Satellite lag

So you think the satllites involved are only 500 miles up?

Google GEOSTATIONARY, dipshit

I did dipshit, some are 850km which is 500 miles, dipshit.

So, 24,000 miles dipshit, that's the same as around the world 7.7 times in a second. The earth is 24,000 miles in circumference. That's still less than a second up and back.

Big brother needs to take time to log your activities? :)

And what makes you think it does not go out to the edge of the galaxy and back? With some of the posters I see around, I swear they're not from around here!

Bzzzt.

Satellites in geostationary orbit are more than 22,000 miles above the equator. Do your math again with that number. And for TV signals, I've seen THREE satellites used to relay a signal [a news feed for NBC nightly news.]

What do you expect from a brain damaged troll...

At least you got your nickname right.

Nonsense. If he lived in the clouds, the distance to the satellite would be shorter.

Do the calculations and you'll find that 0.2 is about right for 24000 miles.

P.S. you're plonked for trolling with followup headers. Grow up.

shorter.

Nope. Search Google for "clodhopper". It's a type of shoe worn by farmers, but also refers to a clumsy and stupid person. In American jargon, a lout, hick, rustic, or yokel.

shorter.

Maybe he's just a farmer?

You have it backwards. Likes repel, opposites attract. I get along quite well with people that have contrary opinions. I get very suspicious when someone actually agrees with me.

again to emphasise a point is perfectly fine.

I see. Could you be a bit more specific? What ratio of profanity to normal discourse do you consider acceptable? For example, would you consider 1 profanity in every 100 words acceptable, but 2 profanities in the same 100 words to be tedious?

The real problem with profanity is the common lack of an adequate selection. Most of the GUM (great unwashed masses) know perhaps 10 assorted expletives, which they use repetitively and apparently without much concern for grammatical or even topical correctness.

It's this lack of creativity and accompanying monotonous repetition that I find offensive. Perhaps converting the purpose of media censorship into some manner of creativity evangelist might make the job function more acceptable.

How so? It's a perfectly legitimate business plan. I have no intention of actually performing any censorship, but merely to educate and supply the necessary censors.

The why are you objecting to people who use profanities?

again to emphasise a point is perfectly fine.

There is no sudden point at which I'd change my opinion of someone. Just as there is no sudden point at which you'd consider the weather to be cold instead of warm. There are grey areas.

But the people I consider "tedious" are people who use a swearword in very sentence - a group of teenagers on a street corner for example. Acceptable is one used every so often, perhaps once in 5 minutes of discussion. Of course that could be once every 20 seconds if you're talking about something which really ticks you off.

Agreed. But there is no need to censor expletives altogether.

Although I wouldn't say offensive. I'd say irritating. Just as other things in speech can be irritating - repeatedly misuing words for exmaple.

Er.... you're supplying something which gives someone the ability to censor. That's like saying you sold an AK47 to your neighbour and you're not resposible for what he did with it.