No, signing is only one option. One may wish to use off-the-shelf 802.11 equipment and WPA to create a secure telecommand link. If done with the intention of preventing unauthorized access rather than obscuring the content, it does not violate the regs.
For instance, one may want to securely control a model craft, something the regs directly allow: "The control signals are not considered codes or ciphers intended to obscure the meaning of the communication." Or, it might be used for telecommand of a ham station, which the regs specifically require to be "protected against making, willfully or negligently, unauthorized transmissions."
That's not true. Part 97 prohibits "messages encoded for the purpose of obscuring their meaning." If crypto were used, not for obscuring meaning, but to prevent unauthorized access (e.g. for a "telecommand" application), it would not run afoul of the regs.
Network filtering doesn't occur at the RF level. Do you understand how this works? Furthermore, Part 15 is a regulation imposed by the FCC, not legislative authority. The FCC is the sole arbitrator of the regulations mean. As a 40+ year licensee, I know that they don't much buy into pedantic word games.
"No, it doesn't interfere with other devices' radio signals."
So, you don't know how WiFi works? Because, it does exactly that - it intentionally mimics the radio signals of an AP to tell a device to disconnect. "Interference" isn't limited to blasting the local area with kilowatts of RF noise. It is, amazingly enough, interfering (especially deliberately) with use of the spectrum which would otherwise operate just fine. Intent (case at hand) and unnecessary emissions (defective or poorly designed devices) are a large part of what constitutes "interference." The entire reason for the rule is to allow unlicensed devices to co-exist, and this device is specifically intended to interfere with that co-existence.
I expected such rationalization. The device actively interferes with the communications of other devices. That's very different that an AP simply saying "no, I don't want to talk to you." If you don't see the difference, you're either stupid or being deliberately obtuse.
The clear intent of the regulations is that various Part 15 devices be able to peacefully co-exist. Rather than trying to claim there's some pedantic loophole, the reality is the FCC will "call a duck a duck," and this is definitely interference with Part 15 devices.
What do you call many, many non-scientists who happen to be right? Right, a consensus. What do you call many, many scientists who happen to be wrong? Right, a consensus. What do you call many, many non-scientists who happen to be wrong? Right, a consensus.
"It's much more important than the 31k affected sites"
If there are only 31K affected sites, how can it be "more important" than that? The rationalization you give only applies to sites with 1024 roots, which has been stipulated to be those 31K. Where's the "more?"
Obviously not, but you obviously have a hard time with equivalences, because one certainly can't refer to some non-sentient piece of technology as a chattel slave. My guess is you're from California, and have been brainwashed with Political Correctness, so aren't part of the real world.
Music is an elective activity, there's is no requirement. Clothing is required in public, regardless of whether you're in a school. Pencils, paper, etc. are helpful, but not a requirement (and will be provided if they are). Never heard of a library, have you?
You're really stretching. In the US, a free public education is promised under the law. All compulsory parts of school are free, regardless of what any particular school would like you to believe.
If it's a school requirement, the school is responsible for paying for it. And yes, it is more efficient for a school to buy calculators in bulk than to expect each student to buy their own.
That's exactly what school taxes are for. Else, why not simply pro-rate the facility, staff, etc. costs, charge the parents for that directly, and eliminate all school taxes?
Try harder. Governmental bodies also need licenses, and that article doesn't in any way claim otherwise. In fact, it refers to jammers being illegal. What's happening is that the prison contractor is working with the local cell companies, who have the licenses.
I'd give the US military more credit than that. They wouldn't place their own interceptors directly on their bases, but nearby. Else, how would you have plausible deniability?
Slashdot Mirror
No, signing is only one option. One may wish to use off-the-shelf 802.11 equipment and WPA to create a secure telecommand link. If done with the intention of preventing unauthorized access rather than obscuring the content, it does not violate the regs.
For instance, one may want to securely control a model craft, something the regs directly allow: "The control signals are not considered codes or ciphers intended to obscure the meaning of the communication." Or, it might be used for telecommand of a ham station, which the regs specifically require to be "protected against making, willfully or negligently, unauthorized transmissions."
"Crypto is not at all allowed on the ham bands"
That's not true. Part 97 prohibits "messages encoded for the purpose of obscuring their meaning." If crypto were used, not for obscuring meaning, but to prevent unauthorized access (e.g. for a "telecommand" application), it would not run afoul of the regs.
"Worked for Admiral General Aladeen."
ITYM General Protection Fault?
Don't forget the US Congress.
Network filtering doesn't occur at the RF level. Do you understand how this works? Furthermore, Part 15 is a regulation imposed by the FCC, not legislative authority. The FCC is the sole arbitrator of the regulations mean. As a 40+ year licensee, I know that they don't much buy into pedantic word games.
"No, it doesn't interfere with other devices' radio signals."
So, you don't know how WiFi works? Because, it does exactly that - it intentionally mimics the radio signals of an AP to tell a device to disconnect. "Interference" isn't limited to blasting the local area with kilowatts of RF noise. It is, amazingly enough, interfering (especially deliberately) with use of the spectrum which would otherwise operate just fine. Intent (case at hand) and unnecessary emissions (defective or poorly designed devices) are a large part of what constitutes "interference." The entire reason for the rule is to allow unlicensed devices to co-exist, and this device is specifically intended to interfere with that co-existence.
I expected such rationalization. The device actively interferes with the communications of other devices. That's very different that an AP simply saying "no, I don't want to talk to you." If you don't see the difference, you're either stupid or being deliberately obtuse.
The clear intent of the regulations is that various Part 15 devices be able to peacefully co-exist. Rather than trying to claim there's some pedantic loophole, the reality is the FCC will "call a duck a duck," and this is definitely interference with Part 15 devices.
"It doesn't interfere with radio signals themselves"
It causes intentional interference, which is illegal for a Part 15 device.
"The problem is you're not in a position to be able to evaluate the evidence...it's not your area and it's very tricky, beyond basic concepts"
The local spirit medium says the same thing every time I say that I think their seances are humbuggery.
What do you call many, many non-scientists who happen to be right? Right, a consensus. What do you call many, many scientists who happen to be wrong? Right, a consensus. What do you call many, many non-scientists who happen to be wrong? Right, a consensus.
Your point?
"Why, if you are 6' tall, are you penalised with having to buy a more expensive ticket?"
Why should I, of normal build, have to put up with the morbidly obese woman sitting next to me overflowing into my space?
"It's much more important than the 31k affected sites"
If there are only 31K affected sites, how can it be "more important" than that? The rationalization you give only applies to sites with 1024 roots, which has been stipulated to be those 31K. Where's the "more?"
"No. That is not referring to an IDE drive."
Obviously not, but you obviously have a hard time with equivalences, because one certainly can't refer to some non-sentient piece of technology as a chattel slave. My guess is you're from California, and have been brainwashed with Political Correctness, so aren't part of the real world.
"Really? "Slaves"? Maybe you should look into actual slavery."
A word doesn't automatically take its worst possible meaning. I've still got computers with IDE slave drives.
One meaning, which the OP was using, is "a device (as the printer of a computer) that is directly responsive to another" - Merriam Webster Dictionary.
"Grouping those 107,000-plus sites by certificate expiration date, the results show that 76,185 certificates had expired as of Aug. 25"
So, the headline should really say 31,000, since 76,000 shouldn't be trusted regardless of what Mozilla does.
" CubeSat deployer located outside Japan's Kibo laboratory "
Everyone knows that Kibo is thought to stand for "knowledge in, bullshit out."
I used to have a Centronics 761 teleprinter with an APL keyboard/charset. I never used it for APL, but it sure looked cool.
You're confusing research and development. There's a reason both terms are used, and it's not for redundancy.
"Without a genome, we couldn't do any real advanced research on coffee that would allow us to improve it -- not in this day and age."
Because artificial selection of plants based on their expression of desirable characteristics has somehow become impossible?
Music is an elective activity, there's is no requirement. Clothing is required in public, regardless of whether you're in a school. Pencils, paper, etc. are helpful, but not a requirement (and will be provided if they are). Never heard of a library, have you?
You're really stretching. In the US, a free public education is promised under the law. All compulsory parts of school are free, regardless of what any particular school would like you to believe.
"The TI representative could bribe the person(s) responsible for purchasing to accept the higher prices, for example."
Or terrorists could plant bombs in the calculator boxes, or the TI rep might go on a school shooting spree.
If it's a school requirement, the school is responsible for paying for it. And yes, it is more efficient for a school to buy calculators in bulk than to expect each student to buy their own.
That's exactly what school taxes are for. Else, why not simply pro-rate the facility, staff, etc. costs, charge the parents for that directly, and eliminate all school taxes?
"They want everyone to have the same one so they only have to explain it once."
Then the schools can damn well buy the calculators for their students.
"Similar exceptions are made for prisons, "
Try harder. Governmental bodies also need licenses, and that article doesn't in any way claim otherwise. In fact, it refers to jammers being illegal. What's happening is that the prison contractor is working with the local cell companies, who have the licenses.
I'd give the US military more credit than that. They wouldn't place their own interceptors directly on their bases, but nearby. Else, how would you have plausible deniability?