The table basically says it's possible to pick a set of 4096 (2^12) different vectors of T/F combinations in a way that you only need flip up to 3 (R=3) of the T/F answers to cover all 2^23 (n=23) possible solutions to the quiz. Thus you only need 68 minutes and 16 seconds (4096 seconds) in order to guarantee you get at least 20 answers correct.
You can use the remaining 1304 seconds to encode some more vectors to increase the possibility of getting more answers correct, but you cannot guarantee 21 or more correct answers in the allotted time. The lower & upper bound (not sure what this part means) for n=23,R=2 is 30686-32768 about 9 hours!
Very simple example with n=3. I have listed all the vectors with Hamming distance of 1 or less (R=1). Looking at the table, we see that for n=3, R=1, we can cover all the vectors with 2 different codes. Heads and tails for example. It's easy to see which combinations we can pick to guarantee coverage, a&h, b&g, c&f, d&e. Using any of those combinations and some way to signal to the other person 'heads' or 'tails' will guarantee they get at least 2 answers correct.
a TTT <= TTT TTF TFT FTT
b TTF <= TTT TTF TFF FTF
c TFT <= TTT TFT TFF FFT
d FTT <= TTT FTT FTF FFT
e TFF <= TTF TFT TFF FFF
f FTF <= TTF FTT FTF FFF
g FFT <= TFT FTT FFT FFF
h FFF <= TFF FTF FFT FFF
We always have to be wrong, but we can bunch up all the ways we can be wrong so they're always close to being right. Each way to be right will have a few ways to be wrong as neighbours, so even if we're wrong, we aren't wrong by much.
Honestly I'd blame Namecheap, not ICANN. My registrar was much more relaxed - I did not need to take any action
Please take a moment to view the WHOIS listing for each of the domain names you currently have registered through us. Please verify your mailing address, email address, and the administrative and technical contacts assigned to each domain name are correct. If your WHOIS information has changed or is inaccurate please log into your account manager and update accordingly. If your WHOIS information is correct, you do not need to take any action.
This is a bit different, and it's possible your registrar is not yet using the latest RAA (Registrar Accreditation Agreement). Specifically, the email you're talking about is the once-a-year verification email that all compliant registrars must send. The OP was dealing with a new rule which is part of the RAA 2013, which adds the requirement for verifying emails within 15 days of any registrant change that impacts either the name or the email address of the registrant.
At the time, there was a zero tolerance policy for volcanic ash with jet engines. However there are now upper bounds on the density of ash allowed, so if an Eyjafjallajökull-like eruption happened again today, not as much air traffic would have to shut down.
FCC regulates EIRP, which is output+antenna gain. For this to be strictly legal you would need to adjust the power down until the EIRP is within the legal limit. Actually to be strictly legal I think it would need to be type excepted by the FCC.
That being said if you're using this in your home/office on a legal channel it would be really difficult to even tell from outside you were using it and almost certainly not worth the FCCs time to even try to watch for it. It's not that much extra gain over the stock antenna.
To be fair, the FCC regulates both EIRP (4 W / 36 dBm) and max transmit power (1 W / 30 dBm). E.g. you can't just have a 34 dBm transmitter hooked up to a 2 dBi dipole.
If it's like here in Australia, they do consider EIRP. So a directional antenna would increase the EIRP, but with just 100mw tx at the output, I doubt EIRP would be over the limit (4W for 2.4Ghz ISM in Australia).
Incorrect. FCC commissioners serve a term and Wheeler's term was up June 30, 2018, so this is an early resignation and opens up a spot for Obama or Trump to fill.
There's a few independent commissions like the FCC where the members are meant to have a partisan split with the party that controls the White House has the majority. To make that work, the tradition is that the chairman steps down when the White House changes hands.
Kevin Martin (R) resigned on January 19th 2009 to allow Obama to select a chairman; William Kennard (D) resigned on January 19, 2001 to allow Bush to select a chairman; Alfred C. Sikes (R) resigned on January 19, 1993 to allow Clinton to select a chairman, etc.
This has actually been a matter of contention this year; back in March Wheeler was asked by the Senate Commerce Commission if he would follow the tradition and refused to commit, which raised a number of eyebrows. Apparently he thought better of it (or was just having fun keeping people guessing).
> opens up a spot for Obama or Trump to fill.
No, as per normal his resignation is effective on inauguration. The entire point is to let the incoming president fill the spot.
This resignation is very bad for consumers. I'd hoped that Wheeler would stick it out and at least be present to bring consumer perspectives to the discussion and get consumer concerns on the record in commission meetings. But I can understand why he wouldn't personally want to finish out his term as a lame duck dissenter.
If congress is in session it'd require confirmation. The exception is a recess appointment but that's not going to happen as they're already keeping congress continuously open to block Garland's recess appointment.
That trick of procedurally gavelling open a session and immediately closing it to avoid the recess disgusts me beyond words. The GOP basically opted to treat the Constitution as a dead letter through tricks such as these and refusing to even dignify Garland's nomination with a hearing. Besides the political ramifications I think it's sad that a guy who's widely regarded as a decent hardworking jurist will have his legal career remembered only as a political football.
Democrats used to hold the Republican party's stances and the Republican party used to hold the Democrat's. Saying that something was invented by Democrats is essentially saying it was invented by people who would agree with today's Republicans.
The point that I was making was about how traditions and accepted practices govern (no pun intended) how government is run. If one party opens up the option of blocking recess appointments (by having the Senate continuously open), then they can't complain when the opposition does the same.
On the flip side, I expect to see a lot of the reverse as well with large numbers of Democrats refusing to act on or otherwise stalling legislation as retribution for how Republicans have acted the past few years. We're in for a fun ride.
I agree that the Democrats made their bed on that one, but they were at least holding hearings for most of Bush's senior nominees rather than trying to obstruct all his appointments. The refusal to even hear a supreme Court nominee this year shocked me. It would be understandable if Scalia had died close to the election but his seat has been empty for nearly a year now.
Not that I intend the conversation to devolved into "but the Democrats did..." and vice versa, but the only thing unique for Garland is the delay at that exact position.
Priscilla Owen was denied a vote for an entire presidential term[1].
No, Garland's situation is unique because no one has pulled this nonsense with the Supreme Court, regardless of how close to the election it was. Tit for tat politicking is usually reserved for the lower courts and Democrats were far more accomodating to Bush's nominations for the Supreme Court.
Priscilla Owen was retribution because the Republican senate refused to fill Garwood's seat during Clinton's second term (obstruction that lasted just as long as Owens, 97-01) and she was viewed as too conservative (contrary to what the the Frontpage Mag article says). They're not even in the same ballpark.
That seems to be the rule. Whatever past government set a lower standard, the new government can take that as useful approved governing tool.
Really people wonder why politician sometimes fight for nonsensical minor tweaks that look like a waste a taxpayer money, but that's exactly it. Most of the government way of working is ruled by tradition rather than law and new laws are created in case of abuse.
After a few cycle of those little games affecting both big parties, they will most likely get tired of it and vote a law that prevent that to ever happen again.
Exactly my point. A "nuclear" level of the same standoff is regarding changing cloture rules. The party in power can do it as a rule change (which can't be filibustered) but nobody has done so till now because they don't want to not be in power when that goes in effect.
Amusingly enough now I am the one to tell you that Harry Reid did in fact do this in 2013, albeit for lower-court appointments. So I guess it was more of a tactical nuke than a strategic one, but that may well be cited as precedent next month. I think there's a high likelihood of the Senate doing exactly that at the beginning of the next term or soon after.
Yep, and I expect the democrats to give Trump the hell that the republicans have given Obama, especially if they get back congress in 2018. There is no room for niceties anymore.
Thankfully, the Republicans have been laying out the battle plans of obstruction for two decades. Already there are a bunch of state Attorney Generals frothing at the mouth to sue the Trump administration to stop everything from nominees due to conflict of interest to blocking deregulation and neutering Department secretaries, the same tactics used by Republicans to obstruct all manners of policy.
It's four more years of the same just with slightly different players and the Democrats already know what to do.
No it isn't. Congress is only in session part of the time. Lawmaking - as opposed to politicking - currently requires a quorum and that legislators actually go on the record with both arguments and votes. It's where the rubber of governance meets the road and politicians can't pander to all and sundry while shrugging off criticism by saying 'they misspoke' and so on, but must instead commit to some sort of position (even if they obfuscate that by engaging in bullshit legislative tricks like poison-pill amendments). When Congress is in session it's doing (in theory at least) the Nation's business. When it's in recess the politicians can rest, schmooze their constituents, and so on - conducting their own political business rather than the nation's.
Now all this sounds very fine and idealist, but for lawmaking to be valid and have credibility then there needs to be some sort of formality to the process so that the citizenry can find out what their elected representatives are actually doing on their behalf, eg by consulting the Congressional record. Of course much of what happens in the legislative chamber is theatrical most deals are negotiated and brokered behind closed doors, but the lack of accountability that inheres in such arrangements is why there is a requirement for formalities in the first place.
So because there are formal rules on how laws are made, whether Congress is in session or not does matter. When it's only being kept in session by a technicality without any actual legislative work being performed, that says to everyone looking that the party engaging in such behavior regards rules as an obstruction to be got around rather than a standard for governing their own behavior, and that attitude is likely to promulgate itself among the population in various ways.
If you think recess appointments are a silly anachronism, amend the constitution. Unfortunately, I feel there's a particular faction in the country that actively aims at the undoing of the union in favor of a weak federation of states or several regional confederacies. That would not be so bad if the USA were its own planet, but as it's an imperial-scale power sharing the world with several rivals and many smaller national and corporate actors, a deconstruction of the federal system will create all sorts of power vacuums, and you know how that turns out.
> Unfortunately, I feel there's a particular faction in the country that actively aims at the undoing of the union in favor of a weak federation of states or several regional confederacies.
This is off-topic, but I don't think that the number of people who genuinely want to do what you describe is effectively none. I suspect that you're actually referring to people who want the government of the United States and the governments of the several states to actually obey the federal and state constitutions. They (and — full disclosure — I) would argue that things for which there's no constitutional provision (e.g. drug prohibition) simply shouldn't exist, or amendments should be passed to permit them.
It's hard to reconcile your logic with Hamilton's from Federalist #67:
The ordinary power of appointment is confined to the President and Senate JOINTLY, and can therefore only be exercised during the session of the Senate; but as it would have been improper to oblige this body to be continually in session for the appointment of officers and as vacancies might happen IN THEIR RECESS, which it might be necessary for the public service to fill without delay, the succeeding clause is evidently intended to authorize the President, SINGLY, to make temporary appointments "during the recess of the Senate, by granting commissions which shall expire at the end of their next session."
Given the joint nature of appointments, and that the legislature is a co-equal branch of government, it seems reasonable that if the Senate would prefer to remain permanently in session so as not to diminish its authority, it's within its right to do so. And that an executive trying to make a recess appointment in this case is exactly the sort of "regard[ing] rules as an obstruction to be got around" that you seem to be railing against.
I disagree, but I applaud the high quality of your argument.
it seems reasonable that if the Senate would prefer to remain permanently in session so as not to diminish its authority, it's within its right to do so
Legally yes, politically no. There's no quorum so it's not possible to transact any legislative business and everyone knows this. That gap between the procedural state and reality delegitimizes the procedure through its self-evident falsity.
If the public perceives the government to be a sham, why keep obeying it? I suggest to you that the emergent political reality is that the constitution is becoming a dead letter and that the Declaration of Independence more closely mirrors national sentiment.
But that gets back to my original point about cell phones and airplanes. If the modern age, if there were an item that Senate leadership deemed sufficiently important, they could call the Senate back from non-recess recess and get their quorum in a matter of days.
Edit: it's also worth noting that serving in the Senate was originally a part-time occupation; recesses of several months were common until the 1930s. That's a very different case than in 2016, where the longest break was five weeks.
If they were actually in session it would be fine. It's faking it that's awful.
A recess appointment seems fair here to me. It's not the rules that the president would be working around, it's a failure of congress to act.
Both sides are supposed to have power here. Ideally if either side refuses to do their job for long enough, the other one should be able to install a temporary appointee.
I thought they were going to enter recess to allow them to invoke a law that allows repealing decisions made by the executive within the last 60 days of sessions of Congress. Maybe I misunderstood an article on this?
The summary is that within 60 legislative session days of a regulation being issued Congress can go through an expedited process (in particular, not filibusterable) to pass legislation that blocks the rule from going into effect. The catch is that the legislation still needs to be signed by the president, or you have to override the veto. But if you get a new president before the 60 legislative session days are up...
