Best distracted driver ever!

[David Reuteler]

Ryan Cousineau <[email protected]> wrote:
: No, friends. as I was driving to the Tuesday Nighter, I paced a gentleman driving a 60s-vintage
: Toronado driving with one hand. That was because he was using the other hand to play a trumpet.
: Not just a little bit, either. I followed him for several miles, and he never put the thing down.
:
: I opened my window, and he seemed pretty good. Better than just scales, anyways.

here in minneapolis on three occassions spaced over a few months in widely different parts of town
(none near macalaester) i've ridden past an active scottish bagpipe quartet just sort of sitting
alone in a parking lot doing their thing.

unfortunately, i don't know what a well played bagpipe sounds like.

& they weren't driving, either.
--
david reuteler [email protected]

 

[Ryan Cousineau]

In article <[email protected]>, Jasper Janssen <[email protected]> wrote:

> On Mon, 23 Jun 2003 14:47:17 GMT, "Buck" <j u n k m a i l @ g a l a x y c o r p . c o m> wrote:
>
> >I think the future of rural access would be wireless:
> >http://www.techtv.com/news/internet/story/0,24195,3389078,00.html
>
> I rather doubt it. The FCC will come down on them like a ton of bricks if they put that into
> largescale commercial operation. There's just no way to get even 1 Mbit out of 802.11b at 50 miles
> without pushing over emissions requirements, either by using more transmitting power than allowed
> or by focusing it directionally until it's far bigger than allowed in a particular direction
> (which is what they're doing). Also, the range gotten from their antenna automatically means
> *highly* directionally sensitive antennas. Probably more so than a satellite dish. It also means
> line of sight only and point-to-point only, which in turn means the local acces point building
> needs to be on top of a tower somewhere and literally bristling with antennas if there's any kinf
> of commercial success.
>
> Jasper

Some of these are an issue, but not as many as you think. This is meant as a replacement for
"last-mile" cabling in areas where it isn't cost-effective to rewire the last mile for broadband
capability.

Even with transceiver stations 10 miles apart, you are talking about covering a lot of area with few
transmitters. And your customers can be your relay stations with the right gear.

Compared to laying cable, this is really cheap.

--
Ryan Cousineau, [email protected] http://www.sfu.ca/~rcousine President, Fabrizio Mazzoleni Fan Club

 

[Jasper Janssen]

On Mon, 23 Jun 2003 21:29:26 -0700, Ryan Cousineau <[email protected]> wrote:

>Some of these are an issue, but not as many as you think. This is meant as a replacement for
>"last-mile" cabling in areas where it isn't cost-effective to rewire the last mile for broadband
>capability.

And you can do the rest with 'regular' highpower microwave line of sight wireless.

>Even with transceiver stations 10 miles apart, you are talking about covering a lot of area with
>few transmitters. And your customers can be your relay stations with the right gear.

I wouldn't want to be the company that has a dozen customers depending on whether or not another
person who is only a customer without other business relations doesn't practice BB shooting on his
wireless gear when he's frustrated. Problems go up exponentially for longer chains.

>Compared to laying cable, this is really cheap.

Sure, but I'm still wondering about the actual legality of this as a licenceless tech. Real
microwave line of sight is not that expensive either (well within an order of magnitude of this
stuff), except that you need to get FCC licenses and stuff.

Jasper