Interesting maps on [0], though details on how direction finding was done are lacking. Is this something anyone can do with friends who have radios around the country? If so, how?
Radio direction finding[1] can be complicated in a "the devil is in the details" sense, but the basics are fairly simple. All you really need are two stations with directional antennas[2] which can be reoriented freely. You have both stations reorient their antennas until they see maximum signal strength from the signal in question. Now you have two points at known, fixed locations, along with two angles - from there it's straightforward triangulation[3].
Using more stations can help reduce the error and get a more precise fix on the source of the transmission. That said, again, "the devil is in the details" because of things like ionospheric reflection, attenuation from passing through things, etc. Radio signals usually travel in approximately straight lines, but there are some quirks that come into play, depending on the frequencies involved, distances, and suchlike.
Signal triangulation. You compare strength of a broadcast from a few locations to deduce broadcast location. In the US there’s a volunteer group that does this for the FCC, I forget the name.
Direction finding is usually done with antennas which have large null regions. (Highly directional). You point them in a direction and if you get a signal you mark that down.
I have a feeling that even in North America, ham radio regulation is essentially anti-revolution legislation.
In other discussions on HN I’ve had responses suggesting that it’s simply to ensure that e.g. kids don’t disrupt emergency bands.
It seems similar to anti-gun legislation which also appears to a type of anti-revolution legislation despite being positioned as a measure to reduce school shootings.
Does this kind of just go with the fantasy that there will be some major revolution and hams will be the only way to communicate? Same with some gun owners fantasy that one day they'll need their small arms to overthrow the state?
It just all seems so unrealistic to me. This video shows Cuba, a country with practically no military budget compared to the US, jamming hams without problem - but the fantasy goes that somehow it would be the last bastion of free communication in the event of a American revolution?
The same with gun control, that the fact you can only get a 12 round magazine instead of the 30 round magazine is going to make a difference in "the revolution"?
Not even getting to the point that if by focusing on preparing for a destructive revolution you begin to give up on fixing things through the political process.
So the right to life is a human construct? That means that it is totally okay for the police to shoot everyone they don't like.
Rights are not a human construct; they are inalienable, given by a Creator, and we will be accountable to Him for stepping on the rights of others, and He expects us to do what we can to preserve the rights of others as well.
> So the right to life is a human construct? That means that it is totally okay for the police to shoot everyone they don't like.
No, it doesn't. Language is a human construct,¹ and yet there's yaught bleep mÜOL87 øō°0o. So something being a human construct doesn't mean you can safely ignore it.
Language is a human construct, yes, that cannot be ignored.
But even if there are human constructs that cannot be ignored, my example with police still stands because since the police are the power, they can "construct" rights or deconstruct them still, which means they can ignore rights if they are just a human construct, a construct that they themselves supposedly helped build.
In fact, your argument is really in favor of the ideology that the strongest deserve to rule the weak. That is not the case.
> In fact, your argument is really in favor of the ideology that the strongest deserve to rule the weak.
That's kind of irrelevant. Ideologies are great, manipulative things, seizing every argument and foothold they can to support themselves. Saying “nobody actually exists” counters “the strongest deserve to rule the weak” quite nicely, but it isn't true; arguing “people really exist” is an argument in favour of that ideology, but that doesn't make it false.
The idea of God-given rights has, historically, been the major justification behind “the strongest deserve to rule the weak”: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Divine_right_of_kings Does that make you less inclined to believe it? (The answer should be no.)
Ignore manipulative, harmful ideologies until you can shun or counter them. If the Evil Ideology monopolises certain truths, and is the only set of philosophy (that purports to be) grounded in those truths, it seems to all but philosophers like the Evil Ideology is a consequence of those truths.
You said that the idea of God-given rights was used as the major justification for "the strongest deserve to rule the weak", but that is a non-sequitur; you know that what I mean here is the God-given rights to "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness," which decidedly goes against the divine right of kings theory.
In fact, if humanism is about human agency, then I am saying that police officers who give themselves the right to shoot people are violating humanism because they violate the agency of others.
That said, rejecting God, rather His principles, will lead to authoritarianism because as man turns away from the principles of correct living, he becomes more of an animal and must be governed. Thus, authoritarianism arises.
But, aren't human police bound by/to human constructs?
I've always wondered why the "Him", "He", turns "Cap H Christians" do it out of respect, not grammar. I've been reading about Haile Selassie, often referred to as "HIM" or His Imperial Majesty.
"The words 'people of the United States' and 'citizens' are synonymous terms, and mean the same thing. They both describe the political body who, according to our republican institutions, form the sovereignty, and who hold the power and conduct the Government through their representatives. They are what we familiarly call the 'sovereign people,' and every citizen is one of this people, and a constituent member of this sovereignty. The question before us is, whether the class of persons described in the plea in abatement compose a portion of this people, and are constituent members of this sovereignty? We think they are not, and that they are not included, and were not intended to be included, under the word 'citizens' in the Constitution, and can therefore claim none of the rights and privileges which that instrument provides for and secures to citizens of the United States. On the contrary, they were at that time considered as a subordinate and inferior class of beings, who had been subjugated by the dominant race, and, whether emancipated or not, yet remained subject to their authority, and had no rights or privileges but such as those who held the power and the Government might choose to grant them."
> That means that it is totally okay for the police to shoot everyone they don't like.
there's what people can do, and the consequences of it. rights are just a statement about consequences, but just a statement, which is why cops don't have the right to kill without consequences, but in practice they kill without consequences.
The ability for the people to make a revolution prevents a revolution. The limits to authoritarianism of what both the govt is willing to do and what the people allow it to do is dependent on the prevalence of firearms that would be useful in that fantasy revolution. The firearms actually prevent the need for the firearms.
That doesn't compute. In some revolution you'd ignore the regulations.
Prior to the revolution the regulations give you ample freedom to use the radio to become expert at using it.
This is doubly true because ham licensees are permitted to build their own equipment or modify their equipment and use the modified equipment on the air.
The point is to use regulation to preemptively prevent the proliferation of the infrastructure and tools that will be used to overthrow you.
>Prior to the revolution the regulations give you ample freedom to use the radio to become expert at using it.
So long as you do it on their terms. And their terms include barriers to entry which tend to prevent the parts of society with the least to use from participating.
If there's not a bunch of people with little to lose sitting around with the means to revolt it's much less likely that there will be a revolt. And making sure people don't have the means is a lot easier than making sure people have something to lose.
In the US ham licensing cost fairly little $15 for the short multiple choice test to $0 -- depending on where you get licensed. All the needed study material is available for free online. Compared to the cost of a radio that shouldn't be a major barrier.
I think the most support I could give your argument is that convicted felons are barred from getting licensed. I think that is an unnecessary and inappropriate restriction -- and ones with obvious discriminatory consequences considering the race/gender/economic biases in who gets charged and convicted of crimes. But it's a bit hard to lobby against because there are creeps that try to use the radio to meet kids and that felon restriction is one of the tools people use against that.
Setting aside whether OP is right about this specific legislation, generally anti-revolution legislation is about making it harder for people to prepare and organize before they start. They obviously don’t do squat once a Revolution has broken out, but that’s not the point.
As I mentioned elsewhere one of the big parts of this is a ban on encryption and heavy regulations on spread spectrum. Obviously a sufficiently capable person could implement these trivially but it hampers mass adoption. If nobody has encryption and jam resistance before a revolution, for sure nobody is going to after one starts as the types of portable radios we're talking about are not particularly modifiable.
Yeah...if it's about suppressing revolutions then it's a bit weird the FCC is letting a lot of people run around breaking the encryption and bitrate regulations.
Injecting estrogen into a pregnant woman during childbirth won't stop the child from coming out, but doing so prior to implantation can disrupt the process and prevent a pregnancy and therefore motherhood.
It's less stupid than it sounds. The biggest part of it is a ban on encryption for hams and language making true spread spectrum difficult. These are the two biggest components to making radio resistant to interference by the state (eavesdropping and jamming).
I think it's much easier to explain given the practical necessity of stopping unscrupulous commercial operators from blasting out encrypted binary frequency-hopping messages to customers that clog up the hobbyist's space while not benefiting the community at all.
I'm well aware of this argument but in practice it doesn't work like that. Other countries don't have encryption bans and are fine as you're always required to ID. The nice business band radios you see in the US are often encryption capable and they're allowed to use it on their bands so nothing is stopping them from bleeding into the ham bands (the business radios are wideband enough for this). The reality is the FCC is scared of civilian encryption adoption as evidenced by the lack of any encrypted civilian bands outside of the business/police segments.
The FCC does not care if you use encryption, they just want you to pay for the spectrum. As you observed, radios that can do this are commonly available, you just can't use them on ham bands. IMHO, that's not unreasonable: if you can program a radio, you can figure out how to reserve the spectrum with the FCC too.
Encryption not allowed on ham bands because it makes enforcing non-commercial use impossible. It's as simple as that, no conspiracy theory about "suppressing revolution" is necessary to explain it.
You assume they are ignorant of the Constitution, rather than assuming that they didn't understand your statement, or event that your statement was less than clear. That's at least uncharitable.
The parent spoke about ham radio legislation and gun control legislation as being anti-revolution legislation. The person I responded to said the parent lost him at gun control. Since he/she didn't seem to get the connection, I replied that this is because they haven't read the Constitution, Bill of Rights, and Federalist Papers. After all, the entire point of the 2nd Amendment is so that US Citizens can overthrow the government; so, obviously, any legislation against the 2nd Amendment would be, by definition, anti-revolution legislation.
I have a feeling that even in North America, schooling is just a way to dumb down the public and is essentially anti-revolutionary legislation despite being positioned as a measure to improve education of the populace.
«The United States embargo against Cuba prevents American businesses, and businesses with commercial activities in the United States, from conducting trade with Cuban interests. It is the most enduring trade embargo in modern history.” Wikipedia
While I think the embargo is stupid, it should be noted that it does not cover agricultural products or medical supplies. Both of those categories of goods are in VERY short supply in Cuba which imports more than 70% of their food and that number has been increasing over the last decade. They have the least productive agricultural sector in all of Latin America or the Caribbean. Cuban agriculture is choked by bureaucratic inefficiency, fuel shortages, disincentives for farmers and so on. The Cuban government is so bad at collecting the portion of crops they demand from farmers that the majority of some farms outputs rot and are never collected. The embargo has nothing to do with that. On the healthcare front, the Cuban government's only real export is doctors which they churn out at a dizzying rate and send abroad to generate state revenue. They could spend some of that revenue importing or manufacturing medication and medical supplies, but they do not. You can not find aspirin or antibiotics outside of clinics for foreign medical tourists in Cuba.
These are the stated complaints of the protestors. Again, the embargo is bad policy and makes peoples' lives worse. Moreover, the embargo give a convenient excuse to the Cuban government for its malfeasance, but it isn't the reason things are so shitty. Their government just doesn't deliver basic goods and services.
> These are the stated complaints of the protestors. Again, the embargo is bad policy and makes peoples' lives worse. Moreover, the embargo give a convenient excuse to the Cuban government for its malfeasance, but it isn't the reason things are so shitty. Their government just doesn't deliver basic goods and services.
They know they can trade with 180+ countries right? And that the embargo can be lifted in as little as a week; all the regime has to do is return property that was stolen during the coup and transition to a democratic government.
The fact that they prefer mass starvation and people dying because they can't get medicine should tell us all we need to know about the current regime.
The embargo effectively covers agricultural products because it bans any private institutions from funding agricultural trade. Since the great majority of trade happens with the aid of import/export banks that essentially curtails any agricultural trade.
> is choked by bureaucratic inefficiency, fuel shortages, disincentives for farmers and so on...The embargo has nothing to do with that.
Bureaucratic inefficiency and disincentives for farmers aside, the fuel shortage seems directly tied to the embargo:
HAVANA (Reuters) - Cuba must implement emergency measures to stave off an acute fuel shortage in September caused by the Trump administration’s efforts to block oil shipments to the country, President Miguel Diaz-Canel said on Wednesday.
They've been having fuel shortages since the collapse of the USSR, which were temporarily alleviated at the height of Venezuelan production int he early 2000s. As Venezuelan production slid (due to the ham handed firing of striking workers by Chavez) relations started to thaw with the US in 2015-2016. At that time there was more wiggle room for trade. In 2017 that move was unilaterally reversed by the US, which I agree was bad policy. However Cuba has offshore oil which they've failed to develop, either with the help of Venezuela pre 2015 or with Pemex, Russian, or Chinese investment.
The problem is that even when Cuba was trading with the USSR, Venezuela, Bolivia, China, etc. they never managed to build any local industry, and as such have nothing to trade for oil. None of these trade partnerships were effected by the embargo. If Cuba had any foreign reserves or anything at all to trade they could buy gas from any number of places that are opposed to uS interests.
I agree the embargo sucks, but Cuba was letting crops rot in the field when they had oil. The government just sucks. They could have tried to regularize relations like Vietnam did in 1995 and implement pragmatic reforms, but they have continued to stay the course with ruinous policies in the name of political purity.
Yes but let's not forget that Cuba still has the ability to trade. There is even some trade with the US, but IDK the circunstances (It's in their statistics office annual report).
I mean, the (economic) problem Cuba has is internal, not external. There isn't much that Cuba has to offer as value, except their geographical position and maybe some cheap labor medics.
They've got virtually free resources from Venezuela (not viable any longer) and other "allies". But even there it isn't like they trade a lot with China or Russia, to mention two examples.
They get plenty of dollars and euros through tourism (with EU companies that gladly help) yet they don't really invest it or do much productive with it.
If Cuba really tried to be self-sustainable as they claim, why they don't buy some machinery to improve their productivity, they have plenty of supliers outside US-EU.
And by the way, if you want to jump over the US embargo is not that difficult to open another company or just sell through a 3rd party and make information opaque, which is already being done right now by the way.
Cuba is just a "chapuza" as we say in spanish. A mess, with a caste of people who barely manages to justify their existance, and keep control over the population so revolts don't happen. It's just that this time they can't really have much control of the situation.
You can access onei.gob.cu to check all that. It's a bit tricky to get access from outside Cuba. I can access with my home connection but not with mobile one.
«Fidel Alejandro Castro Ruz was a Cuban revolutionary and politician who was the leader of Cuba from 1959 to 2008." Wikipedia
That's 49 years, the current "president" is just a continuation of the same dictatorial murderous regime.
As a Venezuelan with a Cuban parent, it pains me to see people blaming the US for the misery in these countries because, these goverments love to blame it on the US, that's a key part of their playbook.
My point is that embargoes are not the reason for the misery in these countries.
I can only speak for Venezuela so let me put it in perspective: The US placed the embargo in 2019[0], that's many many years after inflation and corruption had made the poor poorer, drained all the brains out and stole productive companies from their owners (aka "nationalized")[1].
To somewhat answer your question: the dictators actually appreciate the embargoes, because it keeps them in power by providing the perfect scapegoat for the complete chaos.
Is your position that sanctions/embargoes should not be used?
Or just not used against Cuba?
Was it not okay to embargo other countries whom we had disagreements with or were those okay to embargo, like (imperial) Japan, (apartheid) South Africa, (ayatollah) Iran?
They shouldn’t be used period. They typically harm the peons much more than the people in power. Sometimes you hear the argument that will cause the peons to rise up and throw off their leaders, but if it hasn’t happened in 60 years, I’m guessing it never will.
Not to give too much credit - but, as a fact, the US has been getting better at targeted sanctions. It's the preferred model these days - from Russia to Iran to Honk Kong - specific officials are embargoed and their assets blocked or seized.
Then how comes there's constant rioting in Cuba right now? So much that the regime is desperately trying to shut down the country's internet and radio frequencies?
I think that is worthy of discussion and perhaps you are right; however, in the end, peons are usually interchangeable for "soldiers" in some of these kinds of places, and, yes, they may be conscripted, but that's the case for the worst offenders (like Japan and Germany during WWII)
The embargo was put in place 60 years ago for a specific reason. I think it’s reasonable to reassess why it’s still there and what good it’s doing after the rest of the world has lifted their embargoes.
The embargo is in place as a political football. It costs very little political capital to keep it in place. The Cuban embargo is how local politics can manifest at an international level. There is a vocal Cuban American voting bloc that want it kept in place. Losing this bloc can have big repercussions in the nations 3rd largest state. Neither Democrats nor Republicans want to piss off this voting bloc so for the sake of keeping the party in power the embargo stays.
Now Obama did try to roll back parts of the embargo in 2016. And Trump added additional constraints. in the 2020 elections just enough Cuban Americans voted for Trump over Biden to lose the FL electoral vote.
While most of America agrees the embargo should end this is the reason why politicians don’t want to touch it. It’s political kryptonite.
Well, they did agitate all over Africa and LatAM in conjunction with KGB operatives and provided thousands of troops to overthrow governments and did plot to kill dissidents on US soil...
But I guess the answer is yes, embargoes make sense when we disagree vehemently with another country and its policies.
But I know what people are saying: "I want you to embargo countries I don't like, and I want you to not embargo countries I like." and everyone will have a different set of countries.
The rest of the world is also welcome to pay the $10+ billion in humanitarian aid the US pays for.
Along with the $2 billion portion of the UN budget.
Along with the $3 billion to NATO.
When 5k US troops were being pulled from Germany, that news wasn't greeted with applause, but with Merkel shitting herself.
Yea, the US isnt perfect. Spending $15b on the world that just loves to take a shit on us... fine by me. I for one dont disagree with isolationist policies too much. This country is made up of folks that left other countries for a reason. Why interfere with the world stage? It's not like there are any other super powers that'll exploit that power vacuum. The US is the only super power with big bad, evil intentions in the world.
Maybe but Khrushchev wasn’t the one begging to press the button to send the nukes over to the US. Cuba made the decision to launch and it was only Khrushchev who was able to overrule those bloodthirsty Castroists.
They had the USSR's nukes on the island. They were ready to fire (unbeknownst to Kennedy). Cuba had them, and the crisis had escalated so much Cuba wanted to launch. Castro demanded they be allowed to launch[1]. But Khrushchev declined. They wanted to bomb us (and unleash Armageddon) because they felt aggrieved.
Khrushchev was so taken aback by their cavalier attitude towards nukes that he took them back. So yes, for a few months they were a nuclear power.
This is confirmed by the USSR archives of that time plus interviews with Cuban officials back in the 90s where they conceded they wanted to bomb us and only Khrushchev kept it from happening.
Excerpt of above link (Khrushchev's response to Castro): "In your cable of October 27 you proposed that we be the first to carry out a nuclear strike against the enemy's territory. Naturally you understand where that would lead us. It would not be a simple strike, but the start of a thermonuclear world war."
If communism and socialism is so bad, why is there even a need for an embargo? Surely these socialist countries will collapse under their own poor economic policies and not need a 60-year embargo to help tip the scales, which prevents them with interfacing with the rest of the world at the same level as other countries. This embargo that actively stifles their economy and is punitive to the people there is making things worse. If we wanted better for the Cuban people, the US would lift the embargo. After all, every year, the UN votes almost unanimously to lift the embargo (with the US only voting against).
This is somewhat related, but for those here who are interested in how local elections work in Cuba (they have 90+% participation!!!!), this is an excellent video on Cuban elections: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2aMsi-A56ds
> If communism and socialism is so bad, why is there even a need for an embargo?
Given that Cuba's regime was responsible for putting nuclear weapons next to the border and pointing straight to the US, and given the fact that a sizeable portion of the population of a swing state lived Cuba's oppression in the first person, only the most nieve can believe this has anything to do with ideology.
Events don't happen in a vacuum. The US placed missiles at the border of the USSR and pointed them at the USSR [0], and in response, the USSR placed missiles in Cuba. It was the US that provoked those missiles. These are responses to US aggression. Look at it from a historical perspective.
> In response to the presence of American Jupiter ballistic missiles in Italy and Turkey, and the failed Bay of Pigs Invasion of 1961, Soviet First Secretary Nikita Khrushchev agreed to Cuba's request to place nuclear missiles on the island to deter a future invasion.
- The US backed a coup that put Fulgencio Batista in power
- Batista murdered over 20,000 Cubans (not my words, that's what John F. Kennedy said)
- Cubans were in horrific poverty exactly because of US policies
- When Cubans overthrew the dictator who was murdering them by the tens of thousands, the US attempted to invade them, the most likely aim being another US-backed dictatorship
The US embargo is purely sour grapes over losing access to a country's natural resources it wanted to exploit coupled with, as you point out, a dysfunction in the way US elections work. Pointing nukes at a ruthless, amoral enemy with vast resources was a perfectly valid reaction for Cuba given the context.
Batista feel because the US cut off arms supplies and withdrew its support. Obviously, they weren't aware that Fidel Castro was not just a typical rebel and would become one of the cruellest tyrants in recent history.
Given the US track record with coups in Latin America[1] in the 18th and 19th century, I would place the burden of proof on anyone claiming that a Latin American coup was not US-backed.
> In 1952, Batista again ran for president. In a three-way race, Roberto Agramonte of the Orthodox Party led in all the polls, followed by Carlos Hevia of the Authentic Party. Batista's United Action coalition was running a distant third.
Batista was losing to a left-wing candidate, did a coup, and there was no election. Then he continued to support US corporate interests. This doesn't track at all with, you know, *gestures broadly at US intervention in Latin America* to you?
The problem was and is not in communism per se. It's the Cuban leadership policies that produced a lot of protests in the U.S., repeatedly. See the timeline.
I think most think communism is so bad that it's worth accelerating its collapse. As for the video, I don't want to hear about elections from a Marxist.
The argument would be that communism/socialism is not the root cause of the embargo rather it's a peripheral cause. The root cause is not incompetence on the part of the Cuban government but malice and while communism/socialism may be a red flag :-) for malice it's not why the embargo exists.
Now is that true? I don't know but I'd bet that's more or less what you'd hear from a supporter and the easiest move is to just take them at their word.
No. The root cause of the embargo is, manifestly, that the Cuban Revolution ousted American capital interests from the island and gave the preverbal finger to US economic hegemony. All else is secondary, after-the-fact justification. Broadly similar story for Iran. The US has proven time and again that it ultimately has little interest in things like democracy and freedom, but if you fuck with the money, woe be to you.
Communism and socialism are bad and have never worked anywhere because they are contrary to human nature and can only be implemented through corruption and force (often times escalating to violence).
Leftists always want to hold up places like Sweden as socialist success stories, but Sweden is a capitalist society. They tried socialism for 20 years, it was a dismal failure, so they pulled out.
Venezuela is an abject failure. North Korea is an abject failure. The USSR was an abject failure. China is a failure. New Zealand had a great GDP before going socialist and nearly bankrupting themselves. The list goes on and on and on. Sure, the US embargo against Cuba may have hurt the Cuban economy, but the people of Cuba wouldn't have benefitted if the embargo didn't exist. Any extra wealth would have gone to the ruling class, just like it always does.
How many failed runs do you have to have at communism and socialism before you admit it's a stupid idea and that Karl Marx was a megalomaniacal loser who destroyed his family in his pursuit of self-aggrandizement?
Regarding Cuban elections, you might want to talk to some Cubans about that.
https://forums.qrz.com/index.php?threads/cuban-government-ja...
https://k0lwc.com/direction-finding-points-to-cuba-jamming-h...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gVJS4skdtR8
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dtICIDDvnPw