is quite clear - "The Congress shall have power . . . To regulate commerce... among the several states"
That's "commerce," not things peripherally associated with commerce, not things which might have some disingenuous "effect" on commerce (i.e. growing crops in your own backyard, talking to a buddy over a walkie-talkie), but commerce itself. While the Federal government may have some right to regulate commercial speech between the states (and that is debatable - see 2nd Amendment), it has absolutely no authority for regulating private communications using the RF spectrum.
Courts be damned, just because they proclaim that red is green, that doesn't make it so. The Constitution is clear and unambiguous - "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." That's something which the Federal courts have always ignored. We haven't been a nation of (legitimate) law for many years.
Quite simply, the Federal government had no power to do so. Since they didn't have the Constitutional authority to regulate spectrum, they didn't have the power to negotiate or agree to a treaty, making it null and void.
Basically all military systems are of electronic categories (e.g. control & monitoring systems) which would make them exempt if they were civilian also. So TVs and radios aren't subject to RoHS, being monitoring systems?
First, the paper was testing the Speex codec, and in based in principle on looking at codecs which use variable bit-rate CELP, a compression scheme which is tailored to speech, not music (music sounds terrible through one of these codecs, because their dictionaries are filled with speech sounds). Having music in the background is only likely to confuse the codec, making the speech sound terrible too, possibly to the point of unintelligibility.
The conclusions do not apply to more standardized codecs like G.711 and G.729a, which use fixed size packets.
The paper itself can be downloaded from here. Get it quick, before the IEEE figures this out and make the author remove it so they can extort their fee.
there is much more than just the development cost to consider...marketing/advertising, support, distribution, duplication, packaging, paying the rent and utilities, R&D for enhancements, return on equity for the investors, etc.
A comparison was being made between the iPhone 3G and a "GPS." based on the iPhone having a 33% price premium. I pointed out that it was a 100% premium. Someone said that was for a GPS with no maps. I pointed out that an iPhone doesn't have maps at the stated price, either (you need to pay for service, too).
So, make a fair comparison, and add the minimum cost of service to the iPhone price, making it $199 plus $70/month times 24 months. Now you can fairly compare to a GPS with a map. $150 for the GPS vs. $1879 for the iPhone. Or, maybe you can find an iPhone 3G somewhere without service, and just use the GPS feature without service and maps. That's the comparison I made - $100 vs. $199.
does an iPhone 3G include internal maps and routing capabilities?
Or will routing be an additional cost from a third party? Will maps cost extra, or even be available internally, or will it depend upon pulling the local area from the web? How much good will that do if you're lost in the backcountry, where you're lucky to have cell coverage, let alone 3G data.
a router which impliments protocols in a fully compliant manner might crash if some device send non-compliant packets its way.
Sure, the router should be robust against such things, but the actual cause is the illegal packets.
Saying it's the router's fault is like trying to blame someone's death by TASER on the deceased, and not the person who pulled the trigger, because they weren't supposed to die. Or saying that a successful denial of service attack isn't the fault of the attacker, it's the server's fault because it wasn't robust enough.
Having said that, it would be premature to blame MS in this case, there are just not enough details to point a finger.
Slashdot Mirror
only some parts - it still uses the precompiled, no-source-code Broadcom binary.
/. now. It's marketing more than anything.
It's also not new, so it's not clear why this is on
You act as if a tax which is applied equally to everyone, and is blind to factors such as race, sex or economic status, is a bad thing.
is to toss a firecracker in the other direction as a distraction for both the camera and the victim, before quietly garroting them?
is quite clear - "The Congress shall have power . . . To regulate commerce ... among the several states"
That's "commerce," not things peripherally associated with commerce, not things which might have some disingenuous "effect" on commerce (i.e. growing crops in your own backyard, talking to a buddy over a walkie-talkie), but commerce itself. While the Federal government may have some right to regulate commercial speech between the states (and that is debatable - see 2nd Amendment), it has absolutely no authority for regulating private communications using the RF spectrum.
Courts be damned, just because they proclaim that red is green, that doesn't make it so. The Constitution is clear and unambiguous - "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." That's something which the Federal courts have always ignored. We haven't been a nation of (legitimate) law for many years.
doesn't have to stretch at all. Wickard v. Filburn stretched it beyond measurement (or legitimacy).
Quite simply, the Federal government had no power to do so. Since they didn't have the Constitutional authority to regulate spectrum, they didn't have the power to negotiate or agree to a treaty, making it null and void.
What do Luxemburg, Denmark, Belgium and the Netherlands do?
You really should study the issue so you have some knowledge before commenting.
You're setting up a straw man - that is NOT what the OP said.
Federal regulation is, quite simply, unconstitutional. It is not a power granted by the Constitution.
State regulation of spectrum would be workable, and as proof I point to Europe where countries are the comparable in size to US States.
And yes, I too am a ham (extra class).
"degree Rankine", same as "degree Celcius," "degree centigrade," and "degree Fahrenheit." Kelvin is the odd man out.
No, Rankine.
most military electronics are "entertainment systems" for the brass.
the exemption for military electronics.
RoHS may b e good for plebes, but the ruling class can't risk losing control.
Someone upload some child porn to the Verizon billing site.
the newly released Opera 9.5 has introduced a sync'ing capability.
First, the paper was testing the Speex codec, and in based in principle on looking at codecs which use variable bit-rate CELP, a compression scheme which is tailored to speech, not music (music sounds terrible through one of these codecs, because their dictionaries are filled with speech sounds). Having music in the background is only likely to confuse the codec, making the speech sound terrible too, possibly to the point of unintelligibility.
The conclusions do not apply to more standardized codecs like G.711 and G.729a, which use fixed size packets.
The paper itself can be downloaded from here. Get it quick, before the IEEE figures this out and make the author remove it so they can extort their fee.
lasers on friggin' sharks.
It's not just money, it's not because they're a political adversary. It's because they can do it, and get away with it. They know we won't do squat.
Our supposed friends do the same sorts of things.
are SAE standards, many of which are incorporated into US regulatory law.
The net effect is that you can't be sure you're legally compliant unless you pay some private organization a tithe.
there is much more than just the development cost to consider...marketing/advertising, support, distribution, duplication, packaging, paying the rent and utilities, R&D for enhancements, return on equity for the investors, etc.
Forgive the pun.
A comparison was being made between the iPhone 3G and a "GPS." based on the iPhone having a 33% price premium. I pointed out that it was a 100% premium. Someone said that was for a GPS with no maps. I pointed out that an iPhone doesn't have maps at the stated price, either (you need to pay for service, too).
So, make a fair comparison, and add the minimum cost of service to the iPhone price, making it $199 plus $70/month times 24 months. Now you can fairly compare to a GPS with a map. $150 for the GPS vs. $1879 for the iPhone. Or, maybe you can find an iPhone 3G somewhere without service, and just use the GPS feature without service and maps. That's the comparison I made - $100 vs. $199.
does an iPhone 3G include internal maps and routing capabilities?
Or will routing be an additional cost from a third party? Will maps cost extra, or even be available internally, or will it depend upon pulling the local area from the web? How much good will that do if you're lost in the backcountry, where you're lucky to have cell coverage, let alone 3G data.
You can buy GPS's all day, as many as you want, for under $100. Here's one. Here's another.
And no monthly service fee, or penalty for early cancellation.
$199/8GB, $299/16GB. Available 7/11 in 22 countries.
a router which impliments protocols in a fully compliant manner might crash if some device send non-compliant packets its way.
Sure, the router should be robust against such things, but the actual cause is the illegal packets.
Saying it's the router's fault is like trying to blame someone's death by TASER on the deceased, and not the person who pulled the trigger, because they weren't supposed to die. Or saying that a successful denial of service attack isn't the fault of the attacker, it's the server's fault because it wasn't robust enough.
Having said that, it would be premature to blame MS in this case, there are just not enough details to point a finger.