People eat organic because they perceive it is healthier or more nutritious or tastier (or all of the above) or because it is fashionable to do so.
That may be your opinion, but of the dozens of people I know who eat organic food, the reason is to avoid pesticides and insecticides, because we do not trust the government "safety standard."
Slashdot is run by dummies and corporate shills. There is no other explanation for finding this article posted today, including only the most stale information, and somehow overlooking the revelations which have come to light in the last week.
People, like me, who buy organic foods are not under any misimpression that organic foods contain more vitamins. That is stupid. We are trying to avoid the pesticides and insecticides, which are not safe in any quantity.
That said, why is Slashdot running this article? It came out over a week ago. Since then, we have learned that Monsanto and Cargill funded the research group at Stanford. That is why the study's conclusion is disingenuous and makes no sense. The study discredits an idea that people never should have held -- that organic foods contain more vitamins by weight. This is the first volley in an attempt to attack the USDA labelling regulations around the word "organic."
Think about this for a minute: Which would you expect to have more vitamins? An organic strawberry fertilized with cow manure, or an inorganic strawberry fertilized with chemicals optimized for that purpose. Obviously, the inorganic strawberry. Anybody can figure this out. That's why the study has nothing to do with the actual reasons people choose organic.
Anybody who follows reddit already knows this study is a corporate shill. The "news standards" at slashdot are ridiculous. The right-wing bent of the editors is glaring. Soulskill, in particular, you are a dork.
Lately I have seen a huge number of articles showing up on slashdot days after they made the headlines on reddit. Slashdot is no longer a source of information. Reddit has replaced slashdot.
> why don't we all give up now and not do anything at all just in case we could be sued afterwards for having done something..
It's one thing to "not do anything" as you exaggerate.
It's completely different to "not do stupidly dangerous things." Implementing public safety dispatch out of unreliable equipment would be a stupidly dangerous thing to do, not just some random "anything." Dispatching the fire department is deadly serious business, not something to goof around and hack on.
This post makes a very good point. What is going to happen to you, personally, when a call is lost for some reason, a person dies, and a lawsuit follows?
I've been kind of curious about this idea lately: What if we sat in hot tubs at our desks?
I predict the buoyancy would reduce the weight supported by our buttocks, so that we would be more comfortable.
I suspect the pressure of even 24 inches of water would assist in pushing venous blood out of our legs. This would improve our circulation and reduce the chance of blood clots forming.
In conclusion, desk workers would gain the benefit of at-work hot-tubbing. What could be more awesome?
In order to avoid "pruning up" the skin, the "water" could be an isotonic solution of dissolved salts.
Thoughts? I have been considering this because I developed a closed venous ulcer on my shin before I turned 40...
I think it is "remarkable" that a subject in an antidepressant trial was given placebos, and attempted suicide. That seems a rather poor situation to put a depressed person in.
Wow are you a 12-year old? The reason I'm posting this is the laws should be changed. Educating the population which is or could be affected by these laws is my effort to change these laws.
Personally, I'd like to sell an SDR, but I can't because of the law.
They aren't my laws, they are the laws of the United States. Live within the borders and ignore the laws at your own peril. It would be better if you tried to change them, rather than name-calling and making an abject fool of yourself.
What are you doing to improve the United States? I assume nothing.
Test equipment is defined in 47 CFR 15.3 (dd). However, your reference to 47 CFR 15.121(c) is helpful -- it indicates that "scanning receiver" laws may be surmountable. The SDR regulations seem to still apply. I realize the intention may have been to cover transmitters, but the regulation covers all Software Defined "Radios."
By the way, "Title 47" doesn't disambiguate 47 CFR (regulations, written by the FCC) from 47 USC (laws, written by Congress).
What, do you want me to the entire Title 47 of US Code? Anyway, I'll save you the trouble of finding this:
TITLE III—PROVISIONS RELATING TO RADIO
PART I GENERAL PROVISIONS
SEC. 302. [47 U.S.C. 302] DEVICES WHICH INTERFERE WITH RADIO RECEPTION.
(b) No person shall manufacture, import, sell, offer for sale, or ship devices or home electronic equipment and systems, or use devices, which fail to comply with regulations promulgated pursuant to this section.
[...]
TITLE V—PENAL PROVISIONS – FORFEITURES
SEC. 501. [47 U.S.C. 501] GENERAL PENALTY.
Any person who willfully and knowingly does or causes or suffers to be done any act, matter, or thing, in this Act prohibited or declared to be unlawful, or who willfully and knowingly omits or fails to do any act, matter, or thing in this Act required to be done, or willfully and knowingly causes or suffers such omission or failure, shall upon conviction thereof, be punished for such offense, for which no penalty (other than a forfeiture) is provided in this Act, by a fine of not more than $10,000 or by imprisonment for a term not exceeding one year, or both; except that any person, having been once convicted of an offense punishable under this section, who is subsequently convicted of violating any provision of this Act punishable under this section, shall be punished by a fine of not more than $10,000 or by imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years, or both.
Again, to reiterate, the ability to receive cell phone signals, pager signals, or copyright-bit-set ASTC is elsewhere defined as "interference." I dunno if I already posted a reference to that, but I assure you, it's in there.
Also, be aware that home-built equipment are excluded, provided they are never marketed, and you build no more than five of them. Kits, however, are not excluded from the regulations.
It's a violation of a different law if you use a home built device to actually listen to a "private conversation," whatever that is when broadcast in the clear. I would assume cell phone conversations (AMPS or digital) and pager traffic would automatically be included in that, as they are explicitly mentioned in the USC.
Again, you have not read the laws I cited a few of. Receivers which can tune to AMPS are illegal. Receivers must not cause interference, and the definition of interference includes the ability to receiver cell phone signals. See 47 CFR 302A (d):
(d) Cellular telecommunications receivers
(1) Within 180 days after October 28, 1992, the Commission shall prescribe and make effective regulations denying equipment authorization (under part 15 of title 47, Code of Federal Regulations, or any other part of that title) for any scanning receiver that is capable of—
(A) receiving transmissions in the frequencies allocated to the domestic cellular radio telecommunications service,
(B) readily being altered by the user to receive transmissions in such frequencies, or
(C) being equipped with decoders that convert digital cellular transmissions to analog voice audio.
(2) Beginning 1 year after the effective date of the regulations adopted pursuant to paragraph (1), no receiver having the capabilities described in subparagraph (A), (B), or (C) of paragraph (1), as such capabilities are defined in such regulations, shall be manufactured in the United States or imported for use in the United States.
A key definition is "scanning receiver":
(v) Scanning receiver. For the purpose of this part, this is a receiver that automatically switches among two or more frequencies in the range of 30 to 960 MHz and that is capable of stopping at and receiving a radio signal detected on a frequency. Receivers designed solely for the reception of the broadcast signals under part 73 of this chapter, for the reception of NOAA broadcast weather band signals, or for operation as part of a licensed service are not included in this definition.
I submit to you the legal theory that an SDR receiver is a scanning receiver. I could be wrong, but it would depend on the mood of a judge.
You haven't read the laws or the regulations I cited in context. In particular, the laws define "interference" from a receiver as being able to listen to AMPS or to decode a digital cell phone or pager signal. I realize that isn't "interference" in any scientific definition, but the law defines it as such, and that's what will count in court.
It would be good to change the laws and federal regulations in the United States so that using SDRs would become legal. The current situation is an attempt to enforce "privacy through obscurity" by outlawing radios which could possibly intercept cell phone, pager, or radiotelephone communications (47 USC 302). It is also an attempt to enforce "copyright through obscurity" by requiring that FCC-approved devices respect copyright bits (47 USC 605). All of these problems would be better solved with cryptography. Remember the Clipper chip? That would have been a better path to choose than the current situation.
A few of the relevant obstructions in the form FCC regulations and laws are: 47 USC 2.501, 47 USC 302, 47 USC 605, 47 CFR 2.944, 47 CFR 15.3 (dd).
47 CFR 2.944:
Software defined radios.
(a) Manufacturers must take steps to ensure that only software that has been approved with a software defined radio can be loaded into the radio. The software must not allow the user to operate the transmitter with operating frequencies, output power, modulation types or other radio frequency parameters outside those that were approved. Manufacturers may use means including, but not limited to the use of a private network that allows only authenticated users to download software, electronic signatures in software or coding in hardware that is decoded by software to verify that new software can be legally loaded into a device to meet these requirements and must describe the methods in their application for equipment authorization.
(b) Any radio in which the software is designed or expected to be modified by a party other than the manufacturer and would affect the operating parameters of frequency range, modulation type or maximum output power (either radiated or conducted), or the circumstances under which the transmitter operates in accordance with Commission rules, must comply with the requirements in paragraph (a) of this section and must be certified as a software defined radio.
(c) Applications for certification of software defined radios must include a high level operational description or flow diagram of the software that controls the radio frequency operating parameters.
[70 FR 23039, May 4, 2005]
The penalty for a violation is forfeiture, a fine of up to $10,000, and up to one year in federal prison. See 47 USC sec. 501 This applies to person who purchase the radios as well as persons who sell them. See 47 USC sec. 500 et. seq.
Various internet sources assert that SDRs are "test equipment" and excluded under 47 CFR 15.3 (dd), which reads:
(dd) Test equipment is defined as equipment that is intended primarily for purposes of performing measurements or scientific investigations. Such equipment includes, but is not limited to, field strength meters, spectrum analyzers, and modulation monitors.
I find it difficult to believe the FCC would classify the various SDRs as test equipment, but we will probably find out soon enough.
Before you downvote me because you don't like the laws; consider this: I posted this information because we must change these laws rather than suffer them.
Oh, no, it's not a mystery. The animosity comes from ignorance and lack of ability. Many newer programmers have never programmed in assembly language or C, and would not be able to build a computer out of logic chips. This same demographic has learned Java and believes that Hashmap is a magic O(1) thing you can just smear onto any algorithm.
C was initially popular among people who were, in fact, able to build computers out of 7400-series logic, or even transistors, if need be.
In other words, the animosity comes from those who aren't qualified to judge.
Is it possible for the employees to use the app? Is the app an important part of the business development plan?
I ask, OP, because the app is important enough to marketing that they asked, by email, for employees to astroturf. Yet you are observing that few employees have used the app. Why is there this disconnect in the perceived importance of the app?
I would think that installing Chinese-sourced electronics in F-15s might lead to a compromise of the F-15s availability in war time.
I thought the US had experience in supplying sabotage parts to the former USSR, I am surprised we would buy parts from a nation that is less than our best friend.
Caltech operates a federal lab, the Jet Propulsion Laboratory in Pasadena, and receives federal money to do so. The Institute ("Universtiy") is run from that source of funding.
Requiring assignment of employee's rights to inventions — Conditions.
(1) A provision in an employment agreement which provides that an employee shall assign or offer to assign any of the employee's rights in an invention to the employer does not apply to an invention for which no equipment, supplies, facilities, or trade secret information of the employer was used and which was developed entirely on the employee's own time, unless (a) the invention relates (i) directly to the business of the employer, or (ii) to the employer's actual or demonstrably anticipated research or development, or (b) the invention results from any work performed by the employee for the employer. Any provision which purports to apply to such an invention is to that extent against the public policy of this state and is to that extent void and unenforceable.
(2) An employer shall not require a provision made void and unenforceable by subsection (1) of this section as a condition of employment or continuing employment.
(3) If an employment agreement entered into after September 1, 1979, contains a provision requiring the employee to assign any of the employee's rights in any invention to the employer, the employer must also, at the time the agreement is made, provide a written notification to the employee that the agreement does not apply to an invention for which no equipment, supplies, facility, or trade secret information of the employer was used and which was developed entirely on the employee's own time, unless (a) the invention relates (i) directly to the business of the employer, or (ii) to the employer's actual or demonstrably anticipated research or development, or (b) the invention results from any work preformed [performed] by the employee for the employer.
No. The altitude is one variable. Another is orbital plane, or angle. Some satellites move directly above the equator. Most orbital craft do not, and track a sinusoidal ground path which crosses the equator.
The altitude of these craft is related to the energy they expend getting to orbit. In that sense, the altitudes are correlated by the rocket type.
The orbital plane has to do with the launch location and time, as well as maneuvers made to change the plane.
Slashdot Mirror
People eat organic because they perceive it is healthier or more nutritious or tastier (or all of the above) or because it is fashionable to do so.
That may be your opinion, but of the dozens of people I know who eat organic food, the reason is to avoid pesticides and insecticides, because we do not trust the government "safety standard."
Why are there so many studies on nutritional content when that's not why most people eat organic?
Because the people Monsanto wants to fool aren't consumers; they are congressional Representatives and Senators.
Slashdot is run by dummies and corporate shills. There is no other explanation for finding this article posted today, including only the most stale information, and somehow overlooking the revelations which have come to light in the last week.
People, like me, who buy organic foods are not under any misimpression that organic foods contain more vitamins. That is stupid. We are trying to avoid the pesticides and insecticides, which are not safe in any quantity.
That said, why is Slashdot running this article? It came out over a week ago. Since then, we have learned that Monsanto and Cargill funded the research group at Stanford. That is why the study's conclusion is disingenuous and makes no sense. The study discredits an idea that people never should have held -- that organic foods contain more vitamins by weight. This is the first volley in an attempt to attack the USDA labelling regulations around the word "organic."
Think about this for a minute: Which would you expect to have more vitamins? An organic strawberry fertilized with cow manure, or an inorganic strawberry fertilized with chemicals optimized for that purpose. Obviously, the inorganic strawberry. Anybody can figure this out. That's why the study has nothing to do with the actual reasons people choose organic.
Anybody who follows reddit already knows this study is a corporate shill. The "news standards" at slashdot are ridiculous. The right-wing bent of the editors is glaring. Soulskill, in particular, you are a dork.
Lately I have seen a huge number of articles showing up on slashdot days after they made the headlines on reddit. Slashdot is no longer a source of information. Reddit has replaced slashdot.
> why don't we all give up now and not do anything at all just in case we could be sued afterwards for having done something..
It's one thing to "not do anything" as you exaggerate.
It's completely different to "not do stupidly dangerous things." Implementing public safety dispatch out of unreliable equipment would be a stupidly dangerous thing to do, not just some random "anything." Dispatching the fire department is deadly serious business, not something to goof around and hack on.
This post makes a very good point. What is going to happen to you, personally, when a call is lost for some reason, a person dies, and a lawsuit follows?
Gosh that sounds like juror misconduct.
I have read articles praising DRM in 2600
What article was that? I have a feeling you misunderstood some legally circumscribed sarcasm.
Are you suggesting that versions of Windows subsequent to XP are secure? I ask because that assertion would be: False.
Wait, you talked to a lawyer, and the lawyer told you the only good legal advice is the kind you pay for? Sounds unbiased to me!
Augh! That's how to undo a wrong mod. Thanks for the example.
I've been kind of curious about this idea lately: What if we sat in hot tubs at our desks?
I predict the buoyancy would reduce the weight supported by our buttocks, so that we would be more comfortable.
I suspect the pressure of even 24 inches of water would assist in pushing venous blood out of our legs. This would improve our circulation and reduce the chance of blood clots forming.
In conclusion, desk workers would gain the benefit of at-work hot-tubbing. What could be more awesome?
In order to avoid "pruning up" the skin, the "water" could be an isotonic solution of dissolved salts.
Thoughts? I have been considering this because I developed a closed venous ulcer on my shin before I turned 40...
I think it is "remarkable" that a subject in an antidepressant trial was given placebos, and attempted suicide. That seems a rather poor situation to put a depressed person in.
Wow are you a 12-year old? The reason I'm posting this is the laws should be changed. Educating the population which is or could be affected by these laws is my effort to change these laws.
Personally, I'd like to sell an SDR, but I can't because of the law.
They aren't my laws, they are the laws of the United States. Live within the borders and ignore the laws at your own peril. It would be better if you tried to change them, rather than name-calling and making an abject fool of yourself.
What are you doing to improve the United States? I assume nothing.
Test equipment is defined in 47 CFR 15.3 (dd). However, your reference to 47 CFR 15.121(c) is helpful -- it indicates that "scanning receiver" laws may be surmountable. The SDR regulations seem to still apply. I realize the intention may have been to cover transmitters, but the regulation covers all Software Defined "Radios."
By the way, "Title 47" doesn't disambiguate 47 CFR (regulations, written by the FCC) from 47 USC (laws, written by Congress).
TITLE III—PROVISIONS RELATING TO RADIO
PART I GENERAL PROVISIONS
SEC. 302. [47 U.S.C. 302] DEVICES WHICH INTERFERE WITH RADIO RECEPTION.
(b) No person shall manufacture, import, sell, offer for sale, or ship devices or home electronic equipment and systems, or use devices, which fail to comply with regulations promulgated pursuant to this section.
[...]
TITLE V—PENAL PROVISIONS – FORFEITURES
SEC. 501. [47 U.S.C. 501] GENERAL PENALTY.
Any person who willfully and knowingly does or causes or suffers to be done any act, matter, or thing, in this Act prohibited or declared to be unlawful, or who willfully and knowingly omits or fails to do any act, matter, or thing in this Act required to be done, or willfully and knowingly causes or suffers such omission or failure, shall upon conviction thereof, be punished for such offense, for which no penalty (other than a forfeiture) is provided in this Act, by a fine of not more than $10,000 or by imprisonment for a term not exceeding one year, or both; except that any person, having been once convicted of an offense punishable under this section, who is subsequently convicted of violating any provision of this Act punishable under this section, shall be punished by a fine of not more than $10,000 or by imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years, or both.
Again, to reiterate, the ability to receive cell phone signals, pager signals, or copyright-bit-set ASTC is elsewhere defined as "interference." I dunno if I already posted a reference to that, but I assure you, it's in there.
Also, be aware that home-built equipment are excluded, provided they are never marketed, and you build no more than five of them. Kits, however, are not excluded from the regulations.
It's a violation of a different law if you use a home built device to actually listen to a "private conversation," whatever that is when broadcast in the clear. I would assume cell phone conversations (AMPS or digital) and pager traffic would automatically be included in that, as they are explicitly mentioned in the USC.
(d) Cellular telecommunications receivers (1) Within 180 days after October 28, 1992, the Commission shall prescribe and make effective regulations denying equipment authorization (under part 15 of title 47, Code of Federal Regulations, or any other part of that title) for any scanning receiver that is capable of— (A) receiving transmissions in the frequencies allocated to the domestic cellular radio telecommunications service, (B) readily being altered by the user to receive transmissions in such frequencies, or (C) being equipped with decoders that convert digital cellular transmissions to analog voice audio. (2) Beginning 1 year after the effective date of the regulations adopted pursuant to paragraph (1), no receiver having the capabilities described in subparagraph (A), (B), or (C) of paragraph (1), as such capabilities are defined in such regulations, shall be manufactured in the United States or imported for use in the United States.
A key definition is "scanning receiver":
(v) Scanning receiver. For the purpose of this part, this is a receiver that automatically switches among two or more frequencies in the range of 30 to 960 MHz and that is capable of stopping at and receiving a radio signal detected on a frequency. Receivers designed solely for the reception of the broadcast signals under part 73 of this chapter, for the reception of NOAA broadcast weather band signals, or for operation as part of a licensed service are not included in this definition.
I submit to you the legal theory that an SDR receiver is a scanning receiver. I could be wrong, but it would depend on the mood of a judge.
You haven't read the laws or the regulations I cited in context. In particular, the laws define "interference" from a receiver as being able to listen to AMPS or to decode a digital cell phone or pager signal. I realize that isn't "interference" in any scientific definition, but the law defines it as such, and that's what will count in court.
A few of the relevant obstructions in the form FCC regulations and laws are: 47 USC 2.501, 47 USC 302, 47 USC 605, 47 CFR 2.944, 47 CFR 15.3 (dd).
47 CFR 2.944:
Software defined radios.
(a) Manufacturers must take steps to ensure that only software that has been approved with a software defined radio can be loaded into the radio. The software must not allow the user to operate the transmitter with operating frequencies, output power, modulation types or other radio frequency parameters outside those that were approved. Manufacturers may use means including, but not limited to the use of a private network that allows only authenticated users to download software, electronic signatures in software or coding in hardware that is decoded by software to verify that new software can be legally loaded into a device to meet these requirements and must describe the methods in their application for equipment authorization.
(b) Any radio in which the software is designed or expected to be modified by a party other than the manufacturer and would affect the operating parameters of frequency range, modulation type or maximum output power (either radiated or conducted), or the circumstances under which the transmitter operates in accordance with Commission rules, must comply with the requirements in paragraph (a) of this section and must be certified as a software defined radio.
(c) Applications for certification of software defined radios must include a high level operational description or flow diagram of the software that controls the radio frequency operating parameters.
[70 FR 23039, May 4, 2005]
The penalty for a violation is forfeiture, a fine of up to $10,000, and up to one year in federal prison. See 47 USC sec. 501 This applies to person who purchase the radios as well as persons who sell them. See 47 USC sec. 500 et. seq.
Various internet sources assert that SDRs are "test equipment" and excluded under 47 CFR 15.3 (dd), which reads:
(dd) Test equipment is defined as equipment that is intended primarily for purposes of performing measurements or scientific investigations. Such equipment includes, but is not limited to, field strength meters, spectrum analyzers, and modulation monitors.
I find it difficult to believe the FCC would classify the various SDRs as test equipment, but we will probably find out soon enough.
http://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/47/2.944
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/47/501
Before you downvote me because you don't like the laws; consider this: I posted this information because we must change these laws rather than suffer them.
You can't handle the truth.
Oh, no, it's not a mystery. The animosity comes from ignorance and lack of ability. Many newer programmers have never programmed in assembly language or C, and would not be able to build a computer out of logic chips. This same demographic has learned Java and believes that Hashmap is a magic O(1) thing you can just smear onto any algorithm. C was initially popular among people who were, in fact, able to build computers out of 7400-series logic, or even transistors, if need be. In other words, the animosity comes from those who aren't qualified to judge.
Is it possible for the employees to use the app? Is the app an important part of the business development plan?
I ask, OP, because the app is important enough to marketing that they asked, by email, for employees to astroturf. Yet you are observing that few employees have used the app. Why is there this disconnect in the perceived importance of the app?
I would think that installing Chinese-sourced electronics in F-15s might lead to a compromise of the F-15s availability in war time.
I thought the US had experience in supplying sabotage parts to the former USSR, I am surprised we would buy parts from a nation that is less than our best friend.
Caltech operates a federal lab, the Jet Propulsion Laboratory in Pasadena, and receives federal money to do so. The Institute ("Universtiy") is run from that source of funding.
Maybe your state has a similar law?
From http://apps.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=49.44.140
RCW 49.44.140
Requiring assignment of employee's rights to inventions — Conditions.
(1) A provision in an employment agreement which provides that an employee shall assign or offer to assign any of the employee's rights in an invention to the employer does not apply to an invention for which no equipment, supplies, facilities, or trade secret information of the employer was used and which was developed entirely on the employee's own time, unless (a) the invention relates (i) directly to the business of the employer, or (ii) to the employer's actual or demonstrably anticipated research or development, or (b) the invention results from any work performed by the employee for the employer. Any provision which purports to apply to such an invention is to that extent against the public policy of this state and is to that extent void and unenforceable.
(2) An employer shall not require a provision made void and unenforceable by subsection (1) of this section as a condition of employment or continuing employment.
(3) If an employment agreement entered into after September 1, 1979, contains a provision requiring the employee to assign any of the employee's rights in any invention to the employer, the employer must also, at the time the agreement is made, provide a written notification to the employee that the agreement does not apply to an invention for which no equipment, supplies, facility, or trade secret information of the employer was used and which was developed entirely on the employee's own time, unless (a) the invention relates (i) directly to the business of the employer, or (ii) to the employer's actual or demonstrably anticipated research or development, or (b) the invention results from any work preformed [performed] by the employee for the employer.
No. The altitude is one variable. Another is orbital plane, or angle. Some satellites move directly above the equator. Most orbital craft do not, and track a sinusoidal ground path which crosses the equator.
The altitude of these craft is related to the energy they expend getting to orbit. In that sense, the altitudes are correlated by the rocket type.
The orbital plane has to do with the launch location and time, as well as maneuvers made to change the plane.