable" size, the phone connection might be more satisfactory in the long run. And it might just be that, even with a low-latency ISDN connection at the same 56k as a dialup, that you'd be happiest overall. (the dialup also has a disproportionate latency problem) Low latency by itself is much funner than high bandwidth by <i>itself</i>.
The satellite systems have historically required some sort of Microsoft Windows computer to perform the traffic alteration, without which the system does not work. Now we're touching on the ideological (morality/safety/security/privacy/cost) issues, and I'm sure you don't want me to go there...
Glen
The performance problem is a somewhat tricky thing to describe, but I'll try. The article Cary linked to only touched briefly on some of the factors involved. Latency is really the biggest performance downside to the system, but the way it factors in doesn't directly correlate with the way things "normally" work. There are really two components to the latency issue here.
Latency is "normally" a function of the bandwidth available (the amount of data which <i>can</i> be trafficked in a given time in this context). In this aspect, the satellite systems are indeed broadband (high bandwidth) so they should exhibit low latency.
But the distance the data has to travel at roughly the speed of light is extremely disproportionate and that's where normal comparison fails. A fiber optic or wire cable encircling the earth would be approximately 8,000 miles in length. Geosynchronous orbit for a satellite is approximately 24,000 miles from the earth. A signal could travel 6 times around the earth on the cable before it could make one round trip to the satellite, excluding the delays incurred at the routing points along the cable. (don't forget that the data in a satellite communication must still travel along the earth-bound cabling system between its two bounces to the satellite). Make that 12 times around the earth since the satellite communication must make another full bounce to complete the round trip.
This massive time delay creates a really awkward condition. Ever talk to someone over the phone, or watched a news anchor interact with a remote reporter, via a satellite connection? How about being within ear-shot of two televisions tuned to the same program with one being on satellite and the other "conventional"? In those cases, the delay in transmission is quite obvious.
The extra delay really wreaks havoc with the way computers "talk" to each other over the network.
The satellite systems use methods of altering the traffic patterns in order to somewhat alleviate the "worst" symptoms of the high latency. The mechanism works admirably for such things as fetching large files, but they merely compound the problem for highly interactive tasks. It's a maddening situation.
If you're accustomed to reading large web pages with large amounts of large graphics, a satellite connection would certainly be more pleasing to you than a telephone dial-up. If what you do is more along the lines of just text and "reasonable" size, the phone connection might be more satisfactory in the long run. And it might just be that, even with a low-latency ISDN connection at the same 56k as a dialup, that you'd be happiest overall. (the dialup also has a disproportionate latency problem) Low latency by itself is much funner than high bandwidth by <i>itself</i>.
The satellite systems have historically required some sort of Microsoft Windows computer to perform the traffic alteration, without which the system does not work. Now we're touching on the ideological (morality/safety/security/privacy/cost) issues, and I'm sure you don't want me to go there...
Glen
rumination
ArboristSite Guru
Err...Glen, maybe you better whip out yer ruler and measure the circumference of the earth again.
Stumper
One Man Band
Despite Glen's boo boo he has a valid point-The landlines don't generallyhave to carry our stuff 24000 miles and then back again.Oh, yeah. I forgot about that good old Pi. My bad. (I only got the 99th percentile in math on my SAT) Downgrade the ratios by about a factor of 3, then.
I was just visiting Starband.com and see where, for five to eight hundred bux for equipment, and seventy to ninety per month, I can get service that will often exceed dialup speeds even with my unix boxes.
Glen
I was just visiting Starband.com and see where, for five to eight hundred bux for equipment, and seventy to ninety per month, I can get service that will often exceed dialup speeds even with my unix boxes.
Glen
Mike Barcaskey
ArboristSite Operative
for4 anyone who wants to know how to post a pic
first you need a place to post your photos on the web. If you have a web page that will work. I use www.imagestation.com
its a free service. set up an account and upload your photo.
once there, right click on the photo, select properties, and highlight the photos address
copy, then paste into the message
Put [ i m g ] in front of the address and [ / i m g ] after the address
erase the thumb.jpg if it is there
this is the address I copied off properties
http://www.imagestation.com/picture...a8d8f4f8ea751f5693cd41/f68e92b4.jpg.thumb.jpg
this is it set up
[ i m g ]
http://www.imagestation.com/picture/sraid143/p34e3c0ced9a8d8f4f8ea751f5693cd41/f68e92b4.jpg[ / i m g ]
I had to put a space between the characters [ i m g ] so it would show up on here
you do not want the spaces
thats also weird on the site
not that most of you guys aren't
first you need a place to post your photos on the web. If you have a web page that will work. I use www.imagestation.com
its a free service. set up an account and upload your photo.
once there, right click on the photo, select properties, and highlight the photos address
copy, then paste into the message
Put [ i m g ] in front of the address and [ / i m g ] after the address
erase the thumb.jpg if it is there
this is the address I copied off properties
http://www.imagestation.com/picture...a8d8f4f8ea751f5693cd41/f68e92b4.jpg.thumb.jpg
this is it set up
[ i m g ]
http://www.imagestation.com/picture/sraid143/p34e3c0ced9a8d8f4f8ea751f5693cd41/f68e92b4.jpg[ / i m g ]
I had to put a space between the characters [ i m g ] so it would show up on here
you do not want the spaces
thats also weird on the site
not that most of you guys aren't
Hi Mike.
I'm assuming you know that you can upload the pic here for use as an "attachment" to your post? In fact, it's a much more reliable way. There are a great many posts here from a few years ago with links such as you describe that are dead because the image hosting service popular at the time went belly up.
You were having trouble making the <font color="red">
</font> tags appear? hahaha A nice feature of this site is that in most of the forums you can actually use the HTML codes directly, like <font color="red"><img src="http://some_URI"></font>.
Glen
I'm assuming you know that you can upload the pic here for use as an "attachment" to your post? In fact, it's a much more reliable way. There are a great many posts here from a few years ago with links such as you describe that are dead because the image hosting service popular at the time went belly up.
You were having trouble making the <font color="red">
Glen
Similar threads
