Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed


Forgot your password?
Slashdot Deals: Deal of the Day - 6 month subscription of Pandora One at 46% off. ×

Comment Re:Amazing! (Score 1) 173

They already have control; 47 CFR Part 15 covers this completely.

While you can write whatever code you would like, and you can compile it with no worries, if that code causes interference above and beyond Part 15 rules it is a violation of the regulations for that code to be run if the device running that code is within the jurisdiction of the FCC (USA and its possessions). If you have a license, you are covered by the particular section of 47 CFR that covers your particular license, and you must abide by that license and its covering regulations (code for a TV broadcast transmitter, for instance, has a whole separate set of restrictions).

If a device possesses an intentional radiator of RF it is covered by one or more FCC regulations (in the US; internationally it's covered by the ITU and its vast portfolio of regulations). Many of the provisions of various regulations in 47 CFR are there because of ITU regulations, incidentally, including many in Part 15.

Comment Re:Question for Bruce (Score 4, Insightful) 173

I'm not Bruce, but several people within certain Bureaus of the FCC do indeed understand Open Source. Even as far back as the '90's one of the engineers in the former Mass Media Bureau (deals with broadcasters) actually published some Open Source code showing how to use Fortran as a CGI program for websites..... they also have released a large quantity of code over the years.

One thing to remember about government agencies is that they are made up of people; the question isn't whether the agency knows anything, it's whether the people employed by that agency know.

Comment Re:Been going on since as long as I can remember. (Score 1) 303

Given enough power on the transmit laser, you can blow out more than the sfp. Research the term 'fiber fuse' or watch for a hilarious holiday themed destruction of fiber with excessive light. (There are other videos on youtube; this one is just too funny to pass up.

Comment Re:For back doors and transmission power. (Score 1) 242

The legislative boat already sailed, in 1934, with the passage of the Communications Act of 1934, that both created the FCC and specifically authorized it to craft regulations to do exactly what they are doing with this without further action by Congress. Congress has further amended the Communications Act over the years, one of the largest amendments being in 1996. Congress, by power vested in our elected representatives and with the approval of the President (in 1934, that was of course FDR; in 1996, it would have been Clinton) explicitly delegated regulatory authority to the FCC to do this. And thus Title 47 of the Code of Federal Regulations was born.

Comment Re:TIP series are good devices (Score 1) 170

Gate capacitance on a junction FET (not all FET's are MOSFETs) and base to emitter capacitance on a typical bipolar are comparable. However, the best-case use for a bipolar is a cool little magnetic device called a transfluxer (no, I am not making that up; see US Patent number 4,459,653 for the 'bifluxer' variant and the citations to the original, Google's link is ). A transfluxer-based inverter is very close to being as efficient as a MOSFET design. (And, don't worry, that patent expired nearly 20 years ago.)

Insulated-gate bipolar transistors (IGBTs) are the closest thing to the ideal; FETs in general are voltage-controlled resistors, and at least up until the HEXFET (by Intersil as I recall) invention had substantially higher output impedance than the typical bipolar; bipolars, especially when connected as emitter followers, have very low output impedance but likewise relatively low input impedance. The IGBT is the best of both worlds for high powers and finds pervasive use in the power control industry.

But MOSFETs are good enough for most things. Well, except that the transfer functions are different, just as different as bipolar, point-contact, unijunction, and all other transistors (transit resistors, after all) are from the firebottles they replaced (firebottle, glassFET, valve, tube, whatever you want to call those wonderful vacuum (or gas) based controllers of current....).

(yeah, I am an out of EE and into IT to do a bit of stress-reduction.... and, yes, it worked.)

Comment Re: The only intuitive interface is the nipple (Score 2) 270

Out of my five children, only one 'intuitively' took to breastfeeding. With the first one my wife badly wanted to try breastfeeding, but our son just simply would not latch on. The hospital even brought in the local lactation consultant (who's very existence speaks volumes) but no latch-on.

Comment Re:I have two problems with this article. (Score 1) 287

One of the other uses for time sync is in astronomy, where the accuracy of the telescope's pointing to a particular RA/DEC is directly proportional to the accuracy of the telescope controller's clock. I can just imagine if a large telescope were to use SNTP and the time changed in a noncontinuous manner during a timed exposure. Actually, I don't have to imagine it; I have seen the result, and it's a ruined image.

A failure will not appear until a unit has passed final inspection.