The exact same thing happens no matter how you communicate the message - in person, phone, tweet, email, snail mail, etc. It is always about a point in time. So put a timestamp on the message.
What if someone phones and says they're safe... What if someone emails and says they're safe... What if someone tweets and says they're safe... What if someone walks by and says they're safe...
Obviously, "I'm safe" refers to a point in time. So put a timestamp on it. Better yet, put a 'request update' button on the safe status so the person will know that someone is concerned and he should re-post the safe message.
Sure, you would notify your immediate family and friends, but what about that guy you used to work with? Or those people you collaborated with on a project 10 years ago? Or the people you went to school with?
The judge does not fail at either constitutional law or logic. You, however, most definitely do.
The judge is issuing a warrant based on the officers testimony that there is good reason to believe evidence will be found. Said evidence (not the officers belief), if found, will then be used at trial.
The jury is looking at the actual evidence, not the officers belief.
Your idiotic 'logic' would imply that either a) actual evidence is not required at a trial, just officers testimony, or b) that the judge would need the actual evidence to support a warrant to look for the actual evidence.
They did not 'enforce' the contract, they said it was void. Therefore, the 'sale' of the ticket happened without a contract. Selling your ticket is legal. However, since he sold more than his share, they took the rest back. The only way you could make the claim that they enforced the contract would be if the 'sale' had not occurred (ie he still had possession of the ticket), and they made him give the mistress half the money. This obviously did not happen, or the husband would not have sued.
And if I meant flat-bedding I would have used the words flat-bedding. But since I meant towing (as in what a tow truck will do) I used the word 'tow'. Putting dollies under one set of wheels and lifting the other end of the car is towing. Flat-bedding is of course another option. Furthermore, the article did not say 'tow', it said 'vehicle cannot be pushed nor transported to a repair facility by traditional means.' Towing and flat-bedding are both fairly traditional means, and are both quite easily accomplished by any towing service.
A fairly good way to determine if an article is really an unbiased report or a complete hatchet job is to look for easily disproved hyperbole, and that statement certainly qualifies. If they're willing to make up such a stupid statement as that, why lend any credence to anything else in the article?
This sounds like complete BS to me. What court is going to force someone to perform an illegal act just because they have a contract? Got any citations?
Who cares what the pimp thinks? Unless there is a law (there isn't) or a valid contract (there isn't) stating that the hooker owes the pimp, she doesn't legally owe him anything. The victims in this case are the people who were scammed, and the criminal is the person who has their money. The fact that someone else was attempting to take the money doesn't make them 'victims'.
That 'can not be towed' statement is really dumb. Lots of illegally parked cars have wheels that won't turn (transmission in park, parking brake on). Yet they still manage to tow them quite successfully. Jack up the car and put dollies under the wheels. What could be more 'traditional' than that? Sounds like this guys 'traditional means' involve 20ft of rope and an old pickup truck.
That's kind of a useless metric, isn't it? Ideally ALL of the products that succeed in challenging the FDA should never have issues. Now, what about all the products that FAILED at challenging the FDA, or never even bothered to challenge?
Yes, yes, you are missing something. Never before has anyone conceived of a device to surreptitiously listen in on someone and broadcast that to a remote location. I mean, it's not like that is in every spy movie, Mission Impossible episode, and cop show ever created. And even more amazing, it lets you listen ON THE INTERNET! Can you imaging that?? Sound on the internet? How revolutionary. But the main feature you are missing is the fact that it is so easy to hide. No more trying to squeeze all those electronics into something conspicuous like a thumbtack. This looks like a GRENADE, so it can easily be hidden amongst all the other Soviet grenades that commonly are in executive offices and conference rooms.
Are you capable of thought? If so, does the the phrase "the device must accept any interference" make even the slightest bit of sense as a technical statement? That would mean that having ANY filtering would be illegal. For the phrase to mean what you think it means, it would have to say "the device must REJECT any interference".
But clearly, the statement does not say that. You know why? Because it is not a technical statement, it is a USAGE statement. "The device must accept any interference, including interference that may cause undesired operation" means that, as a USER you have NO regulatory protection against interference. If the device is interfered with, too bad.
If a Part 15 transmitter does cause interference to authorized radio communications, even if the transmitter complies with all of the technical standards and equipment authorization requirements in the FCC rules, then its operator will be required to cease operation, at least until the interference problem is corrected. That is part (1) of your quoted statement.
Part 15 transmitters receive no regulatory protection from interference. That is your "must accept interference" statement.
The compliance label indicates to consumers that the transmitter was authorized under Part 15 of the FCC rules and that it may not cause, nor is it protected from, harmful interference. That is the whole statement. How you manage to twist that into "the device must continue working normally even when there is interference, or it is not compliant with regulations" is beyond me.
OK, so if you going to claim I am wrong, show me YOUR citation of regulations regarding the technical operation of receivers (specifically regulations that would apply to GPS receivers). Show me the regulation that says receivers are 'certified' and that they have to reject interference or they are not compliant.
Satellite receiving antennas have nothing to do with the regulations that people are quoting here. That is just a red herring.
Not this type 15 nonsense again. Type 15 regulates RF EMISSIONS from unlicensed devices. Period. GPS devices are only type 15 because they have oscillators, so they unintentionally emit RF. Since they are not intentionally transmitting anything, the 'must accept all interference' rule has no meaning. The rule says nothing at all about receivers.
Receivers are not regulated. There is no 'certification' (other than making sure their RF emissions are OK). Receivers are designed based on the design criteria, which includes knowing how 'loud' the adjacent bands are. That loudness is controlled by regulation.
Certainly I can provide a citation, straight from the FCC itself. See if you can find any reference to receivers in there.
I clearly said that they certify both intentional and UNINTENTIONAL transmitters. TVs and radios have oscillators in them, both for tuning and for digital processing. An oscillator means you have an unintentional transmitter. The only thing they are certifying is that the EMISSIONS from the device are within limits. They don't do anything at all with the receiver portion.
Some quotes from that document:
Page 3: The certification procedure requires that tests be performed to measure the levels of radio frequency energy that are radiated by the device into the open air or conducted by the device onto the power lines. That's it. Just measure levels of RF at different frequencies. There is a chart in the doc that lists the permissible levels across the spectrum. There is nothing in the certification that says a device is doing (or is suitable for doing) anything in particular, just that the RF emissions are legal.
Page 5: If a Part 15 transmitter does cause interference to authorized radio communications, even if the transmitter complies with all of the technical standards and equipment authorization requirements in the FCC rules, then its operator will be required to cease operation, at least until the interference problem is corrected. That is what is meant by "The device must not cause interference" on the label.
Page 5: Part 15 transmitters receive no regulatory protection from interference. That is what is meant by "The device must accept all interference" on the label.
Except that when these houses were built there were noise ordinances in effect for many years, and they still are in effect now. Now megaphone man comes in and says 'damn the noise ordinances, I am going to use my megaphone anyway'. And when he gets slapped down, he cries about the house builders.
If the ham radio operator is operating legally, he is indeed off the hook. And that is the key - legally. The TV manufacturers know what the maximum legal power levels are that they have to reject at different frequencies. If they reject those things, and the ham is operating legally, there is no problem. If the ham is operating legally and there is still interference, then the neighbor has a crappy TV and that is his problem, not the ham's. However, if the ham is operating illegally (too much power), then it is not the fault of the TV manufacturer for not rejecting that signal, it is the ham's problem.
Lightsquared wants to operate 'illegally' and still shift the blame to the device manufacturers.
Please define 'proper filters'. To my mind, a 'proper filter' is one which does the job it was designed to do. In this case, the job they were designed to do was filter out adjacent band signals at a very low power level, because the only adjacent band signals that are allowed by law are at a very low power level. If you were designing the device, would you design it to filter out signals a million times stronger than what can legally be there? Assuming you actually did that, how are you going to convince anyone to buy your device that costs 10X what everyone else's device costs? Buy my product! It is far superior! It filters out things that don't even exist!
How do you expect them to prove they can conform if they don't have a license to run at those levels? Getting a license to operate at low levels, then operating a high levels so you can prove you didn't interfere is not exactly a way to get the FCC on your side. The FCC did it exactly right - "we don't think this will work, but we will give you a license to prove us wrong".
The FCC only certifies TRANSMITTERS (both intentional and unintentional transmitters). GPS receivers are not transmitters.
The "must not interfere" and "must accept all interference" rules which people on here are so fond of quoting have nothing to do with technical requirements. If they were technical requirements the consumer would have no reason to know about them. They are USAGE requirements. "Must not interfere" means that, even if your type accepted device is operating 100% properly, if it is causing interference with licensed operations you must stop using it. "Must accept all interference" means that if something (licensed or unlicensed) is interfering with your transmissions, that is just too bad.
Would you quit posting this bullshit! They did not 'make a presumption' that the adjacent spectrum would be quiet, there were (and are) regulations saying that the adjacent spectrum IS quiet. And, once again, receivers (of any sort) ARE NOT LICENSED.
Slashdot Mirror
The exact same thing happens no matter how you communicate the message - in person, phone, tweet, email, snail mail, etc. It is always about a point in time. So put a timestamp on the message.
What if someone phones and says they're safe...
What if someone emails and says they're safe...
What if someone tweets and says they're safe...
What if someone walks by and says they're safe...
Obviously, "I'm safe" refers to a point in time. So put a timestamp on it. Better yet, put a 'request update' button on the safe status so the person will know that someone is concerned and he should re-post the safe message.
Sure, you would notify your immediate family and friends, but what about that guy you used to work with? Or those people you collaborated with on a project 10 years ago? Or the people you went to school with?
$0.12/TB up to 10TB, $0.09 for the NEXT 40TB. So 10TB is $1199.88 (first GB is free)
Eh, no. The $0.09 price starts at 10TB, so you pay $1200 for the first 10TB, then the price drops for any data over 10TB.
You think IBM gets the money when Buffett (or anyone else) buys stock?
The judge does not fail at either constitutional law or logic. You, however, most definitely do.
The judge is issuing a warrant based on the officers testimony that there is good reason to believe evidence will be found. Said evidence (not the officers belief), if found, will then be used at trial.
The jury is looking at the actual evidence, not the officers belief.
Your idiotic 'logic' would imply that either a) actual evidence is not required at a trial, just officers testimony, or b) that the judge would need the actual evidence to support a warrant to look for the actual evidence.
They did not 'enforce' the contract, they said it was void. Therefore, the 'sale' of the ticket happened without a contract. Selling your ticket is legal. However, since he sold more than his share, they took the rest back. The only way you could make the claim that they enforced the contract would be if the 'sale' had not occurred (ie he still had possession of the ticket), and they made him give the mistress half the money. This obviously did not happen, or the husband would not have sued.
BTW - the word is welch.
And if I meant flat-bedding I would have used the words flat-bedding. But since I meant towing (as in what a tow truck will do) I used the word 'tow'. Putting dollies under one set of wheels and lifting the other end of the car is towing. Flat-bedding is of course another option. Furthermore, the article did not say 'tow', it said 'vehicle cannot be pushed nor transported to a repair facility by traditional means.' Towing and flat-bedding are both fairly traditional means, and are both quite easily accomplished by any towing service.
A fairly good way to determine if an article is really an unbiased report or a complete hatchet job is to look for easily disproved hyperbole, and that statement certainly qualifies. If they're willing to make up such a stupid statement as that, why lend any credence to anything else in the article?
This sounds like complete BS to me. What court is going to force someone to perform an illegal act just because they have a contract? Got any citations?
Who cares what the pimp thinks? Unless there is a law (there isn't) or a valid contract (there isn't) stating that the hooker owes the pimp, she doesn't legally owe him anything. The victims in this case are the people who were scammed, and the criminal is the person who has their money. The fact that someone else was attempting to take the money doesn't make them 'victims'.
That 'can not be towed' statement is really dumb. Lots of illegally parked cars have wheels that won't turn (transmission in park, parking brake on). Yet they still manage to tow them quite successfully. Jack up the car and put dollies under the wheels. What could be more 'traditional' than that? Sounds like this guys 'traditional means' involve 20ft of rope and an old pickup truck.
That's kind of a useless metric, isn't it? Ideally ALL of the products that succeed in challenging the FDA should never have issues. Now, what about all the products that FAILED at challenging the FDA, or never even bothered to challenge?
Yes, yes, you are missing something. Never before has anyone conceived of a device to surreptitiously listen in on someone and broadcast that to a remote location. I mean, it's not like that is in every spy movie, Mission Impossible episode, and cop show ever created. And even more amazing, it lets you listen ON THE INTERNET! Can you imaging that?? Sound on the internet? How revolutionary. But the main feature you are missing is the fact that it is so easy to hide. No more trying to squeeze all those electronics into something conspicuous like a thumbtack. This looks like a GRENADE, so it can easily be hidden amongst all the other Soviet grenades that commonly are in executive offices and conference rooms.
Are you capable of thought? If so, does the the phrase "the device must accept any interference" make even the slightest bit of sense as a technical statement? That would mean that having ANY filtering would be illegal. For the phrase to mean what you think it means, it would have to say "the device must REJECT any interference".
But clearly, the statement does not say that. You know why? Because it is not a technical statement, it is a USAGE statement. "The device must accept any interference, including interference that may cause undesired operation" means that, as a USER you have NO regulatory protection against interference. If the device is interfered with, too bad.
To quote from the FCC document:
If a Part 15 transmitter does cause interference to authorized radio communications, even if the transmitter complies with all of the technical standards and equipment authorization requirements in the FCC rules, then its operator will be required to cease operation, at least until the interference problem is corrected.
That is part (1) of your quoted statement.
Part 15 transmitters receive no regulatory protection from interference.
That is your "must accept interference" statement.
The compliance label indicates to consumers that the transmitter was authorized under Part 15 of the FCC rules and that it may not cause, nor is it protected from, harmful interference.
That is the whole statement. How you manage to twist that into "the device must continue working normally even when there is interference, or it is not compliant with regulations" is beyond me.
OK, so if you going to claim I am wrong, show me YOUR citation of regulations regarding the technical operation of receivers (specifically regulations that would apply to GPS receivers). Show me the regulation that says receivers are 'certified' and that they have to reject interference or they are not compliant.
Satellite receiving antennas have nothing to do with the regulations that people are quoting here. That is just a red herring.
Not this type 15 nonsense again. Type 15 regulates RF EMISSIONS from unlicensed devices. Period. GPS devices are only type 15 because they have oscillators, so they unintentionally emit RF. Since they are not intentionally transmitting anything, the 'must accept all interference' rule has no meaning. The rule says nothing at all about receivers.
Receivers are not regulated. There is no 'certification' (other than making sure their RF emissions are OK). Receivers are designed based on the design criteria, which includes knowing how 'loud' the adjacent bands are. That loudness is controlled by regulation.
Certainly I can provide a citation, straight from the FCC itself. See if you can find any reference to receivers in there.
I clearly said that they certify both intentional and UNINTENTIONAL transmitters. TVs and radios have oscillators in them, both for tuning and for digital processing. An oscillator means you have an unintentional transmitter. The only thing they are certifying is that the EMISSIONS from the device are within limits. They don't do anything at all with the receiver portion.
Some quotes from that document:
Page 3: The certification procedure requires that tests be performed to measure the levels of radio frequency energy that are radiated by the device into the open air or conducted by the device onto the power lines. That's it. Just measure levels of RF at different frequencies. There is a chart in the doc that lists the permissible levels across the spectrum. There is nothing in the certification that says a device is doing (or is suitable for doing) anything in particular, just that the RF emissions are legal.
Page 5: If a Part 15 transmitter does cause interference to authorized radio communications, even if the transmitter complies with all of the technical standards and equipment authorization requirements in the FCC rules, then its operator will be required to cease operation, at least until the interference problem is corrected. That is what is meant by "The device must not cause interference" on the label.
Page 5: Part 15 transmitters receive no regulatory protection from interference. That is what is meant by "The device must accept all interference" on the label.
Everything I stated was 100% accurate.
Except that when these houses were built there were noise ordinances in effect for many years, and they still are in effect now. Now megaphone man comes in and says 'damn the noise ordinances, I am going to use my megaphone anyway'. And when he gets slapped down, he cries about the house builders.
FAA certification has exactly what to do with FCC certification?
If the ham radio operator is operating legally, he is indeed off the hook. And that is the key - legally. The TV manufacturers know what the maximum legal power levels are that they have to reject at different frequencies. If they reject those things, and the ham is operating legally, there is no problem. If the ham is operating legally and there is still interference, then the neighbor has a crappy TV and that is his problem, not the ham's. However, if the ham is operating illegally (too much power), then it is not the fault of the TV manufacturer for not rejecting that signal, it is the ham's problem.
Lightsquared wants to operate 'illegally' and still shift the blame to the device manufacturers.
Please define 'proper filters'. To my mind, a 'proper filter' is one which does the job it was designed to do. In this case, the job they were designed to do was filter out adjacent band signals at a very low power level, because the only adjacent band signals that are allowed by law are at a very low power level. If you were designing the device, would you design it to filter out signals a million times stronger than what can legally be there? Assuming you actually did that, how are you going to convince anyone to buy your device that costs 10X what everyone else's device costs? Buy my product! It is far superior! It filters out things that don't even exist!
How do you expect them to prove they can conform if they don't have a license to run at those levels? Getting a license to operate at low levels, then operating a high levels so you can prove you didn't interfere is not exactly a way to get the FCC on your side. The FCC did it exactly right - "we don't think this will work, but we will give you a license to prove us wrong".
The FCC only certifies TRANSMITTERS (both intentional and unintentional transmitters). GPS receivers are not transmitters.
The "must not interfere" and "must accept all interference" rules which people on here are so fond of quoting have nothing to do with technical requirements. If they were technical requirements the consumer would have no reason to know about them. They are USAGE requirements. "Must not interfere" means that, even if your type accepted device is operating 100% properly, if it is causing interference with licensed operations you must stop using it. "Must accept all interference" means that if something (licensed or unlicensed) is interfering with your transmissions, that is just too bad.
Would you quit posting this bullshit! They did not 'make a presumption' that the adjacent spectrum would be quiet, there were (and are) regulations saying that the adjacent spectrum IS quiet. And, once again, receivers (of any sort) ARE NOT LICENSED.