h a l f b a k e r yWhere life irritates science.
add, search, annotate, link, view, overview, recent, by name, random
news, help, about, links, report a problem
browse anonymously,
or get an account
and write.
register,
|
|
|
Please log in.
Before you can vote, you need to register.
Please log in or create an account.
|
We're all familiar with the satellite induced delay involved in talking to a news reporter on the far side of the planet.
What if one network were able to present their news in real time - no annoying delays? The unwashed masses would probably think they had superior technology and all that crap.
So, here you go. All marketing, no substance.
The gimmick is that the studio-based news presenter, who is in the same time stream with the viewer, sends a covert signal to the distant reporter. This could be a hand or posture signal if the reporter has a video back-link; a subtle sound, a particular phrase or grammatical construct - just as long as the reporter can recognize the signal.
After giving the signal, the presenter continues speaking for an amount of time equal to the time delay - but *without* providing any new content. The reporter on the far end is trusting that they can safely ignore whatever the presenter says after the signal is provided, and can go ahead - speaking over the presenter's final few seconds of speech.
The content-free section could be an intro of the reporter -"For more, here's Clark Kent of the Daily Planet - Clark?"
It could be a pointless fluffer - "We are, of course, very curious how this looks from your point of view."
It could be a restatement of the last question - "Where is all this water coming from? I mean, we're talking about Australia - there's normally no water there."
Just as long as there's four seconds that the reporter can ignore, and the public can be lulled into not realizing that they haven't been told anything in four seconds... it all works. No delay.
Bell's theorem
http://en.wikipedia...ki/Bell%27s_theorem
Quantum entanglement [8th of 7, Feb 01 2011]
[link]
|
| |
Having an in-field reporter talk to the presenter is itself a rather pointless gimmick. I find it rather annoying - why can't the reporter just give a straight report? |
|
| |
Once they're doing that, it would be much easier to stitch together even live, lagged reports with local presenters - just let the reporters start a little early, or simply add a bit of lag to the recording of the news program itself. |
|
| |
The technology to do this already exists. "But why is it not used ?", you cry ... |
|
| |
[Not Widely Known To Exist] |
|
| |
Well, strange as it may seem, the news organizations have discovered through audience research that reports are actually more interesting and credible to the bulk of the audience if the quality isn't perfect. Time delays, wind noise on the mic, a bit of hand-held-camcorder home-video picture shake and occasional loss of focus helps reinforce the notion that what they're seeing is real, live, right-this-minute stuff. The expectation is that something transmitted live from very far away won't be as crisp and clear as something from a relatively local studio i.e. one on the same continent. |
|
| |
If the OB feed is too good, the audience become suspicious that it might be faked ... |
|
| |
Movies like "The Blair Witch Project" and "Paranormal Activity" exploit this phenomenon. |
|
| |
By a handy coincidence, the speed of light in glass (e.g. optical fibre) is about 200,000 km/s, while half the circumference of the earth is about 20,000 km. I'm not sure where those 4 second delays come from, but it's not just speed of light! |
|
| |
There's quite a delay through the image processing system which the CIA and the Masons use to insert subliminal mind-control images and sounds into the video stream. That could be it ... |
|
| |
[spidermother] Satellite links add in some delay.
Also, light seems to be slow for you - it's actually
closer to 300,000 km/s. Geostationary satellites orbit
at about 35,000 km so a round-trip message to a
geostationary satellite could easily be 100,000 miles
(if the angle is oblique) which is 1/3 of a second. |
|
| |
I always thought that regular phone calls were almost instantaneous, whatever the distance. Why not use a simple phone call to communicate and ignore the audio portion of video stream ? |
|
| |
semi-baked. The local newspaper distributed the 24/12/2010 edition on the 23rd. I checked for all serious accidents anywhere I was likely to be in the next day...amazing service. |
|
| |
What i like about this is that no real information can be imparted, which is what the speed of light is partly about. Maybe there could be a quantum equivalent. |
|
| |
// a quantum equivalent // |
|
| |
Bell's theorem .... <link> |
|
| |
Ah, i have certain issues about Bell's Theorem which nobody else seems to share. |
|
| |
It's OK [MB], i can't be bothered. This business of everyone else being wrong about everything all the time is quite tiring. |
|
| |
With you there. We know a song about that... |
|
| |
//light seems to be slow for you// 200,000 km/s is the speed of light in *glass*, so it's possible to achieve a round trip time of 1/5 second using optical fibre. Do pay attention. |
|
| |
Erm, there is apparently a way to send information faster than light. The polarization of magnetic fields, no particles are actually moving, so no pesky light speed constraints..at least that's my understanding of it. |
|
| |
//This business of everyone else being wrong about everything//
Damn, that's my whole ethos of life out of the window. |
|
| |
// no pesky light speed constraints // |
|
| |
//i have certain issues about Bell's Theorem which nobody else seems to share//
Well, if you haven't brought enough for everyone, what can you expect? |
|
| |
//Erm, there is apparently a way to send information faster than light.// |
|
| |
No, even in Bell inequality-violating experiments, there is no known way to send information faster than light. Whatever Alice does at her end of the experiment has no physical effect on what Bob observes at his end (even tho, yes, there are the weird correlations.) |
|
| |
I am guessing the long delay comes from using an Internet packet switching protocol to send the video and voice. That is much slower than a circuit-switched network (which is all but obsolete). You can test this simply by simultanesouly listening to a radio broadcast on a regular radio and on a separate Internet link. The Internet one can be behind the airwaves one by up to a few second, even if the station is 1 mile from you. |
|
| |
// there is no known way to send information faster than light // |
|
| |
"your pathetic little pedestrian species knows no way to send information faster than light.... " |
|
| |
Join Us, and learn wonderful things ... |
|
| |
That's the one where, if I drink the entire bottle of Bell's reality seems to alter dramatically? Or at least my liver does. |
|
| |
//Bell's reality// Aaach! Don't drink that! |
|
| |
//Bell's theorem// -- alright, you jokers, I said "faux-FTL news", not "FTL faux-news". We already have sources for that. |
|
| |
Hmm, [8th_of_7]'s anno, above, would be an example of FTL
faux-news. |
|
| |
//Join Us, and learn wonderful things ...// |
|
| |
Where do I join up? Right next to the crop circle? |
|
| |
It's a square, dummy ... We traven in a cube, when
We land it the squashed shape left behind is a regular
quadrilateral ... |
|
| |
Do We have to explain EVERYTHING ? Oh wait, you're
humans ... |
|
| |
//We traven// sp. B. Traven. |
|
| |