Of course! Quantum effects!
Every quack claims "quantum effects" for justifying their quackery these days. Nothing new. Me is not impressed.
So because they are large makes them evil?
No. That just makes them powerful. There are concerns that need to be addressed when benign institutions gain power. Like that bank, that used to take care of your money until they became too big to fail. Remember that one? It was funny. I still can't stop laughing while I fill in my taxes.
Of course it's not ok to kill and pillage all the time! Just a little bit once in a while.
I'm pretty sure killing, kidnapping and raping is forbidden regardless of religion.
And Moses said unto them, Have ye saved all the women alive?
I'm probably "not interpreting this correctly" or "taking it out of context" or whatever religious people say when confronted with their cognitive dissonance, but it seems the Bible is just fine with killing, kidnapping and raping.
And who would publish that study?
I've watched a great lecture about methane "observations" on Mars a while a go. It's really worthwhile if you want to get some background into the claims made. Needless to say, what you hear in the press is not to be trusted. Listen to the scientists themselves, they give a lot more subtle story than the headlines in a newspaper.
To make a long story short: Microsoft is sooo '98...
Thanks for your clarification! The puzzle pieces seem to fit
Hmm, strange. Is this by any chance U.S. specific? I'm in Europe (Belgium) and I could have sworn it isn't allowed over here. I'm currently studying for my HAREC exam (I think that's the "technician" level in U.S. terms), anyway, it's the "super-duper full licence for everything"-exam. So I recently read the current law texts, and don't remember anything like that... I'll have to double check that.
The patent covers the operation of the vocoder, but does not contain the full specification for the codec. This spec is not available. So you'd need to completely reverse engineer the codec before you can even start your own implementation. I think there are some "software" D-Star implementations, but these need a dongle containing the vocoder chip. So, technically: yes it is possible to do in software. Practically: no.
You should take a while to actually listen to HAM radio. People are DOS'ing each other, sometimes by accident, sometimes intentional. There are some jerks among HAM operators, as there are everywhere. But you can't do this on the entire frequency range (well, you can, but that takes a lot of power + this is illegal + you'll be fined + you'll have your equipment confiscated because you can not do broadband transmissions).
That said, in practice there are no problems most of the time. There is no need to allocate time slots or whatever. Don't propose a fix if you aren't familiar with the subject
HAM radio is about experimentation. The communication part is almost a side effect. Radio-amateur frequencies were never intended to substitute commercial telecom networks. So if you transmit something on the HAM frequencies, it's expected that everybody can decode the message. It's part of the experimental nature of HAM radio. You can not even use it for relaying messages for a third party, that's what phones are for.
That's the intent. Then again, there has been some erosion already, e.g. with the D-Star protocol. It's a digital communication protocol that uses the AMBE vocoder to transmit voice. The problem is: AMBE is patented, and you need a special chip to decode it. That's 100% against the intent of HAM-radio: normally you should be able to experiment and create your own decoder, but in this case it's impossible unless you buy the chip. This is a quite controversial topic, and has spurred the creation of a free alternative, called CODEC-2.
Oh, thanks for the link, I'll check that out.