Slashdot Mirror

Rocket motors don't require an atmosphere at all. Is just mass moving and action/reaction. Any sort of device that can chuck mass out the back of a vehicle will push that vehicle forward.

cut and paste from the code itself
"(c) No person or entity shall initiate any telephone solicitation,
as defined in paragraph (f)(12) of this section, to:
        (1) Any residential telephone subscriber before the hour of 8 a.m.
or after 9 p.m. (local time at the called party's location), or"

8:30pm flies since its before 9:00pm (oh http://a257.g.akamaitech.net/7/257/2422/16nov20071500/edocket.access.gpo.gov/cfr_2007/octqtr/47cfr64.1200.htm is the full text)

Sec. 64.1601 Delivery requirements and privacy restrictions.
* * * * *
(e) Any person or entity that engages in telemarketing, as defined
in section 64.1200(f)(7) must transmit caller identification
information.
...
(3) Tax-exempt nonprofit organizations are not required to comply
with this paragraph.

Sec. 64.1200 Delivery restrictions. ...

(f) As used in this section:
...
(7) The term telemarketing means the initiation of a telephone call
or message for the purpose of encouraging the purchase or rental of, or
investment in, property, goods, or services, which is transmitted to any
person.

Sec. 64.1601 Delivery requirements and privacy restrictions.
* * * * *
(e) Any person or entity that engages in telemarketing, as defined
in section 64.1200(f)(7) must transmit caller identification
information.
...
(3) Tax-exempt nonprofit organizations are not required to comply
with this paragraph.

Sec. 64.1200 Delivery restrictions. ...

(f) As used in this section:
...
(7) The term telemarketing means the initiation of a telephone call
or message for the purpose of encouraging the purchase or rental of, or
investment in, property, goods, or services, which is transmitted to any
person.

The rule is 1000 feet above populated areas and 500 feet above unpopulated areas. Helicopters can fly lower. Here is a link to FAR 91.119 which defines the regulations. I tried to copy and paste it here but I kept hitting the lameness filter. Does that mean this regulation is lame?

but just for fun http://a257.g.akamaitech.net/7/257/2422/13nov20061500/edocket.access.gpo.gov/cfr_2006/octqtr/47cfr64.1200.htm
have this printed out by your phone since you may want to refer to
" TITLE 47--TELECOMMUNICATION

                CHAPTER I--FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION (CONTINUED)

PART 64_MISCELLANEOUS RULES RELATING TO COMMON CARRIERS--Table of Contents

      Subpart L_Restrictions on Telemarketing and Telephone Solicitation

Sec. 64.1200 Delivery restrictions."

btw cold calling cell phones is a No-No unless the billing is fixed so you don't get charged for the call.

Illegal. See FCC regulations on this.

Is the spaceport inside the giant steel vagina?

The interior shot of the spaceport reminds me of a Jim Burns painting.

That's more than an implication. That's as close as you get to saying "He did it!" without having to show evidence.

I must disagree.

Saddam Hussein aids and protects terrorists, including members of al-Qaeda.

This doesn't say, implicitly or explicitly, that Saddam was responsible for 9/11, only that "Saddam Hussein aids and protects terrorists, including members of al-Qaeda," which was an accurate and reasonable statement.

Before 11 September 2001, many in the world believed that Saddam Hussein could be contained.

Again, this doesn't mean, at all, that Saddam was responsible for 9/11. It means that before 9/11, we had a different policy toward people like Saddam and Iraq's government. Not because Saddam was responsible for 9/11, but because after 9/11, we weren't willing to continue containment. People seem to think that if Iraq and 9/11 are mentioned in the same sentence, that somehow implies that Iraq was responsible for 9/11. No one ever said that, or even implied it. What they "implied" was that the environment and political landscape in the Mideast is incompatible with preventing future events like 9/11 if action isn't taken to change the face of the Mideast. Before 9/11, we had a policy of containment toward Iraq. After 9/11, we no longer did, again, not because Iraq was responsible for 9/11.

From a policy perspective, yes, Iraq and 9/11 were related, but not because Iraq executed 9/11. Also, the US found evidence that persons associated with Iraq may have aided persons associated with al Qaeda. This is extensively treated in the July 4, 2004 "Report on the US Intelligence Community's Prewar Intelligence Assessment on Iraq" from the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence:

XII. Iraq's Links to Terrorism
XIII. Intelligence Community Collection Activities Against Iraq's Links to Terrorism
XIV. Pressure on Intelligence Community Analysts Regarding Iraq's Links to Terrorism

I *strongly* recommend reading at least the above sections. The rest of the report also provides detailed reasoning for WMD justifications and so on, as does the WMD Report.

That's more than an implication. That's as close as you get to saying "He did it!" without having to show evidence.

I must disagree.

Saddam Hussein aids and protects terrorists, including members of al-Qaeda.

This doesn't say, implicitly or explicitly, that Saddam was responsible for 9/11, only that "Saddam Hussein aids and protects terrorists, including members of al-Qaeda," which was an accurate and reasonable statement.

Before 11 September 2001, many in the world believed that Saddam Hussein could be contained.

Again, this doesn't mean, at all, that Saddam was responsible for 9/11. It means that before 9/11, we had a different policy toward people like Saddam and Iraq's government. Not because Saddam was responsible for 9/11, but because after 9/11, we weren't willing to continue containment. People seem to think that if Iraq and 9/11 are mentioned in the same sentence, that somehow implies that Iraq was responsible for 9/11. No one ever said that, or even implied it. What they "implied" was that the environment and political landscape in the Mideast is incompatible with preventing future events like 9/11 if action isn't taken to change the face of the Mideast. Before 9/11, we had a policy of containment toward Iraq. After 9/11, we no longer did, again, not because Iraq was responsible for 9/11.

From a policy perspective, yes, Iraq and 9/11 were related, but not because Iraq executed 9/11. Also, the US found evidence that persons associated with Iraq may have aided persons associated with al Qaeda. This is extensively treated in the July 4, 2004 "Report on the US Intelligence Community's Prewar Intelligence Assessment on Iraq" from the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence:

XII. Iraq's Links to Terrorism
XIII. Intelligence Community Collection Activities Against Iraq's Links to Terrorism
XIV. Pressure on Intelligence Community Analysts Regarding Iraq's Links to Terrorism

I *strongly* recommend reading at least the above sections. The rest of the report also provides detailed reasoning for WMD justifications and so on, as does the WMD Report.

That's more than an implication. That's as close as you get to saying "He did it!" without having to show evidence.

I must disagree.

Saddam Hussein aids and protects terrorists, including members of al-Qaeda.

This doesn't say, implicitly or explicitly, that Saddam was responsible for 9/11, only that "Saddam Hussein aids and protects terrorists, including members of al-Qaeda," which was an accurate and reasonable statement.

Before 11 September 2001, many in the world believed that Saddam Hussein could be contained.

Again, this doesn't mean, at all, that Saddam was responsible for 9/11. It means that before 9/11, we had a different policy toward people like Saddam and Iraq's government. Not because Saddam was responsible for 9/11, but because after 9/11, we weren't willing to continue containment. People seem to think that if Iraq and 9/11 are mentioned in the same sentence, that somehow implies that Iraq was responsible for 9/11. No one ever said that, or even implied it. What they "implied" was that the environment and political landscape in the Mideast is incompatible with preventing future events like 9/11 if action isn't taken to change the face of the Mideast. Before 9/11, we had a policy of containment toward Iraq. After 9/11, we no longer did, again, not because Iraq was responsible for 9/11.

From a policy perspective, yes, Iraq and 9/11 were related, but not because Iraq executed 9/11. Also, the US found evidence that persons associated with Iraq may have aided persons associated with al Qaeda. This is extensively treated in the July 4, 2004 "Report on the US Intelligence Community's Prewar Intelligence Assessment on Iraq" from the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence:

XII. Iraq's Links to Terrorism
XIII. Intelligence Community Collection Activities Against Iraq's Links to Terrorism
XIV. Pressure on Intelligence Community Analysts Regarding Iraq's Links to Terrorism

I *strongly* recommend reading at least the above sections. The rest of the report also provides detailed reasoning for WMD justifications and so on, as does the WMD Report.

Personally, I'd like to see a purely private system of airports open up in the U.S., whereby said system posts a $10 billion bond to cover terrorist attacks. Then we would see practical, market-driven, security.

Can you imagine what the anti-spam, IDS, and other computer security technology would be like if it were administered by a TLA?

Quite a few posters in this thread seem to be missing the point of the ruling. That's easy to do when you only read summaries designed to push a certain point of view, and don't dig into the source material yourself. So let's have a look at the actual ruling:

To minimize the filing burden on manufacturers, this requirement was narrowly tailored to affect only those radios where the software can be modified by a party other than the manufacturer because such radios pose a higher risk of interference to authorized radio services.

(emphasis added) Now, here comes the actual snippet that seems to have a lot of people up in arms:

The Commission hereby states that it is its policy, consistent with the intent of Cognitive Radio Report and Order and Cisco's request, that manufacturers should not intentionally make the distinctive elements that implement that manufacturer's particular security measures in a software defined radio public, if doing so would increase the risk that these security measures could be defeated or otherwise circumvented to allow operation of the radio in a manner that violates the Commission's rules. A system that is wholly dependent on open source elements will have a high burden to demonstrate that it is sufficiently secure to warrant authorization as a software defined radio.

Again, emphasis added. FCC is not saying that OSS is inherently less secure. They are saying that it's their policy to make it difficult to modify a radio such that it violates FCC rules. That's all. It might even be possible, given the stipulation above, to do this with OSS. Of course you might run into the 'tivoization' clause of GPLv3 in so doing ...

into this http://a52.g.akamaitech.net/f/52/827/1d/www.space. com/images/070605_mars_pit_02.jpg

I don't think any of this is regulated anyway.
Well, I didn't look for soup, but juice content has pretty specific requirements in Title 21 of the Code of Federal Regulations.

Click the image on the right.
http://a52.g.akamaitech.net/f/52/827/1d/www.space. com/images/070412_red_square_02.jpg
It's like, 650x650. Not that that's very high quality, but it's better than 163x110 for sure.

The ability to build a transmitter that can interfere with others does not mean that it's legal, and in fact is expressly illegal in the United States. 47 CFR 15.5b states:

Operation of an intentional, unintentional, or incidental radiator is subject to the conditions that no harmful interference is caused and that interference must be accepted that may be caused by the operation of an authorized radio station, by another intentional or unintentional radiator, by industrial, scientific and medical (ISM) equipment, or by an incidental radiator.

Emphasis added.

I can drive my car the wrong way on the road, but that doesn't make it legal.

Looking around, it seems that Intel released in February a new driver using the d80211 subsystem that does away with the regulatory binary. There's still a binary microcode update that has to be loaded, and it's freely (as in beer) redistributable. I haven't played with it yet, but the initial response seems to be relatively positive.

Primary Allocation - When a service is granted primary allocation, its users do not have to worry about causing interference to users of a secondary allocation in the same band. On the other hand, if there are two primary allocations in the same frequency band, they must share and must work out arrangements so as not to cause each other interference.

Secondary Allocation - A service that has a secondary allocation, must accept interference from, and cannot cause interference to, users of a service having a primary allocation in the same band.

License Exempt - Are Devices that are usually very low power, may not interfere with users of any licensed service, and must accept interference from users of any licensed service.

Take guess What section garage door openers are licensed under.

Garage door openers operate around 360MHz. From the Canadian Table of Frequency Allocations. http://strategis.ic.gc.ca/epic/internet/insmt-gst. nsf/vwapj/cane2006-e.pdf/$FILE/cane2006-e.pdf

5.254 The bands 235-322 MHz and 335.4-399.9 MHz may be used by the mobile-satellite service, subject to agreement obtained under No. 9.21, on condition that stations in this service do not cause harmful interference to those of other services operating or planned to be operated in accordance with the Table of Frequency Allocations except for the additional allocation made in footnote No. 5.256A. (WRC-03

C12 (CAN-03) The band 360-400 MHz is designated for Mobile Aeronautical Telemetry Service (MATS) applications. The Government of Canada has priority on the use of this band. Access to spectrum by other entities for MATS may be permitted subject to coordination with the Government of Canada systems.

C13 (CAN-03) The bands 305-320 MHz and 345-360 MHz are designated for Wireless Communication Service (WCS) applications under the fixed and mobile service allocations. Use of these bands is subject to domestic spectrum utilization policy.

If the manufacturer wanted to avoid this problem they could run the opener in one of the ISM bands. * 900 MHz band (33.3 cm wavelength) * 1.8 GHz Band (16.7 cm wavelength) * 2.4 GHz band (12.5 cm wavelength) * 5.8 GHz band (5.2 cm wavelength) http://a257.g.akamaitech.net/7/257/2422/09nov20051 500/edocket.access.gpo.gov/cfr_2005/octqtr/pdf/47c fr15.247.pdf

Quoting from the "Background and Purpose" section of the proposal:
Current CBP regulations require air carriers to electronically transmit passenger arrival manifests to CBP no later than 15 minutes after the departure of the aircraft from any place outside the United States (19 CFR 122.49a(b)(2)) and passenger departure manifests no later than 15 minutes prior to departure of the aircraft from the United States (19 CFR 122.75a(b)(2)).
...
The identification of a high-risk passenger soon after the aircraft becomes airborne may result in the diversion of the aircraft to a U.S. port other than the original destination or the return of the aircraft to the port of departure (referred to as a ``turnback'').

http://a257.g.akamaitech.net/7/257/2422/01jan20061 800/edocket.access.gpo.gov/2006/06-6237.htm (linked from) http://www.access.gpo.gov/su_docs/fedreg/a060714c. html

I don't like the idea of Mr. Lawabider being mistaken for Mr. Terror and being denied boarding, but the end result remains that either person isn't getting where he wants to go. (He just doesn't get there sooner.) Then again, it is a slippery slope they're treading on.

I wish I could kick kdawson's ass. My very first story submission to be accepted, and he ruins all my links. The UTF8 garbage in the URLs is whatever his editor did to the "----" substrings.

Boiling down some of the legalese, the charges (if any are filed) will be "conspiracy to knowingly present a false and fictitious claim upon or against the United States, or any department or agency thereof in violation of USC 18 (secs. 2, 371, 1036, 1343, 2318) and USC 49 (secs. 46314 and 46316) and 49 CFR (secs. 1540.103 and 1540.105)" (edited for brevity).

I wish I could kick kdawson's ass. My very first story submission to be accepted, and he ruins all my links. The UTF8 garbage in the URLs is whatever his editor did to the "----" substrings.

Boiling down some of the legalese, the charges (if any are filed) will be "conspiracy to knowingly present a false and fictitious claim upon or against the United States, or any department or agency thereof in violation of USC 18 (secs. 2, 371, 1036, 1343, 2318) and USC 49 (secs. 46314 and 46316) and 49 CFR (secs. 1540.103 and 1540.105)" (edited for brevity).

The conspiracy part doesnt come into play. Follow this logic (new links, since kdawson broke all the links in my original story):

Forging boarding passes is illegal (49 CFR 1540.103)

His site aided people in forging boarding passes.

Aiding in the commission of a crime against the US Govt carries the same penalties as committing the same crime yourself (18 USC 2).

Pretty straightforward. Arguing loopholes is left to the lawyers, but this isnt exactly "legalese".

Typically you just need a container like the kind on container ships for your magazine. Then there are some requirements for distance from homes, schools, buildings, etc. Having such a magazine is a prerequisite to getting your ATF license. Further than that you have various state and local ordinances. It's not at all unreasonable to keep people from having explosives and flammable powders in quantity in the middle of an urban area.

Furthermore, they've already clarified that part 555 does not apply to ammonium perchlorate motors 62.5 grams and less. Any bigger, you need a permit. It's not crazy, anything bigger than an Estes is DANGEROUS and they want to make sure you're prepared to handle the responsibility of storage, transport and use of explosives before they let you do it.

However, under the guise of "terrorism" a lot of state and local places have clamped down, which is crazy. But it's still America and you can get a license for anything here (except marijuana).

4. Finding: From at least 1994, and continuing into the summer of 2001, the Intelligence
Community received information indicating that terrorists were contemplating, among
other means of attack, the use of aircraft as weapons.

He[Sarshar] had first-hand information of prior specific warning obtained from a reliable informant in April 2001 on the terrorist attacks of September 11.

"...when hundreds of American bodies are laying[sic] around you will question whether there was anything else that could have been done. " -- Richard Clarke, memo to Rice, 9/4/2001

And just in case anyone is wondering, the Federal Government can (and does) codify by regulation that some people "must...be of good moral character". Pedophilia is really an issue of morality. So, while pedophilia is not explicitly prohibited by law, it is explicitly not protected from discrimination.

Anyway, that's just my take on the CFRs. I am not a liar^H^H^Hawyer.

The main reason that lawnmower engines are so incredibly dirty is that they are two-stroke engines.

O'Connor actually gave a strong dissent in Kelo.

Read the opinion here (pdf)

The record of concurring and dissenting can be found here

And yes, the case was a big dissappointment

The Supreme Court ruled on this some time ago - common carrier status doesn't apply to internet service providers offerings because their offerings are considered to be "information services" rather than "telecommunications services" under the Telecommunications Act of 1996. That's not to say I don't think they *should* be considered common carriers, but under current law they're not.

The Court's opinion can be found here. (PDF file)

"Non-Toxic" has been a primary marketing point of Play-Doh for years. That means it's safe to eat as much of it as you want!

No, "non-toxic" means that it does not cause acute reactions when applied to animals according to very specific guidelines. "Non-toxic" and "food" are totally different concepts.

Heck, by the definition of "safe to eat as much as you want," even water would fail to be non-toxic.

Spending doesn't boost an economy. Useful production does.

I disagree. I believe ideology drives economy. Currently, the American ideology is that we need to be world police. Don't believe me? Look at the budget: http://a257.g.akamaitech.net/7/257/2422/06feb20061 000/www.gpoaccess.gov/usbudget/fy07/pdf/budget/tab les.pdf

~ 500 billion dollars to DOD and Homeland security The next biggest expenditure is Social Security, which _we already paid for out of our own pocket_

Note the deficit spending at the bottom of each year through 2011.

That is only with government spending. Societal spending is also driven by ideology. Young people believe that they need hip clothes, cell-phones, pop music, and iPods, so they figure out some way to acquire the goods and services that they need. Older Younger people (~25-35) believe that they need a nice new car and a nice large house, so they work hard to acquire those things. Etc, etc, This is nothing new.

There are examples of other people that don't share these ideologies both here in the US and in other places, and they spend their time and/or money doing other things.

Yawn... if you're going to bother replying, try and come up with a more convincing counter-argument than pretending you didn't see the figures from the official US budget web site.

And yes, it would have told you at if you consider the total amount of money the Federal government takes in from every source that military spending is only 20% of the budget. Again, simply choosing to ignore a particular source of money doesn't advance your argument.

The Federal government will spend nearly $439.3 billion on defense.

The Federal government took in around $2.3 trillion (based on the graph).

If you calculate 439,300,000,000 / 2,300,000,000,000 * 100 you get 19.1%.

Yawn... if you're going to bother replying, try and come up with a more convincing counter-argument than pretending you didn't see the figures from the official US budget web site.

And yes, it would have told you at if you consider the total amount of money the Federal government takes in from every source that military spending is only 20% of the budget. Again, simply choosing to ignore a particular source of money doesn't advance your argument.

The Federal government will spend nearly $439.3 billion on defense.

The Federal government took in around $2.3 trillion (based on the graph).

If you calculate 439,300,000,000 / 2,300,000,000,000 * 100 you get 19.1%.

If you love science and space technology, then you should support NASA and Manned space flight.

The problem with our government budget is that it is relatively sedentary. If you get $1 billion this year, you'll probably get $1 billion next year, though you might get $1.1 billion or $0.9 billion. Programs don't get skipped from year to year. they are either funded, or cut.

The US Federal budget for 2006 has as its top 4 Net Outlays the following:

1) Department of Health and Human Services, $641 billion
2) Social Security Administration, $592 billion
3) Department of Defense - Military, $512 billion
4) Department of the Treasury, $452 billion.

The next few:
5) Department of Agriculture, $96 billion
6) Department of Education, $84 billion
7) Department of Veterans Affairs, $70 billion
8) Department of Homeland Security, $67 billion
9) Office of Personnel Management, $63 billion
10) Department of Transportation, $61 billion
11) Department of Labor, $51 billion
12) Department of Housing and Urban Development, $47 billion
13) Other Defense Civil Programs, $46 billion

Then the relatively smaller stuff ($10 - 25 billion)
14) Department of Justice, $22 billion
15) Department of Energy, $22 billion
16) International Assistance Programs, $16 billion
17) NASA, $16 billion
18) Department of State, $14 billion
19) Other independent Agencies, $13 billion

And the rest:
20) Department of the Interior, $9 billion
21) EPA, $8 billion
22) Corps of Engineers, $7 billion
23) Executive Office of the President, $7 billion
24) Department of Commerce, $6 billion
25) Judicial Branch, $6 billion
26) NSF, $6 billion
27) Railroad Retirement Board, $5 billion
28) Legislative Branch, $4 billion
29) Postal Service, $1.5 billion (note that this is their net loss for the year)
30) Small Business Administration, $1.2 billion
31) GSA $0.4 billion

lastly there are those 2 branches which Make money:
32) FDIC, $-0.9 billion
33) Export-Import Bank, $-1.8 billion

Now, these are all 2006 figures, and though most will be the same next year, there are some cuts for 2007:
$3 billion in agriculture, $8 billion in Military, $23 billion to DHS (33% of the total budget), and others. NASA is looking at a modest rais of $800 million, and NSF will get an additional $70 million.

Now that the facts are out of the way, on to my opinions.
In my opinion there is a huge problem in our federal budget. 1) WAY too much spending in places like the Department of Agriculture, HUD, Education, and Health and Human Services. 2) WAY WAY too little spending by the NSF. 3) International Assistance Program budget should be controlled by the State Department. (Damnit, we have diplomats, we should be using them to give out goodies to other countries.)

The reason, (IMNSHO) that the NSF is traditionally underfunded is because it gives money out for science that isn't "Politically Correct". Its far easier to build more bombers or dump more into Healthcare or FBI Agents than it is to allow funding for Cosmolagical research into the Big Bang, or Stem cell research, or even Cancer research or AIDS research. No one loses a campaign on "We hired 20,000 teachers". But you can on "We funded research into the effects of school prayer on laboratory rats."

anyway....

one more thing: The goverment took in the following in 2005:

Individual Income taxes: $927 billion
Corporate Income Taxes: $278 billion
Social Security Insurance: $217 billion (on budget)
Excise Taxes: $73 billion
Estate Taxes: $25 billion
Customs Duties: $23 billion
Other recipts: $33 billion

http://a257.g.akamaitech.net/7/257/2422/06feb20061 000/www.gpoaccess.gov/usbudget/fy07/pdf/spec.pdf

Thats it

Ira

http://a257.g.akamaitech.net/7/257/2422/21Feb20061 230/www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/05pdf/04-1084. pdf

Thanks for the replies, but I have a specific, technical question that can only be answered by another user of the SA3250HD STB. I'm well aware that most Motorola STB's will turn analog TV signals into MPEG-2 Transport Streams over 1394, but I'm not sure what the SA3250HD does.

The relevant links for legaleze of HDTV requirements related to 1394 can be found here:

http://a257.g.akamaitech.net/7/257/2422/12feb20041 500/edocket.access.gpo.gov/cfr_2004/octqtr/pdf/47c fr76.640.pdf

The relevant text only mentions that high-def set-top boxes must include a "functional" 1394 interface, but not whether non-digital channels must also be accessible via that interface.

Other links indicate that the SA3250HD does not convert analog channels to MPEG2-TS for firewire:

http://home.comcast.net/~timmmoore/firewire/readme .htm

So, the parent poster, who claims to use (or have used) MythTV via 1394 on a SA3250HD STB, would be in the best position to answer my question. Speculation will not help me further.

GPS is just one of many nav instruments in the airplane, and for all but a handful of airplanes and approaches, is not the primary nav signal used for the last few thousand feet (the ILS is.)

Here is the FCC application for my 802.11b/g wireless router. At the bottom, it clearly states that it operates under FCC rule parts 15c, which indeed requires FCC certification of the device and not the user, but according to Title 47, part 15.5, "shall not be deemed to have any vested or recognizable right to continued use of any given frequency by virtue of prior registration or certification of equipment."

I'll leave it to you to read the rest of that section, which confirms what I originally stated about interference to licensed users. Licensed users of the frequency are only responsible to not cause interference to other licensed users of that frequency, just like a broadcast radio station doesn't have to care if he interferes with those little FM transmitters that people plug their ipods into so they can listen on their car radio. An amateur radio license is no less valid than the license for your local top 40 radio station. And the authority to operate that little FM transmitter is the same authority for wi-fi routers and microwave ovens, with the same FCC certification requirements.

While technically a request to shut down must come from the FCC and a licensed user can only "ask nicely", just like enforcing the speed limit must come from a law enforcement officer, the fact is that the law is on the side of the licensed user.

Contrast this with the CB and family radio services, for example, which have frequencies specifically set aside for sole use by unlicensed users, with strict equipment specifications. That is what I would consider public spectrum.

There is nothing in section 97.313 that limits the power output to less than 1500 W in that band. However, I concede that there are other requirements for RF exposure, a "minimum necessary power" requirement, and other technical issues that probably limit it practically to 100 W or so. There are probably further restrictions somewhere in the code where unattended operation is concerned. A license is enough permission to use those bands. The only additional requirement needed to run 1500 W of power is a routine environmental evaluation which proves that humans won't be over-exposed (required for transmissions over 250 Watts in that band). The process of performing such an evaluation is a subject of the extra class amateur radio license exam. However, if it is shown that 1500 W was used where 1 W would have been sufficient, the licensee is subject to heavy fines, seizure of his equipment, and forfeiture of his license.

I'm not trumpeting my own horn or going on a power trip, just clearing up a common misconception that wi-fi frequencies are somehow reserved for wi-fi, and trying to present an interesting and extreme counter example. You can argue that wi-fi has become so ubiquitous that it deserves some protection from interference, and I would agree with you, but the current law makes no such guarantee, and it is indeed only through the voluntary cooperation of legitimate licensees of that spectrum (hams aren't the only ones) that lawful interference with wi-fi isn't widespread.

I apologize if I came off snobby, but consider that someone who has passed three increasingly difficult exams dealing with FCC regulations, and has years of experience and training in building and operating radio equipment in compliance with those regulations, has earned the right to speak with some authority on the subject. I'm happy to admit when I'm wrong, but you might want to actually back it up with fact the next time you think you're breaking a power trip.

Here is the FCC application for my 802.11b/g wireless router. At the bottom, it clearly states that it operates under FCC rule parts 15c, which indeed requires FCC certification of the device and not the user, but according to Title 47, part 15.5, "shall not be deemed to have any vested or recognizable right to continued use of any given frequency by virtue of prior registration or certification of equipment."

I'll leave it to you to read the rest of that section, which confirms what I originally stated about interference to licensed users. Licensed users of the frequency are only responsible to not cause interference to other licensed users of that frequency, just like a broadcast radio station doesn't have to care if he interferes with those little FM transmitters that people plug their ipods into so they can listen on their car radio. An amateur radio license is no less valid than the license for your local top 40 radio station. And the authority to operate that little FM transmitter is the same authority for wi-fi routers and microwave ovens, with the same FCC certification requirements.

While technically a request to shut down must come from the FCC and a licensed user can only "ask nicely", just like enforcing the speed limit must come from a law enforcement officer, the fact is that the law is on the side of the licensed user.

Contrast this with the CB and family radio services, for example, which have frequencies specifically set aside for sole use by unlicensed users, with strict equipment specifications. That is what I would consider public spectrum.

There is nothing in section 97.313 that limits the power output to less than 1500 W in that band. However, I concede that there are other requirements for RF exposure, a "minimum necessary power" requirement, and other technical issues that probably limit it practically to 100 W or so. There are probably further restrictions somewhere in the code where unattended operation is concerned. A license is enough permission to use those bands. The only additional requirement needed to run 1500 W of power is a routine environmental evaluation which proves that humans won't be over-exposed (required for transmissions over 250 Watts in that band). The process of performing such an evaluation is a subject of the extra class amateur radio license exam. However, if it is shown that 1500 W was used where 1 W would have been sufficient, the licensee is subject to heavy fines, seizure of his equipment, and forfeiture of his license.

I'm not trumpeting my own horn or going on a power trip, just clearing up a common misconception that wi-fi frequencies are somehow reserved for wi-fi, and trying to present an interesting and extreme counter example. You can argue that wi-fi has become so ubiquitous that it deserves some protection from interference, and I would agree with you, but the current law makes no such guarantee, and it is indeed only through the voluntary cooperation of legitimate licensees of that spectrum (hams aren't the only ones) that lawful interference with wi-fi isn't widespread.

I apologize if I came off snobby, but consider that someone who has passed three increasingly difficult exams dealing with FCC regulations, and has years of experience and training in building and operating radio equipment in compliance with those regulations, has earned the right to speak with some authority on the subject. I'm happy to admit when I'm wrong, but you might want to actually back it up with fact the next time you think you're breaking a power trip.

That link doesn't seem to be working. Here's the link to it in the Federal Register:

http://a257.g.akamaitech.net/7/257/2422/01jan20051 800/edocket.access.gpo.gov/2005/pdf/05-24555.pdf

The main issue is the intent of the network doing the distribution. Grokster et al were found to be illegal because they promoted lawbreaking as their primary raison d'etre -- with ads like "download the top 40 here" and other things that clearly were designed to incude infringement. Since Bittorent is content-neutral as a technology, it can't be declared illegal under MGM v. Grokster, since those who created/maintain it don't intend for its primary purposes to be infringing, and aren't encouraging infringement directly.

Go read the opinion -- it's publicly available for free, and it's really not hard to understand at all. (BTW, I copied that link straight from www.supremecourtus.gov, so it's as legit as it gets, despite what Slashdot may say about the domain. :-P)

It seems you just can't pull the wool over the eyes of judges after you've had your customer support give directions how to find specific copyrighted material on your network (page 1 of the opinion), positioned yourself as the new Napster by targetting ex-Napster users with a specifically designed client advertised to enable sharing copyrighted music (page 6 -- "Napster has announced that it may start charing a fee. Thats if the court don't order it shut it down first. What will you do to get around it?"), have a CTO who drops brilliant gems like "The goal is to get in trouble with the law and get sued. Its the best way to get in the news" (page 6), built in a feature to search for guaranteed-copyrighted Top40 songs (page 7), identified copyrighted materials you could find on their network by name in a newsletter to users as an enticement to use the network (page 7), etc, etc.

But I'm sure this could all have been a misunderstanding and they really meant to say "Hey, you can get free Shakespeare on this network, and thats why you'd use it, ignore the millions of copyrighted songs which we really can't do anything about like the latest from your favorites Brittney Spears, Usher, and random-boy-band-of-the-week available for free today." You can read that argument in the opinion, too. http://a257.g.akamaitech.net/7/257/2422/27jun20051 200/www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/04pdf/04-480.p df

Apparently, they are planning on including anti-skimming material.

More information from the Federal Register can be found here

That would be hard to do unless they are exceeding power or gain limits, or deploying a large number of such devices, since part 15 rules do allow use of non-approved antennas. (I am not a lawyer or an RF engineer, so take this with a grain of salt.)

It looks more like a ring than a spoke.

Ummm... That isn't entirely true. The FCC has multiple classes of licensing for electronics. The majority of consumer electronics, including devices that operate in the 2.4GHz band, have this restriction. However, I'm sure the security systems for the airport have different restrictions on emitting and receiving interference-causing signals.

In fact, a quick dig at the FCC's site (here) regarding Radio Devices alone shows lots of different requirements for any various spectrum, device, etc.

Specific to my point, FM radio broadcasters are allowed protection from interference as outlined here.

Knowing just the basics about FCC licensing, however, I do know that this is all a load of crap from the airport authorities. Devices operating in the 2.4GHz band are licensed for use under the condition that they don't cause any interference with other electronics. As long as those devices are not modified to operate outside the rules under which they were licensed, they wouldn't and there's no reason the FCC should, or would, get involved. And, as others have noted, if the 2.4GHz signals from Continental's WiFi equipment are interfering with the airport's security systems, what is preventing the same interference from the airport's own WiFi equipment?

The point is that the airport is being greedy and wants control over all WiFi access so they can charge for it. It's purely profit motivated, and all rather childish.

I vaguely remember that every antenna used for transmission in that range (2.4Ghz included) is supposed to be FCC approved and not modified

That's true for anything mass produced, but there is an exception for homemade devices:

Sec. 15.23 Home-built devices.

1. Equipment authorization is not required for devices that are not marketed, are not constructed from a kit, and are built in quantities of five or less for personal use.
2. It is recognized that the individual builder of home-built equipment may not possess the means to perform the measurements for determining compliance with the regulations. In this case, the builder is expected to employ good engineering practices to meet the specified technical standards to the greatest extent practicable. The provisions of Sec. 15.5 apply to this equipment.

Homemade devices are permitted under part 15 rules under certain circumstances, and they don't need to be FCC certified prior to use.