Not entirely how the rules are written. If you certify your device for FCC, you basically certify that your system is designed such that your device cannot cause harmful interference and can accept any interference.
Typically this is done by proper antenna design for radiating devices, not in a crappy software hack, because when circumvented it by definition doesn't accept the interference received. Short of actually modifying the antenna and amplifier you should not be able to make the device misbehave.
Interference of that magnitude would be immediately detectable on a weather radar. I highly doubt your little 200mW antenna will have much effect on the 0.1s a plane is within the range of a broken WiFi router.
Why don't they just change the weather radar frequencies then. Once you let the cat out of the bag by giving a bunch of spectrum to the Chinese corporations, they won't care what band it's going to be bleeding on, even if it's not in the right channel, you can be sure there will be some unfiltered harmonic coming out of the device in the middle of the channels you don't want to be in.
The problem is not some idiot that sets up his WiFi channels wrong, that's easy to detect and punish, it's crappy antenna design. I'm also not so sure the few mW a router puts out is going to affect much of a radar (which has several kW) anyway, the worst thing it'll do is blow out the signal from the router.
No it doesn't. It handles error correction/detection and even then, very weakly which is why most systems have more error detection both in higher and lower layers. You cannot assure data integrity in TCP (or IP), that's handled very much above those layers, typically in application.
Just because we haven't figured out how to communicate with species on our own planet doesn't mean they don't communicate. Other primates do just as well communicating with each other, passing down information from generation to generation as well as solve math problems and the like.
We call ourselves intelligent yet we can't communicate as well with our own species naturally as some others can and think that somehow we are the superior race.
Take your tinfoil hat off, RSA and ECC with 1024-bit keys and beyond is more than safe enough for the foreseeable future. Use 2048 or 4096 bit if you're paranoid. We have no quantum computers that can break these codes just yet, we actually have no idea whether it's even possible to make them.
In theory it's possible to break everything, given enough time. A single TLS session may take a few decades to break, how many of those do you want to break per day? It's unfeasible to break TLS except by very targeted MITM attacks (downgrading etc) by badly configured browsers and web servers.
What's absurd is that you use someone else's CA store to begin with. I remove CA's I don't interact with. I never had a problem removing things like the Turkish or Netherlands government, nobody uses their certificates.
The problem is that Microsoft is the worst when it comes to vetting CA's because it could impact one of their "enterprise customers". As long as Microsoft puts their higher paying customer before you, they aren't trustworthy.
I compared Thunderbird to Outlook, Thunderbird with extensions comes close, I've never seen Outlook correctly connect to (open) CalDAV servers. There are better PIM's out there, GroupWise and Evolution are the ones I am familiar with, OwnCloud also seems to be getting close to it although I don't personally use it, the integration on iOS and Mac of open source calendaring, address book, mail etc also is a great deal better than Outlook + O365.
I explicitly convert everything down to a common standard.
Last time a legal department sent me a Signed PDF which wanted to open some JavaScript and talk to Adobe servers and then I should create an account with Adobe while Adobe held onto my public/private key for signing.
I opened the PDF in a non-Adobe product, saved and signed it with a copy of my real signature (which the app happily took from the camera), sent it back. It thoroughly broke their automatic processing but they went on with it (insert Johnny Tables reference here) because nobody at the office understood why it wasn't working (it looked like I signed it after all).
Then you should switch him to a new version of Adobe/Microsoft products. How many iterations has MSN Messenger been through? I think it's called Lync now or was it Skype?
It happens but there is also a lot of other things like customer service that makes it worth it. Especially for business it's hard to justify a purchase of $300 that subsequently ends up having a problem than paying $350 on Amazon and you can just ship it back. In some cases Amazon will even send you the entire purchase and not even ask for a return. I had a problem with a part of the Nintendo DS kit (gift for someone), they sent me a brand new kit including a new DS without needing the old one back. So I had two (pink) DS and half a kit. Recently they sent me 10 Sandisk 64GB USB drives, one was broken so I got an entire new set of 10.
Free or cheap shipping doesn't exist. The effect is however psychological. You can't ship any package sub-$5, with Prime you pre-pay some of the cost and Amazon can thus give you better deals. I've found the difference between Prime and non-Prime accounts is usually in favor of the Prime account.
There is also contract law. If the contract between two businesses states that the company should get royalties or attribution for works produced by the software, then it's entirely possible that they are due royalties and an injunction against further distribution/sales would be possible.
This is entirely possible under e.g. Creative Commons. Let's say you license something under Creative Commons with Attribution and Disney uses your work without attribution, you would have the right to ask a judge to pull all media (DVD, BluRay etc) and rework it so they put your name in the credits.
It wasn't novel, plenty of other car manufacturers were trying at the moment, not necessarily US-based, but Citroen, Peugot and Mitsubishi all had EVs before Tesla and Fisker also existed.
Most US car manufacturers however didn't want to go that route because they would lose the franchise which makes it's money on the back of fixing combustion engines, electric cars all but obviate the need for expensive engine repairs. Most EV's in the US at that time thus were hybrids and there was at least one other company that tried what Tesla did and failed miserably but Europe and Japan had plenty of plug-in electric vehicles.
Tesla initially used a Lotus frame which was simply repurposed and I remember Bugatti (I think) had a demo of a full-electric drivetrain as well when Tesla came on.
It wouldn't be much different. Giving the government more money seems to do the opposite. Our government spends several factors more than they did when they built the interstate highway system yet even that they can't keep repaired.
US tax law is complicated, according to its tax code you have to report foreign assets and pay a portion of taxes on foreign income. There is however little to no framework for forcing a subsidiary or shell company to do so (hence the setup). Apple (the multinational entity) holds $x in banks but Apple Computers Inc. DBA Apple Inc. in California doesn't, it doesn't even "own" the Apple Store in your local mall for all sorts of tax, financial, liability and other reasons. It's kind of dishonest to say Apple holds x because it's not Apple Inc even though for all intents and purposes they don't.
It's the same legal framework that protects small business owners and landlords from personal financial ruin.
Tesla was a good idea because the market wanted it and Musk capitalized on it. Same goes for his previous ideas. He's right that the market needs a high speed system between cities but Musk just has ideas, engineers do the work, and making an electric car is relatively easy even though it is far from his original promise (first model was going to have 300+ miles of range and second model was going to be affordable by families), it's taken many iterations to get Teslas to the point they are.
Making electric cars go really, really fast in a really thin tube is harder than just making them go relatively slow (highway speeds). Vacuums are also really really hard, ask the LHC.
Musk is proposing vacuums of much greater volume than the LHC which took two weeks to evacuate to be created in a matter of minutes.
People have had the idea and mothballed it almost 2 centuries ago. Turns out physics' a bitch and making vacuums requires lots of energy (potential energy, laws of thermodynamics and all that). At least last time they tried underground where you have a bunch of dirt to contain the system instead of a tube of sheet metal.
Musk got around to having a single car go 50mph in a tunnel after 4 years. Doesn't bode well for the project.
There's a difference between making something happen and feasibility. Only fools throw money at ideas purely because you want it to happen.
SpaceX was going to Mars on a budget that wouldn't even cover a round trip to the moon... seems like the brass at NASA finally asked some engineers and scrapped that faster than a burnt potato. At least Musk got his money out of that deal but yeah, he's trying...
To have such sweeping regulation come through a republican congress, someone with lots of dough must be "contributing" to get this through.
I'm not sure that "put something on the market, safety be damned" is going to get us there any faster although I do support the sentiment of less regulation.
Slashdot Mirror
Not entirely how the rules are written. If you certify your device for FCC, you basically certify that your system is designed such that your device cannot cause harmful interference and can accept any interference.
Typically this is done by proper antenna design for radiating devices, not in a crappy software hack, because when circumvented it by definition doesn't accept the interference received. Short of actually modifying the antenna and amplifier you should not be able to make the device misbehave.
Interference of that magnitude would be immediately detectable on a weather radar. I highly doubt your little 200mW antenna will have much effect on the 0.1s a plane is within the range of a broken WiFi router.
Why don't they just change the weather radar frequencies then. Once you let the cat out of the bag by giving a bunch of spectrum to the Chinese corporations, they won't care what band it's going to be bleeding on, even if it's not in the right channel, you can be sure there will be some unfiltered harmonic coming out of the device in the middle of the channels you don't want to be in.
The problem is not some idiot that sets up his WiFi channels wrong, that's easy to detect and punish, it's crappy antenna design. I'm also not so sure the few mW a router puts out is going to affect much of a radar (which has several kW) anyway, the worst thing it'll do is blow out the signal from the router.
Just persuade them that this is unnecessary regulation just like Obama's Non-Net-Neutrality is.
No it doesn't. It handles error correction/detection and even then, very weakly which is why most systems have more error detection both in higher and lower layers. You cannot assure data integrity in TCP (or IP), that's handled very much above those layers, typically in application.
Just because we haven't figured out how to communicate with species on our own planet doesn't mean they don't communicate. Other primates do just as well communicating with each other, passing down information from generation to generation as well as solve math problems and the like.
We call ourselves intelligent yet we can't communicate as well with our own species naturally as some others can and think that somehow we are the superior race.
Take your tinfoil hat off, RSA and ECC with 1024-bit keys and beyond is more than safe enough for the foreseeable future. Use 2048 or 4096 bit if you're paranoid. We have no quantum computers that can break these codes just yet, we actually have no idea whether it's even possible to make them.
In theory it's possible to break everything, given enough time. A single TLS session may take a few decades to break, how many of those do you want to break per day? It's unfeasible to break TLS except by very targeted MITM attacks (downgrading etc) by badly configured browsers and web servers.
What's absurd is that you use someone else's CA store to begin with. I remove CA's I don't interact with. I never had a problem removing things like the Turkish or Netherlands government, nobody uses their certificates.
The problem is that Microsoft is the worst when it comes to vetting CA's because it could impact one of their "enterprise customers". As long as Microsoft puts their higher paying customer before you, they aren't trustworthy.
I compared Thunderbird to Outlook, Thunderbird with extensions comes close, I've never seen Outlook correctly connect to (open) CalDAV servers. There are better PIM's out there, GroupWise and Evolution are the ones I am familiar with, OwnCloud also seems to be getting close to it although I don't personally use it, the integration on iOS and Mac of open source calendaring, address book, mail etc also is a great deal better than Outlook + O365.
I explicitly convert everything down to a common standard.
Last time a legal department sent me a Signed PDF which wanted to open some JavaScript and talk to Adobe servers and then I should create an account with Adobe while Adobe held onto my public/private key for signing.
I opened the PDF in a non-Adobe product, saved and signed it with a copy of my real signature (which the app happily took from the camera), sent it back. It thoroughly broke their automatic processing but they went on with it (insert Johnny Tables reference here) because nobody at the office understood why it wasn't working (it looked like I signed it after all).
What doesn't it do? Filling in cells and making calculations is all Excel should be used for, for everything else there is R.
Then you should switch him to a new version of Adobe/Microsoft products. How many iterations has MSN Messenger been through? I think it's called Lync now or was it Skype?
You want something that rivals Outlook? How about Thunderbird? Outlook is absolute garbage, come back when you've tried a real PIM.
It happens but there is also a lot of other things like customer service that makes it worth it. Especially for business it's hard to justify a purchase of $300 that subsequently ends up having a problem than paying $350 on Amazon and you can just ship it back. In some cases Amazon will even send you the entire purchase and not even ask for a return. I had a problem with a part of the Nintendo DS kit (gift for someone), they sent me a brand new kit including a new DS without needing the old one back. So I had two (pink) DS and half a kit. Recently they sent me 10 Sandisk 64GB USB drives, one was broken so I got an entire new set of 10.
Free or cheap shipping doesn't exist. The effect is however psychological. You can't ship any package sub-$5, with Prime you pre-pay some of the cost and Amazon can thus give you better deals. I've found the difference between Prime and non-Prime accounts is usually in favor of the Prime account.
There is also contract law. If the contract between two businesses states that the company should get royalties or attribution for works produced by the software, then it's entirely possible that they are due royalties and an injunction against further distribution/sales would be possible.
This is entirely possible under e.g. Creative Commons. Let's say you license something under Creative Commons with Attribution and Disney uses your work without attribution, you would have the right to ask a judge to pull all media (DVD, BluRay etc) and rework it so they put your name in the credits.
It wasn't novel, plenty of other car manufacturers were trying at the moment, not necessarily US-based, but Citroen, Peugot and Mitsubishi all had EVs before Tesla and Fisker also existed.
Most US car manufacturers however didn't want to go that route because they would lose the franchise which makes it's money on the back of fixing combustion engines, electric cars all but obviate the need for expensive engine repairs. Most EV's in the US at that time thus were hybrids and there was at least one other company that tried what Tesla did and failed miserably but Europe and Japan had plenty of plug-in electric vehicles.
Tesla initially used a Lotus frame which was simply repurposed and I remember Bugatti (I think) had a demo of a full-electric drivetrain as well when Tesla came on.
It wouldn't be much different. Giving the government more money seems to do the opposite. Our government spends several factors more than they did when they built the interstate highway system yet even that they can't keep repaired.
US tax law is complicated, according to its tax code you have to report foreign assets and pay a portion of taxes on foreign income. There is however little to no framework for forcing a subsidiary or shell company to do so (hence the setup). Apple (the multinational entity) holds $x in banks but Apple Computers Inc. DBA Apple Inc. in California doesn't, it doesn't even "own" the Apple Store in your local mall for all sorts of tax, financial, liability and other reasons. It's kind of dishonest to say Apple holds x because it's not Apple Inc even though for all intents and purposes they don't.
It's the same legal framework that protects small business owners and landlords from personal financial ruin.
Tesla was a good idea because the market wanted it and Musk capitalized on it. Same goes for his previous ideas. He's right that the market needs a high speed system between cities but Musk just has ideas, engineers do the work, and making an electric car is relatively easy even though it is far from his original promise (first model was going to have 300+ miles of range and second model was going to be affordable by families), it's taken many iterations to get Teslas to the point they are.
Making electric cars go really, really fast in a really thin tube is harder than just making them go relatively slow (highway speeds). Vacuums are also really really hard, ask the LHC.
Musk is proposing vacuums of much greater volume than the LHC which took two weeks to evacuate to be created in a matter of minutes.
People have had the idea and mothballed it almost 2 centuries ago. Turns out physics' a bitch and making vacuums requires lots of energy (potential energy, laws of thermodynamics and all that). At least last time they tried underground where you have a bunch of dirt to contain the system instead of a tube of sheet metal.
Musk got around to having a single car go 50mph in a tunnel after 4 years. Doesn't bode well for the project.
There's a difference between making something happen and feasibility. Only fools throw money at ideas purely because you want it to happen.
SpaceX was going to Mars on a budget that wouldn't even cover a round trip to the moon... seems like the brass at NASA finally asked some engineers and scrapped that faster than a burnt potato. At least Musk got his money out of that deal but yeah, he's trying...
To have such sweeping regulation come through a republican congress, someone with lots of dough must be "contributing" to get this through.
I'm not sure that "put something on the market, safety be damned" is going to get us there any faster although I do support the sentiment of less regulation.
Is it available without a $150 cable subscription? Not in my area.