Could you please stop posting unsubstantive comments and flamebait? You've unfortunately been doing it repeatedly. It's not what this site is for, and destroys what it is for.
MIL-STD-188-110D defines a 38,400 baud modem at 48 kHz bandwidth. With 256QAM, the raw data rate is 240 kbps.
Of course, the 2.8 kHz bandwidth rule prohibits that in the ham bands. The FCC had originally declined to set a maximum bandwidth in their first ruling, but that caused everyone's head to explode (and that's one of the reasons this ruling has taken so long).
The HF ham bands aren't very wide. With the exception of 10 meters, from 50 to 500 kHz wide. Folks (including the ARRL) were afraid of abuse. With an SDR, you can generate a signal with any bandwidth you desire.
The reason the FCC didn't want to set a limit is because it's arbitrary. For example, MIL-STD-188-110D (which is an open standard) has a 2400 baud 3.24 kHz mode. But now it's illegal.
Taking the 2.8 kHz bandwidth limit into account, around 2000 to 2400 baud depending on the excess bandwidth of the root-raised-cosine filter used to shape the signal.
The bandwidth of a single carrier signal is symbol rate * (1 + RRC excess bandwidth). A typical excess bandwidth is 0.35, so 2000 syms/s * 1.35 = 2700 Hz.
You can use a tighter roll-off, like 0.2. 2400 syms/s * 1.2 = 2880 Hz. Unfortunately, the tighter roll-off increases the PAPR (Peak to Average Power Ratio) of the transmitted signal.
Your comment is 100% technically correct, except that people reading it may think that baud means numbers of bits per second.
If you have more than 2 possible symbols, you can do much more than that; 256QAM could be getting 8 bits/second/Hz under very strong signal conditions.
This theorem states that the theoretical maximum channel capacity ("bandwidth" as measured by bits per second) is dependent on analog bandwidth (the other "bandwidth" lol) and signal to noise ratio.
Now that's the information theoretical maximum, but stuff like QAM as people mentioned, and other more advanced techniques like OFDM and "next layer" stuff like FEC can get you very close to the theoretical maximum.
I used to dialin to Pine (and Lynx) at 1200bps. If I remember correctly, I could read about as fast as the words came to screen. If you're just saving for reading later, 5kbps is tons for email.
It's really hard to do on modern operating systems. Too many services that will dogpile a low bandwidth link once they see that a network adapter is up.
It's funny that Bitcoiners are saying that Bitcoin isn't crypto. The term is so toxic that they've disowned it... even though Bitcoin is literally the original crypto!
Bitcoin maximalists prefer to disassociate themselves from alternative cryptocurrencies (aka. alt-coins), all of which they consider to be inferior and unnecessary.
Technically, the 'crypto' in cryptocurrency refers to cryptography, which is a technology cryptocurrencies utilize.
People who want to ban 'crypto' really mean they want to ban cryptocurrencies, not cryptography.
The Moonies have woven themselves into the American right wing for decades. Reagan said the Washington Times, which is an organ of the Unification Church, was his favorite newspaper.
You can see Falun Gong attempting the same in the United States. The Epoch Times is Falun Gong's "media outlet" and it sponsors and shapes a lot of content online. It's all bankrolled by Shen Yun performances too. These rabbit holes go to strange places!
Newsweek infamously relaunched itself in 2014 with a dramatic story falsely accusing a Japanese man living in California of being Satoshi Nakamoto. So it’s not exactly a credible outlet.
FWIW, the owner of Newsweek at the time wasn’t the Moonies, but rather David Jang, who is an evangelical Presbyterian. Things have apparently gotten complicated since then, with a change in ownership and then Newsweek itself reporting a year ago that they were suing Jang: https://www.newsweek.com/newsweek-sues-david-jang-leader-sec...
Lately I’ve seen tons and tons of anti trans content that actually says sponsored by the Epoch Times. I’ve see it on Facebook and Xitter.
I don’t get why that issue is so important to them. Maybe scaring people about trans people is just broadly working.
Gotta fear monger or people might notice that most of our candidates are incompetent. Republicans are unelectable without scaring people about LGBT people and immigrants, while Democrats are unelectable without scaring people about Republicans. That seems to be the dynamic right now.
Simple: grifting. Influence is what's important to them. They tap into wellsprings of conservative grievance to increase media outreach. They became antivax when antivax sentiment went up, they're here for the trans freakout, and they'll surely work to be in place for the next hot button issue, too.
>Republicans are unelectable without scaring people about LGBT people and immigrants, while Democrats are unelectable without scaring people about Republicans. That seems to be the dynamic right now.
That was the dynamic. Now with NYC, Chicago, etc. being overwhelmed with migrant inflows, and Dem mayors like in NYC and Chicago declaring emergencies, do we really need Republican fear mongering to scare people about unregulated migration?
If politicians try to gaslight people that obvious problems aren't real, that can make the opposition electable all on its own.
Li Hongzhi, the founder of Falung Gong, views homosexuality as basically such a profound abnormal psychological state that it is among the worst of sins.
It is no surprise that their mouthpiece would be rabidly against acceptance of gender dysphoria as anything other than a perverse mental disorder.
Every contribution helps get us one step closer to expelling this misogynistic ideology from policy and law. It would be preferable if such articles were penned only by women's rights organisations and allies with the same principles, but if other groups want to oppose this nonsense from other angles then that's useful too.
Big TIL for me this one, and I thought I was smart enough for knowing about the connection between Falun Gong and the Epoch Times (I also know about the direct connection between Gulen's movement and one of the best private schools here in Romania).
"The exact financial and structural connections between Falun Gong, Shen Yun and The Epoch Times remains unclear...Financial documents paint a complicated picture of more than a dozen technically separate organizations that appear to share missions, money and executives." (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falun_Gong#The_Epoch_Times_and...)
Ha, that's what Shen Yun is about. Their ticket sales convoy pops up in an innocuous town in the UK a couple of times a year, looking rather out of place.
> The Moonies have woven themselves into the American right wing for decades. Reagan said the Washington Times, which is an organ of the Unification Church, was his favorite newspaper.
This is perhaps the flimsiest syllogism I have ever encountered.
But if you don't want to follow a link, here's a quote:
Over the years, Moon’s hidden money has helped many Republicans through hard times. In the 1980s, the American Freedom Council defended North against Iran-Contra charges and distributed 30 million pieces of political literature to help elect George Bush in 1988. It was later revealed that the AFC was backed by $5 million to $6 million from business interests associated with Moon.
Moon’s organization also kept the right’s direct-mail guru Richard Viguerie afloat in the 1980s. At one stage, Viguerie profited from a big contract with the Washington Times for subscription solicitations, then, while facing a financial crisis that threatened his company’s future, Viguerie sold a building to a top Moon aide, Bo Hi Pak, for $10 million.
Yet, even as Moon has gained influence in GOP circles, the sources of his money have always been suspect. In the late 1970s, a congressional investigation tied Moon’s Unification Church to the “Koreagate” influence-buying scheme directed by South Korea’s intelligence service, the KCIA, against U.S. institutions. In 1983, the moderate Republican Ripon Society raised warning flags, too. Rep. Jim Leach (R-Iowa), then Ripon chairman, charged that Moon’s church had “infiltrated the new right and the party it [the new right] wants to control, the Republican Party, and infiltrated the media as well.”
But President Ronald Reagan embraced the Washington Times as his “favorite” newspaper and Moon’s newspaper returned the favor by defending the Reagan-Bush administrations at nearly every turn. In 1991, President Bush invited the paper’s new editor-in-chief, Wesley Pruden, to lunch “just to tell you how valuable the Times has become in Washington, where we read it every day.”
> Over the years, Moon’s hidden money has helped many Republicans through hard times.
Okay. You offer three examples. One is obvious nonsense--Bush won by 8% in '88, winning 4/5 states. Supporting him was hardly "helping Republicans through hard times" and said support presumably went unnoticed, as support in a presidential campaign has the lowest value-per-dollar of any form of political support.
Given that, your entire argument is
> Moon --has money in--> "business interests associated with moon" --give money to--> AFC --does business with--> Richard Viguerie --supports--> GOP
Ergo, Moon has influence over the GOP? Lol. Then there's:
> Moon --has money in--> "business interests associated with moon" --give money to--> AFC --toes party line during Iran-Contra in support of--> GOP
Ergo, Moon has influence over the GOP. One cannot possibly be convinced of this without first desperately wanting to be convinced. Maybe it hits better if you've got the whole thing pinned up on your wall with thumbtacks, with the relationships mapped out in red yarn and a tin foil hat to keep the 5G at bay.
Look--giving money to a cause while separated by multiple parties is the flimsiest form of association imaginable. Pretending that this relationship (if you can even call it that) is necessarily reversible (A gives to B, who gives to C, who helps D, ergo D is under the influence of A) is just laughable. It's worth noting separately that this whole rhetorical house of cards rests on the assumption that "business interests associated with moon" means "Moon's money", which is likely just another batch of motivated reasoning.
> In the late 1970s, a congressional investigation tied Moon’s Unification Church to the “Koreagate” influence-buying scheme directed by South Korea’s intelligence service, the KCIA, against U.S. institutions.
Are you going to tie this in? Or are you hoping for a leap of faith?
> In 1983, the moderate Republican Ripon Society raised warning flags, too. Rep. Jim Leach (R-Iowa), then Ripon chairman, charged that Moon’s church had “infiltrated the new right and the party it [the new right] wants to control, the Republican Party, and infiltrated the media as well.”
Imagine quoting a politician as evidence.
> But President Ronald Reagan embraced the Washington Times as his “favorite” newspaper and Moon’s newspaper returned the favor by defending the Reagan-Bush administrations at nearly every turn.
One can appreciate a paper for providing good press coverage without drinking the kool-aid of the owner's cult. Don't you agree?
> In 1991, President Bush invited the paper’s new editor-in-chief, Wesley Pruden, to lunch “just to tell you how valuable the Times has become in Washington, where we read it every day.”
This could be the sole piece of evidence of an super-secret back channel between Bush and the Moon cult<-->Korean intelligence axis! Or it could be a conservative politician showing appreciation to a conservative news outlet for their positive coverage of the administration--doubtless one of many such lunches. Occam's Razor applies.
> The Moonies have woven themselves into the American right wing
Our First Amendment specifically allows for freedom of association and religion. This used to be seen as an attribute, now it apparently has become cause for open prejudice.
> The Epoch Times is Falun Gong's "media outlet" and it sponsors and shapes a lot of content online. It's all bankrolled by Shen Yun performances too.
This is an intentionally misleading representation of the organization and it's structure, which combined with the above, seems designed to besmirch the papers reputation and reporting without actually addressing either in any meaningful way.
If the sword cuts both ways then your assessment is suggestively identical to the CCP position on the organization and on the religious views of it's founders.
It's a newspaper given away for free in paper form, frequently.
I don't believe the Epoch Times to be a credible news source, in the same way that RT is not one. That doesn't mean its not a news source worth looking at on occasion.
I'm also skeptical of Falun Gong, first as a generally non-religious person, and then because they dont seem to like LGBTQ people very much - and I'm very much a member of that community.
I feel everyone ought to have a right to practice their religion in peace, however when the practicing of your religion potentially impacts the secular word, I get concerned - I generally believe in a strong separation of church and state, and anyone who starts to encroach on that, puts my hackles up.
"however when the practicing of your religion potentially impacts the secular word, I get concerned - I generally believe in a strong separation of church and state, and anyone who starts to encroach on that, puts my hackles up."
But you cannot really separate personal believe from political stance. So religious believe will always influence the secular world. Meaning religious people will vote and lobby for people and organisations sharing their point of view.
> But you cannot really separate personal believe from political stance. So religious believe will always influence the secular world. Meaning religious people will vote and lobby for people and organisations sharing their point of view.
Sure. It’s not exactly what’s discussed here, though. We’re talking about Reagan and Bush (and Abe and others) coldly using propaganda machines backed by extremist cults for influence campaigns. It’s far beyond the same pushing the agenda for which they were explicitly elected, which happens to be backwards on a lot of levels but is at least genuine and open.
These organisations also cause concerns of foreign interference, considering their links with political parties and powerful politicians abroad.
There have been similar issues in Europe with extremist parties bankrolled by Russia to destabilise local political systems, which does not have any religious aspect. The problem is not the religion, it’s the structures, their objectives, and how they work and corrupt.
The First Amendment says that religion and government should remain separate. I have the right to freely observe that some religions are aggressively testing that boundary more than others.
But, "intentionally misleading"? Can you please explain the ways I've mislead people? Here are some essays which go into the claims in more detail.
Well, I am not a american, but as far as I understand it, it does say it.
"The First Amendment (Amendment I) to the United States Constitution prevents the government from making laws that: regulate an establishment of religion; prohibit the free exercise of religion;"
Any incorporation of religious organisations into the state fabric, would be an "establishment of religion". So of course open religious people can be part of the government. But the government may have no favourite religion it subsidizes, teaches in schools etc. or prefers in any way.
In practice, the Supreme Court has intepreted the First Amendment as implying full separation of church and state; for instance, school prayer is forbidden [0], even if it's voluntary and non-denominational.
