But, but.... look, shiny!

Too bad it's not removable media.

Try again, with early 1700's technology.

In what way do you consider the choice of a measurement which is easily reproducible virtually anywhere worldwide "arbitrary?"

Yes, things like altitude change the scale a bit. Can you can come up with a better solution (very accessible, reasonably accurate, reasonably reproducible) for transfer of a standard temperature scale worldwide with mid-1700's technology? Choosing the freezing and boiling points of water on that basis for something of scientific, industrial and commercial use seems anything but "arbitrary."

"Why the hell are we talking about the Fahrenheit scale. And, while we're at it, memory of all kinds is always expressed in GiB, so a 512GB card is 1024 times as large as a 512MB card"

I use Rankine, you insensitive clod.

And, you're wrong. The Sandisk 512 GB card being discussed has a capacity of 512,000,000,000 bytes ("1GB=1,000,000,000 bytes" - Sandisk). Just like disk drives and SSDs are measured.

The discussion is about capacity, and disk drives, SSDs, and yes even these memory cards ("1 GB = 1,000,000,000 bytes" - Sandisk) use the metric prefixes correctly. How you can claim that's a "base 10 number of base 2 blocks" is a mystery. Yes, they may address base 2 sized blocks (e.g. 512 or 4096), but the total capacity is specified in base 10. (and the block address is expressed on the interface with a base 2 number, not BCD.) But that's not the capacity, which is what's being discussed.

It seems like disk manufacturers don't reveal specifics like they used to, but it wasn't uncommon to find organizations like 17 sectors/track and other non-base 2/10 layouts.

ugh, this is a real disgrace on India. I think this scamming here is frequent from India because there is little to no regulation, law or enforcement of it if there were one about scamming 'foreigners'.

This is how most of the Indian GDP were composed of.

It is part of their culture. In the university that I went to, 90% of the Indians are cheating. This is in a electrical engineering master's program.

That's why our organization will not hire any H1Bs.

No, signing is only one option. One may wish to use off-the-shelf 802.11 equipment and WPA to create a secure telecommand link. If done with the intention of preventing unauthorized access rather than obscuring the content, it does not violate the regs.

For instance, one may want to securely control a model craft, something the regs directly allow: "The control signals are not considered codes or ciphers intended to obscure the meaning of the communication." Or, it might be used for telecommand of a ham station, which the regs specifically require to be "protected against making, willfully or negligently, unauthorized transmissions."

"Crypto is not at all allowed on the ham bands"

That's not true. Part 97 prohibits "messages encoded for the purpose of obscuring their meaning." If crypto were used, not for obscuring meaning, but to prevent unauthorized access (e.g. for a "telecommand" application), it would not run afoul of the regs.

"Worked for Admiral General Aladeen."

ITYM General Protection Fault?

Maybe he meant "carnal mass ejection."

That's OK. The submitter misspelled "coronal" as "cornal."

Don't forget the US Congress.

Network filtering doesn't occur at the RF level. Do you understand how this works? Furthermore, Part 15 is a regulation imposed by the FCC, not legislative authority. The FCC is the sole arbitrator of the regulations mean. As a 40+ year licensee, I know that they don't much buy into pedantic word games.

"No, it doesn't interfere with other devices' radio signals."

So, you don't know how WiFi works? Because, it does exactly that - it intentionally mimics the radio signals of an AP to tell a device to disconnect. "Interference" isn't limited to blasting the local area with kilowatts of RF noise. It is, amazingly enough, interfering (especially deliberately) with use of the spectrum which would otherwise operate just fine. Intent (case at hand) and unnecessary emissions (defective or poorly designed devices) are a large part of what constitutes "interference." The entire reason for the rule is to allow unlicensed devices to co-exist, and this device is specifically intended to interfere with that co-existence.