Part 97 defines broadcasting as "Transmissions intended for reception by the general public, either direct or relayed."
Then there's a section that says:
> An amateur station shall not engage in any form of broadcasting, nor may an amateur station transmit one-way communications except as specifically provided in these rules
Since "broadcasting" is prohibited (except for the exceptions), there is a distinction. There actually are a number of exceptions that allow different kinds of one-way transmissions though.
The difference is the intent - calling CQ is the protocol for seeking a contact to communicate with. It's not broadcasting because you're trying to establish comms with someone, and not disseminating information "one-to-many". Running a net inherently intends to engage in contact with numerous stations - by definition not "broadcasting".
Isn't it the case that it's not a CQ unless someone responds?
Like, the response is kind of important for either a CQ or a net... whereas if I broadcast a pirate radio I am doing what I am trying to do just by sending.
Oh this reminds me of when I was working on embedded Linux devices for vehicles.
We had a new batch of hardware come in that had a failure rate of about 50%. Normally it was on the order of < 1%. Our CM was very good at troubleshooting.
Nothing had changed in the BOM so we were left scratching our heads.
Hooked up the JTAG debugger to see where it was failing to start, and the CPU wasn't even coming up. Power rails looked good, but the CPU just wasn't booting.
Eventually we discovered that the supplier had given us a batch of crystals that were slightly more sensitive to the capacitance, and our design was just on the margin of working.
Lowering the caps to the proper values according to the xtal's datasheet got everything working again.
Weirdest one I've heard of was one where the PC sort of ran backwards. I can't remember the exact details but it was something to do with an interrupt occurring at the right (slightly-changing) frequency that it would get through an interrupt handler at a decreasing rate before being interrupted again, effectively executing less and less code each time. Something like that, it was some decades ago.
My lone claim to fame, now harder to track down because Twitter decided my lack of activity was somehow suspicious and killed my account, was a brief exchange with Phil Schiller about pluralization of Apple devices.
> One need never pluralize Apple product names. Ex: Mr. Evans used two iPad Pro devices.
I'm saying that many people do it wrong in other cases, and stick an 's' on the end (or worse, also add an apostrophe). Like surgeon generals, attorney generals, court martials, etc. I'm impressed that people aren't doing it in the case of airpods.
There's a really good book about a homesteader that did something similar to this in the 1930's in British Columbia, "Three Against The Wilderness". Basically he restored the dams that had been dynamited by the ranchers, and that restored all of the wetlands in the area.
Later on, the government brought him some beavers from elsewhere, and they flourished.
Funny how much of "ecological restoration" sometimes turns out to be undoing a change we made decades ago and then letting the original ecosystem resume doing the maintenance for us
I think their point was that, instead of trying to reengineer and rebuild an entire ecosystem, you fix one or two things that were preventing nature from restoring itself.
I believe this is called "Process-Based Restoration".
I love this. Especially the part where you can ask the Government of Canada for beavers.
But it feels like there’s a bit of surprise to the idea that the environment takes on the form it takes on. And if you take away a part of it, it’ll take on a different form. And if you put that part back, it can take on the earlier form. There is no correct or canonical form.
Yeah, what is the right form of nature here - wetlands, or a road for humans. There is likely no cosmic right answer - but personally I believe we have lot's of roads and too little wetlands left.
I will chose to make a bridge or detour a road once via collective effort, over rebuilding the entire burnt village every ten years. Beaver territories stop wildfires, and they take care of the forever maintenance of the firewalls for free, releasing tax money that can be spent in better things.
They also provide an invaluable service slowing floods, creating fisheries for humans, and increasing touristic appeal from a location (we are naturally attracted by the aesthetics of watching water). Ponds also create relatively safe sanctuaries where wildlife, cattle and humans can retreat in case of wildfires.
So, yes, there are many cons, but also many pros. Beavers compete with us for low places and shouldn't be allowed everywhere, but to eliminate them from every place is also a mistake.
While its true that there are no correct or canonical forms for the environment, there are states with large biodiversity and states with comparatively small biodiversity. Generally we regard the former more valuable than the latter.
Restoration can sometimes imply there is one true historical state we're supposed to recreate, which is probably the wrong mental model. In this case it seems more like restoring a missing process than restoring a particular landscape. Put the ecosystem engineer back and let the ecosystem decide what comes next
reply