Splitting the group?
 

How about splitting rcm? One subgroup rec.crafts.metalworking.off-topic
and the second rec.crafts.metalworking.on-topic.

Seriously, folks, this group is the worst I subscribe to for OT junk,
and makes it a pain to scroll through the day's messages. For those
that must discuss these OT topics, how about joining some other groups
where this stuff would be on topic, and freeing up this group a bit.

Don Stauffer wrote:

How about splitting rcm? One subgroup rec.crafts.metalworking.off-topic
and the second rec.crafts.metalworking.on-topic.

Seriously, folks, this group is the worst I subscribe to for OT junk,
and makes it a pain to scroll through the day's messages. For those
that must discuss these OT topics, how about joining some other groups
where this stuff would be on topic, and freeing up this group a bit.

alt.machines.cnc is far worse...

Pete C.

"Don Stauffer" wrote in message
...
How about splitting rcm? One subgroup rec.crafts.metalworking.off-topic
and the second rec.crafts.metalworking.on-topic.

Seriously, folks, this group is the worst I subscribe to for OT junk, and
makes it a pain to scroll through the day's messages. For those that must
discuss these OT topics, how about joining some other groups where this
stuff would be on topic, and freeing up this group a bit.

And just where is the "OT" designator on THIS off-topic post?

I agree!!! The off-topic posts are just so annoying and so hard to get my
mouse pointer past that I also have become a "Victim" and deserve some
compensation from somebody so I fully intend to sue everybody starting today
for off-topic posts...sorry Don, but you're first. Please forward your
lawyer's information so I can get started on my vacation plans. (Just
kidding)

Don, why don't you consider starting a NG like:

rec.craft.boring.no-nonsense.just.stuff.I'm.interested.in.only.just.me

On Thu, 25 Aug 2005 09:38:54 -0500, the opaque Don Stauffer
clearly wrote:

How about splitting rcm? One subgroup rec.crafts.metalworking.off-topic
and the second rec.crafts.metalworking.on-topic.

Seriously, folks, this group is the worst I subscribe to for OT junk,
and makes it a pain to scroll through the day's messages. For those
that must discuss these OT topics, how about joining some other groups
where this stuff would be on topic, and freeing up this group a bit.

The same lunacy comes up on the Wreck quite often. Most folks find
it easier to hit the I (Ignore thread) button than split the group
and have all the OT posts to read on both/multiple groups.

One of the main reasons I follow rec.metalheads is for the wide
variety of cool and unusual punishment I find here. ;)

No change (other than trolls moving on), thanks.


================================================== ========
CAUTION: Do NOT look directly into laser with remaining eyeball!
================================================== ========
http://www.diversify.com Comprehensive Website Design

Don, do you have a newsreader that groups the posts by topic? I am
ashamed to say that I use Outlook Express -- I know, not the safest
platform -- but it groups all the posts on a given topic under one
heading, so if I want to expand it and read I can, or else I can easily
go on to other topics.

For me, the newsgroup just wouldn't be the same without all the OT
posts -- not that I read as much as 10% of them, but from time to time
there is an OT that interests me. Meanwhile, whenever I've asked
metal-working questions, I've always gotten on-topic and very helpful
answers ...

Andy

Why not make a filter to toss anything starting with OT ?

- -
Rex Burkheimer


Tom Gardner wrote:
"Don Stauffer" wrote in message
...

How about splitting rcm? One subgroup rec.crafts.metalworking.off-topic
and the second rec.crafts.metalworking.on-topic.

Seriously, folks, this group is the worst I subscribe to for OT junk, and
makes it a pain to scroll through the day's messages. For those that must
discuss these OT topics, how about joining some other groups where this
stuff would be on topic, and freeing up this group a bit.

see http://www.bizhotline.com/html/evelyn_wood.html
===========
On Thu, 25 Aug 2005 09:38:54 -0500, Don Stauffer
wrote:

How about splitting rcm? One subgroup rec.crafts.metalworking.off-topic
and the second rec.crafts.metalworking.on-topic.

Seriously, folks, this group is the worst I subscribe to for OT junk,
and makes it a pain to scroll through the day's messages. For those
that must discuss these OT topics, how about joining some other groups
where this stuff would be on topic, and freeing up this group a bit.

How about splitting rcm? One subgroup rec.crafts.metalworking.off-topic
and the second rec.crafts.metalworking.on-topic.

Seriously, folks, this group is the worst I subscribe to for OT junk,
and makes it a pain to scroll through the day's messages. For those
that must discuss these OT topics, how about joining some other groups
where this stuff would be on topic, and freeing up this group a bit.

Actually there is no need to split the group... we just need those
people that want to post off topic stuff to do it somewhere else. I
don't think anyone comes here looking to hear about someone else
political agenda. It is rude to do that.

Don Stauffer wrote:

How about splitting rcm? One subgroup rec.crafts.metalworking.off-topic
and the second rec.crafts.metalworking.on-topic.

We had the same problem some years agon in de.comp.sys.mac. We agreed to
restructure and added a soc group. Now all (read most) of the OT is
going to de.comp.sys.mac.soc.

All I can do now is to filter at the first occurence of OT or completely
filter the whole thread if some wellknown persons start it.

I also already know what a few people will answer to my posting. But
these have a high risk of beeing permanently filtered. :-)


Ni-feed my filter-ck
--
Motormodelle / Engine Models:
http://www.motor-manufaktur.de
Ellwe 2FB * VTM 87 * DLM-S3a * cubic
more to come ...

The political stuff here has gotta go. Let's get back on topic.........

carneyke wrote:
The political stuff here has gotta go. Let's get back on topic.........


Been around long?

"Strap" sez:

" No change (other than trolls moving on), thanks."

Second that, Larry. Mercifully, it seems that all trolls move on,
eventually. And even out of the posts of some trolls comes a certain
wisdom. Some time back, the posts of the idiot (pardon me, the troll) that
posted all the drivel re. converting a V-8 engine to run on steam; even had
some redeeming value. It generated some great counter posts that contained
a good deal of engine design information; all directed at the ridiculousness
of the basic premise. Even way OT posts have a way of sometimes running
back "on topic" - well, errr, that is on to some other topic that may be
loosely related to metal working.

Bob Swinney



"Larry Jaques" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 25 Aug 2005 09:38:54 -0500, the opaque Don Stauffer
clearly wrote:

How about splitting rcm? One subgroup rec.crafts.metalworking.off-topic
and the second rec.crafts.metalworking.on-topic.

Seriously, folks, this group is the worst I subscribe to for OT junk,
and makes it a pain to scroll through the day's messages. For those
that must discuss these OT topics, how about joining some other groups
where this stuff would be on topic, and freeing up this group a bit.

The same lunacy comes up on the Wreck quite often. Most folks find
it easier to hit the I (Ignore thread) button than split the group
and have all the OT posts to read on both/multiple groups.

One of the main reasons I follow rec.metalheads is for the wide
variety of cool and unusual punishment I find here. ;)



================================================== ========
CAUTION: Do NOT look directly into laser with remaining eyeball!
================================================== ========
http://www.diversify.com Comprehensive Website Design

Don Stauffer wrote in news:3KkPe.15$nh6.3861
@news.uswest.net:

How about splitting rcm? One subgroup rec.crafts.metalworking.off-topic
and the second rec.crafts.metalworking.on-topic.

Seriously, folks, this group is the worst I subscribe to for OT junk,
and makes it a pain to scroll through the day's messages. For those
that must discuss these OT topics, how about joining some other groups
where this stuff would be on topic, and freeing up this group a bit.


There is no need in that.
You just need to use a filter or three. Plonking a couple of unnamed
posters will garner a 90% drop in noise, guaranteed.

--
Anthony

You can't 'idiot proof' anything....every time you try, they just make
better idiots.

Remove sp to reply via email

http://www.machines-cnc.net:81/

Yes, I've been around for about 8 years and the last 4 have been terrible
with OT. I could filter, especially Cliff the dickhead...........
"Jim Stewart" wrote in message
...
carneyke wrote:
The political stuff here has gotta go. Let's get back on topic.........


Been around long?

Unnamed Posters ? Let's call a spade a spade or Cliff is a dickhead that
should be banned by the Moderator ! I have never seen any of his posts worth
looking at or offer and Metal Work Advice. He's a real piece of junk, oh
yeah, there you go, he is junk...that's on subject , Junkyards , Metal
,there you go....

"Anthony" wrote in message
...
Don Stauffer wrote in news:3KkPe.15$nh6.3861
@news.uswest.net:

How about splitting rcm? One subgroup rec.crafts.metalworking.off-topic
and the second rec.crafts.metalworking.on-topic.

Seriously, folks, this group is the worst I subscribe to for OT junk,
and makes it a pain to scroll through the day's messages. For those
that must discuss these OT topics, how about joining some other groups
where this stuff would be on topic, and freeing up this group a bit.


There is no need in that.
You just need to use a filter or three. Plonking a couple of unnamed
posters will garner a 90% drop in noise, guaranteed.

--
Anthony

You can't 'idiot proof' anything....every time you try, they just make
better idiots.

Remove sp to reply via email

http://www.machines-cnc.net:81/

Don't bitch. Check rec.boats, and count your blessings.
JR
Dweller in the cellar

Don Stauffer wrote:

How about splitting rcm? One subgroup rec.crafts.metalworking.off-topic
and the second rec.crafts.metalworking.on-topic.

Seriously, folks, this group is the worst I subscribe to for OT junk,
and makes it a pain to scroll through the day's messages. For those
that must discuss these OT topics, how about joining some other groups
where this stuff would be on topic, and freeing up this group a bit.


--
--------------------------------------------------------------
Home Page: http://www.seanet.com/~jasonrnorth
If you're not the lead dog, the view never changes
Doubt yourself, and the real world will eat you alive
The world doesn't revolve around you, it revolves around me
No skeletons in the closet; just decomposing corpses
--------------------------------------------------------------
Dependence is Vulnerability:
--------------------------------------------------------------
"Open the Pod Bay Doors please, Hal"
"I'm sorry, Dave, I'm afraid I can't do that.."

"Don Stauffer" wrote in message
...
How about splitting rcm? One subgroup rec.crafts.metalworking.off-topic
and the second rec.crafts.metalworking.on-topic.

Seriously, folks, this group is the worst I subscribe to for OT junk, and
makes it a pain to scroll through the day's messages. For those that must
discuss these OT topics, how about joining some other groups where this
stuff would be on topic, and freeing up this group a bit.

Here we go again.....

On Thu, 25 Aug 2005 10:39:10 -0500, Rex B wrote:

Why not make a filter to toss anything starting with OT ?

With my newsreader (which can filter on regex expressions) that's
hard to do. The trouble is that different people write "OT" in so
many different ways that its impossible to catch them all without
occasionally filtering on-topic posts. Consider trying to write a
regex expression to only filter the truly OT subject lines that
follow:

-OT- Glue head liberals in congress
OT Glue head liberals in congress
ot Glue head liberals in congress
ot-Glue head liberals in congress
Other Sources of Metal?
Ottman metal shaper info?
Off Topic: Glue head liberals in congress
Glue head liberals in congress - OT

You get the idea. It was taking my newsreader so long to process
all of the filters I had carefully written that every check for new
posts was taking what seemed like several minutes to complete (on a
1 ghz PC), and still I was losing on-topic posts occasionally.

I finally gave up and don't bother any more.

Most other groups have rather strict Subject flagging conventions, and
for good reason. Usually the flag is enclosed in square brackets at the
beginning of the line with a single space after the close-bracket,
like:

[OT] Glue head liberals in congress

With consistency in Subject flagging, off-topic posts would be
trivially easy to filter out.

Perhaps someone who cannot tolerate off-topic posts here could
write up a mini-faq describing the proper format of flagging
an OT post, and why, and then post it here on a regular basis.
Perhaps the mini-faq could contain instructions for filter
writing for various popular newsreaders as well.

In article ,
Artemia Salina wrote:
On Thu, 25 Aug 2005 10:39:10 -0500, Rex B wrote:

Why not make a filter to toss anything starting with OT ?

With my newsreader (which can filter on regex expressions) that's
hard to do. The trouble is that different people write "OT" in so
many different ways that its impossible to catch them all without
occasionally filtering on-topic posts. Consider trying to write a
regex expression to only filter the truly OT subject lines that
follow:

[ ... ]

Most other groups have rather strict Subject flagging conventions, and
for good reason. Usually the flag is enclosed in square brackets at the
beginning of the line with a single space after the close-bracket,
like:

[OT] Glue head liberals in congress

With consistency in Subject flagging, off-topic posts would be
trivially easy to filter out.

That one would be a good format. The one which is arguably the
*worst* is:

OT: Glue head liberals in congress

because some common newsreader wannabes, Outlook Express as one example,
in a misguided attempt to handle not just " " at the start of a
subject line, but *all* other language versions as well, just take any
two-letter block followed by a ':', and assume that it was "" in
*some* language, and replace it with "". This nicely does away with
the flagging on an off-topic thread which was properly labeled up to
that point.

Perhaps someone who cannot tolerate off-topic posts here could
write up a mini-faq describing the proper format of flagging
an OT post, and why, and then post it here on a regular basis.
Perhaps the mini-faq could contain instructions for filter
writing for various popular newsreaders as well.

It would not do any good, as there are some who refuse to flag
OT threads, and others who are convinced that it must look like "OT:",
and thus it vanishes.

And very few of us properly even change the "Subject: " header
when the topic drifts (I'm as guilty as everyone else), so things which
drift from on topic to off topic would still not be flagged.

Enjoy,
DoN.

--
Email: | Voice (all times): (703) 938-4564
(too) near Washington D.C. | http://www.d-and-d.com/dnichols/DoN.html
--- Black Holes are where God is dividing by zero ---

In article ,
Kevin wrote:
Unnamed Posters ? Let's call a spade a spade or Cliff is a dickhead that
should be banned by the Moderator !

Perhaps -- but this is an unmoderated group, so there *is* no
moderator to ban him. (Nor or most usenet newsgroups moderated. Only a
very few are.

Enjoy,
DoN.

--
Email: | Voice (all times): (703) 938-4564
(too) near Washington D.C. | http://www.d-and-d.com/dnichols/DoN.html
--- Black Holes are where God is dividing by zero ---

"Just Me - Lane" wrote in message
...

"Don Stauffer" wrote in message
...
How about splitting rcm? One subgroup rec.crafts.metalworking.off-topic
and the second rec.crafts.metalworking.on-topic.

Seriously, folks, this group is the worst I subscribe to for OT junk, and
makes it a pain to scroll through the day's messages. For those that
must discuss these OT topics, how about joining some other groups where
this stuff would be on topic, and freeing up this group a bit.

Here we go again.....


Kinda' like an [OT] bitch-bot! You'd think all these manly-men that claw
metal for fun wouldn't be such cry-babies.

In article , Rex B
wrote:

Why not make a filter to toss anything starting with OT ?

- -
Rex Burkheimer

I filter on that and anything crossposted to the survivalist group.
And Cliff.

--
B.B. --I am not a goat! thegoat4 at airmail dot net
http://web2.airmail.net/thegoat4/

DoN. Nichols wrote:
In article ,
Kevin wrote:

Unnamed Posters ? Let's call a spade a spade or Cliff is a dickhead that
should be banned by the Moderator !


Perhaps -- but this is an unmoderated group, so there *is* no
moderator to ban him. (Nor or most usenet newsgroups moderated. Only a
very few are.

If you feel strongly about it, you can call for a shun.
It's been effective in the past on flat-out troublemakers.
It's doubtful there would be enough of a consenses to
get it to work on Cliff, however.

On Thu, 25 Aug 2005 21:48:41 -0700, the opaque Jim Stewart
clearly wrote:

DoN. Nichols wrote:
In article ,
Kevin wrote:

Unnamed Posters ? Let's call a spade a spade or Cliff is a dickhead that
should be banned by the Moderator !

Perhaps -- but this is an unmoderated group, so there *is* no
moderator to ban him. (Nor or most usenet newsgroups moderated. Only a
very few are.

If you feel strongly about it, you can call for a shun.
It's been effective in the past on flat-out troublemakers.
It's doubtful there would be enough of a consenses to
get it to work on Cliff, however.

I've recommended that before but it hasn't made a dent. Cliff
is an extremely good troll who finds people's hot buttons and
pushes them continuously. This will happen as long as people
react and post before thinking. sigh

Hey, maybe Tom Gardener's breakins are instant karma for his
responding -continually- to the trolls. What do you think?


================================================== ========
CAUTION: Do NOT look directly into laser with remaining eyeball!
================================================== ========
http://www.diversify.com Comprehensive Website Design

"Don Stauffer" wrote in message
...
How about splitting rcm? One subgroup rec.crafts.metalworking.off-topic
and the second rec.crafts.metalworking.on-topic.

Seriously, folks, this group is the worst I subscribe to for OT junk, and
makes it a pain to scroll through the day's messages. For those that must
discuss these OT topics, how about joining some other groups where this
stuff would be on topic, and freeing up this group a bit.

It would help a lot if posters would stop cross-posting, at least on the
political crap. Not likely to happen though and it's more productive to
just move on. Some do so, by remaining here and just ignoring the crap,
others seem to have given up all together and gone elsewhere. Fitch
Williams and Jack Erbes, amongst others fall into the latter group.

Mike

Anthony wrote:
Don Stauffer wrote in news:3KkPe.15$nh6.3861
@news.uswest.net:


How about splitting rcm? One subgroup rec.crafts.metalworking.off-topic
and the second rec.crafts.metalworking.on-topic.

Seriously, folks, this group is the worst I subscribe to for OT junk,
and makes it a pain to scroll through the day's messages. For those
that must discuss these OT topics, how about joining some other groups
where this stuff would be on topic, and freeing up this group a bit.



There is no need in that.
You just need to use a filter or three. Plonking a couple of unnamed
posters will garner a 90% drop in noise, guaranteed.

It takes more time to keep setting up filters than to just skip through
the list. If it was only a single thread, fine, but there are new
bunches of them every day. I have yet to see a filter smart enough to
set itself with what is relevant to a particular newsgroup by itself.
Plus it takes extra time to download titles anyway, for filter to work
on. Filter (at least on my newsreader)only keeps titles from showing in
window, doesn't keep from downloading them. I'm a poor guy- only have
dialup, so time to download titles is significant.

"Don Stauffer" wrote in message
...
It takes more time to keep setting up filters than to just skip through
the list. If it was only a single thread, fine, but there are new bunches
of them every day. I have yet to see a filter smart enough to set itself
with what is relevant to a particular newsgroup by itself. Plus it takes
extra time to download titles anyway, for filter to work on. Filter (at
least on my newsreader)only keeps titles from showing in window, doesn't
keep from downloading them. I'm a poor guy- only have dialup, so time to
download titles is significant.

Try using XNews as a newsreader.

If you think that 56KB download is slow, try using a cell phone connection
at 14.4 KB or less.

If you think that 56KB download is slow, try using a cell phone connection
at 14.4 KB or less.

Right on! Cell phones were never intended to carry data at any appreciable
speed. Anyone that thinks otherwise is merely being led around by the nose
with advertising from unscrupulous communications companies. IMO, unless in
the unlikely event the FCC sets aside some of the other comm. spectrum
specifically for data transmission over cellular telephony, it will never
become a reality. Some have been severly mislead by the so-called "camera
phones" where slow-scan data can transmit a picture of sorts. Gimme a
break, already! "Voice" is inherently a low bandwidth medium, despite the
claims of Qualcom and others - as throughput expands, such as with CDMA, GSM
and other "Hedy Lamar" types of modulation, available bandwidth shrinks.
Don't expect wideband data over cell phones in a long, long time, if ever.

Bob Swinney

"RAM^3" wrote in message
...
"Don Stauffer" wrote in message
...
It takes more time to keep setting up filters than to just skip through
the list. If it was only a single thread, fine, but there are new bunches
of them every day. I have yet to see a filter smart enough to set itself
with what is relevant to a particular newsgroup by itself. Plus it takes
extra time to download titles anyway, for filter to work on. Filter (at
least on my newsreader)only keeps titles from showing in window, doesn't
keep from downloading them. I'm a poor guy- only have dialup, so time to
download titles is significant.

Try using XNews as a newsreader.

"Robert Swinney" wrote in message
...
If you think that 56KB download is slow, try using a cell phone
connection at 14.4 KB or less.

Right on! Cell phones were never intended to carry data at any
appreciable speed. Anyone that thinks otherwise is merely being led
around by the nose with advertising from unscrupulous communications
companies. IMO, unless in the unlikely event the FCC sets aside some of
the other comm. spectrum specifically for data transmission over cellular
telephony, it will never become a reality. Some have been severly mislead
by the so-called "camera phones" where slow-scan data can transmit a
picture of sorts. Gimme a break, already! "Voice" is inherently a low
bandwidth medium, despite the claims of Qualcom and others - as throughput
expands, such as with CDMA, GSM and other "Hedy Lamar" types of
modulation, available bandwidth shrinks. Don't expect wideband data over
cell phones in a long, long time, if ever.

Bob Swinney

FWIW, in Digital Service areas, many of the newer phones can achieve 56KB
(or more).

When we're out RVing we often have 2 machines online through a single cell
phone that's providing ~14.4KB.

Ya gotta be *patient*! G

On Fri, 26 Aug 2005 10:22:15 -0500, RAM^3 wrote:

If you think that 56KB download is slow, try using a cell phone
connection at 14.4 KB or less.

If you think 14.4K bps is slow, try 300 bps.

When I first started using Usenet, I had a 300 baud modem at home. That
was a big improvement over the previous generation of 110 baud modems with
acoustic couplers. Flamewars and trolls wasted HUGE amounts of time back
then. If you were paying for your dialup connection by the minute (as
almost everyone did), it could get very expensive. At work, my terminal
connected to the machines at 9600 bps, that was screaming fast.

--
Ron DeBlock N2JSO
If God had meant for Man to see the sunrise,
He would have scheduled it later in the day.

On Fri, 26 Aug 2005 11:29:13 -0500, "Robert Swinney"
wrote:

If you think that 56KB download is slow, try using a cell phone connection
at 14.4 KB or less.

Right on! Cell phones were never intended to carry data at any appreciable
speed. Anyone that thinks otherwise is merely being led around by the nose
with advertising from unscrupulous communications companies. IMO, unless in
the unlikely event the FCC sets aside some of the other comm. spectrum
specifically for data transmission over cellular telephony, it will never
become a reality. Some have been severly mislead by the so-called "camera
phones" where slow-scan data can transmit a picture of sorts. Gimme a
break, already! "Voice" is inherently a low bandwidth medium, despite the
claims of Qualcom and others - as throughput expands, such as with CDMA, GSM
and other "Hedy Lamar" types of modulation, available bandwidth shrinks.
Don't expect wideband data over cell phones in a long, long time, if ever.

Bob Swinney

Recall that it was once thought that the 300-3000 Hz bandwidth of
telephony could not transfer digital data at greater than 1200 baud.

Shannon, at Bell Labs, proved that the error-free information
capacity of a channel is determined by it's entropy. He left
figuring out how to actually approach that as an exercise. 70 years
or so later, we're still working on that, and making some progress.

Yeah, but we've about run up against the old Frequency-Bandwidth continuum
limit thing.

Bob Swinney
"Don Foreman" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 26 Aug 2005 11:29:13 -0500, "Robert Swinney"
wrote:

If you think that 56KB download is slow, try using a cell phone
connection
at 14.4 KB or less.

Right on! Cell phones were never intended to carry data at any
appreciable
speed. Anyone that thinks otherwise is merely being led around by the
nose
with advertising from unscrupulous communications companies. IMO, unless
in
the unlikely event the FCC sets aside some of the other comm. spectrum
specifically for data transmission over cellular telephony, it will never
become a reality. Some have been severly mislead by the so-called "camera
phones" where slow-scan data can transmit a picture of sorts. Gimme a
break, already! "Voice" is inherently a low bandwidth medium, despite the
claims of Qualcom and others - as throughput expands, such as with CDMA,
GSM
and other "Hedy Lamar" types of modulation, available bandwidth shrinks.
Don't expect wideband data over cell phones in a long, long time, if ever.

Bob Swinney

Recall that it was once thought that the 300-3000 Hz bandwidth of
telephony could not transfer digital data at greater than 1200 baud.

Shannon, at Bell Labs, proved that the error-free information
capacity of a channel is determined by it's entropy. He left
figuring out how to actually approach that as an exercise. 70 years
or so later, we're still working on that, and making some progress.

On Fri, 26 Aug 2005 19:30:55 -0500, "Robert Swinney"
wrote:

Yeah, but we've about run up against the old Frequency-Bandwidth continuum
limit thing.

Nyquist's theorem states that an arbitrary waveform can uniquely
reconstructed without error from periodic samples taken at a
frequency at least twice the highest frequency present in the
waveform. Channel bandwidth limits the number of samples per second,
but it does not limit the number of values each sample might have.

Let's say the arbitrary waveform can have any one of 1024 values.
Each sample can then convey 10 bits of information -- 2^10 = 1024.

In a noiseless channel, the information rate thru a channel of given
bandwidth could therefore theoretically be arbitrarily high, simply
by having arbitrarily many possible values for each sample.

Real channels do have random noise which adds a degree of
uncertainty to each sample, so the maximum possible error-free
information rate, or channel capacity, is determined by the ratio of
signal power to noise power.

Shannon merely proved mathematically what's possible; he didn't show
how to do it. That's the part we're still working on and keep getting
better at.

RAM^3 wrote:


Try using XNews as a newsreader.

Does XNews actually have the ability to filter a thread without first
downloading all subject lines?

Nyquist, Shannon, etc. primarily address analog transmission and give some
insight into the effects of noise in the channel. CDMA and other "modern"
schemes essentially utilize very random bits of signal which taken as the
whole, synthesize noise in the channel. Effective bandwidth is limited by
the numbers of users on any given frequency (frequency loosely meaning
"channel") Bandwidth will be inverse to the numbers of users on a channel.
Good original bandwidth will be degraded as the carrier puts more users on
channel.

Bob Swinney
"Don Foreman" wrote in message
...

On Fri, 26 Aug 2005 19:30:55 -0500, "Robert Swinney"
wrote:

Yeah, but we've about run up against the old Frequency-Bandwidth continuum
limit thing.

Nyquist's theorem states that an arbitrary waveform can uniquely
reconstructed without error from periodic samples taken at a
frequency at least twice the highest frequency present in the
waveform. Channel bandwidth limits the number of samples per second,
but it does not limit the number of values each sample might have.

Let's say the arbitrary waveform can have any one of 1024 values.
Each sample can then convey 10 bits of information -- 2^10 = 1024.

In a noiseless channel, the information rate thru a channel of given
bandwidth could therefore theoretically be arbitrarily high, simply
by having arbitrarily many possible values for each sample.

Real channels do have random noise which adds a degree of
uncertainty to each sample, so the maximum possible error-free
information rate, or channel capacity, is determined by the ratio of
signal power to noise power.

Shannon merely proved mathematically what's possible; he didn't show
how to do it. That's the part we're still working on and keep getting
better at.

"Don Stauffer" wrote in message
...
RAM^3 wrote:


Try using XNews as a newsreader.

Does XNews actually have the ability to filter a thread without first
downloading all subject lines?

While I haven't seen the internal code, it seems to do that.

It *does*, however, do a pretty good job of filtration.

On Sat, 27 Aug 2005 10:34:26 -0500, "Robert Swinney"
wrote:

Nyquist, Shannon, etc. primarily address analog transmission and give some
insight into the effects of noise in the channel. CDMA and other "modern"
schemes essentially utilize very random bits of signal which taken as the
whole, synthesize noise in the channel. Effective bandwidth is limited by
the numbers of users on any given frequency (frequency loosely meaning
"channel") Bandwidth will be inverse to the numbers of users on a channel.
Good original bandwidth will be degraded as the carrier puts more users on
channel.

All transmission is analog. Bits of information are somehow
represented by a voltage, a frequency, or some other electrical
(analog) quantity. As we learn more, and as computing power gets
cheaper and faster, we keep discovering ways to do that better.

More users in a channel do increase the information load of that
channel, leaving less information rate capacity per user in a given
channel. That'll always be true.

Bob Swinney
"Don Foreman" wrote in message
.. .

On Fri, 26 Aug 2005 19:30:55 -0500, "Robert Swinney"
wrote:

Yeah, but we've about run up against the old Frequency-Bandwidth continuum
limit thing.

Nyquist's theorem states that an arbitrary waveform can uniquely
reconstructed without error from periodic samples taken at a
frequency at least twice the highest frequency present in the
waveform. Channel bandwidth limits the number of samples per second,
but it does not limit the number of values each sample might have.

Let's say the arbitrary waveform can have any one of 1024 values.
Each sample can then convey 10 bits of information -- 2^10 = 1024.

In a noiseless channel, the information rate thru a channel of given
bandwidth could therefore theoretically be arbitrarily high, simply
by having arbitrarily many possible values for each sample.

Real channels do have random noise which adds a degree of
uncertainty to each sample, so the maximum possible error-free
information rate, or channel capacity, is determined by the ratio of
signal power to noise power.

Shannon merely proved mathematically what's possible; he didn't show
how to do it. That's the part we're still working on and keep getting
better at.

Great point, Don! I have long contended that all transmission is analog -
but try to tell that to a byte head.

Bob Swinney
"Don Foreman" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 27 Aug 2005 10:34:26 -0500, "Robert Swinney"
wrote:

Nyquist, Shannon, etc. primarily address analog transmission and give some
insight into the effects of noise in the channel. CDMA and other "modern"
schemes essentially utilize very random bits of signal which taken as the
whole, synthesize noise in the channel. Effective bandwidth is limited by
the numbers of users on any given frequency (frequency loosely meaning
"channel") Bandwidth will be inverse to the numbers of users on a
channel.
Good original bandwidth will be degraded as the carrier puts more users on
channel.

All transmission is analog. Bits of information are somehow
represented by a voltage, a frequency, or some other electrical
(analog) quantity. As we learn more, and as computing power gets
cheaper and faster, we keep discovering ways to do that better.

More users in a channel do increase the information load of that
channel, leaving less information rate capacity per user in a given
channel. That'll always be true.

Bob Swinney
"Don Foreman" wrote in message
. ..

On Fri, 26 Aug 2005 19:30:55 -0500, "Robert Swinney"
wrote:

Yeah, but we've about run up against the old Frequency-Bandwidth
continuum
limit thing.

Nyquist's theorem states that an arbitrary waveform can uniquely
reconstructed without error from periodic samples taken at a
frequency at least twice the highest frequency present in the
waveform. Channel bandwidth limits the number of samples per second,
but it does not limit the number of values each sample might have.

Let's say the arbitrary waveform can have any one of 1024 values.
Each sample can then convey 10 bits of information -- 2^10 = 1024.

In a noiseless channel, the information rate thru a channel of given
bandwidth could therefore theoretically be arbitrarily high, simply
by having arbitrarily many possible values for each sample.

Real channels do have random noise which adds a degree of
uncertainty to each sample, so the maximum possible error-free
information rate, or channel capacity, is determined by the ratio of
signal power to noise power.

Shannon merely proved mathematically what's possible; he didn't show
how to do it. That's the part we're still working on and keep getting
better at.

PS to previous: I wonder why my Hedy Lamar modulation comment didn't draw
any fire.

Bob Swinney
"Robert Swinney" wrote in message
...
Great point, Don! I have long contended that all transmission is analog -
but try to tell that to a byte head.

Bob Swinney
"Don Foreman" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 27 Aug 2005 10:34:26 -0500, "Robert Swinney"
wrote:

Nyquist, Shannon, etc. primarily address analog transmission and give
some
insight into the effects of noise in the channel. CDMA and other
"modern"
schemes essentially utilize very random bits of signal which taken as the
whole, synthesize noise in the channel. Effective bandwidth is limited
by
the numbers of users on any given frequency (frequency loosely meaning
"channel") Bandwidth will be inverse to the numbers of users on a
channel.
Good original bandwidth will be degraded as the carrier puts more users
on
channel.

All transmission is analog. Bits of information are somehow
represented by a voltage, a frequency, or some other electrical
(analog) quantity. As we learn more, and as computing power gets
cheaper and faster, we keep discovering ways to do that better.

More users in a channel do increase the information load of that
channel, leaving less information rate capacity per user in a given
channel. That'll always be true.

Bob Swinney
"Don Foreman" wrote in message
...

On Fri, 26 Aug 2005 19:30:55 -0500, "Robert Swinney"
wrote:

Yeah, but we've about run up against the old Frequency-Bandwidth
continuum
limit thing.

Nyquist's theorem states that an arbitrary waveform can uniquely
reconstructed without error from periodic samples taken at a
frequency at least twice the highest frequency present in the
waveform. Channel bandwidth limits the number of samples per second,
but it does not limit the number of values each sample might have.

Let's say the arbitrary waveform can have any one of 1024 values.
Each sample can then convey 10 bits of information -- 2^10 = 1024.

In a noiseless channel, the information rate thru a channel of given
bandwidth could therefore theoretically be arbitrarily high, simply
by having arbitrarily many possible values for each sample.

Real channels do have random noise which adds a degree of
uncertainty to each sample, so the maximum possible error-free
information rate, or channel capacity, is determined by the ratio of
signal power to noise power.

Shannon merely proved mathematically what's possible; he didn't show
how to do it. That's the part we're still working on and keep getting
better at.

On Sat, 27 Aug 2005 22:07:48 -0500, "Robert Swinney"
wrote:

PS to previous: I wonder why my Hedy Lamar modulation comment didn't draw
any fire.

I knew what you meant. I still have an article somewhere describing
her non-cinematic wartime contribution.