Don't worry, if this becomes in any way successful, the Chinese will happily take care of all the "Asian manufacturing" without you having to do anything at all. They'll drop the price to $100 or less. That fact of life is why I wondered why you commented on preventing Chinese knock-off production, especially for an open-source/open-hardware system.

Nobody will be able to use this in the ham bands without a ham license, or in the LMR without the appropriate licenses. At least not as a transmitter. It is a really bad idea to suggest to people that they can use a transceiver without the appropriate license. That's why we have license-free CB -- so many people got the idea they didn't need a license for a radio they bought from K-Mart that the FCC had to give up on requiring licenses.

It should be LMR, since amateur typing won't make use on commercial frequencies legal. Since it's open source software, you will have a hard time claiming that the radio is limited to any specific bands or uses.

You talk in your slides about how the "big 3" will sell you something and they don't interoperate in digital mode. Yes, that's a problem. (And I, too, wonder what Yaesu was thinking with their C4FM radios.) Your solution is this system. So, you'll need apps that do all the existing digital modes. As soon as someone modifies one of them and starts passing their nifty new app around, you'll have the same interop problem. Even worse -- instead of three main manufacturers to keep track of, there will be potentially hundreds of amateur tinkerers creating new "not-modes" digital ops. Saying the amateur community should come up with the digital standards is like saying a herd of cats should guard the catnip. Herding cats, herding amateurs ...

You're going to need a master contacts-app that keeps track of who you talk to and what app you need and even then you'll need to know which app they're using at the moment.

Don't get me wrong. It's an interesting piece of hardware. It's just the idea of saying "without a license" that needs to be controlled. Handing a transceiver to someone that can cover 50-1000 MHz (even at just 2W) and suggesting that they don't need a license to use it, well, I dunno. I think that's dangerous for the future of ham radio, not beneficial.

By the way, you say that "the AMBE 1000 IP will be unenforceable after Hamvention" (or something like that. ) What does Hamvention have to do with it?

My only axe to grind is with someone who treats me like an idiot because I don't think I should have to write an add-on to do something that used to be a simple checkbox menu item. Someone who thinks THEIR solution to a problem they've never come across is so much better.

Do'h. I know that. So what? Once you get rid of the malicious page that you can't get away from while js is active, TURN JAVASCRIPT BACK ON. It really is that simple. Three simple steps: 1. Turn js off. 2. Escape the malicious page. 3. Turn js on.

If some other webpage cannot survive with javascript off for ten seconds and you may lose so much precious data because of it, just imagine how much precious data you'll lose when you have to kill the browser and reload the page from scratch.

You make it sound like I'm saying I go visit my bank and then decide to go look at malicious websites just for fun. That demonstrates a complete lack of comprehension of the problem and is patently insulting to boot. You're the one who brought up loading banking pages after a malicious web page gets control. I told you how you solve the incredibly difficult problem of having a banking page that needs js -- by simply not disabling js when you go there.

Now I know you're trolling. Why the fuck would I reload a malicious page once I've managed to get away from it? The goal is NOT to be there at all, not to see what it looks like without javascript enabled. But then, you've said you've never been on one, so you don't know.

I understand. You got yours. A feature THAT YOU WOULDN'T USE ANYWAY cannot be tolerated because ... I don't know, because you might lose control of your own mouse and wind up using it and not know why all your favorite websites no longer work like you want them to? You think that it should be impossible to have a simple option to do something simple and you want to force others to create an add-on. Your machine and network connection is fast enough to reload twenty or thirty tabs so killing the browser and hoping you uncheck the right miscreant if/when you get offered the chance is the only option anyone needs.

And I get that you think other people are too stupid to be able to manage a simple checkbox to turn javascript off. You make that clear when you talk about deliberately going to malicious websites while I'm doing my banking ("But then on the other side, loading a banking page in the same browser as a potentially untrusted page at the same time isn't really a good idea in the first place.") or how I want to reload the malicious web page I've just managed to get away from. Stop treating other people like idiots because they want an option PUT BACK (not created, just put back) that you don't intend on using.

Every reason you have for not allowing a simple option to disable javascript boils down to two: it might break some web page if javascript isn't on, and nobody could be smart enough to turn javascript back on when going to such a page. To the first, boo friken hoo, and to the second, <expletive deleted>.

So this will be low enough powered to be certificated as a Part 15 device? And it won't have trivially modifiable software to violate the Part 15 standards so that everyone and their brother can have a cheap, unlicensed high-power (>Part 15 limits) source of interference to all the other licensed users?

I worked with a local ISP and its existence had nothing to do with the telco leasing their lines. They bought phone service from the local phone company just like any other company (and I spent hours punching down lines from the demarc to the modem banks), and they got their T1 lines out the same way. The telcos sold service to ISPs and didn't have to be forced to do it. They made a good bit of money from it.

That dialup line you think was leased was no different than any standard phone line, and you'd look like a fool if you claimed that you had to lease a line to call your grandmother on her birthday -- but it was the same wire and same service.

Yes, after ISPs exploded the telcos tried to market "data lines" as something special, but that was their way of trying to recoup the costs of needing more CO equipment to deal with the new statistics of phone calls. Instead of a ten minute voice call, they were seeing a lot of hours long data calls that were using the switching system and they couldn't support the new load using the old statistically-determined amount of equipment.

Yes, the fact that she couldn't get it to start with means she's in a high-risk group, and now that she's lumped in with all the lower risk insured they are, indeed, subsidizing her insurance.

That's how insurance works. Low risk participants ALWAYS subsidize the higher risk participants. That's why you used to be able to get lower priced insurance if you were a low risk and the plans could exclude high risk members.

And it's more likely she could get insurance, except she couldn't afford it. That cost is now being paid by other people. "A rising tide lifts all boats" applies to the risk levels/pricing of insurance pools as well as the economy.

Can you drop the personal attacks and deal with the facts?

You're making the rash assumption that "the minimum standards of the ACA" defines what is "good" and anything else is "bad". You're assuming that the government is better at deciding what coverage you need than you are. Maybe for YOU they are, but your limitations aren't binding on others.

The honest way of saying it is that many people couldn't keep their desired coverage because the government decided it wasn't good enough for them. Not because it actually wasn't good enough, but because the government decided. That makes the promise "if you like your plan you can keep it" patently false and a blatant lie. It's the government deciding they didn't like your plan and you didn't get a choice in the matter.

Uhh, no, if they aren't in the group of providers that your new insurance company accepts, you don't get to see him anymore. Well, you can, but you pay out of pocket full price. Most people would call that "not being able to see him".

Further, even if you did get to keep your doctor, your waiting time to see him is undoubtedly going to be much longer. I used to be able to schedule my regular three month update visit every three months. Now it's four months if I'm lucky, sometimes five. I got a referral by email to a physical therapist for a level 11 back pain issue and it was three weeks before I got to see her for the first time.

My doctor doesn't decide what providers are authorized under my insurance, the insurance company does. It takes a lot more than a doctor asking "pretty please make my practice part of your plan" to get it done.

Or isn't part of the preferred provider network your new insurance company deals with.

I'm glad it worked out for you. But to ignore the large number of people who it didn't work out for and claim that the system is working is pretty selfish. To use your personal situation as proof that Obama didn't lie about ACA issues is just ridiculous. His promise wasn't just to you, it was to EVERYONE. Even those who didn't get to keep their plans or their doctors.

It's nice that you've never had to deal with changing a doctor due to insurance change, but I have. And it was obvious that the promise of being able to keep doctors and plans once the government got in the businesses of deciding what was good enough for you was a lie. Pretending it wasn't a lie because you got what you wanted is dishonest.

Great. Because an ISP assigns better QoS to VoIP or streaming video than someone's bittorrent or ftp traffic, they automatically become a co-conspirator when someone uses Vonage to plan a bank robbery.

I responded to what I found relevant.

I responded to your complicated system by pointing out how overly complicated it was. I proposed something better.

Yes, I know. If you disable jt, it breaks every webpage that relies on javascript to do anything useful. It also breaks every website that relies on js to do malicious things. That's good.

Since it still works today, yes, today's use case is adequately covered. I still have systems with that version and they run just fine. Nothing is broken. Having the option to turn off js didn't break any pages. Why would it? They don't know you have the option unless you use it to stop them from doing something malicious. If that's the case, then boo frigging hoo the page is broken by turning off js.

I shouldn't have to learn how to write a full add-on to do something that WAS THERE AND WAS REMOVED, just to TURN OFF something. That's ridiculous. And the problem is that if the malicious website is preventing you from getting to any other pages you are probably going to have trouble getting to the add-on.

Here's an idea. What about DON'T TURN OFF JAVASCRIPT ON PAGES THAT AREN'T MALICIOUSLY TRYING TO HIJACK YOUR "WEB EXPERIENCE"? It's that simple. Really. There's no reason to turn it off for banking, search, etc unless they are doing something bad.

You run into problems because you have a add-on that's playing games with what sites can and can't use what code. It's much simple to say "no javascript". You know how many times I've run into problems with javascript "vanishing" on loaded pages? ZERO. At WORST the page complains about not having javascript and I just go turn it back on. A couple clicks of the mouse and solution achieved.

And when you start back up it reloads all the pages, including the one that you wanted to get away from. And it takes the time to reload all the other pages. Yes, I've sometimes seen the "Oops" page that first asks which pages to reload, but more often than not it just reloads everything. And if the js is messing with other pages, you get the messed result right back.

It is just more convenient and less time consuming to turn off js when necessary than to kill a browser session and wind up back where you were.

What does this have to do with blocking ads? Where did you get the idea that ads are the only malicious web pages our there?

It was. "Enable javascript" was on by default.

Most of the web works just fine without javascript. Those times I had to disable it to get away from a page that was using it maliciously, I often forgot to turn it back on and found the "browsing experience" to be much more pleasant.

Saying that "most of the web doesn't work" unless you have javascript is another way of saying that "your web experience should be what I tell you it has to be".

That's just silly. Having a toggle that defaults to "on" gets you your "javascript enabled" experience that you want newbs to have while still allowing others a choice.

That's also silly. You propose a complicated by-page or by-site manager, but decry a simple "off" toggle as ... useless?

I was already an option, quite simple. And it was a detriment to remove it, except to those who feel that controlling the viewer's "web experience" belongs in the hand of the site programmer and not the viewer.

I consider breaking malicious web pages to be a good thing. YMMV.

If you've ever been stuck on a page that won't let you go anywhere and every attempt at leaving mucks up other tabs, then you wouldn't call turning off javascript at that point useless.

Oh, lord, here we go. Another idjit who thinks his definition of what "the experience" should be must be the experience for everyone else.

If you don't want to install an addon, feel free not to install an addon. Don't tell others that they should be forced to install an addon to DISABLE something that could be disabled natively, and until someone decided that other people's "experiences" must be carefully controlled was a simple checkbox in a preferences window.

Using an adjective to differentiate between one thing is incorrect. It is unnecessary, and when it appears it implies that there is a differentiation to be made. If I say I have "a red apple", then you know it is not a green one, and that the difference is important.

No, all you need to imply more than one is to use an adjective to describe which one of more than one you are referring to. "My wife" needs no further specification because your use of the singular says there is only one. "My beautiful wife" implies there is a need to specify which wife you are talking about. In this case "my beautiful wife" truly is different than saying "my wife who is beautiful".

The next time someone asks for a "chocolate ice cream sundae", ask them if they think there is only one flavor of ice cream. Obviously not, otherwise they'd simply say "ice cream sundae". And they aren't comparing ice creams, they are specifying which of multiple flavors they want. That's the job of an adjective.

Yes, that's a strict interpretation of the language, but it's no stricter than pointing out to someone who has just said that "nobody can run as fast as I can" that they've just said they cannot run as fast as they do.

As for your stupidity regarding the second amendment: it exists because the founders had just gone through a war where they found it convenient that the people had guns, and lived in a time when guns were a way of life and necessary for self-defense against not only criminals but wild beasts. They had just overthrown a repressive government and wanted to keep that option available for the new one they'd just fought to create, should it become necessary.

The "militia" clause is an explanatory clause, not a complete statement of the entire reason why the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. Had they wanted to say that they could have easily done so. And that clause says nothing about state militias. It wasn't intended to because it was the federal constitution, not a state constitution.