TV satellite, TV cable, and TV broadcast are NOT compatible. Neither is Blu-Ray and DVD completely compatible with region and hardware-license restrictions. Cell phones interconnect, but the networks aren't 'compatible' hardwares. As for internet, YES, that's a compatibility layer for networks. It isn't generally the one phones, utility meters, and TV broadcast use, though.
My TV works with all of them. I can switch any time.
I can switch cell providers and my Samsung and my wife's iPhone will keep working. Over the air and wi-fi.
I project that one day not too far off we'll have one wireless network for everything. It makes too much sense to not do.
On a sunny day (Mon, 02 May 2022 16:51:38 -0700) it happened John Larkin <jlarkin@highland_atwork_technology.com> wrote in snipped-for-privacy@4ax.com:
Make no sense whatsoever. First there is diversity for security if your one for all thing is down, nothing works. Then there are radio frequencies like used by aircraft, ships, and other services that have totally different requirements. Use the best system for the required purpose and frequency. Make sure there is redundancy. You are just dreaming. Mindless babble, no in depth knowledge, no experience. US itself always wants to be 'different' we came with DVB-T for terrestrial, US wanted ATSC. Market protection really, same way other way around, we had PAL but France wanted Secam. PAL was better (and better than NTSC).
Over-standardization, forcing things by law, like EU now does force Apple(and I am no Apple fan) to give up whats it called they have for some USB connector hinders innovation.
Once your same for all system is in place that is like pouring you in concrete :-) Man where do I get all this after 4 hour sleep early in the morning.
Yeah, but the TV isn't cable-ready, nor satellite-ready, you need a leased or purchased translation box. You cannot switch without a proprietary box and some license restrictions.
It was hard (took legislation) to get phones unlocked, but your phones are still unlikely to support using two SIMs at the same time. Unless software-SIM gets a boost, it'll never go to three or more. Buying into ONE at a time, that's supported.
If it makes sense, someone will claim they have it. And that someone is a salesman you might not want to do business with.
A microcell mesh can have redundancy at all levels. It would be better than a mess of various services.
The RF spectrum is chopped up amongst many services. A common band would be much more efficient.
Why do so many people refuse to imagine progress? 100 years ago you would have refused to believe that there could ever be TVs or computers.
On a sunny day (Tue, 03 May 2022 07:16:15 -0700) it happened snipped-for-privacy@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote in snipped-for-privacy@4ax.com:
Strawman Look dude, if you just wannabe right why not start a twitter account where your devotees can praise your genius while you play with your teddy bear
You would not have believed that twitter was possible either.
I guess the US Mail delivery and classified ads in newspapers was all anyone needed.
I think things are possible. Some people insist that things are impossible. It's more likely that I'm right.
I don't think humans have the capacity to imagine the impossible. What we deem impossible is just what we are unable to do at the current stage of our knowledge. There probably is a limit to how far our knowledge can go so there will always be impossible things - for us... :)
But that's a basic part of electronic design, imagining things that haven't been done, or can't be done.
Why, sometimes I've believed as many as six impossible things before breakfast.
- The Red Queen
You can't imagine a perpetual motion machine, or a lens that forms an image hotter than the (thermal) source?
Cheers
Phil Hobbs
If you can imagine it it is possible, this is my point.
These are impossible only in our realm. The point is, if we can think of something it is doable, not necessarily by us or in our reality :).
It's coming a bit sooner than I expected:
Aha! You said 'likely'; that's not a good sign, when John Larkin gets statistical. As for me, I'm not eager to let the world have access to my alarm clock's controls. Short-range access is my best plan.
Global unlimited connection may be possible, but is unworthy of support.
More likely every day.
I.e. in the real world.
Ah. Thanks, that explains a lot about your pragmatic outlook. ;)
Cheers
Phil Hobbs
John Larkin has an exaggerated idea of his own expertise. So do a lot of the people who insist that stuff is impossible.
There's a big gap between imagining things that haven't been done - the unexpected - and imagining things that can't be done - the impossible.
The first gets you patents - and I've got a couple (while John Larkin has his name on one) and the other is a great way of getting stuck with a project that can't be made to work. I had to work quite hard to get myself out of one of them
It's probably not a particularly useful mental exercise.
But neither of those categories is 'impossible'.
There's many uses of imagination, but fewer for imagining impossibilities. The most important, the reductio ad absurdam proof, is ... not so important that most people would recognize the phrase.
Have something to add? Share your thoughts — no account required.
Ask the community — no account required