Beta

Slashdot: News for Nerds

×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Drifting Satellite Could Knock Out Cable TV

kdawson posted more than 4 years ago | from the chance-of-heavy-snow dept.

Television 217

A few days back we discussed some of the problems caused by the demise of Intelsat's Galaxy 15, including possible degradation of GPS and its WAAS refinement. Now reader crimeandpunishment writes in with another damage scenario, one which could affect vastly more people — interference with cable TV programming across the US. "A TV communications satellite is drifting out of control thousands of miles above the Earth, threatening to wander into another satellite's orbit... Galaxy 15 continues to receive and transmit satellite signals, and they will probably interfere with the second satellite, known as AMC 11, if Galaxy 15 drifts into its orbit as expected around May 23... [A spokesman] said one option would be using AMC 11's propulsion system to shift that satellite about 60 miles (100 kilometers) away to an orbit that's still within its carefully prescribed 'orbital box' but as far away as possible from Galaxy 15."

cancel ×

217 comments

Cable? (5, Funny)

lymond01 (314120) | more than 4 years ago | (#32175674)

Okay. Even I know that you can't run a cable from a satellite to my house. This whole article is fake.

And while I'm on the Internets, I'd like to bring up the issue about birth certificates again...

Re:Cable? (0, Redundant)

leon.gandalf (752828) | more than 4 years ago | (#32175730)

It is just amazing how few people realize that the Cable companies get their feeds from SATELLITE.

Re:Cable? (5, Funny)

sahonen (680948) | more than 4 years ago | (#32175936)

*whoosh*

Re:Cable? (3, Funny)

blair1q (305137) | more than 4 years ago | (#32176476)

close call. you shoulda adjusted your orbit a bit more.

Re:Cable? (1)

7213 (122294) | more than 4 years ago | (#32175994)

And here I was looking for the up button for the space elevator :-(

Satellite Fight! (1)

WrongSizeGlass (838941) | more than 4 years ago | (#32176074)

Could this be ... the first ... Satellite fight? That would be even better than fighting robots.

First they could cross the streams [imdb.com] of their satellite signals. Then a few thruster jabs. And then, what we've all been waiting for, full contact satellite warfare! Take that, SkyNET!

Re:Satellite Fight! (4, Informative)

mangu (126918) | more than 4 years ago | (#32176358)

Could this be ... the first ... Satellite fight?

Nope, happens all the time. There's a bunch of derelict satellites up there and we must maneuver the operating satellites to get out of their path.

The problem with AMC-11 is that Galaxy-15 failed just recently and its transponders are still operating. Normally they shut down the transponders when a satellite fails, but in this case the command decoder itself seems to have failed, so Galaxy-15 is not accepting any commands.

Given enough time, the on-board computer will take over and shut down the transponders. This will happen automatically when the sun and earth sensors detect the orbit has deviated too much from the nominal conditions.

Re:Satellite Fight! (4, Interesting)

blair1q (305137) | more than 4 years ago | (#32176514)

What's really bizarre is that it's still operating.

Usually when a satellite fails to communicate properly with its ground control system, after a set period of time it assumes something is wrong and goes into Safe Mode. In Safe Mode it would shut off everything except a basic command and control system and the comms needed to get commands from the ground. It hasn't done that.

The big question is, why not?

Demographics (5, Funny)

cosm (1072588) | more than 4 years ago | (#32175676)

In other news, on May 23, experts are predicting the possibility of a 10 point jump in the average US citizen's IQ.

Re:Demographics (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32175704)

I heard you like mudkips.

Re:Demographics (1)

cosm (1072588) | more than 4 years ago | (#32175812)

I heard you like mudkips.

Only when they are being pulverized by the impact of an IntelSat. More and more /b/tards here everyday it seems...

Re:Demographics (1)

Philip K Dickhead (906971) | more than 4 years ago | (#32175842)

Can we do something to increase the likelihood of this occurring? I am willing to resort to petition by prayer.

Re:Demographics (1)

fustakrakich (1673220) | more than 4 years ago | (#32176178)

You cannot petition the lord with prayer!

Re:Demographics (2, Funny)

Philip K Dickhead (906971) | more than 4 years ago | (#32176308)

The monk bought lunch.

Re:Demographics (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32176004)

It's a good thing you didn't miss the joke, otherwise people might think you're a complete and total twat... oh wait..

Re:Demographics (4, Informative)

LostCluster (625375) | more than 4 years ago | (#32175786)

List of tenants on the threatened bird, as I mentioned yesterday. [lyngsat.com]

While this is going to take out almost all of the East Coast feeds of MTV Networks... it's also going to down Discovery Networks and C-SPAN too.

Re:Demographics (1)

DarkKnightRadick (268025) | more than 4 years ago | (#32176124)

Aside from the loss of Discovery and C-SPAN, I'm not seeing a downside. :p

Re:Demographics (1)

jrmcferren (935335) | more than 4 years ago | (#32175794)

You mean a 10 percent drop, it takes out both the History Channel and the Discovery Channel!

Re:Demographics (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32175888)

I used to like both of those channels, but anymore it seems like all the content is being stretched out from a half hour show to an hour show by adding "recaps" after each commercial break. You basically have to record shows to get any IQ benefit, but I'm not sure what trivia gained from the shows would actually add to ones IQ anyways.

-- gid

Re:Demographics (2, Informative)

jd (1658) | more than 4 years ago | (#32176130)

They've also ditched a lot of the good content, I check anything I hear in their documentaries against known urban legends (a lot of it turns out to be suspect), and the definition of "history" is a little... odd at times. Repeats are also frustrating. I get the impression that History and HI have maybe a half-dozen DVDs between them per season, and that they assume their audience has such a short attention span they can get away with rotating endlessly between two or three shows a day. There's more documentary footage on YouTube.

Re:Demographics (1)

ls671 (1122017) | more than 4 years ago | (#32175944)

> In other news, on May 23, experts are predicting the possibility of a
> 10 point jump in the average US citizen's IQ.

And massive riots in every city caused by too many people suddenly waking up to the realty and revolting against the system.

This is clearly a matter of national security. We have to act now to prevent this.

Re:Demographics (1)

linzeal (197905) | more than 4 years ago | (#32176204)

I predict old people will come out of their homes searching for entertainment.

Re:Demographics (1)

Shakrai (717556) | more than 4 years ago | (#32176278)

In other news, on May 23, experts are predicting the possibility of a 10 point jump in the average US citizen's IQ.

Yes. But the problem is that once they gain those points they'll be smart enough to realize that you can receive American Idol and Survivor for free from digital over the air broadcasts. They will use their new found IQ points to install a spiffy looking antenna, after which the IQ gains will be negated.

Fuck, this would be a disaster. (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32175690)

This would be a complete disaster for Americans. They might have to resort to reading, playing board games, or even going outside and playing some sports. Shit, they might even get some exercise.

Re:Fuck, this would be a disaster. (2, Interesting)

eln (21727) | more than 4 years ago | (#32175732)

Don't be absurd. Other than DVD rentals and Internet usage increasing, this won't affect anything.

Re:Fuck, this would be a disaster. (1)

sortius_nod (1080919) | more than 4 years ago | (#32176060)

While I know you're joking, it's more than likely true.

Re:Fuck, this would be a disaster. (1)

Kenshin (43036) | more than 4 years ago | (#32176310)

Don't worry, there's always Twitter.

Re:Fuck, this would be a disaster. (1)

blair1q (305137) | more than 4 years ago | (#32176544)

Or we could spend our time training to attack....where were you from again?

Re:Fuck, this would be a disaster. (1)

SailorSpork (1080153) | more than 4 years ago | (#32176650)

That's absurd! By the time the TV starts working again, I'll have come back from McDonald's with my Double McLard with cheese with a super-sized bag of Freedom Fries. Won't even miss it.

The only downside.. (5, Insightful)

Anrego (830717) | more than 4 years ago | (#32175698)

Is that now all the people who spend their time watching reality TV all day will be out in public interacting with others..

It's like myspace and facebook.. evil .. but at least contained! Better than the anglefire/geocities days!

And yeah.. this is totally a troll.. but it's Tuesday and I just got back from work and I really need to make something for dinner but I don't have anything and I'm too lazy to go to the store..

Re:The only downside.. (1)

John Hasler (414242) | more than 4 years ago | (#32175766)

> Is that now all the people who spend their time watching reality TV all day
> will be out in public interacting with others..

Not necessarily. It may just lead to an increase in the rate of murder, divorce, and child abuse.

Re:The only downside.. (1)

Scaba (183684) | more than 4 years ago | (#32176012)

Not necessarily. It may just lead to an increase in the rate of murder, divorce, and child abuse.

Well, someone has to keep us entertained.

Re:The only downside.. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32175912)

Peanut butter, cheddar cheese and BBQ chips sandwich?

Re:The only downside.. (1)

Low Ranked Craig (1327799) | more than 4 years ago | (#32176080)

Pizza Hut [pizzahut.com]

Dominos [dominos.com]

Papa John's [papajohns.com]

Based strictly on technology, I'd go with Dominos...

Re:The only downside.. (0, Flamebait)

Shakrai (717556) | more than 4 years ago | (#32176296)

That's not pizza, that's frozen cardboard crap masquerading as pizza. Find yourself a local pizzeria and get some real pizza. This may be easier said than done depending on where you live (it's one of the things keeping me in the Northeast) but well worth the effort.

Re:The only downside.. (3, Interesting)

blair1q (305137) | more than 4 years ago | (#32176670)

Find yourself a local pizzeria and get some real pizza.

Not always an upgrade. I remember what "local pizzeria" pizza was like before Domino's was invented. Wood-fired? not. Semolina? not. Non-greasy muzz? not. Domino's got popular fast because it was quite a bit better than the local stuff in most places.

It wasn't until the late 90s/early 00s that local shops started opening offering product with serious consideration for quality. Domino's had already had to fight a price war with Pizza Hut, which forced a reduction the cost and quality of their ingredients on both sides. That allowed Papa John's to enter the market with a mediocre (sugary sauce and bland toppings) product.

Domino's claims to have given its food a facelift. I haven't tried it yet. But that's because I know of some not-so-local places, one of which is VPN certified [pizzanapoletana.org] , to get perfect pizza, and I drive past several "locals" and Dominos and PJ's and PH's to get to them.

ham radio (3, Funny)

FuckingNickName (1362625) | more than 4 years ago | (#32175714)

Stories like this make me happy to be a ham. I don't need a complex infrastructure and global political stability to communicate with anyone, woohoo!

Re:ham radio (2, Funny)

Yvan256 (722131) | more than 4 years ago | (#32175932)

Yeah but you're always watching your back because of wolves. Must be stressful.

Re:ham radio (1)

FuckingNickName (1362625) | more than 4 years ago | (#32175960)

That problem was solved long before we became reliant on the above.

Re:ham radio (1)

Yvan256 (722131) | more than 4 years ago | (#32176038)

"Stories like this make me happy to be a ham [wikipedia.org] ."

Re:ham radio (0, Redundant)

FuckingNickName (1362625) | more than 4 years ago | (#32176158)

It was so bad as a joke that I took it at face value; sorry.

Here's another similar joke which falls flat on its face. I thought it up just now, and as I did so I read that my country's just formed a Conservative-Liberal coalition government. That's pretty harsh punishment, as punishment for bad jokes go, but I think I deserved it.

Why don't we like QRP on 137.5kHz?
Because HAMS don't like WOLF.

WOLF is Weak-signal Operation on Low Frequency, see.

Re:ham radio (3, Interesting)

ls671 (1122017) | more than 4 years ago | (#32176148)

Funny you mention this, I have thought of buying a ham radio for that very reason. I already have deep cycle batteries and a generator ;-))

We could even run tcp/ip over ham radio and set up an emergency network to enable data transfer in case the internet becomes unavailable ! :

http://www.febo.com/hamdocs/intronos.html [febo.com]

Re:ham radio (2, Informative)

GoodNicksAreTaken (1140859) | more than 4 years ago | (#32176188)

Stories like this make me happy to be a ham. I don't need a complex infrastructure and global political stability to communicate with anyone, woohoo!

Except for band allocations and licensing. Even if you operate as a 'pirate' you have to rely upon repeaters, which even if you set up illegal repeaters you've got to worry about access to a suitable location. For DX you've got to worry about sun spot cycles and/or the time of day and ionosphere conditions. Even if everything is in YOUR favor, you've still got to rely upon someone at the other end having access to equipment to receive and/or transmit back. I'm lucky enough to live near a Ham Radio Outlet where I can deal with a bunch of attitude because I'm a ham under 50 years old. Before moving to this state the nearest brick and mortar was this same HRO, over 1000 miles away from where I lived. I can walk a few hundred yards from almost anywhere to a convenience store, Wal-mart, etc. and buy a pay as you go cell phone for $50 USD and talk to my parents who have a cell phone and are currently volunteering at a clinic in rural Romania.

Re:ham radio (2, Insightful)

FuckingNickName (1362625) | more than 4 years ago | (#32176264)

For DX you've got to worry about sun spot cycles and/or the time of day and ionosphere conditions.

Over the past few thousand years, these have all been more predictable than geopolitics.

I can walk a few hundred yards from almost anywhere to a convenience store, Wal-mart, etc. and buy a pay as you go cell phone for $50 USD

Indeed. And you'd be reasonable to choose it today. Since the Great War was the war to end all wars, you'll always be able to choose it.

Sat that breaks the BACKBONE.... (2, Interesting)

LostCluster (625375) | more than 4 years ago | (#32175742)

AMC-11 (the threatened satellite) is a major backbone in the pay TV infrastructure for the Eastern USA. What that means, is that channels like MTV, VH1, G4, NESN, and many more use AMC-11 to get the content from their master control to your local cable system, DirecTV, and Dish in order for them to replicate the signal on their platform. If AMC-11 is jammed, ALL platforms will lose the affected channels... and there's no one place in space with enough free space to hold them all, so relocating for a temp outage isn't really an option.

Re:Sat that breaks the BACKBONE.... (1)

Klinky (636952) | more than 4 years ago | (#32176360)

MTV, VH1 & G4 all off the air at one time? Heaven could indeed be a place on earth once again...

OK, if you don't like MTV and VH1... (1)

NotQuiteReal (608241) | more than 4 years ago | (#32176480)

You might care about Discovery and History.

There are quite a few channels [lyngsat.com] on AMC11 that you might care about...

If only we had... (2, Interesting)

Daswolfen (1277224) | more than 4 years ago | (#32175750)

A reusable space vehicle which could be launched to retrieve or repair the satellite...

Re:If only we had... (1)

slick7 (1703596) | more than 4 years ago | (#32175820)

My orbital recovery system seems to be what is needed.

Re:If only we had... (1)

blair1q (305137) | more than 4 years ago | (#32176760)

No. What we need is this dude: http://quark.name/ [quark.name]

Re:If only we had... (1)

peragrin (659227) | more than 4 years ago | (#32175852)

it's amazing that the airforce has one up there right now.

Re:If only we had... (1)

slick7 (1703596) | more than 4 years ago | (#32176050)

LEO not GEO.

Re:If only we had... (1)

Iron Condor (964856) | more than 4 years ago | (#32176534)

They have a delta-v of 3.3; if they want they can go to the moon with that thing.

Re:If only we had... (3, Interesting)

MichaelSmith (789609) | more than 4 years ago | (#32175882)

A reusable space vehicle which could be launched to retrieve or repair the satellite...

...which could fly to geosynchronous orbit. Apollo would have been the ideal vehicle for the job because it had legs in the sense that you could send it practically anywhere and it could aerobrake to a safe landing. A flight to mars would not have been out of the question and an asteroid mission was seriously discussed.

The shuttle was designed for low earth orbit and could only fly there.

Re:If only we had... (1)

LostCluster (625375) | more than 4 years ago | (#32175956)

We don't need a manned mission to get rid of this wayward and useless piece of former satellite space junk... we just need to blast it out of the path it's going to some other one.

Re:If only we had... (1)

the_other_chewey (1119125) | more than 4 years ago | (#32176006)

We don't need a manned mission to get rid of this wayward and useless piece of former satellite space junk... we just need to blast it out of the path it's going to some other one.

Yup, because an expanding cloud of space shrapnel with orbital velocities is so much better than a single satellite with a known orbit.

Re:If only we had... (1)

GIL_Dude (850471) | more than 4 years ago | (#32176662)

Blast can also mean "burn" as in a rocket. Not that you are wrong at all - if the GP meant blast in the "blow it up" sense that would be really bad. But if he meant "a 4 second blast on the rocket engine or thruster" - then, as long as they set that burn sequence up to either deorbit the satellite or put it in an orbit that won't intersect any useful satellite's orbit for a long, long time it should be good.

Re:If only we had... (1)

The Grim Reefer2 (1195989) | more than 4 years ago | (#32176036)

we just need to blast it out of the path it's going to some other one.

I'm not to fond of memes but in this case; What could possibly go wrong?

Re:If only we had... (1)

R3d M3rcury (871886) | more than 4 years ago | (#32176234)

Apollo would have been the ideal vehicle for the job because it had legs in the sense that you could send it practically anywhere and it could aerobrake to a safe landing.

Well, except for the "retrieval" part. And the "repair" part, without the Canadarm, would probably be kinda tricky, too.

But at least the Apollo capsule could have gotten astronauts there and humans can be pretty ingenious...

Just out of curiosity, I understand the Shuttle is not designed to go to Geosynchronous orbit. Is it merely a matter of thrust that keeps it Low-Earth Orbit or are there other issues as well?

Re:If only we had... (1)

quacking duck (607555) | more than 4 years ago | (#32176684)

Shuttle can't reach Geosynchronous orbit... actually, if wiki is correct it only gets to around 1% of the necessary altitude:

Shuttle orbit: 380 km (for space station missions)
Geosynchronous orbit: 35,786 km

Re:If only we had... (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32175922)

A reusable space vehicle which could be launched to retrieve or repair the satellite...

For the record, the space shuttle gets just over 250 miles altitude. [wolframalpha.com] The satellite in question is at an altitude of about 22,236 miles. [wikipedia.org]

The amount of fuel needed to transit the space shuttle between these orbits is prohibitive. It was never designed for general purpose satellite repair; it was just a demo.

Re:If only we had... (1)

Wyatt Earp (1029) | more than 4 years ago | (#32176052)

You mean one that can go to that orbit?

Humanity has never had a vehicle that can do that sort of work.

Re:If only we had... (1)

sznupi (719324) | more than 4 years ago | (#32176068)

A reusable space vehicle which would be able to do that with GEO satellites (they are among the biggest ones), while also getting to their orbit and being able to deorbit with the payload, would be prohibitively expensive. Much more than Shuttle or Buran. So maybe that's why we don't have one...

If you really want to, bulding the satellite inside a reentry capsule would be most likely cheaper...but still pointless. Requiring higher launch mass & more powerful rockets - for mass of the reentry structure...and of the fuel needed for reentry; but you would get an obsolete, space-weathered piece of junk and would waste fuel which could be used for station keeping.

Re:If only we had... (4, Funny)

blair1q (305137) | more than 4 years ago | (#32176728)

Maybe we could put a 100-ton concrete dome over it...

Not my cable... (2, Interesting)

thegreatbob (693104) | more than 4 years ago | (#32175756)

Please shoot it down...

Re:Not my cable... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32175868)

this is the perfect object to test our satellite killer technology on and prove it really works

Terrible, possibly fatal blow to the economy (2, Interesting)

StefanJ (88986) | more than 4 years ago | (#32175774)

Without the 8 or so hours a day that cable channels broadcast mindless infomercials, retail activity in the U.S. will grind to a halt.

Meanwhile, I'll be sitting pretty with crystal clear reception of the two dozen or so locally broadcast channels, thanks to the home brew dipole antenna I made with plans from MAKE magazine [makezine.com] .

Cut the coax!

Re:Terrible, possibly fatal blow to the economy (2, Informative)

LostCluster (625375) | more than 4 years ago | (#32175806)

Only problem is that those local channels use satellites to get the network and syndicated programs they air.

Re:Terrible, possibly fatal blow to the economy (1)

TubeSteak (669689) | more than 4 years ago | (#32176032)

Only problem is that those local channels use satellites to get the network and syndicated programs they air.

Time to test their backup plans.
They do have a backup... right?

Re:Terrible, possibly fatal blow to the economy (1)

LostCluster (625375) | more than 4 years ago | (#32176202)

Not everybody. Small networks like MTV Jamz most likely are lucky to have their main slot, nevermind the backup. And most "backup plans" exist in the form of pre-empt rights on other birds which just causes the trouble to head downhill in the food chain.

Re:Terrible, possibly fatal blow to the economy (1)

LostCluster (625375) | more than 4 years ago | (#32176248)

A lot of the coverage of the Galaxy IV failure during expanded versions of the nightly newscasts was in part because Galaxy IV customers used pre-empt rights to other feeds, leaving syndicated shows that air during the 7p hour unable to get to stations in time.

the ultimate solution (1)

slick7 (1703596) | more than 4 years ago | (#32175790)

We can nuke it like "they" want to do with leaking oil wells.

Way to go Galaxy 15! (4, Insightful)

Sir_Lewk (967686) | more than 4 years ago | (#32175830)

How many other slashdotters are actually rooting for Galaxy 15? The thought of it possibly knocking about cable television is just far too amusing to me (unlike cable television ;).

Re:Way to go Galaxy 15! (1)

joelsanda (619660) | more than 4 years ago | (#32175886)

Yep. I can devote the time I gain from not watching television to listen to friends and family grouse about their ability to not watch television. Hell, this may make things a bit quieter for me, given how many people I know would lose what appears to be their only readily available topic of conversation!

Re:Way to go Galaxy 15! (1)

Low Ranked Craig (1327799) | more than 4 years ago | (#32176106)

I am. We only turn the TV on at about 10PM, and then only to watch Star Trek TNG or Discovery channel. Personally I think this is a plot by Apple to get more people to buy iPads...

Re:Way to go Galaxy 15! (1)

DarkKnightRadick (268025) | more than 4 years ago | (#32176216)

*has to say it*

Is it time for a Galaxy Quest [imdb.com] ?

Re:Way to go Galaxy 15! (1)

blair1q (305137) | more than 4 years ago | (#32176784)

No. This is a job for Quark [quark.name] .

Re:Way to go Galaxy 15! (1)

mirix (1649853) | more than 4 years ago | (#32176412)

Apart from a few shows I download on occasion, I'd be completely oblivious to the fact that TV is down. Bring it on.

Now if it were to interrupt the internet, that would be a different story.

Shotgun! (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32175832)

I need to get me my shotgun. We're about to have zombies pouring out all over the streets!

Money making opportunity missed (1)

Captain Spam (66120) | more than 4 years ago | (#32175834)

Next time, they should think ahead in a case like this. They should have mounted a camera on Galaxy 15, broadcasting simple video on the transponders, preferably on separate circuits and with separate processing. Then, if the sat goes down like this BUT the transponders are still... um... transponding, try to track it enough so you can watch it crash into AMC-11 from its own perspective.

And, air it live on PPV. Instant money!

What does this mean? (1)

theArtificial (613980) | more than 4 years ago | (#32175880)

Story at 11?

Re:What does this mean? (1)

Yvan256 (722131) | more than 4 years ago | (#32175964)

Nope. Story the day after, in the newspapers.

Re:What does this mean? (1)

LostCluster (625375) | more than 4 years ago | (#32176284)

Nah.. local breaking news constant coverage all night because the primetime shows didn't make it there.

Dupe (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32175918)

http://tech.slashdot.org/story/10/05/09/2256256/Geostationary-GPS-Satellite-Galaxy-15-Out-of-Control

Great, now we can finally... (3, Funny)

Nethemas the Great (909900) | more than 4 years ago | (#32175940)

make some progress on the orbital debris problem. Nothing like taking away an American's television to spur the democracy into action.

Lost finale on May 23rd (1)

drexlor (1314419) | more than 4 years ago | (#32175942)

How will I ever know how Lost ends!!

Re:Lost finale on May 23rd (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32176064)

Catch it online the next day.

Just, you know, stay off of any internet site where people are capable of posting any comments of any kind in the meantime.

Re:Lost finale on May 23rd (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32176070)

Maybe this is the Lost finale? Think about other recent Lost related events... a smoke monster attacks Europe, preventing people from flying (much like in last week's episode). Also, remember the Indonesia tsunami? Well, what happened around that time (in terms of on-island time) on the show? Yes, the island disappeared!

Actual footage of G-15 loss. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32176008)

Luckily our Japanese friends were able to document this:

http://video.yahoo.com/watch/5700347/14933551 [yahoo.com]

Satellite vs. cable (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32176086)

Wait a minute. Comcast has advertised in the past about how much more reliable they are than the satellite providers. So not only are they susceptible to the same issues, but have an additional hundreds, if not thousands of miles of terrestrial failure points as well. And here I thought if it was on TV it had to be true. Next someone will say there are false statements on the internet.

Re:Satellite vs. cable (1)

mirix (1649853) | more than 4 years ago | (#32176398)

They're more reliable because they have big dishes, so weather isn't as much of an issue. (and is not an issue at all for local channels).

Of course if the satellite falls out of the sky it isn't going to work.

Without Cable (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32176180)

Old people will roam the streets.

In other words (1)

sharkey (16670) | more than 4 years ago | (#32176194)

We're going to lose the bleeps, the sweeps and the creeps? Ad-laden "commercial-free pay TV" will be jammed?

Iptv is teh future (1)

crsftw (1809420) | more than 4 years ago | (#32176350)

IPTV is the future, not cable or satellite. The days of cable are near to the end, long live the net ! Cheers! [repipingspecialists.info] Chris

Re:Iptv is teh future (1)

NotQuiteReal (608241) | more than 4 years ago | (#32176410)

Um, your favorite IPTV headend still gets ITS programming from satellite... still the cheapest way to get distributed (if not delivered).

AMC 11 (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32176456)

Drifting satellite could cause baby boom? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32176468)

I predict a baby boom, like the great northeast blackout/ice storm/whatever the heck it was. Someone's gotta track this, to tell the kids what lame couch potato parents they had.

Launch Avoidance Maneuver!! (1)

fahrbot-bot (874524) | more than 4 years ago | (#32176498)

A TV communications satellite is drifting out of control thousands of miles above the Earth, threatening to wander into another satellite's orbit...

Wait! I've seen this US Air Force TV commercial.
Can't they just "launch the avoidance maneuver"?

May 23rd is the night of the Lost series finale (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32176582)

With that news, how many of you TV-hating Slashers suddenly changed your satellite-supporting ways?

mod Up (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32176734)

wa5 In the tea I
Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...