# Satellite lag

• posted

Why the lag? Light and microwaves travel at 186,000 miles a second. That means a microwave could go around the earth 7.7 times in a second. A satellite is only 500 miles up, that's 1000 miles round trip for a microwave. That means a signal should be able to travel to a satellite and back to earth 186 times a second or once in .005 seconds. So why is there such a lag in satellite internet and TV??? Answer me that. They keep telling me its the distance to travel. I don't think so.

```--
Claude Hopper          :)

?       ?       ¥```
• posted

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

• posted

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

```--
Claude Hopper          :)

?       ?       ¥```
• posted

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.

```--
Claude Hopper          :)

?       ?       ¥```
• posted

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!

"

• posted

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.]

• posted

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

• posted

At least you got your nickname right.

• posted

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

```--
http://www.petersparrots.com    http://www.insanevideoclips.com
http://www.petersphotos.com```
• posted

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.

```--
http://www.petersparrots.com    http://www.insanevideoclips.com
http://www.petersphotos.com```
• posted

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.

```--
Jeff Liebermann     jeffl@cruzio.com
150 Felker St #D    http://www.LearnByDestroying.com```
• posted

shorter.

Maybe he's just a farmer?

```--
http://www.petersparrots.com    http://www.insanevideoclips.com
http://www.petersphotos.com```
• posted

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.

```--
Jeff Liebermann     jeffl@cruzio.com
150 Felker St #D    http://www.LearnByDestroying.com```
• posted

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.

```--
http://www.petersparrots.com    http://www.insanevideoclips.com
http://www.petersphotos.com```

ElectronDepot website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.