Google attempts to automatically blur faces, but the algorithm they use isn't perfect. I've noticed an image of Colonel Sanders on the store sign of a KFC that was blurred. I can't imagine that someone at Google manually went in to blur a black and white drawing of the Colonel.
On an interesting note, since the Colonel's image wasn't in color, looking just for flesh tones isn't required to trip Google's blurring. I guess Google wanted to make sure they'd even blur the faces of any mimes they came across...can't say I blame them for that one.
Actually, it's under a class license, which means the devices themselves need to pass certification to be operated in that band.
Certification is a bit of a joke. A manufacturer just supplies test data to the FCC for a certification and states that their device complies with the FCC technical standards. It's mainly a sort of "honor system" these days.
If a problem developed with a certain product, maybe the FCC would drag it in for testing. But these days the FCC usually just reviews the info and test data given to it by the manufacturer of the device and rubber stamps it "OK".
I think you'll find that in that part of the band, the limit is MUCH less than 1500 watts. I can't recall the exact figures, but from memory, if it's over 200W transmitter power, then you need special permission. I do believe that the 2.4Ghz section of spectrum is much lower due to the potential risks at that particular band. Your request to run this kind of power (1500W) in that area would be denied.
You're wrong on that point. The 1500 watt limit is allowed without special permission. The 200 watt limit you are remembering has nothing to do with 2.4GHz in most of the country.
They are also not legally required to shut down their service. You can just ask nicely. You have just as much responsibility to not cause interference as they do.
It is true that a Part 15 user does not have to shut down unless requested to do so by a Commission (FCC) representative.
But a "ham radio operator vs. Part 15 device" situation puts the Part 15 device on the losing end, legally. The only time a ham radio operator would "have just as much responsibility to not cause interference" is if the ham operator operated with an intent to jam the Part 15 device.
Otherwise, if your Part 15 device gets blown off the airwaves by a legal ham radio signal (or by any other licensed signal for that matter), tough cookies.
I used to have a guy that lived in my neighborhood that broadcast his HAM with enough power that I heard him over my old fashioned wired telephone.
I had a neighbor who was a CB operator that caused the same problem. And the bottom line was that the phone wire in my house was pure crap; unshielded "bottom-of-the-barrel Radio Shack-type" wire.
I also had an aunt who lived very close to a local AM radio station. She constantly heard the station's broadcast on her phone, until the problem was finally stomped out by the phone company techs. She also had crap wire.
To prevent such surprises in my current home, I installed shielded Cat5 cable to each phone outlet, with each outlet having it's own separate wire back to the interface box (i.e. no loop running throughout the house).
Spend a few extra $$$ and put in quality wire. It's worth it. Of course, if you live in an apartment, there may not be much you can do.
>>How can they directly contradict a previous ruling?
They didn't. Basically, the VCR was created and marketed as a way for you to personally time shift TV programs for your own use. The Supreme Court is saying that if there had been documents, etc., showing that the original "background" intent of the VCR was to make copies of movies and sell (or give) them to people you don't even know, Sony would have lost the Betamax case.
The ruling now means that Grokster will have to prove in court that they had no intent for people to use their software to trade warez and MP3s. It seems that there may be documentation showing that Grokster fully had the intent to make money by attracting large numbers of people to trade copyrighted materials.
BPL may kill Ham (still quite debatable, from what I've seen), but it certainly won't kill communications.
Actually, part of the worry for we net users should be the other way around.
The Rochester (NY) Amateur Radio Club (RARC) has documented that ham radio operators, operating legally, took a local trial BPL system's TCP/Internet throughput to ZERO.
The RARC group found that "...Low power transmissions on many of the HF ham bands significantly degraded BPL throughput. We even moved our mobile station two blocks away from the BPL test area and found that a 40 [meter] 25-watt signal still drove BPL throughput to zero."
There has been discussion that even CB radios may be able to kill the throughput of a BPL system.
Under FCC regulations, BPL must accept any interference from licensed users including radio amateurs. I don't know about you, but I don't want an internet connection that someone else can legally jam up, trash or kill my throughput.
Slashdot Mirror
Google attempts to automatically blur faces, but the algorithm they use isn't perfect. I've noticed an image of Colonel Sanders on the store sign of a KFC that was blurred. I can't imagine that someone at Google manually went in to blur a black and white drawing of the Colonel.
On an interesting note, since the Colonel's image wasn't in color, looking just for flesh tones isn't required to trip Google's blurring. I guess Google wanted to make sure they'd even blur the faces of any mimes they came across...can't say I blame them for that one.
Even worse...Jessica Simpson has gone country. So play her new song 24/7.
http://www.amazon.com/Come-On-Over-Album-Version/dp/B001B154KI/
See: Rule Governing Transmitter Power
It is true that a Part 15 user does not have to shut down unless requested to do so by a Commission (FCC) representative. But a "ham radio operator vs. Part 15 device" situation puts the Part 15 device on the losing end, legally. The only time a ham radio operator would "have just as much responsibility to not cause interference" is if the ham operator operated with an intent to jam the Part 15 device. Otherwise, if your Part 15 device gets blown off the airwaves by a legal ham radio signal (or by any other licensed signal for that matter), tough cookies.I also had an aunt who lived very close to a local AM radio station. She constantly heard the station's broadcast on her phone, until the problem was finally stomped out by the phone company techs. She also had crap wire.
To prevent such surprises in my current home, I installed shielded Cat5 cable to each phone outlet, with each outlet having it's own separate wire back to the interface box (i.e. no loop running throughout the house).
Spend a few extra $$$ and put in quality wire. It's worth it. Of course, if you live in an apartment, there may not be much you can do.
>>How can they directly contradict a previous ruling?
They didn't. Basically, the VCR was created and marketed as a way for you to personally time shift TV programs for your own use. The Supreme Court is saying that if there had been documents, etc., showing that the original "background" intent of the VCR was to make copies of movies and sell (or give) them to people you don't even know, Sony would have lost the Betamax case.
The ruling now means that Grokster will have to prove in court that they had no intent for people to use their software to trade warez and MP3s. It seems that there may be documentation showing that Grokster fully had the intent to make money by attracting large numbers of people to trade copyrighted materials.
Actually, part of the worry for we net users should be the other way around.
The Rochester (NY) Amateur Radio Club (RARC) has documented that ham radio operators, operating legally, took a local trial BPL system's TCP/Internet throughput to ZERO.
The RARC group found that "...Low power transmissions on many of the HF ham bands significantly degraded BPL throughput. We even moved our mobile station two blocks away from the BPL test area and found that a 40 [meter] 25-watt signal still drove BPL throughput to zero."
There has been discussion that even CB radios may be able to kill the throughput of a BPL system.
Under FCC regulations, BPL must accept any interference from licensed users including radio amateurs. I don't know about you, but I don't want an internet connection that someone else can legally jam up, trash or kill my throughput.