That's from the aviation communities point of view. And I understand it very well. The interference is a life safety issue.
The problem is: Who ever allowed it to happen? TDWR has been in use for at least a decade, but the asignment of that frequency band for what is essentialy "junk" use predates that by quite a bit. I have some wireless data link transceivers that operate in that band that date back to the 1990s.
using unlicensed to them bands
Unlicensed to anyone at one time. And once the FCC designated this band as aceptable for unlicensed use, they should have seen potential conflicts coming and told the FAA to get their own, licensed
frequencies. At least on a licensed band, you can find conflicting users (because they have a license and maybe even a fixed location) and negotiate a fix between them.
Pretty much all spectrum is shared. Sometimes, you get incompatible sharing partners.
Which is where the FCC issues licenses and reserves the right to call interfering users in and negotiate a compromise. Reduce power, change your broadcast pattern, change frequencies, etc. Because bthey know who and where they are. But once a block of frequencies is released for unlicensed use (ISM being the 'worst' possible example), how do you get hold of all the radio controlled drones, garage door openers, microwave ovens, and WiFi access points that are out there already?
FCC now wants to allocate yet more of those frequencies to WiFi.
And what will they do when the FAA just plops another "critical" radar or coms system in the middle of the new WiFi (or ISM) band?
What the hell is the FAA doing running a safety critical (so they say) radar system in an ISM band? And why is the FCC defending them?
No license is required to operate within these bands, making the proposal that a person holding a technical license approve router firmware an exception to current policy. Furthermore, equipment using these bands must be tolerant of interference caused by other in-band transmissions.
As far as I can tell, the FAA is violating FCC rules by operating their radar within these bands. The FCC should immediately order them to move to a licensed band and allocate a frequency specifically for this kind of public safety use. And the FCC should order that a person holding a technical license verify the proper design and operation of the radar system. Because whoever set it up initially wsn't smart enough to get it right.
Robots are not quite up to this task yet. But they might be the best approach. Rather than a gadget that a person has to remember to pick up and use, the autonomous operation of the robot can initiate interaction. A (more or less) anthropomorphic form would be something that an individual would more readily respond to.
Right now, you can get one of those Japanese robots and program it to follow a preprogrammed schedule and route. But the sensing capablity isn't quite up to speed to stop and wait for Uncle Fester to make sure he is following and produce a few added prompts if he is not.
I recall Mimms' Radio Shack publications. Good stuff for beginners but I wasn't aware that he was anything more than an EE/Tech guy with a knack for putting together teaching stuff.
I've heard of Bob Pease and read his stuff. I've also run across Winfield Hill and Don Lancaster on the Usenet s.e.d. group and gotten into a few threads with them in addition to having (some of) their books. Pease, Horowitz/Hill and Lancaster seemed to me to be the 'next step' beyond Mimms stuff. Not that Forrest is a dummy, but once I got going beyond basic stuff as a kid, he seemed to disapear.
Aren't they going out of business? They are pulling the plug on ClearWire and haven't expanded their mobile/data coverage into a few of the wealthier neighborhoods around me.
Given the level of technology (and investment) needed to build a Dyson sphere, I would guess that it would be designed to last for quite some time. So the descendants of the builders are probably still alive and using it.
It probably has been repainted a few times. Some Bondo in the meteorite dents, etc.
Not really. What this shows is operating reactors and detonations. Materials stockpiles don't show up. And even if we can see a reactor, we can't tell the difference between research, power production and plutonium production. We'd still have to do in-person inspections to see if materials were being refined to weapons grade concentrations.
What it does reveal is the operation of undeclared reactors. So we know where to send the inspectors. But if a country hasn't signed the NPT, we have no grounds for an inspection anyway. Israel can do what they want (since they haven't signed). But the USA can't sell them certain types of technology. So the people that would be in be trouble would be us, not Israel. For selling them restricted technology.
UNIX applications in corporate environments. Linux being the desktop. At least Cygwin/X will still support TCP while you clowns gut Linux. The desktop was a neat dream while it lasted.
install both X11 and wayland and run one or the other
And what happens when some major app switches to the Wayland libs, leaving X networking behind? Sure, there's an X compatibility layer. But given the attitude of Wayland supporters ("nobody networks clients anymore, so lets throw this stuff out") I don't anticipate support for that feature to be long lived.
There are too many people running around, both in the systemd and Wayland camps who think that, because they don't do something or understand it, it just doesn't need to be done. Why don't we all take up a collection to buy them GameBoys or XBoxes and keep them away from important systems stuff?
I would have took away the 2 credits of history and put them in Math.
But then you run into Bubba the jock. Who expects to move up through academia and receive the credentials necessary for a leadership roll in society. "I was told there would be no math."
... off the shelf drone technology? So even if one of these falls into the hands of an enemy, it isn't anything they couldn't have bought at Best Buy anyway.
... keeping him out. It's the media business. They are the ones that make the money for airing endless political debates and advertisements. An advocate of campaign finance reform is inevitably going to harm their income stream and is not welcome.
Slashdot Mirror
No sharing according to this?
That's from the aviation communities point of view. And I understand it very well. The interference is a life safety issue.
The problem is: Who ever allowed it to happen? TDWR has been in use for at least a decade, but the asignment of that frequency band for what is essentialy "junk" use predates that by quite a bit. I have some wireless data link transceivers that operate in that band that date back to the 1990s.
using unlicensed to them bands
Unlicensed to anyone at one time. And once the FCC designated this band as aceptable for unlicensed use, they should have seen potential conflicts coming and told the FAA to get their own, licensed frequencies. At least on a licensed band, you can find conflicting users (because they have a license and maybe even a fixed location) and negotiate a fix between them.
Pretty much all spectrum is shared. Sometimes, you get incompatible sharing partners.
Which is where the FCC issues licenses and reserves the right to call interfering users in and negotiate a compromise. Reduce power, change your broadcast pattern, change frequencies, etc. Because bthey know who and where they are. But once a block of frequencies is released for unlicensed use (ISM being the 'worst' possible example), how do you get hold of all the radio controlled drones, garage door openers, microwave ovens, and WiFi access points that are out there already?
FCC now wants to allocate yet more of those frequencies to WiFi.
And what will they do when the FAA just plops another "critical" radar or coms system in the middle of the new WiFi (or ISM) band?
A single person
I think the idea was to have any one of such license holders review and approve such firmware mods.
What the hell is the FAA doing running a safety critical (so they say) radar system in an ISM band? And why is the FCC defending them?
No license is required to operate within these bands, making the proposal that a person holding a technical license approve router firmware an exception to current policy. Furthermore, equipment using these bands must be tolerant of interference caused by other in-band transmissions.
As far as I can tell, the FAA is violating FCC rules by operating their radar within these bands. The FCC should immediately order them to move to a licensed band and allocate a frequency specifically for this kind of public safety use. And the FCC should order that a person holding a technical license verify the proper design and operation of the radar system. Because whoever set it up initially wsn't smart enough to get it right.
Robots are not quite up to this task yet. But they might be the best approach. Rather than a gadget that a person has to remember to pick up and use, the autonomous operation of the robot can initiate interaction. A (more or less) anthropomorphic form would be something that an individual would more readily respond to.
Right now, you can get one of those Japanese robots and program it to follow a preprogrammed schedule and route. But the sensing capablity isn't quite up to speed to stop and wait for Uncle Fester to make sure he is following and produce a few added prompts if he is not.
How about this: FAA acquires weather radio design from morons, FCC attempts to cover their ass.
Can't you just RFID tag their ears?
TSA: "We're going to have to take a look through all your laptops, memory devices and phones, sir."
Didn't they just have a big computer outage recently?
Judging by the number of cat videos.
I recall Mimms' Radio Shack publications. Good stuff for beginners but I wasn't aware that he was anything more than an EE/Tech guy with a knack for putting together teaching stuff.
I've heard of Bob Pease and read his stuff. I've also run across Winfield Hill and Don Lancaster on the Usenet s.e.d. group and gotten into a few threads with them in addition to having (some of) their books. Pease, Horowitz/Hill and Lancaster seemed to me to be the 'next step' beyond Mimms stuff. Not that Forrest is a dummy, but once I got going beyond basic stuff as a kid, he seemed to disapear.
Sprint phones
Aren't they going out of business? They are pulling the plug on ClearWire and haven't expanded their mobile/data coverage into a few of the wealthier neighborhoods around me.
Given the level of technology (and investment) needed to build a Dyson sphere, I would guess that it would be designed to last for quite some time. So the descendants of the builders are probably still alive and using it.
It probably has been repainted a few times. Some Bondo in the meteorite dents, etc.
SPHERICAL metric cows. In a vacuum.
Because not many application hosts support it. They run Xlib xclients. So as long as the X compatibility feature continues to be supported, fine.
But I'm not holding my breath. Because the prevalent attitude seems to be if they don't understand how something works or why, throw it out.
Not really. What this shows is operating reactors and detonations. Materials stockpiles don't show up. And even if we can see a reactor, we can't tell the difference between research, power production and plutonium production. We'd still have to do in-person inspections to see if materials were being refined to weapons grade concentrations.
What it does reveal is the operation of undeclared reactors. So we know where to send the inspectors. But if a country hasn't signed the NPT, we have no grounds for an inspection anyway. Israel can do what they want (since they haven't signed). But the USA can't sell them certain types of technology. So the people that would be in be trouble would be us, not Israel. For selling them restricted technology.
since the vast majority of Linux applications
UNIX applications in corporate environments. Linux being the desktop. At least Cygwin/X will still support TCP while you clowns gut Linux. The desktop was a neat dream while it lasted.
install both X11 and wayland and run one or the other
And what happens when some major app switches to the Wayland libs, leaving X networking behind? Sure, there's an X compatibility layer. But given the attitude of Wayland supporters ("nobody networks clients anymore, so lets throw this stuff out") I don't anticipate support for that feature to be long lived.
There are too many people running around, both in the systemd and Wayland camps who think that, because they don't do something or understand it, it just doesn't need to be done. Why don't we all take up a collection to buy them GameBoys or XBoxes and keep them away from important systems stuff?
These days, the X server doesn't do anything,
What about receive connections from remote x clients and put them on the display.
Linux/*NIX is used for more than gaming. Shocking, I know. But you'll get over it.
I would have took away the 2 credits of history and put them in Math.
But then you run into Bubba the jock. Who expects to move up through academia and receive the credentials necessary for a leadership roll in society. "I was told there would be no math."
study climate change.
The science on that is done. Or so I've been told numerous times.
They always said writing software was like having sex.
Make just one mistake and you have to provide support for a lifetime.
Just as the pen is mightier than the sword,
Maybe. Maybe not.