[offtopic] And this kind of thing drives my paranoid friends *batty*.
--dave
I suspect none of them ever worked in a large enough organization
that it had lots of inertia... which I've seen in a five-person team (;-))
On 08/10/15 03:36 PM, Dave Taht wrote:
The *only* report of interference wit
The *only* report of interference with radars I have been able to find
is a vaguely worded complaint in a 2011 document, where 40 reports of
interference were found, 25 at one airport in Puerto Rico.
The FCC has utterly failed to provide proof for it's argument, thus far.
On Thu, Oct 8, 2015 at 9
David Collier-Brown wrote:
> Based on that, it sounds like the issue is that you can buy a 5 GHz
> device off the shelf, then hack the firmware to re-enable those
> frequencies. And the FCC is proposing this action because people have
> been doing exactly that and the FCC has
Solandri wrote, at
http://tech.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=8141531&cid=50686089
So based on a few vague comments, I managed to track down what the
issue is since neither this nor the previous/. article nor the sites
opposed to it (who seem to want to portray it as a Big Evil Government
conspir
I meant everything I said in that comment - I don't think dtaht's worthy
effort rang the "national security" bell anywhere near hard enough, either
as a matter of substance or as a rhetorical move.
But I was also thinking tactically about how my comment would implicitly
reposition the others. Wha
I've invited readers to submit their own. When we're ready, people with
local credibility should post links everywhere.
I assume the FCC doesn't publish the comments as they arrive (Canada
does, but gets behind due to manual moderation (:-))
--dave
--
David Collier-Brown, | Always d
