I see where the FCC rules tell the manufacturers to afix that label. But I don't see where the modification of a radio set is actually illegal. It is certainly vague with respect to an individual making modifications. I read 15.121 through a couple of times; it is a strange requirement about that label. Clearly, manufacturing a radio to receive cellular signals is illegal. And it's clear that if you modify one, you can't sell it: section 2(d). Only in section 2(b) is there a hint that having such a radio might be illegal: "Except as provided in paragraph (c) of this section, scanning receivers shall reject any signals..."
Slashdot videos: Now with more Slashdot!
We've improved Slashdot's video section; now you can view our video interviews, product close-ups and site visits with all the usual Slashdot options to comment, share, etc. No more walled garden! It's a work in progress -- we hope you'll check it out (Learn more about the recent updates).
The so-called facts were worked them out with false data and an agenda to "prove" the causation. The models don't work when given real data. Show me one, that given real data from the 50's, 60's 70's and 80's can predict what happened in the 90's and 2000's. There isn't one without fudging the inputs. The old principal of garbage in, garbage out applies here in spades. To make any kind of serious decision based on what has been done so far is just plain idiotic. Real science was never properly done and as many have said on here already, the debates don't happen anymore (which isn't really a truth - there are some who care enough not to just shut up and go away) because those that have tried to do it were shouted down and publicly ostracised for their views. Fuding was cut because they were coming up with the "wrong" answer. I'm not even saying one way or the other about AGW, but I've come to the conclusion that anyone who truly believes it's all settled and done is a complete mental moron.
About the EPA, what we can draw from this is knowledge that they are NOT a science based organization. They are political and will concur with whoever is funding them. In all of this discussion, follow the money. Why is anyone surprised that this is all driven by greed. Greed just decimated the entire US economy - greedy people don't care about truth.
I am neither poor or disadvantaged and I don't have cable or satellite TV. I have in the past, but I find we don't really miss them; even glad to be rid of it in some ways. I ended up without cable when Comcast screwed up moving me a few years ago. I found I get all the digital channels in my area with a rabbit ears antenna. The picture and sound are superb. Do I see myself ever going back to forking out $700+ a year for TV? Not likely. The money I saved on cable more than paid for replacing all my old analog sets with nice new DTVs (we have 3 in the house).
I had a job with this kind of schedule. Loved it. Working an extra hour a day is no big deal. I didn't really notice it in my off-work personal life. If you're salaried, you probably already do that quite often, anyways. My boss always respected it (even if he didn't like it). We were an R&D engineering group, so if no one came in to work (thus potentially creating a crisis), there wasn't any reason anyone ever got pulled in on their off Fridays.
In the winter, every other Friday was Ski-Friday and in the summer, every other Friday was camp-Friday. Beat the crowds both ways.
I did work with one guy who didn't like being around his family and wanted to go back to the 10/80 schedule.
- Light Side
- Dark Side
Link to Original Source