Wow, surprised to see this on HN!
Creator here, if you have any feedback, please just comment here or ping me on twitter @andersaberg, I'll take airport requests etc there :)
Have a good one, A
Creator here, if you have any feedback, please just comment here or ping me on twitter @andersaberg, I'll take airport requests etc there :)
Have a good one, A
Possibly like a lot of other folks here, I discovered this phenomenon of "radio chatter" over "ambient electronic music" via http://youarelistening.to/ - I find it so helpful for concentration.
I came up with my own improvised "mixing desk" using tabs in a separate browser window (makes it easier to separate from your main work. The most common tab URLs are:
http://priyom.org/ - For listening to numbers stations (uses websdr below!) http://websdr.ewi.utwente.nl:8901/ - For basically any shortwave transmissions http://www.broadcastify.com/ - Various scanner feeds from all over http://www.broadcastify.com/listen/feed/11888/web - A fascinating repeater that I love listening to
And finally, I overlay one or more of these over my own Spotify playlist of ambient sounds. It's public, so I'll plug it here. I put this on random and use a crossfade of 10 seconds.
https://open.spotify.com/user/n_sonic/playlist/5tEUDt2X2QB0S...
Once again, thanks for this! Will be recommending it to folks today.
Is it the same problem even if you run it in backgorund? Have some listeners that will pause the youtube video when that happens (which should minimize CPU)
Try taking out <div class="video-background"> and see what happens.
So listening to policeradio, AirTrafficControl or anything similar is prohibited by law.
There's a cultural norm embedded here. What you think is odd and what's normal is strongly dependent on your priors.
It's pretty obvious why it was made illegal to eavesdrop police radio but less clear why airport communications are also illegal. So I find it odd (baring in mind I'm speaking from a position of ignorance - which is why I'm raising this question) that airport communications were added to what seems a pretty sparse list of excluded broadcasts.
Maybe it's just another example of laws not keeping up with technology? ie that law originates from a time when radio transmissions were pretty limited to private and public broadcasts whereas nowadays most of our private communications are also broadcasted via some frequency and waveform - albeit we now have automated encryption/decryption techniques to protect our correspondence. So if the law was written now it would be more like a whitelist of content you could listen into (eg radio and TV broadcasts) rather than a blacklist of specifics you could not. I'm just guessing here though.
As far as I know there have been investigations into the Google wifi case but I have never heard of anything coming out of it.
The law in its current form is pretty new, it even was clarified just a few months ago to specifically mention non-acoustic communication.
I'm not sure if this is the relevant legislation but I've found the following in section 48 of the Wireless Telegraphy Act 2006:
A person commits an offence if, otherwise than under the authority of a designated person—
(a) he uses wireless telegraphy apparatus with intent to obtain information as to the contents, sender or addressee of a message (whether sent by means of wireless telegraphy or not) of which neither he nor a person on whose behalf he is acting is an intended recipient, or
(b) he discloses information as to the contents, sender or addressee of such a message.
Source: http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2006/36/section/48
"Why is it normal to be banned from interpreting electromagnetic flux that's being pushed through the space around me, in my house, and literally through my body, without my consent?"