Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Technology Stocks : The *NEW* Frank Coluccio Technology Forum -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: axial who wrote (21240)	5/4/2007 7:13:51 AM
From: Frank A. Coluccio	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 46821

Hi Jim, While it's true that IP has taken over as a dominant force, I don't hold it out as an ideal, although I agree that it's the best direction to take at the moment, given the alternatives. On its face, the term "technology neutral" appears straightforward enough, but on closer examination it demands a tighter definition, or, more to the point, maybe it has to be debunked entirely. A technology cannot be both neutral, on the one hand, and dominant to the point of the exclusion of all others, on the other hand, all at the same time. Is anyone holding out the proposition that states that both WiMAX or WiFi can coexist in a flourishing manner within the same narrow bands that we've been discussing here? Perhaps that is the case. I'm just asking. The WiMAX paper and Peter have both discussed the argument of FDD and TDD adjacencies, which, to me, speaks to the qualities of selectivity vs. interference. My tendency is to quickly turn my attention to the work of folks who are smarter than I in this discipline, who go to lengths to dispel the 'myths' associated with spectrum as property and "frequency interference", whether such interference is due to governmental manipulation during the early days of regulation, or because radios have been designed specifically to permit such interference to take place following the line of thought that states that the idea forms the parameters that enables the reality to not only become possible, but highly likely, as well. David Reed's paper "The Myth of Interference" comes to mind: dir.salon.com My semantic nit-pick aside for the moment, against the backdrop of all that's been discussed thus far I keep experiencing flashbacks of an earlier era when I was a Ham operator on the 80 meter and 40 meter bands -- 3.x MHz and 7.x MHz, respectively. On 40 meters, especially, I recall vividly "tuning in" to 7.1 MHz only to find that thousands of other Hams sending Morse code simultaneously, one atop the other atop the other atop the other, causing an audio effect that could only be described as the cacophony of multiple train wrecks taking place all at once. Yet, through some tweaking of the main tuner and a little bending of a beat frequency oscillator, combined with being able to aurally discern individual Hams' "fists" (their acoustic signatures marked by the cadence and speed of their sending, along with the pitch I assigned to them by tweaking the beat frequency oscillator) I could pick out each one and converse with them, as long as they didn't fade below a certain received power threshold, almost at will. I should also note that Morse code (continuous wave) operation and AM Voice (Phone) use different, albeit adjacent, slices of spectrum. See: csgnetwork.com I'm only half-way through the WiMAX paper. Later. FAC

To: axial who wrote (21240)	5/9/2007 12:18:50 PM
From: Frank A. Coluccio	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 46821

Opinion: Hurricanes and Warming -- Landsea: monitoring, not warming, drives storm data From PowerNews \| May 9, 2007 The recent increase in extreme weather events in the U.S., including hurricanes, popularly attributed to global warming, are probably a result of better monitoring, according to a leading U.S. scientist who tracks storm activity. In an article in the most recent issue of EOS, the journal of the American Geophysical Union, Christopher Landsea of the National Hurricane Center in Miami, perhaps the leading hurricane researcher in the U.S., observes that “long-term ‘trends’ in tropical cyclone frequency are primarily manifestations of increased monitoring capabilities and likely not related to any real change in the climate in which they develop.” Landsea has long been an opponent of those who argue that climate warming is producing more extreme weather events, such as hurricanes. Last year, he rejected a role as the editor of the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change chapter on the impact of global warming on storms when it became clear that the IPCC was insistent on pushing the notion that hurricanes and global warming are linked. Advocates of man-made global warming, including former Vice President Al Gore, argue that the phenomenon manifests itself in an increase in extreme weather events, such as Atlantic hurricanes. Extreme weather events, wherever they occur, are evidence of man-made emissions of CO2, according to Gore and his acolytes. In his latest EOS article, Landsea writes, “Obviously, better monitoring in recent decades will also increase our ability to accurately measure tropical cyclone intensity and duration….” Landsea and other hurricane experts argue that the frequency and ferocity of the storms are related to a long-term cyclic functions, such as the El Nino phenomenon, not to any increase in global climate temperatures. Landsea and William Gray at Colorado State University, the nation’s leading hurricane forecaster, both reject the notion that global warming has anything to do with hurricane activity. The Wall Street Journal described Gray as “America's most prominent hurricane scientist and an ardent foe of the belief that global warming has worsened hurricanes.” Landsea and Gray are both regarded as leading U.S. hurricane gurus. ------