Jihad needs scientists
in [Design]
|
From: Eeyore on 26 Nov 2006 14:58 lucasea(a)sbcglobal.net wrote: > <jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote in message > > Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > >>jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: > >> > >>> In case you two haven't noticed, the trend is to make possession > >>> of tobacco illegal. > >> > >>No sweetheart. It's the smoking of it where it's not wanted that's > >>becoming illegal. > > > > In this country, it's also illegal where it is wanted. > > No, it isn't. It is unwanted by more than half of the population in every > public place where they go. Almost everybody I know is now ecstatic that > they don't have to inhale someone else's poison when they want a pint of > beer or to go bowling. I'm so looking forward to it happening here next year. At last I'll be able to go out for a beer without coming back smelling like a bonfire or getting irritated eyes. Graham
From: Ken Smith on 26 Nov 2006 14:59 In article <C18DE6C3.4E65C%dbowey(a)comcast.net>, Don Bowey <dbowey(a)comcast.net> wrote: >On 11/25/06 9:31 AM, in article ek9uln$lag$9(a)blue.rahul.net, "Ken Smith" ><kensmith(a)green.rahul.net> wrote: > >> In article <MPG.1fd11c17f0518b5a989c65(a)news.individual.net>, >> krw <krw(a)att.bizzzz> wrote: >> [.....] >>> Whether you like it or not, radio is an interstate issue. Perhaps >>> there should be some local control for ultra=-low power, but other >>> than that 50 FCCs would be a nightmare. Can you imagine getting 50 >>> certifications for a piece of gear? >> >> I like radio just fine. >> >> Is radio "interstate commerce" if the broadcast can't be heard in another >> state? If not, I don't think the constitution gives the federal >> government preemptive control. >> >> > >Since the FCC DOES coordinate and regulate all forms of radio transmission, >what is the purpose of your post? > >Perhaps the problem is with your understanding. No, the question goes to a core issue. A FM station in SanFransisco is not "interstate" but is controlled by the FCC. Under some peoples reading of the constitution, it should not be. > -- -- kensmith(a)rahul.net forging knowledge
From: Ken Smith on 26 Nov 2006 15:01 In article <4568E61C.7E27585B(a)earthlink.net>, Michael A. Terrell <mike.terrell(a)earthlink.net> wrote: >Ken Smith wrote: >> >> In article <MPG.1fd11c17f0518b5a989c65(a)news.individual.net>, >> krw <krw(a)att.bizzzz> wrote: >> [.....] >> >Whether you like it or not, radio is an interstate issue. Perhaps >> >there should be some local control for ultra=-low power, but other >> >than that 50 FCCs would be a nightmare. Can you imagine getting 50 >> >certifications for a piece of gear? >> >> I like radio just fine. >> >> Is radio "interstate commerce" if the broadcast can't be heard in another >> state? If not, I don't think the constitution gives the federal >> government preemptive control. > > > You can't keep the signal from crossing the state lines at night. I >can hear radio stations from Ohio (700 KHz) and Tennessee (650 KHz) at >night on the standard AM broadcast band. I can hear stations from most >of the rest of the world on the shortwave bands. Not only is the RF >spectrum controlled from the federal level, it is controlled under >international agreement. Things like FM and 802.11 can be kept within the bounds of a state. In that case, it is not "interstate commerce". > > >-- >Service to my country? Been there, Done that, and I've got my DD214 to >prove it. >Member of DAV #85. > >Michael A. Terrell >Central Florida -- -- kensmith(a)rahul.net forging knowledge
From: Ken Smith on 26 Nov 2006 15:06 In article <slrnemhs15.5qi.don(a)manx.misty.com>, Don Klipstein <don(a)manx.misty.com> wrote: {... radio FCC and interstate commerce ...] > In addition, the US has this "Communications Act of 1934" IIRC. IIRC, >this one established the FCC and gave it power to regulate radio >transmissions. The question I was posing was: "Is this law constutional because it regulates things that are not interstate commerce". Some people would argue that it is. [....] > I don't seem to recall exceptions for transmissions that >have good expectation of not being detected across state lines. > This does sound like a good case to throw $$$$$$ into up to SCOTUS, but >there is the additional burden of diastinguishing from the majority of >detected-only-intrastate non-sanctioned radio transmissions being truly >noise - as in mostly being considered noise by over 99.9% of Americans >regardless of whether and how they agree with Rush Limbaugh. I am not >talking about "pirate"/rogue radio stations so much as inadequately >designed products that have RF oscillators or sparking contacts. The creation of electrical noise interfers with commerce. The power to govern it, should be in the same place as the power to govern intended radiations. This isn't really an independant issue since if there was no use of RF, the uninteded radiations would not matter. -- -- kensmith(a)rahul.net forging knowledge
From: Don Bowey on 26 Nov 2006 15:11
On 11/26/06 11:57 AM, in article ekcrj1$g1o$8(a)blue.rahul.net, "Ken Smith" <kensmith(a)green.rahul.net> wrote: > In article <79c91$4568893d$4fe7197$9163(a)DIALUPUSA.NET>, > unsettled <unsettled(a)nonsense.com> wrote: >> Ken Smith wrote: >> >>> In article <MPG.1fd11c17f0518b5a989c65(a)news.individual.net>, >>> krw <krw(a)att.bizzzz> wrote: >>> [.....] >>> >>>> Whether you like it or not, radio is an interstate issue. Perhaps >>>> there should be some local control for ultra=-low power, but other >>>> than that 50 FCCs would be a nightmare. Can you imagine getting 50 >>>> certifications for a piece of gear? >>> >>> >>> I like radio just fine. >>> >>> Is radio "interstate commerce" if the broadcast can't be heard in another >>> state? If not, I don't think the constitution gives the federal >>> government preemptive control. >> >> How many microwatts will cross the border when you're >> standing next to a state line with the transmitter? > > Why is an FM station in SanFransisco under FCC control? > Because that is part of their responsibility. What makes you a one trick pony? |