[DAS2] Notes from DAS/2 code sprint #3, day four, 17 Aug 2006

[Andrew Dalke]

> here's a post I made to a thread on the bioperl list last regarding 
> aberrant
> fasta files (another reason why to not standardize das/2 sequence 
> responses
> on fasta format):
>
> http://bioperl.org/pipermail/bioperl-l/2005-July/019407.html

In it you said:
> I found a recent presentation on the FCC site showing results of a 
> survey
> about whether part 15 stifles innovation (10/14 respondants said no, 
> and 9/5
> said more stringent regulations might even permit *more* innovation):

Okay, I downloaded the PPT.  Those questions are biased.
1. asks "is it too limiting" and doesn't ask "is the current
standard okay" or "is it too lenient."

Consider the population sample of existing members of
the technology advisory committee.  What selection bias is
present there?


    1b. Could more stringent regulations, insuring that there will
    be no unknown types of interference, permit additional innovation?

Note the "could", not "would .. likely increase innovation".
This could be answered "yes" if there's only a 5% change of
it happening.

   2. "Should the FCC deal with interference issues with licensed
    services in a different way."

Okay, I agree with that one.  Depends on what "different way"
means though.

   3a. .. I still don't know what a Part 15 device is.  Does that
include wireless?  does it include interference from when
I nuke something?

  3b. Can home users be guaranteed that there will be no interference
   from, or to, users in nearby homes or apartments?

Huh?  Even with FCC Part 15 or whatever there's no guarantee.
There's no guarantee on anything.  Someone else could pull
the cover off an old computer causing extra interference.
Of course the answer to this is "no".  Even under threat
of capital punishment there's no guarantee.

   4. In a spectrum with no rules, can individual users be assured of
     effective communications?

What does "no rules" mean? Does existing wireless
service count as "no rules"?  Yet it "is certainly innovative."

BTW, I think the FCC should allow micropower radio stations.
Those are not allowed because of the concern that the stations
would interfere with larger commercial stations.  I don't think
those are technically valid.  I think they are more to preserve
the investment made by commercial station owners.  I also don't
think the FCC regulates noise from commercial stations well
enough, and lets problems persist for years.

> Another cited source of this philosophy is from the TCP spec (section 
> 2.10)
> as the Robustness Principle:
> Be conservative in what you do, be liberal in what you accept.
>
> http://www.faqs.org/rfcs/rfc793.html

I remember now this came up in bioperl in .. 1999?  I was
complaining about file formats.  Ewan mentioned that principle.
My complaint was that bioperl's (and others') parsers are usually
quite liberal, but so is the output format generation.

					Andrew
					dalke at dalkescientific.com