Slashdot Mirror

This is entire economic meltdown has been caused by the shipping of jobs, especially manufacturing jobs, overseas.

You realize that US manufacturing output rose over the last 10 years (until last year). We've had decreasing manufacturing employment because US manufacturing has become more and more efficient (i.e. mechanized). US minimum wage laws make it impossible for the lowest skill manufacturing to be done here (some people think that is a good thing.)

I think you have the causality backwards. The meltdown has decreased US manufacturing over the last year. US exports have also been rising over the last 10 years, until the most recent crisis.

I believe the cause of the most recent crisis is the bursting of the real estate bubble, period. It was a bubble created by tax rules on mortgage interest deduction, the implicit and later explicit government guarantees on Fannie and Freddie, and the private sector forgetting that mortgages should be limited to 80% loan-to-value because sometimes house prices do go down, and if you don't have a 20% cushion, your borrowers will default on a house that will need to be sold for at a loss to the lender. This tremendous shock is working its way through the global economic structure, and it will take a while for the global economy to rebalance jobs away from house construction and finance.

It is not surprising that the carriers are paying so much for a license. People that have studied wireless technologies know that the wireless spectrum is arguably one of the most valuable resources on earth. There is simply not enough space in the spectrum for us to do everything that we want to do.

If you look at the FCC frequency allocations chart (warning: PDF), you'll notice how many different industries and applications that are trying to use the wireless spectrum. And this chart is deceiving because much of the spectrum isn't usable for modern applications. Lower frequencies don't provide enough bandwidth, and high frequencies require very rare materials for the electronic components, so they are too expensive for most purposes.

There has been an explosion in research for wireless communication over the last several years because the demand for more capabilities has increased. This has led to incredibly complex encoding schemes and manipulation of the physical radio waves, and is now leading into cognitive radio.

The sad part is that most of the usable spectrum, even though allocated, remains underutilized. I am a researcher studying the spectral usage in Chicago, and we have calculated that the most heavily used parts of the spectrum are still only occupied about 11% of the time. There are also many parts of the spectrum that have been allocated, but are only used in certain geographical locations. The big TV Whitespace movement promises to introduce technologies that can potentially help us better utilize unused parts of the spectrum where available.

Am I surprised that the cellphone carriers paid $20 billion for the license? No. The survival of their company depends on them being able to transmit wireless signals. Just like an airline has to pay fees at an airport in order to be able to land their planes. There is no other option.

Who would want to be the president who 2 weeks after being in office takes television away from 20% of the country.

Would it really be 20%? 14.3 million is the Nielsen estimate that rely on OTA TV. Per the census in 2000, we have 105M households.

That means only 13% of households depend on OTA. Per NTIA - on Dec 17, 2008 11M out of that 14.3M had requested coupons. Overall, 22M households had requested 41M coupons, and 17M redeemed. That means 77% of that 13% has had the opportunity to get a converter box or two.

By my calc, the number of households that would lose the ability to receive OTA broadcasts would be well under 3% at this point. At least some households wouldn't be requesting coupons/buying converter boxes due to purchasing of TVs with digital tuners.

Some people have been mentioning DTV tuners with Firewire other outputs. Under the law that enabled the coupons, only RF, composite, and possibly S-Video output is allowed on subsidized converters. See #54 here.

I apologies for overwhelming you with evidence which contradicts your position. To keep it simple (and snowgirl made or implied most of these):

You didn't over whelm anything. You started rambling on about shit that made no difference whatsoever at all. You do understand that just because you say something, it doesn't mean that it is true or that it remotely matters to the subject at hand.

1) Trade embargoes as currently implemented are ineffective in achieving the desired broad policy outcomes of preventing technology proliferation and enhancing physical security.

The effectivness of the embargo isn't the part in question. A US company obeying it or not is the question. If you want to argue the effectiveness of a law, then do so in a separate manner. You didn't however, you made a statement about no being restricted in Iran's neighboring countries. That's totally irrelevant to the problem at hand. And yes, if a US company ship to another country, or a company from another country ships products from a US company, they have to ensure that their partners aren't going to ship to a restricted country. There have been tons of cased dealing with both, shipping via a third party and country by the US company and non-US companies shipping US goods to another country then to a restricted country. Try looking at a few of the examples.

2) Empirical evidence suggests that the stated motives for adopting trade embargoes do not adequately describe the actual motives for adopting such embargoes, and that such policy measures are applied inconsistently.

It doesn't fucking matter, the law in still in place and HP is required to obey it. The motives for the laws can be anything from someone not liking the color of someone socks to actually what they mean, the states that HP couldn't do what it was doing and they will get busted for it. If you don't like a law, get it changed, or be prepared to get busted when you violate it.

3) Resources applied to enforcing policies which have been demonstrated to be incompletely effective (or, ineffective), can instead be applied to try newer, more effective policies.

Again, your acting like the law doesn't matter. It does, you or I cannot arbitrarily decide to change the laws. The laws are put in place by a government, not you and me. I'm not here saying I support the law, I'm here saying it is in place, people know what it says, people know what's restricted and if they ignore that, they deserve to get busted.

4) Iran no more requires 21st century computers to make nuclear weapons than the Americans and Soviets and the South Africans and the Indians and the Pakistanis and the Chinese (and almost the Germans) did when they each generated international nuclear capabilities over 40 years ago.

It doesn't matter what they require. What matters is that they don't get it from us or companies buying from us or people doing business with our stuff. It how the entire "you don't give someone threatening to kill you a loaded gun" comes into play. We have an economic embargo and ITAR restrictions on Iran and they are there for good reasons. It doesn't matter is Russia or south Africa is giving the stuff to them, what matters is if companies inside the US is. Preferably, none of the other country would give them anything but we are at least concerned with ourselves here.

Regarding your analogy: Iran and dozens of other nations already have sufficient numbers of weapons and capabilities to considerably harm almost any other state they choose. Their guns are already loaded, they can point their guns at arbitrary targets, and they've already refused to surrender their guns when explicitly asked to do so.

Well, you've just failed your mandatory security refresher. This is NOT true for restricted technology. We can't share restricted data or tech. with foreign nationals (even one granted permanent US residence) or even US citizens employed by foreign corporations. All such persons must be identified by clearly marked badges while on our premises and be escorted at all times.

Well, no because we are talking about the context of this embargo. The restricted technology is part of the embargo and that only effect items being exported to that country. And no, even the restrictions from ITAR and proliferation only require a foreign national to obtain an export license and they can access the information and do anything unescorted. Just because a Tech is restricted, it doesn't mean that none of the countries could ever get them, it means that the usage had to be monitored so that they aren't use inappropriately. Take intel for example, it employs plenty of people from sanctioned countries who are living in the US. Some of them are treated as US persons while some have to get an export license. Some of these people have unrestricted access to tech some have to be monitored and can only work in certain areas.

HP might be restricted from doing business with Iran directly. That's an economic sanction. But if its not restricted technology (which is a very clearly identified set of products), HP has no duty to track or restrict its movement by its customers (in Dubai, for example). There's no legal difference between selling a truckload of printers to Dubai or to some guy who's going to drive them across the Canadian border (and then off to who-knows-where).

Actually, under the current law, HP has an obligation to ensure that their products aren't being re-exported to restricted countries without a proper export license.

If you look through the Don't let this happen to you flyer produced by the US Bureau of Industry and Security, you will find where someone sold Forklift parts to a company in Dubai who later sold them to elements inside Iran. A British company Proclad International Pipelines, Ltd, order nickel alloy pipes from an American company and attempted to reexport them to Iran. Supermicro Computer Incorporated/Mohammad Mayssami attempted to ship computer main boads to Iran VIA Dubai. It says

The Penalty: In the criminal case, Supermicro was sentenced to a criminal fine of $150,000. Supermicro also agreed to pay an additional $125,400 in civil penalties. As part of the plea agreement, Supermicro implemented a new export control program. On May 21, 2007, Super Net was denied export privileges for five years. On April 28, 2008, Mohammad Mayssami was sentenced to two years' probation, a 10,000 criminal fine, and 160 hours of community service at a charity of his choosing, for his part in financing the export transactions.

It seems that people exporting things have more of an obligation then seeing it on a truck bound for Canada.

Exports from US companies are controlled by the Bureau of Industry and Security, part of the Department of Commerce.

In addition to the list of controls for each country, most people are really, really surprised to read the list of controlled items -- the Commerce Control List. The list itself is Part 774, Catetegories 0 through 9, plus Supplements 2 and 3, linked at the bottom of the page.

One concept not well-known is that merely discussing a controlled technology in the presence of a foreign national from the "wrong" country (think China and Iran, among others) is considered an "export" of technology, and has federal penalties (fines and prison time) just as severe as the actual physical transfer of an object. This tripped up J. Reese Roth, a retired professor now facing a maximum of 150 years in prison. Sentencing is scheduled for 7 January 2009.

A colleague who recently visited New York came back with some Hershey's chocolate, and very nice it was too. Except for the milk chocolate ones. They were disgusting - stank of vomit and tasted of sour, old milk. I remember on my visit there a few years ago experiencing the same flavour, but I put it down to it being a bad batch, or possible it got heated in transit. But no, it appears that taste is by design.

I might be just another "dumb American" but hey at I know how to use the web to find things out:
The Hershey Process

Every culture has things that outsiders consider unappealing. Try visiting Asia and wonder at all the strange tastes that the natives love but outsiders hate. The same goes for Hershey's chocolate. It has a unique flavor that some people prize and others disdain.

Although not very many Americans travel outside the US. That's a fact, not a stereotype.

You're saying that's a fact and not a stereotype but you couldn't be more wrong. I see quite a few USA citizens visiting other countries. Sure, the per capita amount of US citizens visiting other countries might be lower than that of, say Europe but you have to remember a lot of other countries are so small that they are the size of one of the USA's states. Simply traveling across the USA is like traveling across Europe, you can visit many sites and different cultures and not cross a single country border.

I find it amazing that people poke fun at "Americans" for being ignorant but then these same people turn around and exhibit far greater ignorance.

This is the most troll-like comment I can find:

http://www.ntia.doc.gov/DNS/comments/comment007.pdf

but he's just being blunt and honest. Not that ICANN isn't corrupt, but he's not wrong about VeriSign!

Personally, I think ISC should be in charge of the keys, but I didn't write in to say so (I would have been considered a troll, prolly).

[This is a repost of my "serious question" to my "troll's are usually right" thread which was modded "Troll" below.]

I wouldn't be so quick brush aside dissension on this issue. This comment in particular:
http://www.ntia.doc.gov/DNS/comments/comment034.pdf
seemed well thought out, and at the end suggests several other workarounds with fewer issues. Namely, switch to using TCP instead of UDP so there's a handshake involved instead of blindly accepting incoming datagrams. It's not that the bug shouldn't be addressed, but maybe DNSSEC is the wrong answer.

which "comments received" are being considered trolls?

As you can see, I was right... And I'm being considered a troll because of it.

This is the most troll-like comment I can find:

http://www.ntia.doc.gov/DNS/comments/comment007.pdf

but he's just being blunt and honest. Not that ICANN isn't corrupt, but he's not wrong about VeriSign!

Personally, I think ISC should be in charge of the keys, but I didn't comment to say so (I would have been considered a troll, prolly).

See http://www.bis.doc.gov/licensing/exportingbasics.htm

The two counts on "Arms Exports" are for dual use commercial material. Had Shu asked for a license he likely would have received one because all of the stuff is available without export restriction from Europe. The bribery charge reflects this - the big sale was made by a French company he represented in China, not by Shu's small US business.

The NTIA. http://www.ntia.doc.gov/osmhome/osmhome.html They are the ultimate arbitrators of frequency spectrum management in the USA. That is because they work for the military and government agencies, who will never give up a single hertz of an incredibly valuable military and law enforcement resource on a PRIMARY basis.

The FCC is second fiddle to them in practice, but the government does give lip service to the idea that the FCC works hand in hand with the NTIA. In reality its not true.

For example, many amateur radio bands and other public services use radio frequency spectrum allocated on a SECONDARY basis, with the military and federal agencies coming first. The best example of this recently, was when suddenly garage door remotes stopped working withing a wide distance of a military base. The military was simply exercising their right to primary usage of that spectrum..

Even more recently a large number of ham radio VHF and/or UHF repeaters had to be moved in frequency to satisfy the military that they would not cause any interference to whatever government system was involved- and those repeaters were licensed by the FCC. So you can see that the FCC has little power in these disputes.

Manufacturers of gadgets can be incredibly ignorant, especially when they originate out of China, and the FCC just rubber stamps Part 15 approval on them, not really giving a damn what might happen in the future.

I have a $60 STB that performs much better than earlier generation boxes that were much more expensive. The only problem is that it down-converts everything to SD.

By U.S. law, an entry-level ATSC set-top box has to convert everything to SDTV, or else the box isn't eligible for the $40 coupons. From the coupon site's FAQ: "The intent of the program is to allow consumers to continue to view TV over-the-air on the same TV they used prior to the transition, not to enable upgrades in technology." So the final rule states that coupon-eligible converters MUST provide RF and composite outputs and MAY provide S-video outputs.

I'm a ham, so I hear plenty of ham activity on shortwave. However, the shortwave bands make up a small part of shortwave.

HF (aka shortwave) makes up 1.8MHz to 30MHz. Have a look at this chart to see what parts are ham. It's not that much.

I think that there are two pretty major flaws with this idea:

1) Bandwidth. 802.11b uses 22Mhz of bandwidth for each of its channels. There is not 22Mhz of unallocated bandwidth at 25Mhz. I'm sure that compression techniques are better now than when 802.11 stuff was defined. However, looking at the FCC allocation chart, there isn't much unassigned bandwidth near 25Mhz. A few Mhz here and there, unless they're considering usurping ham radio and maritime bands and otherwise kicking people off of frequencies. I'm not sure what they're considering "unused". Someone with more knowledge of on data compression via radio techniques might chime in :).

2) Propagation. 25Mhz is right around 12 Meters, which the hams and DX CB radio folks will know can propagate hundreds and even thousands of miles, depending upon ionospheric conditions. Take the bandwidth problem above, and multiply it by the fact that the precious little slice of bandwidth you get might be stomped on by everyone in the US during peak sunspot activity. This is likely the reason that mobile carriers aren't interested in these frequencies.

I'm pretty sure this is a loser idea. If someone knows more than me, I'd love to learn more about this stuff, though.

Reid

You are wrong. Google data centers fulfill the EU Safe Harbor Directive, as stated in the Safe Harbor homepage at the US Department of Commerce Export site. It's perfectly safe for EU companies to have their data stored in Google's servers.

Well if they really want to pick and choose, then they would shit themselves if they saw the FCC Frequency Allocation Table (pdf)

ITU CVA 1005: "Radio waves are electromagnetic waves of frequencies arbitrarily lower than 3 000 GHz propagated without artificial guide". That's the international definition. There are currently discussions over whether this limit should be raised.

The US FCC does not currently allocate spectrum above 300GHz, but there is already pressure on the FCC to act in that area.

When the US is left without the ability to produce anything of value

Actually the US makes plenty of stuff. Over the last 10 years, US manufacturing production output is up 26%, and is at an all-time-high. US manufacturing jobs are down though (3.6 million fewer over 10 year), but this is because US manufacturing is becoming more efficient, so people are moving into other sectors.

Our value in the value chain is going to diminish.

That is like saying that New York's value chain is going to diminish because of some start-ups in San Jose. Yes, there will be great ideas and great companies coming out of China and India, while there will still be great ideas and great companies coming out of the US. Everywhere where there is economic freedom will flourish. We'll do fine...as long as we don't damage our economic freedom with unneeded regulation.

Is this really still accurate?

DTV != HDTV. The cheap or free tuners (after coupon) are not high definition, they are only standard.

So what motivation does any member of society have to become less "disadvantaged"? I'd say a free ride for life without work gives you an advantage. If I don't work, or under-work I get:

Subsidized housing - http://www.seattlehousing.org/Housing/programs/section8/hcvpten.html
Free food - http://www.fns.usda.gov/fsp/
Free healthcare (via UHC when it passes or just going to the ER for every sniffle)
Free entertainment - http://www.ntia.doc.gov/

Guess what? By allowing people to freeload on the system they have ZERO motivation to make themselves better. They'll just continue to vote for people who will continue to feed them government cheese (the ones promoting more welfare and giving more of our money away).

Only by saying "if you don't work, you don't eat" will people make themselves better. When they get tired of shoveling dung for three squares and a roof over their heads they'll educate themselves to find better, more fulfilling jobs.

If someone is truly unable to work and has nobody to take care of them, that is one thing. Otherwise, get their lazy butts off the couch and have them fill potholes or build infrastructure for the benefit of the society you're so willing to rob to give them a free ride.

And make no mistake about it, viewers are being trained by what, and how, they watch from a very early age. News programming is only one facet of that.

If you're trained to only accept information in time units no larger than the average bowel movement, the chances that you will think critically about any given subject are reduced immmensely.

This works especially well for marketers and companies intent on your "consuming" their products, and for those who have the motives of a three card monte dealer.

Which points up the critical importance of your tax dollars being used to insure everyone has access to the "glass teat".

Bread and circuses anyone?

Do you think Hollywood is going to turn over the rights to let you copy whatever you want of their stuff for a few paltry million $ that this would bring in?!?! Even if every single internet user in the United States paid $5 (much less the pathetic $1 you're suggesting), that would only be about $775 million.

Paltry? Umm... in December 2006 there were 82.5 million active broadband lines in the U.S. (see: Networked Nation: Broadband In America 2007). The proposal is $5 per month per broadband customer. This is $5 billion a year, even at December 2006 adoption rates. It will climb higher in years to come as broadband penetration increases.

For comparison this is almost half of the recording industry's revenues from 2006. And this would be essentially all profit. For this kind of gift (if they could get it) the public should demand the sky in freedom to do whatever it likes with the recording industry's products. Even a $1 fee would likely more than double its annual profits.

And do not forget that the US not only penalizes foreign companies, which refuse to follow US boycotts, but also penalizes those which adhere to boycotts not originating from the US:

http://www.bis.doc.gov/antiboycottcompliance/default.htm

(needless to say, I do not support these non-US boycotts, either...)

While internet to individual houses may be low, what do you want to be that most (all?) of the public libraries have internet? You know, those buildings containing these things called 'books', where most people went in the 90's to look up things on the internet. While this may seem quite archaic to you, there are many areas and people in the country that still use this method.

Based on the fact that you think that teenagers dont ask questions when told things, you must be from the United States (you ignore reality when it serves your own purposes...dont worry, me too :)) Here in the US, we have intellectual property law. Here is a letter linked from a .gov website (http://www.uspto.gov/) that talks about why we are probably not changing intellectual property law from its one size fits all method of prosecution even though we should. http://www.ogc.doc.gov/ogc/legreg/letters/110/S1145020408.pdf The gist of it is that intellectual property is a $5 TRILLION business. Whee. So yes, patent and copyright and trademark law does exist, is written down, and claiming that someone was just lying is so disrespectful that you will probably be in jail in the next 6 months to 10 years to learn that lesson. Respect your elders you stupid kids.

All you have to do is pass a wimpy test and get your ham license. No more Morse code.
Here's what you will get to play with upon passing your exams.
Here is a nice, slightly dated(2003) frequency allocation chart showing who's got what and where.

Disqualifying Outputs

Digital Video Interface (DVI);
Component video (YPbPr);
High-Definition Multimedia Interface (HDMI);
Computer video (VGA);
USB IEEE-1394 (iLink or Firewire)
Ethernet (IEEE-802.3)
Wireless (IEEE0802.11)

16. Are digital coaxial audio outputs or SPDIF (optical) outputs permitted on eligible converter boxes?

No. Technical Appendix 2, "Outputs" includes examples of disqualifying features. Digital coaxial and SPDIF optical outputs are not consistent with the statutory description of "converter box." (See Pub. L. 109-171, Section 3005(d) and Paragraph 55 of the Final Rule.)

I picked up a few of these a while back for a project at work. They work well, even if they run a bit warm...it's much easier to get a clean digital signal from the local stations than to get a clean analog signal. It's still more than $40, but the prices still have time to come down.

Unfortunately, it doesn't matter if the STB you mentioned drops to $1.98...you still can't use the coupon to purchase it, as it has "disqualifying features" in the form of component video output.

The $40 coupons can only be used on decoders with at most S-Video output. See Technical Appendix 2 here for more details.

High Definition is not required. The digital standard broadcasts in both high def and standard def. All this is required is a television that can process the digital signal. The US govt is offering $40 vouchers for households to buy analog-to-digital converters for their existing televisions.

That's an interesting question. IANAL, but I imagine at least _some_ of the specifications would fall under export control regulations. It'll be interesting to see if it's just the specs for key components that fall into categories that are already controlled, or if the US government tries to prevent any information from being exported. Given the current trend in the Executive branch towards secrecy, I imagine it'll be closer to the latter than the former.

It will be interesting to see how the figures change in the coming years, as border security gets worse (ie, more restrictive), whilst the yankee dinar gets lower and lower, thus making it more appealing to holiday makers.
There's already some revealing figures for 2006 and 2007. Something to keep an eye on for sure.

It will be interesting to see how the figures change in the coming years, as border security gets worse (ie, more restrictive), whilst the yankee dinar gets lower and lower, thus making it more appealing to holiday makers.
There's already some revealing figures for 2006 and 2007. Something to keep an eye on for sure.

Stop spouting this sourceless & patently wrong drivel.

http://mathstat.asu.edu/support/doc/unix/coping-with-unix/node188.html
supercomputer: The class of fastest and most powerful computers available.

As for the US government's export regulations - the definition of a High Performance Computer (HPC) was raised from 28,000 millions of theoretical operations per second (MTOPS) to 190,000 MTOPS on December 10, 2003.
http://www.bis.doc.gov/hpcs/ArchivedNewsItems.html

Last time I priced a decoder box they were about $150-$200US. I have two computers with analog cards and over 10 TVs that are analog only (3-15 years old, across 3 houses and 1 camper in 2 states, including one 65" projection TV). At two houses we use basic cable and one only gets off-the-air stations (plus the camper -- off the air on a small analog-only DVD/TV). I only have 1 TV with a digital tuner which I purchased last summer (they apparently mandated that all new TVs after last March? include digital tuners). The $40US coupon (times 2 per house) for a decoder barely makes a dent in the price of the decoder boxes so should I relegate all this well functioning hardware the the scrap heap further adding to our landfill?

Should I spend well over $1000 to purchase extra bulky hardware to support legacy hardware that has a limited shelf life or should I spend $2000 or more to replace much of the legacy hardware with state-of-the-art hardware which as others on this list posted typically has a MTBF of a few years (my older TVs might still be working but the new ones dead)?

I am sure I am not alone in this area. This is the TRUE cost of digital TV. The FCC, et. al., should have REQUIRED digital tuners to be included circa 2001 or 2002 in ALL new TVs

Digital won't improve most programming like a lot of the reality crap my wife watches. If anything, all digital restricts TV access for the most part. The best use of digital is for good movies, Discovery channel, and some PBS.

See: http://www.ntia.doc.gov/ntiahome/press/2007/DTVfinalrule_031207.htm

You are so, so wrong. If a US company owns them, then they are subject to US law. This is to prevent US based companies from just setting up a shell and providing services to, say....Cuba or any other restricted country. There are countless examples of subsidiaries getting in trouble for things that are illegal in the US -- but not where their offices are.

Otherwise, Foster Wheeler would just setup a shell in another country and start building refineries for Cuba.

I, personally, know of companies who have gotten into trouble when their equipment, somehow, found it's way to a restricted country (Cuba, Sudan, Syria, Iran, etc). The US treasury department publishes a list. Admittedly, this is only the voluntary actions but I am certain there are involuntary actions as well (ie: criminal cases). See the entry about Varian (Switzerland) for a specific example of what I am talking about.

The point is: they ARE subject to US law via eBay owning them.

if you're curious how the spectrum is allocated, see here: http://www.ntia.doc.gov/osmhome/allochrt.pdf

Umm, it's not a check either. It's a $40 voucher good only as a discount on the price of a converter box. It has no cash value (and since it should be easy to get one, selling it wouldn't be profitable either)

The FAQ for the program is here:

http://www.ntia.doc.gov/dtvcoupon/faq.html

For more information, this (pdf) chart is pretty nice (US only). It's a little outdated (Oct 2003).

1. This has nothing to do with the OLPC Project submitting to the terms of the Fedora Project Individual Contributor License Agreement. It also has NOTHING to do with the GPL. These don't matter, period. The OLPC project is run by Americans, in Cambridge from what I gather. This means that the OLPC project was already subject to US export regulations, regardless of any license agreement or what have you.
2. Yes, the hardware is also subject to US export regulations
3. The Fedora Project Wiki entry for Legal/Export is outdated and inaccurate. For example, Iraq is still listed under "Embargoed Destinations". Iraq is not embargoed (*somehow* that changed when we invaded)
4. There are two US agencies that are important when discussing the Cuba sanctions/embargo. The Department of Commerce and the Treasury Department.
   • Here's a nice 6 page overview of the US embargo of Cuba from the Office of Foreign Assets Control (Treasury). Notice the text stating:
     To whom do these sanctions regulations apply?All U.S. citizens and permanent residents wherever they are located, all people and organizations physically in the United States, and all branches and subsidiaries of U.S. organizations throughout the world
   • And here's a nice overview from the Bureau of Industry and Security (Commerce) discussing exports and reexports to Cuba. Note that you will need to obtain a license from BIS for shipping something like an Xbox or OLPC to Cuba. Also note that there is a general policy of denial in place (meaning it's unlikely that these exports will be authorized by BIS)
5. No, you can't be a "middle man" or you'd be violating US export control regulations. There are these pesky things called General Prohibitions that, you know, "prohibit" certain things. General Prohibition 10 in Part 736 of the Export Administration Regulations states:
   You may not sell, transfer, export, reexport, finance, order, buy, remove, conceal, store, use, loan, dispose of, transfer, transport, forward, or otherwise service, in whole or in part, any item subject to the EAR and exported or to be exported with knowledge that a violation of the Export Administration Regulations, the Export Administration Act or any order, license, License Exception, or other authorization issued thereunder has occurred, is about to occur, or is intended to occur in connection with the item

Well son of a bitch, I thought this was a troll, but when I read the requirements, it's spelled out pretty clearly:

"The antiboycott laws were adopted to encourage, and in specified cases, require U.S. firms to refuse to participate in foreign boycotts that the United States does not sanction. They have the effect of preventing U.S. firms from being used to implement foreign policies of other nations which run counter to U.S. policy."

If that isn't as interventionist as it gets, I don't know what is. That's just flat out nuts!

From my point of view the only difference is that Israel due to historical reason has a stronger lobby in the US, and the US a veto in the security council.

That, and in the US you can be fined $50,000 and imprisoned for 5 years for knowingly participating in a boycott of Israeli goods.

Boycott Israel!

There. Now every US citizen or resident who reads this post must go and report to the Dept of Thought Pol^H^H^H^H^H Commerce within 3 months, good little comrades that you are.

Many people don't know, but the US exerts complete juristication and control over exports. I would have thought MS-Vista falls under the "publicly available" software exemption, but this wouldn't cover ITAR rules on munitions (incl encryption).

Yep some of your statements are correct for civialian frequencies (see the link freq Aloc chart). The FCC packs channels as tight as they can especially in the civilian space where there isn't that much bandwidth available. In the Avionics space the frequency spacing was based on the sensitivity of the filters at creation date and that was back in (1940s) for DME VOR TACAN (the cell phones nieghbour frequencies).

Example DME (distance measuring equipment) has 1 Mhz spacing in between channels. Thats huge when you look at how selective the modern filters are. Also the FCC puts a buffer between technologies example DME's lowest used frequency is 977 Mhz but the FCC alocated 960 as the lowest frequency. The highest frequency on the low band of cell is 850 Mhz,Thats 127 times the needed selectivity bandwidth.

http://www.icao.int/anb/panels/acp/wg/f/wgf16/ACP- WGF16-WP30-Rev2%20-%20Proposed%25

http://www.ntia.doc.gov/osmhome/allochrt.pdf

And that would have to do with the type of modulation. FM has that nice thing called capture that will actively mute weaker signals. In airlines with ATC, you dont want this*. AM would be preferable, as it allows everybody to be heard.

Not sure what you are saying here as Analog cell phones use FM modulation and they are pretty clean also no Air Traffic Communication (ATC) frequency band is close to the cell bands of 800, 850 or 1900 Mhz. The most commonly used Aircraft com device is the VHF radio at with the highest used freq of 108 MHz - 88Mhz.

They are not all foreign nationals. From http://www.bis.doc.gov/dpl/thedeniallist.asp , is "Omega Engineering", http://www.omega.com/cservice/bdwo.html , a respected supplier of process control equipment located in Stamford CT http://maps.google.com/maps?f=q&hl=en&q=omega+driv e+Stamford+CT&sll=37.0625,-95.677068&sspn=59.11905 9,95.537109&layer=&ie=UTF8&z=15&ll=41.089573,-73.5 25872&spn=0.027913,0.060725&om=1 Omega is not a fly-by-night operation; I can remember getting their catalogs over 10 years ago and had a former neighbor who worked there.

No, just because they are currently getting away with it by no means makes it legal. From OFAC:
"TRANSACTIONS INVOLVING U.S. AFFILIATES - No U.S. person
may approve or facilitate the entry into or performance of transactions
or contracts with Iran by a foreign subsidiary of a U.S. firm that the
U.S. person is precluded from performing directly. Similarly, no U.S.
person may facilitate such transactions by unaffiliated foreign persons."

Right now it's not in the best interest of the BIS or the Tresury Department to pursue the matter, but don't think they won't in the future. Most charges that are brought against companies don't appear until years after the violation, take a look at a few, look at some of the names of the companies that thought what they were doing was legal.

The BIS has a very long memory and for all we know, they're still putting a case together. If they're going to take on a serving administration's pet company, you'd have to be sure you have your ducks in a row and saluting.

I mean, come on now, you really think that if they didn't have a sitting Vice President in their back pocket that they would REALLY allow their spokeswoman to talk right out of her ass like that?

Any ability to record, qualifies as a disqualifying 'feature'.
Manufacturing Document http://www.ntia.doc.gov/otiahome/dtv/DTVmanufactur ers.pdf

I for one welcome our new coupon-bearing DRM overlords.