WiFi, Light Bulbs, And The FCC

JFMulder writes "According to Cringely, 802.11 WiFi wireless networking is going to get in lot of troubles when Fushion Lightning starts marketting low-power light blubs which causes interferences with Wifi signals. Read about it at I, Cringely. Supposedly the new kind of light bulb is a real electricity saver and can wreck havoc to wireless networks in a half a mile radius. So what would you prefer? Wireless networks or low cost light bulbs all around the country to save more and more on electricity?" Update: 06/13 03:52 GMT by M : Cringely confused the FHSS-or-DSSS 802.11 standard with the DSSS-only 802.11b standard, but the general warning about the potential for interference is certainly troubling.

Comments

Hello!

[on by]

How are you?

2nd?

[on by]

suck it down fargorts! lolololololol

first

[zet0n]

first comment.

anyway i'm willing settle with the energy saving light bulb. it's good to save up energy that my oh so important PS needs.

Re:first

[lurwas]

Ok. So the average geek has these two options: 1. Have light reflecting on his/hers monitor, and no net access. 2. Have no light reflecting on his/hers monitor, and net access. For you who chose number 1, I'm sorry to inform you, that you're reading the wrong web-page... And yes, they are female geeks!

For crying out loud...

[The_Deacon]

This was posted -- what, two or three weeks ago? Come on guys!

The old story even had a poster who mentioned that he'd used the lighting technology Cringley mentioned, and it's nowhere NEAR primetime, so it won't be causing probs for several years, if ever.

Re:For crying out loud...

[bokketies]

excoos when askeng. Can tell anebode what is the famous WiFi? Reading the slashdot but do now not understend. Friends? Plaese help?

Excoos for speling

Re:For crying out loud...

[sheepab]

Hemos pulled a ChrisD. What, somebody had to say it!

Re:For crying out loud...

[Khaed]

You know, I have no idea either, and I visit Slashdot at least twice a day. Can someone explain it for myself and our polite friend here? Links explaining it work, too. Maybe I'm just missing something.

Re:For crying out loud...

[grff]

instead of just moaning, how about posting a link to the old story, so we can make our own minds up ;)

Re:For crying out loud...

[Anonymous Pancake]

well most of the editors of slashdot are too busy smearing their own feces all over each other to pay attention to what stories have been posted or not.

You can't realy blame them!

Re:For crying out loud...

[lynx_user_abroad]

WI-FI is a way of providing a high speed network connection using radio.

It's key features are:

• it's wireless; good for laptop users, or people who don't want to run wires all over their house.

• it short range; up to 150 meters without special antennas, several kilometers with directional antennas.

• it's high speed, from 2 Megabits per second to 11 Megabits per second.

• it uses an unregulated frequency, (in most countries) meaning large corporations can't use the law to prevent a small inventor from using it.

• it's reasonably cheap, a basic wireless card costs about $100, and a base station runs $200-$300 retail.

• It is also referred to (generally) as "802.11" or more correctly as 802.11b.

More good information and additional links are available from your favorite web search engine (or local library) under the topics of Wireless Networking, Wi-Fi, 802.11. Common associated products are Orinoco, Wavelan, etc.

Re:For crying out loud...

[Anonymous Coward]

If you read the last paragragh it states that this not going to be a big issue because it potentially only effects one current WiFi standard, which the industry is anxious to replace with a new and better standard anyway.

Re:For crying out loud...

[bokketies]

Thank you sharen this. Thank you parent for suport. I have 1 qeston more: why call it Wi-Fi? Wi for Wireless ofcors, but what "Fi"?

Excoos for speling agan. Thanks friend.

Radjif

Uh, oh...

[TheDanish]

Light or WiFi? Light or WiFi?! Aaah, can't...choose...*head explodes*

Actually, I already have a few energy efficient lights around, and I don't really use WiFi, sooo... guess it doesn't apply to me.

FP for the CLIT btw...

[on by]

Re:FP for the CLIT btw...

[YourMissionForToday]

empty post is fun. plz ee my journal!

Did you really think this was going to last?

[ObviousGuy]

Until the geeks of the world learn to curb their appetites for lower power and roaming Internet, we are going to see these clashes.

Unfortunately, it's likely we'll see the death of one or the other before the geeks ever learn to use what they are provided in moderation.

Wot about LED's?

[marcushnk]

Why can't the world just grab a clue and use LED's instead... MUCH cheaper, MUCH tougher and MUCH better.

Re:Wot about LED's?

[Cryptnotic]

LED's are not cheaper right now if you look at them in terms of lumens per dollar. They are also not very bright. You cannot use LED's as the headlights on your car, for instance. As the prices continue to drop, there will be more and more uses, but the technology needs to develop more high-power, high-output LED's in order to take over the place of incandescent and halogen bulbs.

Re:Wot about LED's?

[Anonymous Coward]

Um, cheaper? A single white LED costs as much as a regular incandecent bulb. And it'd take a lot of LEDs to equal a bulb (I'd guess 10-20) Sure, $50 LED bulbs might save money in the long run, but since when has anybody in the Land of SUVs cared about saving money later versus saving money now?

Besides, white LED light is disturbingly like bad fluorescent light, only without the subtle flickering. They are seriously lacking in the red end of the spectrum.

Re:Wot about LED's?

[io333]

LED's don't actually use (much) less energy as compared to an incandescent bulb. They light longer when powered by batteries though because their intensity doesn't drop off as much as incandescents do as the voltage drops.

The most efficient light source (except for exotics) is still the flourescent tube.

Let me see if I can dig up a reference...

Ah, this should do:

http://www.resurgentsoftware.com/gpetrie/The_Per fe ct_LED_Light.pdf

Scroll down to page five. Note that the above link is a .pdf file. Also, I don't seem to be able to get the "Perfe" and the "ct" to stick together so you may need to cut and paste. Sorry. I don't know if it is me, or Mozilla that is doing it.... No, IE is doing it too. I guess I'm just unclueful.

Re:Wot about LED's?

[shogun]

They light longer when powered by batteries though because their intensity doesn't drop off as much as incandescents do as the voltage drops.

According to that you could run them on less voltage for not that much less light then? And hence be more efficient...

Re:Wot about LED's?

[sfe_software]

They light longer when powered by batteries though because their intensity doesn't drop off as much as incandescents do as the voltage drops.

LEDs are diodes. They have a constant voltage drop, generally around 1.2 volts. As you increase the supply voltage (through a resistor) you increase the current flowing through the device. It's not really a function of the voltage applied - you get the same effect by changing the resistor value. It's simply I=V/R (current = voltage / resistance), taking into account the voltage drop across the diode.

What's important is the amount of current flowing through the LED.

Not that it matters... in any case LEDs are, by comparison, not all that efficient.

Re:Wot about LED's?

[GigsVT]

Depends on if you factor in replacement cost and service life. LEDs can last a lot longer, which helps.

Re:Wot about LED's?

[sfe_software]

Replacement cost is definitely a consideration. LEDs are widely used mostly because they rarely, if ever, need replacing (anyone else remember soldering new bulbs in the front panel of your stereo receiver, trying not to burn the string for the tuning dial? ;)

I love LEDs, but I don't see plastic diodes that happen to emit light when biased properly replacing other forms of artificial light. More likely, something else will come along (perhaps even these 802.11b-killers).

Personally, I run 802.11b in my house so I can use the laptop anywhere. The microwave doesn't affect my connection at all, and these lights probably wouldn't have that much effect at the short distances I typically run (it's a small apartment).

Besides, hopefully we'll all be on 802.11a before these things catch on :)

Re:Wot about LED's?

[Wakko Warner]

Why can't the world just grab a clue and use LED's instead...

Um, stopped at a traffic light lately?

- A.P.

Re:Wot about LED's?

[Anonymous Coward]

>Also, I don't seem to be able to get the "Perfe" and the "ct" to stick together so you may need to cut and paste. Sorry. I don't know if it is me, or Mozilla that is doing it....

Its slashdot that does it. They started it when klerck made it his job to widen every page...

Re:Wot about LED's?

[MasterC]

That's the wrong way to look at comparing LEDs and typical bulbs. LEDs last *much* longer which means your lumens per dollar is not valid.

A better measure would be dollar per bulb * bulbs per year = dollars per year.

As well all know, LEDs last many, many times longer.

If you want to compare LEDs and light bulbs, the lux (lumens per watt) would be the better comparison.

A 100 watt GE soft white light bulb puts out 1690 lumens. An ultra high intensity LED puts out 44 lumens at 1.0325 watts. Granted you need ~97 of these guys to match 100 watts, but you get 4400 lumens...2.6 times that of a standard 100 watt bulb. The only problem right now is that you need 97 of them instead of 1. LEDs are superior, but not in all categories--yet. :)

Re:Wot about LED's?

[Jack9]

I disagree with you, so I didnt mod you.
The lumens per dollar for very small LEDs is much cheaper. I dont have hard data or links to reference, however I can confidently say it through my own research over the last 2 years. The only reason I know this is because I have a penchant for a small light to wear around my neck when working in and around machines. I have been comparing and purchasing for about 2 years and I will agree that large arrays of small LEDs are used to approximate incandescents because of prohibitive cost of large LEDs...but then manufacturers can afford to use a multitude of tiny lights because of inverse cost.

NORNE Energy Is very concerned about this.

[tcd004]

It's in their "about us" section.

Disclaimer: This is a joke. Don't get your panties in square-knot over it. Mod it down if you can't untie a square-knot.

We're burning some Karma tonight!
tcd004

Broadband access is far more important

[Anonymous Coward]

While I agree that energy conservation is an important factor, consumption from light bulbs has to be balanced with all the rest of the devices in a home. What about TVs, or washer/dryers, or dishwashers? Or all of the industrial consumers? All those consume far more energy than regular residential light bulbs. Heck, we already have fluorescent bulbs for those who want to save. These light bulbs sound like a feel-good measure for those interested in saving the environment. Save the exchange of information FIRST.

Re:Broadband access is far more important

[Skyfire]

Ummm, or computers, maybe? That there new Athlon isn't exactly a conservationist's dream.

Re:Broadband access is far more important

[Hafer]

Yes, lets save the exchange of information first by not using those funny bulbs because there was no exchange of information before 802.11, right?

Re:Broadband access is far more important

[Anonymous Coward]

What about TVs,

Unlikely, unless you have a TV in every room, running all the time.

washer/dryers, or dishwashers

Unlikely, unless you're running these on a 7/24 basis.

These light bulbs sound like a feel-good measure for those interested in saving the environment.

You might stop to think about all the street lights in your city.

Yep, the amount used by them is trivial, all right. Not nearly as important as being able to get pr0n without hooking up a damned Ethernet cable.

Re:Broadband access is far more important

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah, a 1200 MHz Athlon puts out a whopping 66 watts of heat! Better build a nuclear power plant in your back yard if you're planning to get one of those!

Jesus fucking Christ. I think /. should start requiring a quantitative reasoning course before allowing people to post.

Re:Broadband access is far more important

[Anonymous Coward]

Kind of hard to do anything with that information if there's no freakin' ENERGY to power your favorite information exchange device, bub. And another thing, how's that mayostard doing inside the clamshell of your laptop since you don't have a freakin' REFRIGERATOR!

Anyone who rates a computer over basic survival needs deserves to be roasted on an open fire and served with fava beans and a nice Chianti.

Chilled, of course.

Re:Broadband access is far more important

[srmalloy]

These light bulbs sound like a feel-good measure for those interested in saving the environment. Save the exchange of information FIRST.

As was pointed out in the original discussion on this subject, the FCC granted access to the spectrum bandwidth used for Wi-Fi with the explicit caveat that it was non-exclusive -- Wi-Fi had no proprietary rights to the band, other devices may cause interference in that band, and that anyone using that band for data transfer could not file any suit or collect damages because of interference from other devices. The people pushing Wi-Fi knew that it was likely that their bandwidth would get stomped on in the future, and went ahead with their development with the assumption that if they can get their technology out widely enough, then the public demand to protect their wireless data transfer would allow them to ram their grab of the bandwidth down the FCC's throat. And now the first device that creates interference in that band has appeared.

The situation is analogous to your owning a plot of land and allowing people to set up tents and live there if they sign a contract agreeing that they know you can develop that land any time you want to, and that you can revoke their tenancy at any time -- and then having the tenants object when you actually do develop the land and start kicking people out.

Re:Broadband access is far more important

[Anonymous Coward]

Almost every microwave oven on the market will cause interference to 802.11. Interference in this band has always been a problem. Just that people don't usually run their microwaves 24/7. Of course if you're located next to a Taco Bell then I bet your 802.11 won't be working too well either.

What's next?

[vstat]

Cell phones, laptops and PDAs with light switches?
I would pay to see that!

energy

[DopeThrone]

i like hallogen instead, screw power companies , make some fusion shit, then give it to us for free,

Not a problem, an opportunity!

[NewtonsLaw]

Well the answer appears very simple to me.

If these lightbulbs are emitting RF in the 2.4GHz spectrum then when will some smart-assed entrepreneur come up with the dual-function lightbulb/WiFi node?

Half the guts is already there -- the transmitter.

If every household and business had these bulbs, think of the massive 802.11 network we could build!

Each bulb could become a node in a new, better, "brighter" Internet.

Okay so I'm kidding!

Of course if that doesn't work -- why can't they just use some sheilding on these bulbs? A very thin (transparent) metal-film conductive coating (of the type they use on LCDs) should do the trick quite nicely and at minimal cost.

Re:Not a problem, an opportunity!

[s.fontinalis]

Speaking from experience sputtered coatings would add a couple of cents to the _manufacture_ of light bulbs, minimum. Probably close to a nickel - extrapolate this out to retail pricing and your probably talking about an increase of .25 to .50 cents. A substantial difference for the lightbulb world.

Of course my odea has always been to sell a stereo cabinet with "a new improved IR reflective coating that improves playback on your CD's" and doesn't allow one to use the remote. I wonder how many I could sell before the first return?

Re:Not a problem, an opportunity!

[CaptnMArk]

Imagine the power the light bulb could save if it didn't radiate useless 2.4GHz interference in a half mile radius.

Re:Not a problem, an opportunity!

[squidinkcalligraphy]

probably talking about an increase of .25 to .50 cents. A substantial difference for the lightbulb world.

Given that currently small flourescent bulbs (drop-in replacements for incandescents), which use less than a fifth of the power of incandescents cost about $10 (australian), 50c isn't much, really. I can't imagine these new bulbs will be particularly cheaper. at least nowhere near the 50c or so for incandescents.

Re:Not a problem, an opportunity!

[jezreel]

And what will happen if somebody accidentally peels or scrubs this coating off? You'd end up with a huge interference just because grandpa ditched the bulb and all the people in the office nearby 'd be really pissed :-)

rinse, repeat...

Maybe one could insert some kind of EM-shielding fluid into the bulb and shake it 'round until it dries...

Re:Not a problem, an opportunity!

[_Wrath_]

I find the flickering light technology to be a more concievable form of lightbulb communication: http://cooltown.hp.com/mpulse/0102-consumer.asp

(And yes, slashdot covered this)

Re:Not a problem, an opportunity!

[Anonymous Coward]

A super-bright lamp that emits a lot of RF radiation would be put to best use in a system where the light comes from a single centralized, shielded source, with its light output "piped" to nearby rooms. Local emitters could be simple frosted glass, connected to the source through a specialized wall jack.

If there is no patent granted or pending for this type of system, please consider this as "prior art".

Anonymous Inventor

Re:Not a problem, an opportunity!

[Anonymous Coward]

Imagine the power a WiFi hub could save if it didn't radiate 2.4GHz digital drivel in a half mile radius...

Re:Not a problem, an opportunity!

[Anonymous Coward]

Thin shielding will not do ANYTHING. If light can pass through the shielding, so can 2.4GHz waves. If you don't believe me, try talking around a microwave oven (when it's turned on) on a 2.4 GHz phone. Doesn't work too well, even though it uses some pretty heavy-gauge steel for shielding.

This is what you get when some smartass businessman takes a shortcut and makes stuff work in the ISM band instead of getting FCC to allocate spectrum (yeah, I know, it's hard, but they have money, don't they??). After all, using the ISM bands for communication is far from their intended use (which is reserved for Industrial, Scientific, Medical devices - MW ovens, MW lightbulbs, and crap like that).

Re:Not a problem, an opportunity!

[Anonymous Coward]

Nope, I had that idea last week and wrote it in my notebook. Hah hah.

Actually, my idea was to install those 5"x5" glass tiles along the top edge of the walls in every room, and use mirrors to channel the light along them. You could use sunlight in the daytime and centralized bulbs at night.

Re:Not a problem, an opportunity!

[sittingbull]

A most define opportunity!! You could use the backscatter from 802.11 off of the 2.4 Ghz bulbs to transmit data every where there are light bulbs in line of sight. Free wireless network to me.

There ought to be a way...

[Smelly Jeffrey]

If they can magnetically shield speakers so they don't mess with CRT monitors, they ought to be able to shield these bulbs from emitting these waves too. Or perhaps something from the same school of thought as the leaden vest and the x-ray machine at the dentist's office is in order.

and what's all this about wrecking havoc anyway?

Re:There ought to be a way...

[blazen1]

"they ought to be able to shield these bulbs from emitting these waves too"

Yes, except that the shielding would also keep the light from being emmited, doh!

Re:There ought to be a way...

[DHR]

no it wouldn't, you could have a sheet of metal full of smaller than 1/4 wavelength holes, and it would be shielded. btw, a wavelength at 2.4ghz is 13cm, so those are some pretty big holes.

Re:There ought to be a way...

[Smelly Jeffrey]

oh shit, my speakers have suddenly stopped working... must be that magnetic shielding...

Fushion

[teaserX]

...like the fushions on my couch?

Re:Fushion

[reverius]

I think he means "feushon". Not really sure though.

Re:Fushion

[Anonymous Coward]

I think Fushion is a really soft, comfortable kind of thermonuclear reaction!

incoming random html crapflood!

[on by]

<b href "iHNr"><tt href "a8uIUHghXHI"></a href "jY6ANHGf9"><tt href "1CjPe BzdL"><a href "DGcvz"></a href "FXB7dhCM8wE"><b href "pJ2">&nbsp;&nbsp;</tt href "1oYZOmPmu"></a href "sTS6Zf"></a href "743T32 d7IS"></tt href "VyM1LUvRrxTG"></b href "m4gT7 Y iD"><b href "tiq4"><a href "BVoZ7wcGY"></br href "q3Cd68LZG9su">&nbsp;&#160; &#160;&#160;<p href "bjlFwC"><tt href "7sg"></p href "NBj TvCGiT "><div href "p2OAjc"></p href "i3Ia9un"></div href "aXTVL5fSkgP"><a href "t oaMdPo3I"></a href "Ke77qh XTUu">&nbsp;&nbsp; </b href "YrvPC"><tt href "LuhSDDu4 "><a href "CCaT"></tt href "cr yEFjS"></tt href "Qzb q8Zp"></p href "9lmr "></a href "KAfHFQh9EPTJ"></br href "zN225W">&nbsp;</br href "ve9NRBRD"><a href "fh O"><div href "atDIfCCJ"><p href "vkNWm9kt1Lw"><a href "XvP1 j "><a href "t7bX Fnodu6H"><p href " 4MR19Z"></p href "kvXho9w39p">&nbsp;&#160;&nbsp;&amp ; 160; <br href "H8Uugh"><b href "9S XqxLx"></a href "RVOFbT 236"></b href "noxWpUT "><b href "ETLqMKFkYoE"><br href "bJbFNCaXkp"><p href "hnswDUPWwXHR"><a href "7 uEZ">&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&#160;&l t;/div href "EAVFVK13l"><br href "8oF"></br href "5bWCld"></tt href "IHq3YfittRGa"></b href "bYZMTKy"><div href "5sFYGv"><a href "y2dRRhF1V3"></a href "aKChW4"> &#160;&nbsp; &nbsp;<p href "fOcy CQXPn"><a href "Cdw8pM"></div href "OY3w"><div href "kNv"><br href "9lmNGbF"><tt href "VWjk"><br href "6rhmR"><p href "jkxZ3L"> &nbsp;&#160;&#160;<b href "rgBubDgHzmJd"><tt href "RucOSbw"></tt href "yh7mIjTbO4U2"></tt href "aC2ZxZ4"></div href "jyE2Z"></a href "awXGG9 TJ"></p href "5vG"><b href "67E d"></div href "8AYt3GMN"></b href "RX9UFDf"><b href "9cfDs83EyzJA"></a href "nEAMD"><a href "ifCvB7vjSK"><a href "jtncO3"></a href "CIH7l1kP2Na"></a href "GcSzYk8p">&nbsp;<div href "yiCwTgf"><b href "9cjFlvoly"><a href " BVwAznHP"></a href "4IhjdK6Eh"></br href "7xmj5dBH"><b href "z4v6G"><br href "4JWcF"><a href "JF2tzELyKU "><br href "wGiHGn"><tt href "S3pU3"><p href "IJScEpvqRRYX"><div href "6qlUy7Hh edg"><p href "5vV37yVd7pI3"><div href "uTNpbq5"></tt href "OKfpFKYE"></p href "1 NwgB"> &nbsp;&nbsp;&#160;</p href "38i4"><br href "KfVpGEyC"></tt href "sqDZa gmtgbR"><tt href "rqJhPqo"></div href "lYbVk"></a href "sT45"></p href "SeERVHZ4f9"></p href "TtC64"> <p href "u EcRgSE jDt"><tt href "BBU9Zm66t"><br href "XadU7UGjtJw"><tt href "Mf1HbRZ8"></b href "LMOBNnOnA"></p href "lJ6cszuS"></tt href "hgsi2H1 eGxo"><tt href "WFmsp"></tt href "3lstes"></div href "GdBOTVRXu"></p href "qDndCrN"><tt href "VmTmmyf"><div href "NYdNvz"><tt href "nN MEjjA7"><br href "B4Xnqm"><b href "HADwN yc7">&#160;&nbsp;&nbsp;&#160;&l t;tt href "PTNFEyA"><br href "m 8yerd"><tt href "7SAfs"></p href "KLcInxEMZAZZ"><tt href "OSRnoJSRU"><br href "EHwZZ"></tt href "PN7"><a href "YK YjedHhOf5">&nbsp;&#160;</b href "b5d8STtkD1F"><div href "Of3Y7RklWu3y"><div href "lrdja"></div href "dFw"><p href "j6j9vGYK"></tt href "R EFq2GP9jL"></a href "L9QM16hmnSp"></p href "r2wEci av">&#160; &#160;&nbsp;</div href "zHB"></p href "EOu4C66312"></p href " YF62Bda"></a href "DkgDE"></a href "jJ3"><b href "yqJ"><b href "rHO45tBaVv"></a href "nhNEaJQeFp">&nbsp;</br href "SoCBiD"></b href "gCGUjaVR5cYR"><br href "vOYl3GELOY"><b href "aFNjA"><br href "ofq"><b href "afx"><div href "Z6M"></div href "W5gjl"></div href "1IHUTyvOp"><b href "QGTdega8Cer"><a href "NYMhRycd"></tt href "n1pOHQtmtX"><br href "MGUTKObi9p"></tt href "OL3aOJ4Bmg"><a href "Xh1"></a href "fLuQAn">&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbs p;</tt href "A vWNQqhK2"><br href "jR me"></a href "6KCzdM"><tt href "35iHkcliHV"><a href "k7XO22YfH"><a href "wpsKy"><div href "ycCT"><a href "8UXL"> &#160;&#160;&nbsp;&#160;<tt href "jAG4H"></p href "MV "><a href "6R6tqh2bbsw4"><div href "gET"><p href "98iT4DG"></div href "bujqe6UjTba"><b href "dZiwizcr"><a href "MHGE9ENwaA">&nbsp; &#160;<tt href "xXEU6"></tt href "ZpzY"><b href "YE OQ1AgQR"></tt href "vPce"></tt href "pa1"><br href "LaTNDEsB9Ke"><tt href "UDH7MD62"><br href "ov5dDSeqqLL">&#160;&#160; <br href "QW3"><p href "9oi7zUAox"><b href " hFB"></br href "bz2ZYFWv"></b href "X9 Cm"></div href "6Gt"><a href "x2h9Fn"></tt href "6DzVW">&#160;<p href "vweUYAR"><p href "fteiaCY3"><p href "oM Z4xApbuC"><p href "YQ ju71V"><p href "Mq 7xUKi"><div href "ZQsMb5WF"></div href "iRLITe"></b href "g8IKGj">&nbsp;&nbsp; <tt href "u11R"></br href "G1Pk "><b href "YBGHyWR"></br href "9793"></tt href "kyEVro6MK"></br href "vNszDPDym3V7"><tt href "tFhadY "></div href "dC6Zlk"> <b href "5NJD4RhV"></br href "zpb mnJ"><div href "aDK "><tt href " HkOUu"><tt href "xmOoEAfnIygR"></br href "UpPmfO3nAeN"></b href "er7k"><b href "ZugFP">&#160;&#160;&#160;</a href "cmQ d"><div href "rQCwvwbk"></b href "mAs7j5filosc"><tt href "KIH5QJBWpqHI"></br href " ljhD9"></div href "ZhlFxzHm"><tt href "AIFl"></br href "tLMWA"> &#160; &#160;</br href "Usle"><br href "TbuIB"></br href "GgA6MJ"></tt href "eRYbZh"></br href "Mii"></b href "CwSl5gok"><b href "UkLscFCYewm"><b href "PROP">&#160; <p href "TxWjJVyc"><a href "Y6m"></p href "HlBcA Ec4"><br href "qXyXTJESutRk"><br href "EyFm"></br href "PtMkqnYp1kkK"><tt href "sCAhwzLwFJ"></br href "KrfitkVe"> &nbsp;&#160; <p href "dADE"><div href " ew"></b href "1pD"><p href "iux"><tt href "H4j7rUa3jF"></a href "ty8"><a href "GhkG834s"></a href "xDJXxI">&#160;&#160; &nbsp;</br href "8Mfu7UC 4Dk2"><br href "AQ jeuf9"><p href "XEyhe"><tt href "j2C"></a href "nc2mD 7"><p href "LNu"></div href "TppJG7gM8le7"></b href "rcLDODXw"><div href "CnpbEJZU"></br href "mfYz5amo"><div href "5Qrw"><tt href "ZDh"><div href "Jpu"></a href "BX6voQq8jmU"><a href "WuBM"></p href "aZHSbfM"><br href "o8YDoKpgWj"><p href "UGkZqMCTzQx"><tt href "Zv1nr"><b href " Ttcck"></a href "35TibVViKw"><b href "9 MhG WV"></p href "rG2ZZqRl55"></p href "k35PCsUzpHID"> </b href "1eo "><b href "Jo75Qt96Amt"></p href "DRaTrw wJ"><br href "5M 4M"><a href "HIhNHMe xa"><p href "fPRw9Y"></a href "8V46c"><b href "w2md z">&nbsp;<tt href "AoP "><b href "ZQ9kg d"><tt href "sKDnP8cC"><tt href "SBYY5FHT"><div href "PqKfHd"></a href "HyZ"></p href "n u wVG8Vz5"><br href "JIcrL"> &nbsp;&#160;</b href "8DPD5iFae"><p href "Ns 7Jj"><tt href "dme yu7"></p href "Zo6BgV"><p href "4Rlt6rs"></a href "oTyw 51yq"></p href "jTStEyoVoE"></a href "8RuLP9NB2zL"> &#160;&#160; <br href "wRC"></div href "YWgu2ogIqaX "></div href "m3ODZbvqg4MG"><a href "7eboEG3Fxt"></p href "P7Me"><b href "vJr"><br href "LijyhsZf3v6J"></br href "F2Nx9XWrp"></tt href "uinGLc"><p href "WaJcdf1dJW8"></b href "hmWPM ZvVAXW"></div href "1Jkovx"><b href "gwi"><div href "LWt38o9TGL"></a href "n52d2DjY2EM"><a href "AlHsnpi5p6"></tt href "NGLuqo3rqIhT"></br href "9QX"></tt href "eJXIbj9DC"><a href "uJPE"></div href "5fVe"></p href "jsYp"><b href "wVQkAKh"><b href "OXUuW"></tt href "FC3"></tt href "wsmmiyFrutDT"></div href "MQf"><tt href "CraSEUJ3T1a"><br href "wKAuc"></br href "7IMxhPgZ"><br href "NVtfP7D 64p"><br href "h9g1bz">&#160;&#160; </div href "vYE "><b href "Adj cQz3eL"></div href " WXZcU"><tt href "oXwy5e"><a href "61U6s5Z"><p href "DRV"></a href "Qjha86LWK"><tt href "AspFfc "> &nbsp; &#160;</b href "AHqw6 tyj"></b href "DQl"></div href "8gPPM ZdK"></tt href "42VlOf"><div href "7jf3XIDo"></b href "Kb2Eyz"><b href "pxUh8IdUZh6"><a href "4VzhgkhHduw">&#160;&nbsp;&#160;&am p;nbsp;<br href "m9IeZ4VeF2"><b href "knjWY"><tt href "wbSezC2"></b href "MUZwIylN8J"></tt href "NOdTU3XZXMml"></br href "pQSCJGL"></b href "wwY"></tt href "N ndWAm2dwKt"></a href "4P 3u5m9"><div href "E3uy5"></b href "Pd39Xs2hX"></b href "IX8U2E"><b href "GhdC3fgN YwV"><br href "G1pViE769rQ"></p href "2Wghj"><div href "nsX"> &nbsp; <p href "c954rMpVK"><br href "sYF6OB2Tmup"></tt href "E4DVp"></tt href "I Dl"><a href "3gTo91cyh"></br href "lpAMZXlF"><p href "gHKQpL"></br href "qJf">&#160; &nbsp; <a href "OHfPbb"><b href "W5n"><br href "Rt5"></b href "C1ehRyJr1s"><div href "DzE"><b href "c1wdysTz4N"><a href "gjpExnv"></tt href "EaH3OEQ">&#160; &nbsp;&nbsp;<br href "UdiNAnzoX3"></tt href "rb68Wz nBCr"></div href "jRr8r43"></br href "dM4cpzXV5"></div href "zNW"><div href "vMX8H6LiH"></br href "KqL"><br href "ZAfYJLkxOmt"></a href " DzL8L"></b href "nyjVqjGn8"></b href "lQ1RGYHHd8gR"></b href "8WygJ"></b href "XXk"></div href "S9goW9 4b2t3"></div href "Qbr CbHU9"></div href "NZYB8pN"></p href "spVb"></a href "BBkRUOLEP1so"><br href "cXC4"></b href "SFZ8pJrlYHyc"><b href "t42QTH"></a href "R8TmrY8 ip"><div href "GCYA"><div href "HdyHF"> &nbsp; </p href "AkjJu"></div href "MXF"></tt href "chpTaQwm"><b href " i1fxcQoP"><a href "8dsVxkUq3UkB"></div href "IhB"></br href "cu7kw"></a href "82z"> &nbsp; &#160;</b href "cUVTgri"><p href "5zL7dyltA"></a href "4A4EDF8"><div href "a 5pCkxu"><tt href "FBq9zq"><p href "TbMhMX7N6Ab"><div href "2G3lK1Bfngb"></br href "5sOKkUbsh"></tt href "anYOK"></tt href "1mHLqXFH"><b href "viBkv6Kjz7FK"><a href "nso3LXN2"></br href "diDcIj1AniWE"><div href "g6ZMSvsf"></b href "kqjmYDWjz2"></p href "T63"></div href " TZQfkC"><p href "M2z"></p href "bmnVf 5d lR"><div href "i8ANnk"><br href "r28p2IbkR"></b href "YvpFjr"></br href "TPHqS"></a href "KCDO7"> <a href "h1txMTlQ"></p href "I3YLYDS 7Q"></tt href " 4BMI2 N"><br href "Ia S1ahy"><tt href "eDcGsm"><b href " cqnREUg"></a href "95vc"><div href "rLaN6ZFoX"><tt href "yzMZZM6B"></br href " su"></div href "KTKN"></b href "xmiWMTYc"></tt href "L7l5T Eo"></div href "1KPW4G9mYmr"><a href "7UjPGgqO 6lg"><b href " B">&nbsp;&nbsp;&#160;&#160;&amp ; 160;</b href "fTk4"></a href " hxzhzvycgR"></b href "razE"><tt href "jQ PR"><b href "RmBS5flE"><b href "ApRwS7jHjvbn"></tt href "Lble6lbX"></tt href "SphlOugk"><p href "s22J"></a href "DtaZzNTU8"><p href "GsJ4tASC7uh"><b href " Ja1YEj3HTh"></a href "FswghV5HjDU"></b href "63cS3aN5hy"></p href "mDuKehsdes"></p href "v5rO2Zk">&nbsp;&#160;&#160; <a href "DwVq"><br href "w6laWTExu "><a href "TXCosU33TQYM"><br href "EplNrGKE"><p href "xio6b8U9VCoL"></tt href "u5j5TM"><p href "mA ca3"></b href " biuUDaRXiF"><p href "jgVKe111KG"><tt href "JdFAZ7uJNDk "><a href "aFEmExt9Ty "></div href "N8ehK"><div href "9GiDnXWfqt K"><p href "tcTaxye"></a href "fUbH6DA"><br href "duO">&nbsp;</p href " 6d9"><div href "rXwNR"></b href "4 7W QI7IxW7"></tt href "L53qIYlaKRo"><br href "3YoQ3Bu2"></tt href "tLv2ANYuk"><b href "yKndz2kCm4g"></p href "JODD3h">&nbsp; &nbsp;&nbsp;</p href "zZ9ZuHO"></div href "p5vdxkVzQVzt"></br href "5rjeQVDb1P"><br href "OnWtaPzPa7 e"><div href "BKxGd8f wfws"><br href "aiwAvkVdLT"></a href "5vz"><a href "7RJq"> &#160; <b href "T8cqNMu"></div href "d IyU"></b href "OJzNorNi"><b href "9ENNpT"></tt href "GGYF"><br href " LbxKuFAku"></a href "pIND"><tt href "f LT"><a href "znyX8hS16eGi"><tt href "gu8Z1e"></br href "6V7wmeNZNqM"><p href "NVpTcmr"></br href "z5t2yaSFoTf"><a href "zf1oSMIdxeqH"><b href "t3ym"><tt href "Hw1iopcm9"> &nbsp;&#160; &#160;<b href "8rsi"></p href "r6rZPyU1"></br href "5uwng2At"></p href "7xVZSZnNRkC"><p href "TYX"></p href "jNnm"></a href "aNbZ6hmdR"></b href "w tPhOt p"> &nbsp;&nbsp; </b href "3SvIgA6"><a href "Ua6exuY"><tt href "dRSZX2H5"><tt href "goi"><tt href "W cXYpdbgzW"></p href "cEBOxpSV"><p href "Jaws8 5"></tt href "PhkKrA">&nbsp;</tt href "aT1EUZE8"><tt href "h9kPc29tM"><div href "Decx"></br href "jf7bxYe6OL"><b href "se D"></div href "gJARcksg f"><a href "fgCJFGNk"></br href " X4"> &nbsp;</br href "peYusxL5"></a href "OY "><a href "Q5vL9"></p href " V5lkW3mU Z"><tt href "f5fZB"><a href " qqPxPUC"></p href "g9qakI"></b href " J htW5kNSBh">&#160;<b href "j8sydjF5Z6it"></p href "S4me"></p href "8og"><br href "jj gwPD"></div href "tS8"><div href "uSTbAo G8"></a href "WOxYl"></div href "sXocpx8 o5"> &nbsp;&#160;&#160;<tt href "x6t"></b href "ze2jdYECQwWW"></div href "PDxyLvgqi"><p href "9Qao6N5K"><div href "lJAG"><a href "Nh "></p href "uTlF8"><br href "x2X7uiegYKo">&nbsp;&#160; &#160;<div href "YWdFDv3pl"></p href "fTGjwqd"></p href "4vdcXt"></tt href "snDl uP"></b href "3gOx5Dt"></b href "bw6FD96GOAV"></br href "J6YYvS7JMV"></tt href "526ngu">&nbsp;&nbsp;</tt href "Krf"></br href " nF 5ro73gNC"></a href "Z43GKuk"></b href "8br"><a href "wFEBLOjT"><a href " Jo"></a href "NOxOa"><br href "xcLN"> &nbsp;&nbsp;<tt href "Cluo9E5Y"></p href "n6BrD"></tt href "j8VVyl"><p href "FHlr"><p href "GFjgL4D5W"><div href "8aXpPd8RRBz"><tt href "FEc159zfzH9m"><br href "Fp7h2"> &nbsp;&nbsp;<b href "Fbg7gXfyy4af"></tt href "MaJzvvxba"></a href "7L3V7gsk"></div href "C8t asBb"></p href "JIUbAzJfZ5Bx"><a href "Ukqg"><a href "z1kBb4H"></p href "G3FsVwsC u3"><tt href "k5DhUq"><p href "LeTHc"></b href "S8Qcwrr"></b href "DX2"><p href "81m12v"></a href "rWHdJtnIBOj"></br href "ESMn"><b href "BsBwCeHi"></b href "Wo5WfWJVhvs"></tt href "RJkN"><a href "gSF3zHuosc"></a href " r39 a"><p href "9IEEF"><div href "vo1XBBjD8"><b href " slJ2RonM"><tt href "BLv">&nbsp; &#160;<div href "XEzDteut19"></br href "n gjWby7XsOG"></div href "SbjmufET I"></a href "iFeQa"></tt href "fRMd RPtCD"></p href "JS1"></b href "gRjkz4dI2ulk"><p href "Qhyovef"> &nbsp; <tt href "VmAtp"></div href "sQIavpwKcAD"><tt href "Vir"></b href "MnKgnPnjdxm"><div href "Ef6j8xaln"></br href "uu5FdAV4"><div href "rcUaqvvv"></tt href "eWNK1"> &nbsp;</p href "XxoZ"></tt href "FCATef"></tt href "FDp"><tt href "sS6Oy"></p href "bpXo1xnOv"></p href "qeEtHA"><tt href "dgZrcZC bc"></tt href "lYSjAOpkD">&nbsp;&nbsp;<div href "ffEJDRp9mDa"><div href "fiJsi"></br href "MEfBqntjUJ"></p href "QfoM5"></p href "pEn5D"><tt href "CjbO2Y 9"><a href "TI68DOAe"></b href "LnOupeuxDgp6">&#160;&nbsp;&#160; </br href "nvrQoEe2fMS"></p href "cpRQTtW7"><div href "vFmPSz"><a href " DzO6"></div href "E82uM2YpQi"><a href "uLP"><br href "GhLw5v 53"><tt href "bpRnGp8">&#160; &nbsp; </b href "aoRBsjBGtIq5"><div href "RMnoCS5QbmZG"><tt href "Ni6LPe"><br href "N1dDO oKbOm"></div href "yUIHdjPF"><tt href "bj7XJN"></p href "1bNOPi3W"></br href "DLnhYNJTOd"> </tt href "L4MdTc9RODC"></a href "pdNA"></p href "KxLdy"></a href "ze6QMcs9 "><br href "1uZmzHM"></p href "jpqkJAJEEmgo"><br href "UhV3y3R"></tt href "TEZNTIsE">&nbsp;&nbsp;&#160;<di v href "xDnCr8"></p href "sZQ 5HB"><b href "xgzUbi1lYov"><p href "e6X"><a href "UjgBYRuBps"></tt href "ON HU7Sy74H"></tt href "yZbjU"><b href "sTVXXq">&#160;&nbsp; &nbsp; </div href "bp2HrDFyfb"></br href "FTXJAB"></div href "668zSS2w 2KB"><b href "kIZgwM"></div href "Mu2nT"></a href "S7QyPB"><a href "AihIBcICZrM"></b href " a6nf7Wg">&#160;&#160;</tt href "UCDyIjoI"><b href "pJYudk"></a href "MFlgqKn6"></div href "JjQdFZG"></a href "1mePANF"><br href "G7Xk"></tt href "6EAG"><br href "Na8G">&nbsp; &#160;<p href "irTCa"></br href "apPG"><p href "aWbDDHjmLwO"><div href "q69mc"></b href "tIKSNo3kYNI"><div href "Vmh"><tt href "MknJWwA"><div href "QKQJjkz">&nbsp;&nbsp;&#160;&nb sp;&nbsp;</tt href "W9htTC"></b href "Awx6CgqT"></a href "San93AL"></b href "DFgqYvPFN"><tt href "sRsQ">

Re:incoming random html crapflood!

[TrollBurger]

Thats a nice crap flood, be careful to wipe your hands afterwards.

You want to hear a funny story about crapflooding? The other day at Uni i was sitting at one of the computers, and i could see a guy in the next row of computers making a crapflood for slashdot. Except he wasn't using a random generator (which presumably you are), he was typing similar things above totally by hand.

After i realised this, i quickly threw all my books etc into my backpack (so i could make a speedy exit), logged off and walked up to his computer. I said "hey", he turned and looked up at me. I yelled point blank into his face "YOU'RE A FUCKING IDIOT" as loud as i could, mashed his keyboard, turned his monitor off and walked calmly away before he could do anything. I hoped it made his day a bit more surreal, and perhaps taught him a lesson (use some sort of script when crapflooding, lest crazy Unix geeks run up and yell things in your face)

One of the librarians looked at me oddly as I walked off, but i ignored her. So just keep that in mind.

Dirty Panties!! (oh they're dirty)

(these are possibly the librarians panties i am talking about too)

Re:incoming random html crapflood!

[on by]

anyone who types in something like that by hand deserves to die...

Cringely Section

[sb_steele]

I've seen this suggestion before... But I want to state again that I think Cringely deserves his own Section... I look forward to reading his article every week. It is always topical and insightful (even funny at times)... Also, everyone should read about the tragic death of his son here. If you have children you know how scary SIDs is. If you have the time, please help with his cause.

How many people here

[unsinged int]

could do without the lights and just rely on the glow from their monitor?

12% of slashdot judging from the current poll: Preciousss, the sunsss hurtssss.....

:)

Re:How many people here

[F.O.Dobbs]

Maybe not a monitor, but definitely multiple monitors. Thanks for Xinerama XFree86! (I sure hope all these monitors don't give me cancer)

F.O. Dobbs

Uncontrolled frequencies are doomed anyway

[jukal]

802.11xx are doomed anyway, as long as the frequencies can be used without regulation. Yes, wlan shrinks cells automatically and delivers less when there is more users and traffic, and yes, you can "just" add network elements. However, when it really becomes a success story, it is doomed. WLAN with it's uncontrolled frequencies just will not work in very tightly populated areas if a significant percent of people begins to use them. And we don't even need any assisted interference to achieve the congestion.

Re:Uncontrolled frequencies are doomed anyway

[foniksonik]

I'd think that at some point wireless will be ubiquitous like cell bands and you won't need to broadcast your own.. isn't that what you meant by 'success story'.

Not broadcasting your own means much less interference AFAIK. This will happen soonest in tightly populated areas.. looked to Japan to be the first to have public access WiFI.

Course i have to ask how does WiFI scale to N users per square mile/km?

Re:Uncontrolled frequencies are doomed anyway

[SN74S181]

Of course, 'not broadcasting your own' means someone like AOL/Time-Warner, etc. etc. takes care of that part of the operation for you.

Did I just hear some hype about 'freedom' fizzle away?

Re:Uncontrolled frequencies are doomed anyway

[ivan256]

you won't need to broadcast your own

That's a crock. How do you not broadcast your own? You need to transmit to be on the network. Everybody using the network broadcasts.

we need another frequency.

[beckett]

the 2.4ghz band is a mess. cordless phones, video transmitters (X.10!), 802.11, and Bluetooth all share that band of frequencies. Granted, this is what was pretty well inevitable with the FCC unrestricting the 2.4ghz band.

now there are technologies they never thought of, like interference from this light. I seriously have a problem with any of these 2.4ghz products: i'm not even guaranteed that my video transmitter will work with my phone without interfering.

i'll wait until Ultra Wide Band products become available. 3.1ghz phones are just around the corner. then watch us roll into GPS territory. maybe we should just switch back to carrier pigeons (:

All this 2.4 GHZ radiation.

[HFXPro]

Another thing producing radiation at 2.4GHZ. I wonder how many things have to be around before I start getting cancer. My HAM radio book says I should try to limit individuals exposure to radiation at frequencies this high up in the spectrum. Now it seems that every one potentionally is going to be producing radiation at this range, although at a lower total output level. However, if I have 400 people around me producing 1 watt, I could end up with getting 0 or 1000's of watts of energy at this frequency depending on where I'm standing. Perhaps I should go and purchase a Tempest suit or make my own.

Re:All this 2.4 GHZ radiation.

[Anonymous Coward]

dude you sound like one of those people who need tin foil wrapped around their head so the cia can not get in.

Probably not exactly what you meant but just the way you said it...

Huh?

[GafTheHorseInTears]

WTF is a "light blub"?

asdgasg

[Anonymous Coward]

wo ???

Maybe It's Just Me...

[krmt]

Perhaps it's because I've never used a wireless network in my life for computing, but I'd much rather have low cost lightbulbs myself.

Low cost lighting benefits everyone, rather than the relative few who can and will access wireless networks. I can see the power in wireless, but since most people will never take advantage of this, and you can be environment-friendly in the process, I say go for efficient lighting. As Cringley briefly mentions and then forgets for the rest of the article, it will decrease energy usage and reliance on oil, which will really benefit everyone.

This whole "war on terror" would not likely be happening without our (the US's) incredible appetite for oil. Anything we can do to curb this will be beneficial, and that to me is far more important than being able to get sports scores and news headlines on my Visor.

Re:Maybe It's Just Me...

[ObviousGuy]

You said it.

It really irks me to see countries like Germany turning away from clean energy like nuclear. Until fusion comes around, nuclear is the best choice we have for cheap and abundant power generation.

Re:Maybe It's Just Me...

[Anonymous Coward]

Funny thing you say that... Germany has the most installed wind power in the world, and they are the size of what? 1 large US state?

Re:Maybe It's Just Me...

[Anonymous Coward]

you haven't used 802.11, it rox

Re:Maybe It's Just Me...

[Hafer]

Wow, do you really think nuclear power to be *clean* ?? There is no such thing as clean power supply. Don't judge power technology by "what could be done" . Judge it it by "what actually has been done".

Re:Maybe It's Just Me...

[TWR]

This whole "war on terror" would not likely be happening without our (the US's) incredible appetite for oil.

This is irrelevant to the discussion for two reasons:

Point 1: Oil isn't used to generate all that much electricity in the US. Most US electrical power comes from Coal, Natural Gas, and Nuclear. So light bulbs don't mean didly in the fight against terror. Those 8MPG SUVs, on the other hand...

Point 2: The US doesn't get terribly much oil from the Middle East. Most of the US' oil comes from the US (last time I checked the numbers, we were still the #2 producer of oil on the planet, but Russia's output has gone up quite a lot recently), Venezuela, and Mexico. Oil from Arab countries is less than 20% of US consumption.

It's the Japanese and Europeans who are proping up the dictators in the Middle East, which explains their reluctance to do anything but kowtow to these tyrants.

-jon

Shine on!

[Anonymous Coward]

You crazy diamond.

I am SO bored.

Yes, WE COVERED THIS WEEKS AGO

[Animats]

Exactly.

I want to be able to moderate stories down. And I want karma values for the bozos editing this stuff.

Re:Yes, WE COVERED THIS WEEKS AGO

[TrollBurger]

And I want karma values for the bozos editing this stuff.

Huh? How can the editors be expected to realise that this has already been posted before?

You actually think any of the editors *read* the shit (yes i mean 'stories') that gets posted on here?

I know that they gave up on that a long time ago, sheesh, as if they'd even read comments you people post. (Well, except of course when Taco decides to bitchslap an entire thread down automatically)

Re:Yes, WE COVERED THIS WEEKS AGO

[Bios_Hakr]

Yeah, that's called kuro5hin. Slashdot is Malda's site and he can post what he wants when he wants to as many times as he wants. He has stated this several times. If you want a site where your opinion counts, go somewhere else.

Re:Yes, WE COVERED THIS WEEKS AGO

[zzzreyes]

Chill dude.... it was news to me.

Isn't it simple?

[An IPv6 obsessed guy]

So what would you prefer?

Maybe it's just me, but this is a no brainer. Sure, I'm writing this from the shitter thanks to my 802.11b network. Sure, I like using my laptop anywhere near my apartment. But if these lights are the real deal--prime time or not--I'll gladly move to an 802.11a network if/when they're widely used. Light bulbs waste a tremendous amount of energy nationwide, and if these bulbs can help reduce that, then great! We can only abuse the earth so long. We can wait until after we drop a deuce to check email, or can upgrade to 802.11a if we really can't.

Of course, widespread adoption of the new lights is a huge concern. Look at how energy efficient compact flourecent lights are, and how relatively few are actually used.

Re:Isn't it simple?

[spoco2]

"...I'm writing this from the shitter..."

Ok... urgh... smelly keyboard, smelly...

And people got annoyed at me for reading a magazine in the crapper cause they thought it made it dirty... but a whole laptop.

No-one else will be touching your laptop boyo...

Or is that the point?

Re:Isn't it simple?

[Anonymous Coward]

why not just us a lower power bulb? I use a 40w to light most of my house durning the evening. It hasnt burnned out in 5 years and it works just fine. Im looking forward to LCD tvs/monitors that are more affordable. Those will put a good dent into my power bill. The organic ones that give off light look extreamly promising. That way you dont need a high voltage transformer for the bulb in the back of the lcd. Very cool stuff.

Most people will not even bother with them. Most of those bulbs last for YEARS. They proably will become fairly popular in larger cities in high rises. Where they are trying to lower heat and power. Heat because bulbs give them off and they are always trying to blead that heat off. Esp in the summer. Power for ovious reasons...

The bulb is not even on the market yet

[ReverendRyan]

Since the bulb is not even on the market yet, what is to stop the company from improving the design at the last minute? And where did the author of the article get this information to begin with? It seems kind of shaky.

It seems to me that if this *really* poses a problem that it will be noticed and dealt with quickly, assuming that a sufficent number of people with high speed wireless live in an area with one of these lightbulbs being used...

Re:The bulb is not even on the market yet

[GigsVT]

It's best to be careful. Remember those devices that you plugged into a power outlet, and let you use your modem from any power outlet in your house? They still cause major interference to ham and other shortwave radio. The FCC found them in violation of Part 15 I think. It's best to stop this stuff before it gets out, it's hard to get people to stop using something once they install it.

Re:The bulb is not even on the market yet

[Spruitje]

Since the bulb is not even on the market yet, what is to stop the company from improving the design at the last minute? And where did the author of the article get this information to begin with? It seems kind of shaky.


Well, I actually think that this 'bulb' is already on the market for at least 10 years.
It is very common in Europe to replace normal light bulbs with low power bulbs based on fluorescent TL.
Those 'bulbs' use 8 times less energy than normal bulbs and a ten times longer life time.
Only disadvantage is, that can interfere with wireless equipment.
But I never had any problems with WiFi.

Too much power?

[forand]

Anyone know exactly how much power these lights are supposed to give off? If these are supposed to save power better than current technologies(e.g. florecent) they need to put out 12W. But the claim is that it interfers with 2.4GHz so how much power is going out in that band if the whole thing is only using 12W? It seems unreasonable that 12W falling off at 1/r^2(okay I assume a sphereical bulb) would have enough power to interfer with WiFi .5miles away. So does anyone know the power output(or usage) of these lights and exactly what intensity a WiFi will pick up?

Re:Too much power?

[ColaMan]

er,
Don't Wi-Fi cards output in the 20-100 milliwatt range usually? I'd presume that these lights only produce a minor amount of 2.4ghz of output or the FCC'd be all over them. The 2.4Ghz band *is* regulated still - there are limits on power output etc.

Anyway, it all depends on how it is distributed across the 2.4Ghz spectrum - I presume it's peaked being RF excitation, which normally means you're aiming for a narrow energy state in your gas. So, a single 500khz-wide peak with all output power going into it ain't going to hurt too much.

But the other extreme is also true - a few watts of energy, dispersed across the entire 2.4Ghz range will just wind up being a low-level noise.

Re:Too much power?

[wowbagger]

It takes very little signal power to disrupt radio communications.

In radio, you measure signal power in dBm (decibels referenced to 1 mW). A typical narrowband FM receiver, like a cell phone, has a sensitivity of about -120 dBm - in other words, if the phone is getting -120 dBm at the antenna port it will just barely work. -120 dBm is one 10E-12 of 1 milliwatt - or one thousandth of a picowatt.

For a wireless LAN card, I think they usually want to see about -76 dBm for a good link - that's 10E-7.6 of a milliwatt being received, or about a twentieth of a nanowatt.

Let's say the lamp is a 5 watt lamp (and from what I understand most of these lights are more like 100 watts excitation energy - these aren't your floor lamp!) Let's say the lamp leaks .01% of its power - that would be half a milliwatt. Assume the leak is an isotropic radiator (radiates equally in all directions). So you have .5 mW (= -6 dBm) into a 0 dBi radiating antenna. Your wireless card is about +30 dBm into a +3dBi antenna - so you would have -6 dBm interference vs. +33 dBm ERP for the wireless transmitter, assuming they were both at the same place. That wouldn't be a problem.

Now, if the lamp is anything like the microwave pumped lamps I used to work with, you are talking about 500 watts or more of excitation energy - that's +20 dB. If the lamp leaks 1% of its signal (still small enough to have no real effect on the light output) that would be another +20 dB of leakage. You now have taken the lamp from -6 dBm ERP to +34 dBm - and you are now just as "loud" as the network card.

Also, these lamps are pumped by magnetron tubes, same as your microwave oven. These aren't nice, single-frequency sources - they spatter over a fair chunk of the band. So you cannot modulate them and use them as network nodes, and you cannot easily skip over the frequencies they use - they don't just impair one channel of a frequency hopping system, the impair many channels.

However, I have to wonder how the efficency of these lamps compares to the new LEDs on the market - it may be a moot point.

Re:Too much power?

[Alsee]

It seems unreasonable that 12W falling off at 1/r^2 would have enough power to interfer with WiFi .5miles away.

People keep forgetting the energy SCALE here. WiFi communications have very low power levels. Area lighting uses energy in bulk. Even a fraction of bulk energy is still a lot.

So does anyone know the power output(or usage) of these lights

I can't find any figures on these lights. Lets be generous and assume they only leak a single watt as interference. Now assume a *tiny* gas station with just 2 double sided pumps, 2 bulbs per side per pump, 4 for the building exterior, 4 for the interior. And oh yeah, one for the sign. 17 bulbs, 17 watts RF interference. (17 is a joke, I know a local megastation that must exceed 100, not to mention supermarkets).

and exactly what intensity a WiFi will pick up?

WiFi typically runs in the 30-70 milliwatt range with a 100 mW limit. Lets assume you're running the max, 100 mW. To maintain a reliable connection Cisco quotes a minimum signal/noise ratio of 20 decibels, or 100 to 1. Further assume said tiny gas staion is the only background noise.

The equation is therefore:
1/r^2 = 100mW signal/17W noise/20db signal-to-noise
1/r^2 = .1 / 17 / 100 = 1/17000
r = 130.4 (the interference range must be at least 130.4 times the signal range)

interfer with WiFi .5miles away

One tiny gas station .5 miles away divided 130.4 leaves a WiFi range of 20 feet.

I have 2 mid sized gas stations and a supermarket about 1/4 mile from my house. Using less generous assumptions my WiFi range wouldn't be enough for a wireless mouse or keyboard, not to mention Bluetooth which only uses 10 mW and yeilds a range I can hold in my hand.

-

Re:Too much power?

[forand]

One problem with your above work, you seem to think that noise would add, it doesn't. The noise level will be at the HIGHEST signal at your point so if you have two gas stations with the same light setup but one is closer the only one you would care about is the closer one. Also you use 17W output of a set of lights but you added these up from various sources but that is not how noise works. I also find it hard to believe that a light bulb would be call "energy effiecent" if it is loosing 1W in an frequency far away from its intended output, as you assume.

Re:Too much power?

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually, the power of these lights is measured in hundreds of watts or even kilowatts. Those things are large, and are supposed to replace halogen warehouse-type lighting, which is definitely in the kilowatt range. 12W isn't very efficient, anyway, and gives off less light than a 60W incandescent (so you need ~3 to get any reasonable light in a small room).

Re:Too much power?

[Alsee]

you seem to think that noise would add, it doesn't.

It certainly does add, though it might not be linear.

find it hard to believe that a light bulb would be call "energy effiecent" if it is loosing 1W in an frequency far away from its intended output, as you assume.

Then you don't know much about light bulbs - and these lights in particular. I assumed 1 watt out of 12 was wasted as RF emmisions. I believe the figure is actually much higher. Considering that an ordinary 60 watt light bulb blows about 57 watts (95%) as heat emmisions to create 3 watts of light. These bulbs generate 12 watts RF and convert a percentage to light. If even 50% is converted to light they would still be would be "energy effeceint" while blasting out 6 watts of RF noise.

-

/Cringly? & did you read the article?

[RevDobbs]

1. Why are Cringly's articles automatically turned into /. posts.

2. Did the submitter read the article? The gist of the story was that 802.11b would work just fine with the new, RF-noisy lights.

3. Yes, a more insightful webpage & technically detailed website was listed on slashdot just a couple of weeks ago.

Poor spectrum

[alienmole]

You wouldn't want your house to be lit by current LED technology. They have a much narrower spectrum of light than any commonly used bulb technology - sort of the opposite of the "natural light" bulbs that some companies sell.

Re:Poor spectrum

[BLAG-blast]

You wouldn't want your house to be lit by current LED technology. They have a much narrower spectrum of light than any commonly used bulb technology - sort of the opposite of the "natural light" bulbs that some companies sell.

Lots of people seem to think that for some reason. But it's the other way round (of course I'm assuming your not comparing blue LEDs to the Sun color). LEDs can provide a very pure white light, while the 'white' light the sun provides is in fact skewed towards the red side of the spectrum. LEDs are popular for caving head lamps for a number of reason, but to start off with a lot of people didn't like the light because it's too blue and cold (of course it's not blue, but because we are used to the red/orange of sun light white will look blue). In the end, cavers started to put a couple of orange or red LEDs in with the white one to skew the spectrum to mimic the sun's light.

So, bottom line, it's the Sun's spectrum that is 'poor' and 'narrower'.... we're just used to it and like it that way.

Re:Poor spectrum

[alienmole]

Lots of people seem to think that for some reason.

They think it because it's true. For example, see the emission spectrum of a standard white LED. This spectrum has two very distinct peaks, and poorer coverage in other areas of the spectrum. This still produces something approximating "pure" white light, but it's done by combining two relatively narrow-spectrum sources, and that's what makes it seem unnatural.

The Sun produces a much more constant intensity over the entire visible spectrum, as can be seen on this page. The Sun's spectrum is far from "poorer and narrower", as you described it - it would more accurately be described as "richer and wider". It does have somewhat lower intensity at the blue end, but that's nothing compared to the gaps in a white LED's spectrum.

The above link also lets you see the spectrum of a fluorescent bulb, which despite some peaks, is still more constant across the spectrum than the LED is.

The issue here is not purely one of human preference, either - in a room illuminated with white LEDs with a spectrum as shown in the first link, reds will be poorly illuminated, and objects with some colors will appear brighter than others. So, I stand by my statement that current LED technology has "a much narrower spectrum of light than any commonly used bulb technology - sort of the opposite of the 'natural light' bulbs that some companies sell."

In future, it's quite possible and likely that LEDs will be used to produce lamps with a wider and more even spectrum, but that certainly isn't the case today.

Re:Poor spectrum

[BLAG-blast]

{Lots of correct information}

Nice links, of course you are completely right, I was getting confused with a different star system.

Isn't it too early?

[Axe]

White leds are just afew yesars old, and are pretty darn expensive. If this RF excitation lamp thing is cheap and reliable as it can be, it will be more effective..

Not that I really want more EMI all around me into my brains. WiFi or what ever..

Re:Isn't it too early?

[intu]

LED's are not just few years old, they have been here for a decades...

microwave radiation

[splorf]

Let me get this straight, 802.11 and cell phones are very limited in power emission to (sensibly) keep our microwave exposure to safe levels, but now these light bulbs are going to be everywhere that emit enough microwaves to drown out wireless data stuff? Will the light bulbs give us cancer or sterilize us? That seems like a much more pressing question than the energy-savings vs. broadband access tradeoff.

Re:microwave radiation

[Cody Hatch]

Guess again. What is a "safe" exposure to microwaves? Answer: Anything that doesn't cook you. Microwave radiation is non-ionizing. All it does is heat water (and a couple of other molecules, but if your a carbon based lifeform, that's all you have to worry about), and generate electric currents in metal.

In other words you can't get cancer, and the only way it'll sterilize your sperm is by boiling (trust me, at that point, your ability to have kids is the LAST thing you'll worry about).

(And what about the cellphones cooking your brain scare? Studies have turned up mixed results, but the balance of evidence is firmly on the side of cellphones being harmless.)

seen it before...

[mumkin]

May 8, '02: Hemos posted New Lighting Technique to Wipe Out WIFI?"

Mr Cringley has cribbed a bit belatedly :)

Re:seen it before...

[mumkin]

..oops, or rather it was "New Lighting Technology to Wipe Out Wi-Fi Access?"

hee hee. "My new lighting technique is unstoppable!"

--

I bet this will cost me...

[sheepab]

....but its too irresistable
To quote a famous rapper, modified for the slashdot masses

So the FCC won't let me be
Or let me be me so let me see
They tried to shut me down on 802.11b

Lightbulb Power Consumption

[ActMatrix]

Many people don't realize just how much power light bulbs consume. To borrow some statistics (source): 25% of US energy consumption and 10% of the average residential energy bill comes from lighting. Light bulbs are horribly inefficient - 90% of the electricity they suck up is wasted as heat. So from an infrastructure standpoint, a cheap energy-efficient bulb can make a huge economic and environmental difference.

Re:Lightbulb Power Consumption

[mpe]

To borrow some statistics (source [fireshui.com]): 25% of US energy consumption and 10% of the average residential energy bill comes from lighting. Light bulbs are horribly inefficient - 90% of the electricity they suck up is wasted as heat. So from an infrastructure standpoint, a cheap energy-efficient bulb can make a huge economic and environmental difference.

It's not quite that simple. If the building needs heating anyway then the heat isn't really waste. It becomes waste heat where the building needs cooling, then not only is that energy wasted, but also energy can need to be expended on removing the heat.

Re:Lightbulb Power Consumption

[ShavenYak]

If the building needs heating anyway then the heat isn't really waste.

No, but the energy used by the light bulbs and dissipated as heat is probably more than the energy that would be consumed by your central heating unit for the same amount of heat, since the heating unit is designed to produce heat and the bulb isn't. So it's still likely that you would save energy by using CFL lighting and having to run the heat pump a tiny bit more. Even if it's a break-even or a slight loss, you will make up for it when it gets warm again, unless you live somewhere where you never need cooling.

Re:Lightbulb Power Consumption

[Eric Smith]

Worst case, if the building needs heating and the light bulb isn't providing it, you run an electric heater, which will consume no more power than that saved by the new lightbulb to produce the same amount of heat as would have been produced by the old lightbulb.

However, by separating the functions you now have the flexibility to provide heat from other sources that may be more economical, such as natural gas, or (in some cases) a heat pump.

And if you ever need cooling, the new lightbulb obviously wins, since you don't have to simultaneously pay to both heat the room with the light bulb and cool it with an air conditioner.

I doubt that there are many buildings that need heating when there is cold weather, and for which the lighting is sufficient to provide that heating year-round. So most buildings that ever need heating already have some other provision for it, and don't need it from the lighting.

Re:Lightbulb Power Consumption

[Anonymous Coward]

I would have thought that the efficiency would be the same; the energy can only escape from the lighbulb in the form of heat or light.

Re:Lightbulb Power Consumption

[Ben Hutchings]

If the building needs heating anyway then the heat isn't really waste.

No, but the energy used by the light bulbs and dissipated as heat is probably more than the energy that would be consumed by your central heating unit for the same amount of heat, since the heating unit is designed to produce heat and the bulb isn't.

It is impossible to create or destroy energy - 'wasted' energy always ends up as heat. So if you need the heat then it really doesn't matter that your electrical devices are inefficient - they're perfectly efficient at producing heat! If and when you don't need the heat, or the devices are producing heat in the wrong places, then I agree that you would be better off making them more efficient. Of course we should consider the energy cost of manufacturing new hardware, too.

Re:Lightbulb Power Consumption

[ShavenYak]

Yeah, I know this. I just didn't state my meaning clearly enough in my post. The problem with the heat generated by light bulbs isn't that they aren't efficient producing heat, it's that the heat they produce usually isn't where it needs to be. Lights are typically at or above the positions of people in the rooms, and the hot air rises, so they don't do as good a job of warming the air around the occupants as a well-designed heating system.

asdfasd

[Anonymous Coward]

slash

giggle

[Anonymous Coward]

zz fuck

Noone cares about wasteful CPU's, why 'bout WiFi?

[Anonymous Coward]

Lots of people waste their money on excessively energy-consuming CPU's - Intel, AMD - while equally powerful systems, about equally priced, exist that consume a fraction of the energy (and produce a fraction of the heat), and are exempt from MS-tax to boot.

They obviously don't care about that. Why would they start caring now?

�žshit

[Anonymous Coward]

Ì âÆ fuck

Radiation in my brain..

[Axe]

..my monitor.. my cell phone.. my brain hurtz and I can't do math.. numbers escape me..

Dude, do not tie you panties in a knot. 400 people around you will need to shove their wi-fi up your ass and wrap you in tin foil for you to absorb all that energy. Not that it is entirely impossible, it's for you to tell, but for most of us - highly unlikely usage pattern.

Some data HERE

Re:Radiation in my brain..

[HFXPro]

Actually, I was trying to make a point. Never mind though.

network through neon bulbs?

[edrugtrader]

i don't have links but i thought someone else set up networking based on the flickering of neon bulbs... maybe a fusion light bulb network would run faster than the 802.11 it is destroying? and at 1/2 mile link a pop they might be cost effective... a few bulbs in every building!

They will just light up more bulbs.

[Axe]

Make gaz cheap - people will drive SUV. Make lighting efficient -- they will light up more.

Just get us fusion power.

Another first for light bulbs

[Anonymous Coward]

Not only do they contaminate the night sky with light pollution, but they are now
taking on the invisible EM spectrum. Is this a great country or what? </sarcasm>

I'm going to replace the headlights in my monster SUV with these babies ...

Eminem sucks. You aren't funny or clever

[xdfgf]

See topic

FCC regulations

[panurge]

Doesn't the FCC have something to say about this? The European EMC Directive covers the emission spectrum from DC to the Big Bang frequency, and I remember well getting all the technical papers as the conventional fluorescent manufacturers faced up to the fact they were going to have to redesign their ballasts and ignitors. Even if this particular bit of spectrum is unregulated, what about harmonics? Surely they would be up there in the key shortwave radar bands, raising the noise floor?

The EMC directive: you're allowed to radiate gibberish, brain-dead stupidity, pornography etc. but NOT NOISE

Re:FCC regulations

[SN74S181]

The FCC guidelines say this is an unregulated band. That means:

WiFi can grow in an unregulated and free fashion.
Light bulb use can grow in an unregulated and free fashion.

If you propose the FCC stepping in, look for them to start licensing the WiFi hubs.

Re:FCC regulations

[Anonymous Coward]

...you're allowed to radiate gibberish, brain-dead stupidity, pornography etc. but NOT NOISE

And if other devices are emitting gibberish, brain-dead stupidity, pornography etc. AND noise, you must accept any received , including gibberish etc. that may cause undesired operation.

Savings?

[BrokenHalo]

...or low cost light bulbs all around the country to save more and more on electricity?

Who believes we'll save on electricity? OK, I might be a cynic, but experience tells me that if everybody started using low-power light bulbs, the power companies would just hike the price per kW-hour.

Re:Savings?

[Anonymous Coward]

and this would cause yet more innovation in energy efficiency.

Re:Savings?

[BobSutan]

Just like in broadband eh?

Technology got cheaper, userbase got bigger, and yet prices are still climbing.

Re:Savings?

[prefect42]

The price per unit has no bearing on how much you use. You're making a really poor point here. We're not talking about using less dollar value electricity, we're talking about generating less electricity.

Sheesh.

No wonder you guys pulled out of Kyoto.

jh

Re:Savings?

[Anonymous Coward]

No wonder you guys pulled out of Kyoto.

We were never in Kyoto. Clinton signed it, but that had no legal effect. The Senate (which is the branch of our government which actually has the power to implement treaties) voted against it something like 95-0. Even if Bush wanted the Kyoto Treaty (which of course he doesn't) there's no way it would ever pass.

People from other countries often take the United States to task for our supposed ignorance of other countries and cultures, while displaying the most appalling ignorance of the simplest fundamentals of the government of the United States.

There goes another one

[BoBaBrain]

I would complain about this "story", but I'm getting slashdot for free (or at least, for the price of ignoring a few adds).
:/

Re:There goes another one

[foniksonik]

Are you the guy pirating my WiFi signal? /. for free huh? costs me at least $15/month at home, 'free' at work though. $15/month means I have roomates not some ultra cheap broadband access.

Re:There goes another one

[BoBaBrain]

- Are you the guy pirating my WiFi signal? -
Are you the guy messing up my light bulb?

- 'free' at work though -
I think you answered your own question.
;)

Re:There goes another one

[foniksonik]

yeah but the real question is do you like my sig?

Damnit! I want my cake and eat it too!

[teamhasnoi]

I want Wireless Light Bulbs OR Light-Up Wireless rays. Either will fit into my plans of world dumbnation!

Wireless lightbulbs? If that' not idiocy, what is?

[kiwipeso]

How the heck are you supposed to run a network at all if there is severe interference in the way of the information ?

Is it really true that the US patent office is dumb enough to not even do any safety checking procedures at all ?

I thought the one-button online click was pretty bad, but anyone who doesn't even bother to go through all the safety steps involved in the counter-checking has definately wasted too much time sleeping in the office.

I'm off to have tea and sleep it off now.

5 Years to go...

[Ma$$acre]

Watch out! A technology that is 5 years away will probably seriously impact a standard that, although in heavy use today, will be superceded in a couple of years.

Now they not only tell us what vaporware is coming, but what other vaporware might impact it!

Someone call the Police and file a WGAS Report.


PS. If there was even a choice to be made it would be for the Lights. Reduction in power consumption is good for everyone but Oil companies and Opec.

What nonsense.

[AlphaOne]

I find it incredibly hard to believe that one of these low power lights can radiate so much field strength in the 2.4 GHz band that it will knock out wireless networks for a half mile.

These lights are governed by the same standards as WiFi networks with regard to field strength. Namely, FCC Part 15.

These light fixtures would likely be considered "incidental radiators" by FCC Part 15.

An incidental radiator must use "good engineering" practices and must not cause harmful interference to radio services.

It seems to me that wiping out a half mile of wireless networks is harmful.

Just for sake of argument, let's bump these lights up a notch to "unintentional radiators," which means they generate radio energy internally for whatever use but do not by design radiate it into space. In this category, they are limited to 500 microvolts per meter of radiated field strength as measured at 3 meters distance.

This is exactly the same field strength limitation placed on intentional radiators in the 2.4 GHz band.

This means that these lights may only produce as much radio energy as a WiFi base station/client card with a unity gain antenna.

The FCC has also classically ruled against unintentional radiators which cause interference with intentional radiators due to their excessive field strength, regardless of whether they meet the requirements of Part 15 or not.

The FCC normally requests that unintentional radiator manufacturers show good faith by being far below the legal limits permitted in Part 15.

I'm not even going to go into the fact that WiFi is a spread-spectrum system and is very immune to traditional forms of interference. Unless these are spread-spectrum, intentionally radiating low power lights, I don't think we've got much to worry about.

Also, whomever thinks the FCC just doesn't care what goes on in the unlicensed portions of the spectrum is wrong. They certainly don't chase down every Part 15 violation, but they do randomly sample finished products from a variety of manufacturers to determine their compliance.

The manufacturer gets into trouble if these things don't meet Part 15 requirements, so these lights will simply never get off the ground if they interfere as much as it has been said they do.

Re:What nonsense.

[rainwalker]

My God...and intelligent, well-reasoned post! On Slashdot, no less! :) Seriously, I am not hugely familiar with FCC regulations, so I appreciate the clarification. Seems like this won't even be a problem. I'd mod you up if I had points today...

Re:What nonsense.

[Anonymous Coward]

I find it incredibly hard to believe that one of these low power lights can radiate so much field strength in the 2.4 GHz band that it will knock out wireless networks for a half mile.

If these light bulbs radiate at the maximum allowable field strength (ignoring whether the FCC accepts this or not), and because the processing gain for 11Mbit/s 802.11b is virtually non-existant, then the transmitter would have to be 10 times closer to the receiver than the light bulb. This is assuming that the receiver requires a 10dB signal to noise ratio for a reasonable bit error rate.

If a slower version of 802.11b that provides 11dB of processing gain is used, then the transmitter must still be at least equal to or closer than the interfering light bulb.

So what this boils down to is that if we are communicating in this band, then there had better not be one of these bulbs anywhere between us.

This is all because of the PITA that is the spread spectrum near/far problem.

Re:What nonsense.

[eggboard]

You're so wrong. These lights are governed by Part 18, ISM. They do not have be concerned about interference as long as they conform to the Part 18 rules, which are much broader than Part 15.

Part 18 governs industrial, scientific, and medical devices that don't communicate data, but rather emit radiation as a direct purpose of their utility: microwave offices, industrial sealers, etc.

Re:What nonsense.

[wings]

If a single lightbulb doesn't radiate any more than a single wireless node, everything might work out. However, the way most rooms/houses/buildings are lit, there are likely to be 3 to 10 (maybe 100?) times as many lightbulbs as there are wireless nodes.

For example: in my immediate office area, there are 6 blocks of cubicles. Each block has 10 cubes. That's 60 people. To light that same area, there are 6 rows of light fixtures, with 11 fixtures per row. Each fixture has two flourescent bulbs.

11*6*2=132 bulbs

6*10=60 people

That's about a two to one bulb to people ratio, not counting individual desk lamps. If every cube had a wireless node, the bulbs would still easily outnumber the nodes.

Even if each bulb meets Part 15 requirements, the cumulative effect could still be devastating to the band. That's where the problem will be.

Re:What nonsense.

[Eric Smith]

Light bulbs do NOT emit microwave radiation as "part of their utility," because the radiated microwave energy has nothing to do with their intended purpose, which is producing light. The fact that they use microwave energy internally to produce the light is a means, not an end.

In your other examples, emitted microwave radiation is the desired function, rather than incidental.

Re:What nonsense.

[AlphaOne]

To be honest, I hadn't even considered Part 18! So few devices qualify for Part 18 I don't really even think about it.

These lights could very well be Part 18, although RF lighting isn't mentioned specifically in the section.

I don't know the specifics of the design of these lights, so it's really hard to say. Shooting RF energy through a glass tube to excite a gas doesn't seem like it should radiate so much energy as to wipe out wireless networks for half a mile in any direction.

Personally, I'd have reservations about sitting under such lighting all day if it did!

Part 18 devices are limited to 2.4 GHz - 2.5 GHz, which unfortunately wipes out the entire Part 15 subband. They're also authorized a much higher field strength... at less than 500 watts (which we can assume these lights will be) it's 25 microvolts per meter measured at 300 meters.

However, I still don't see these fixtures being a problem for reasons aside from the Part 15/18 argument.

Properly designed, these lights should only emit spurious emissions at very low power and at specific frequencies and harmonics within the ISM band. Spread spectrum devices should see around this interference. Perhaps the range or speed would be a little more limited, it shouldn't be a huge impact unless your base station is sitting right under one of these lights (which is possible).

Also, you must consider market pressures. If they hope to sell these devices to businesses (the largest consumer of flourescent light bulbs) they simply have to consider wireless networks. By the time these fixtures are available on the market, wireless networking will only be more common.

No enterprise is going to purchase lighting devices that wipe out their wireless infrastructure.

Re:What nonsense.

[AlphaOne]

Doh, just need to revise my previous post.

RF lighting IS specifically mentioned in Part 18 (it's early, sorry).

Re:What nonsense.

[Anonymous Coward]

There are a few problems with your reasoning.
- First, they do not interfere with radio services by the FCC standards. Wireless networks do not fall into this category, since they operate in an unlicensed band. They have the same rights as the lights, and it's kinda hard to compete with them, given that they transmit on a large spectrum and output at least the same amount of power.
- Second, get a spread-spectrum 2.4GHz phone and walk around an operating microwave oven (or even within a hundred meters of one). You will hear a LOT of interference. Those wifi things only emit one watt or so and use crappy antennas, so they are very susceptible.
- Third, the lights are always on and usually there are a lot of them (unlike microwaves).

Better question...

[gnovos]

I have a MUCH better question that Lightbulbs vs. WiFI:

What would you prefer? The WB Network or WiFi+Lightbulbs?

Why are the "people" shoved into this tiny band where they have to fight against microwave ovens and friggin lighting systems while bottom of the trash heap networks are given the rest of the spectrum FOR FREE to put crap on the air that provides no value and nobody watches anyway? Shouldn't those airwaves go to something good and useful, and actually help promote society?

Re:Better question...

[foniksonik]

I agree wholeheartedly with this opinion... please mod up.

Kevin here also seems to agree... calling our airwaves a 'precious natural resource'.

http://www.gcn.com/21_6/dod/18161-1.html

"Spectrum management decisions are always complex and challenging," said Kevin J. Martin, another FCC commissioner. "In an environment where the amount of unencumbered spectrum is decreasing while demand continues to grow, it is even more critical we make interference and sharing decisions that do not waste this precious natural resource."

Re:Better question...

[SN74S181]

Jack D. Ripper here also seems to agree.. calling them 'our precious bodily fluids.'

Or something.

These would probably be illegal

[Anonymous Coward]

If you have ever spent any time in or hear a hospital, you have probably seen signs telling you to turn off your mobile phone.

If these bulbs can disrupt WiFi then they are probably putting out enough RF noise to cause problems with medical equipment.

Unless someone can come up with a method of keeping them the necessary safe distance from a hospital or other medical institution, they will probably be outlawed by most civilised countries (ie those with hospitals) before they reach the shelves.

802.11 was here first!!!!

[saden1]

I got Phillips light bulbs all over my house already so it's wireless LAN for me.

The choice is obvious.

[Procrasturbator]

We choose the wireless networks. They're more important to communication, and overall, our economy.

Plus, let's go ahead and use up all the electricity we can. Let our kids deal with the problem. Those bastards deserve it.

Obvious Solution

[Ralph Bearpark]

Fushion Lightning should join the Wireless Alliance.

Each of those little light bulbs should come with an RJ-45 socket.

Regards, Ralph.

I'd pay for Slashdot...

[Tokerat]

...if I knew I wasn't going to pay to see the same stories over and over.

(And thus fewer whining posts like mine. Please guys, run a little tighter of a ship so assholes like myself don't have to bitch.)

Re:I'd pay for Slashdot...

[Anonymous Coward]

In shlashdot's subscription plan you don't pay for the stories. You pay to hide the ads.

Hehe Geek Power

[muzzmac]

The biggest problem with any technology like lighting that messes with geeks is the geeks will ultimately destroy it in anger.

They'll either throw rocks at the bulbs or hack the company using them and shut them down. :)

what they don't know is...

[SquireCD]

some of us wanna be on TV! a little to the left, no no, a little more, oh.. to the right a little.. you got it!

It's not so bad...

[gnovos]

Not all of us can reload evry 10 minutes all throught the day. Nor can we all spend hours digging through the archives to find what we may have missed. While I do agree that posting the same story two or even three times in a single day is a clear sign of lazy editing, having a potentially important story (and having my WiFi decimated is pretty serious in my world) repeated every so often lets those who missed it the first time hear about it.

Re:It's not so bad...

[scm]

The submitters shouldn't be expected to know every story that is ever posted, but maybe the editors should use the search button a little more often.

Re:It's not so bad...

[rjamestaylor]

Agreed. 802.11b is important in my universe but I hadn't heard of the controversy until this story (I have a real job now, can't read /. all the time).

Okay, I know I'm gonna get flamed, but...

[KagatoLNX]

When disposal is properly handled, nuclear gives the best energy per environmental impact per dollar.

Even with that, it doesn't have a huge lifetime (a few generations?) due to limited quantities of uranium.

And before you brush me aside over the disposal issue, think about the yearly environmental impact of improperly disposed motor oil and the like.

Face it, disposal of nuclear waste, even if it leaks, is hardly Chernobyl. How many bad radition leaks have there been? How may bad oil spills?

I'll be the first to embrace fusion when it gets here, but for now, the nuclear track record looks good enough for me.

Re:Okay, I know I'm gonna get flamed, but...

[Cody Hatch]

Wind is cheaper than nuclear, actually. But best case, wind can't supply more than maybe 50% of current needs, and it has other problems. Solar looks like the up and coming thing, expect to see prices fall below nuclear over the coming decade. It too has problems though, and so nuclear is still a good idea. If nothing else, nuclear power plants work even during calm, overcast days. :-) But it's too expensive to supply all our power, and unlike wind and solar, doesn't look to be getting cheaper.

Also, with breeder reactors, you're not going to run out of fuel, ever (more or less).

You're right that nuclear waste storage is more or less a non-issue though. Just stick is somewhere. Yeah, it'll leak. But so what? We've got plenty of room (note for the geographically impaired: this isn't sarcasm).

Re:Okay, I know I'm gonna get flamed, but...

[negativekarmanow tm]

cheapest way to generate enough power I know is to use the map editor to build a mountain, add water all over the slopes and build hydro plants.
Oh wait, you were talking about real life here.
n/m

Re:Okay, I know I'm gonna get flamed, but...

[Anonymous Coward]

But it's too expensive to supply all our power, and unlike wind and solar, doesn't look to be getting cheaper.

The main reason nuclear is expensive is due to court costs and insane regulatory hurdles.

Get rid of that (and note that I'm NOT talking about legitimate safety regulations) and it becomes dirt-cheap.

Re:Okay, I know I'm gonna get flamed, but...

[Hafer]

> You're right that nuclear waste storage is more or
> less a non-issue though. Just stick is somewhere.
> Yeah, it'll leak. But so what? We've got plenty of
> room (note for the geographically impaired: this
> isn't sarcasm).

This is the most dangerous nonsense I've heard in this context. Please get informed about the toxicalisation of nuclear waste and their life-cycle.

Real McCoy Challenge

[fldvm]

>>>The prizes come from my backpocket and my beautiful, intelligent and creative wife Forget the backpocket prizes, I want the beautiful wife prize!

Re:Real McCoy Challenge

[jukal]

Hehehe :) well, maybe you have to just submit your piece of code for the challenge to get the chance.
btw, thanks for the comment, I changed the phrasing of the rules now. Glad I did it before you submitted your entry :)

In case it's slashdotted

[Big Dogs Cock]

OSDN | Our Network | Newsletters | Advertise | Shop Slashdot ----------- All OSDN Sites freshmeat Linux.com LinuxGram NewsForge OSDN.com Slashcode SourceForge.net X

Sections

apache
Jun 11
(1 recent)

apple
Jun 12
(5 recent)

askslashdot
Jun 13
(12 recent)

books
Jun 12
(1 recent)

bsd
Jun 10

developers
Jun 12
(5 recent)

features
Jun 8

interviews
Jun 10

radio
Jun 29

science
Jun 13
(6 recent)

yro
Jun 12
(4 recent)

This page was generated by a Group of Circus Midgets for Big Dogs Cock (539391).
WiFi, Light Bulbs, And The FCC
Posted by Hemos on Thursday June 13, @07:04AM
from the what-to-be-done dept.
JFMulder writes "According to Cringely, 802.11 WiFi wireless networking is going to get in lot of troubles when Fushion Lightning starts marketting low-power light blubs which causes interferences with Wifi signals. Read about it at I, Cringely. Supposedly the new kind of light bulb is a real electricity saver and can wreck havoc to wireless networks in a half a mile radius. So what would you prefer? Wireless networks or low cost light bulbs all around the country to save more and more on electricity?" Update: 06/13 03:52 GMT by M: Cringely confused the FHSS-or-DSSS 802.11 standard with the DSSS-only 802.11b standard, but the general warning about the potential for interference is certainly troubling.

( Read More... | 98 comments )

Live via Satellite: NATO Aerial Surveillance Video
Posted by michael on Thursday June 13, @04:00AM
from the run-another-T-1 dept.
Factomatic writes "The BBC is reporting 'NATO surveillance flights in the Balkans are beaming their pictures over an insecure satellite link - and anyone can tune in and watch their operations live.' All you need is a satellite dish. John Locker tapped into the NATO aerial surveillance feed over the Balkans from England and has been e-mailing, faxing and calling NATO since November to get them to fix the problem. NATO denies it is a problem at all. I wonder if this would work in Afghanistan, too?" No, the article notes that Afghanistan is taking up all the secure communications bandwidth, and operations in the Balkans are getting kicked over to unencrypted channels. We ran an older story about the military's growing bandwidth crunch.

( Read More... | 135 comments )

A Wireless Alliance Forms
Posted by michael on Thursday June 13, @02:22AM
from the your-call-cannot-be-connected-as-dialed dept.
MikeD83 writes "A wireless alliance has formed between the likes of Nokia, Microsoft, Intel, Walt Disney Co., and almost 200 other companies. Their mission is to develop an open standard for how wireless phones can be used on any network." Whoo-hoo! DRM for cell phones! The group's website has some more information.

( Read More... | 159 comments )

Microsoft Case Proceeds
Posted by michael on Thursday June 13, @12:54AM
from the day-follows-night dept.
YeOldeCurmudgeon writes "This story just posted on Yahoo: Federal Judge Denies Microsoft Motion to Dismiss Antitrust Case. Microsoft's motion to dismiss the suit filed by the 9 dissenting states was denied. The judge agrees the states can sue." An article in the San Francisco Chronicle summarizes the case's current state and what's coming up next.

( Read More... | 211 comments )

Inside the Joint Strike Fighter Competition
Posted by chrisd on Wednesday June 12, @11:51PM
from the complex-work-for-complex-tools dept.
jonerik writes "The June issue of the Atlantic Monthly has this account of the history of the Joint Strike Fighter competition between Boeing and Lockheed Martin (which the latter company ended up winning this past fall, with Boeing now touting its expanding line of unmanned aircraft as the true future of tactical aviation). The article does a fine job of showing how the competitors dealt with the challenge of producing an aircraft (now dubbed the F-35) that the Air Force, Navy, Marines, RAF, and Royal Navy could all live with. Funniest part: Boeing's X-32 entry, with its enormous pelican-like jet intake, had some questioning whether the plane's bizarre appearance didn't hurt its chances more than its performance. 'Helpful as my contacts at Boeing were, no one was eager to claim credit for the design of the plane,' says the article's writer James Fallows." Fascinating article.

( Read More... | 250 comments )

Calculators vs. PDAs in the Classroom
Posted by michael on Wednesday June 12, @10:44PM
from the crutches-for-the-weak-minded dept.
TheMatt writes "CNN.com is reporting about a new conflict perhaps emerging in classrooms: calculators v. PDAs. The article talks about how TI seems to be making their latest calculator more PDA-like, while PDAs are gaining TI-like functionality. A comment on current math education is this quote from the article: "When you have circles and ellipses, there is no way you'd be able to do this without a calculator," Jarvis said. "It helps us visualize what we're doing." Were the compass and geometry uninvented?"

( Read More... | 469 comments )

Universal, Sony Cutting Prices on Downloaded Music
Posted by michael on Wednesday June 12, @09:49PM
from the invisible-hand dept.
Don Symes writes "Sony Music and Universal appear to be getting ready to allow downloads of singles for $.99 and albums for $9.99 without crippleware or restrictions on personal copying/burning." Another semi-interesting piece submitted by several people is this propaganda from the recording industry. 2.8 million copyright-infringing CD-R's were seized in the U.S. last year (9 million world-wide); from that the IFPI extrapolates that 950 million copyright-infringing CD-R's were actually sold, world-wide. How do you get from 9 million to 950 million? Mostly hand-waving.

( Read More... | 391 comments )

Ask Slashdot: Making Users Back Up Important Data?
Posted by Cliff on Wednesday June 12, @08:44PM
from the it's-for-their-own-good dept.
Lux Interior asks: "Help! I am the ad-hoc computer guy in a small satellite office of a larger company. We have no CIO, no IT department, and no policies whatsoever as regards data retention or backup. Therefore, a lot of company property exists one place-- on individual hard drives. The office is made of almost entirely of rudimentary users, on WIN98 and 2000 machines, who never, ever, back up any company information. Has anyone out there had experiences in a small-office setting with: changing users' behavior in regards to managing their data; setting up best practices for backing up information properly; and making sure that the most computer-apathetic users comply with what you've put in place?" Sometimes the best way to make users conform to policy is to not give them a choice in the first place. Automated backup systems on each workstation can go a long way in helping this. Which software packages have such functionality (the more unobtrusive, the better)?

( Read More... | 809 bytes in body | 634 comments | Ask Slashdot )

Logitech Pocket Digital Review
Posted by CmdrTaco on Wednesday June 12, @07:25PM
from the don't-accidentally-run-it-through-the-laundry dept.
randomErr writes "Earthweb/Internet.com has this article about a new ultra slim camera for $130. It has no flash, zoom, or LCD monitor, and takes snapshots instead of spectacular pictures. The advertised resolution is 1.3 megapixels with and actual resolution of 640 by 480. But it's the size of a credit card, half an inch thin, with all-day battery and image capacity."

( Read More... | 188 comments )

Your Rights Online: What Is Public Domain?
Posted by timothy on Wednesday June 12, @06:27PM
from the and-such-small-portions dept.
whitefox writes: "The Seattle Times has an interesting article in today's edition on what is public domain. After sharing the experience one software writer had with businesses and people shying away from BitTorrent because they didn't understand the concept of 'public domain,' they take the reader on a tour of how public domain is being defined by groups such as Creative Commons and to the battle of copyright-extensions in Eldred v. Ashcroft."

( Read More... | 254 comments | Your Rights Online )
BSD
FreeBSD v.4.6 (NOT) Released
OpenBSD Hackathon
Daemon News Reviews DataHive Server
Native OpenOffice for FreeBSD
FreeBSD 4.6 Release Delayed
New NetBSD Port: NetBSD/pmppc
A Highly Portable Sandbox Facility For OpenBSD
NetBSD 1.6 Has Been Branched
FreeBSD Ports Collection Reaches 7000
FreeBSD Development Status Report

Older Stuff
Wednesday June 12

Haptic Battle Pong... Future of Game Interface? (152)
Will Cable Unplug the File Swappers? (850)
Writing CGI Applications with Perl (236)
iPod for Windows (again) (321)
Get Ready For Divx On Xbox (364)
Mozilla 1.1 Alpha Released (442)
Riding the World's Fastest Train @ 500 kph (538)
Linux at Industrial Light and Magic (276)
Selling Your (MMORPG) Soul (431)
How Yoda Became an Action Star (750)

Tuesday June 11

Neverwinter Nights is Gold (323)
Lawrence Livermore Lab On The Chopping Block? (371)
Terapin Mine Review (171)
UCSD Students Tracking Their Friends' Locations (244)
Hollow Optical Fibres Can Now Process Signals (97)
Satellite Radio - XM vs. Sirius? (486)
Countries Ponder: GNU/Linux vs. Microsoft (431)
Responses to ADTI Paper (272)
UK Government Expands Spying Powers (327)
US Govt Wants to Control ICANN? (465)

Older Articles
Yesterday's Edition

Slashdot Poll
This Summer....
Traveling
In School
Working, darn it
Retired, you insignifigant whippersnapper
Waiting for mom to fill wading pool
Blissfully Unemployed, slacking
Preciousss, the sunsss hurtssss.....
Will be stalking CowboyNeal
[ Results | Polls ]
Comments:269 | Votes:15728

Book Reviews
Slashdot's book review section is brimming with reader-submitted commentary on interesting books. Here's a sampling of recent reviews -- read below for how you can add yours to the list.
For programmers, check out reviews of the Zope Bible, Programming Jabber and other specialized books.

If you're just trying to manage programmers, grumpy's review of Managing Einsteins might be just what you're looking for. Meanwhile, keep the company afloat with lessons learned from The MouseDriver Chronicles and The Bombast Transcripts.

Science buff? Read Tal Cohen's reaction to Rare Earth, and Peter Wayner on Digital Biology. Don't forget the grain of salt in Voodoo Science, either. His Dark Materials is one of the many Science Fiction titles that Slashdot readers have praised or panned for your pleasure.

And somewhere between Sci-Fi and reality are books like Flesh and Machines, reporting from the intersection of yesterday's fiction and current technology.

It's easy to submit your own reviews for consideration, too. Just read the Slashdot book review guidelines, and then use the web submission form.

Update: 20020427 12:50 by timothy

Quick Links
Cool Sites:
AnimeFu (Addicted to Anime?)
Penny Arcade (The First one is always Free)
The Filthy Critic (He Hates Everything)
Everything (Blow your Mind)
Old Man Murray (Games... Sorta)
Themes.org (Make X Perty)
Support Slashdot:

ThinkGeek (Clothe Yourself in Slashdot)

Freshmeat
libextractor 0.1.0
Razor! Gaming Engine 0.6 (Development)
Syslinux 2.00-pre3 (Test)
Tonto 1.098 (Main)
PFARS 0.8 (Development)
OpenVPN 1.2.1
RazorBack 1.0.3 (regular)
bwmon 0.2
jamail .03.2 (Development)
cWriter 1.3

Search Freshmeat:

More Meat...

A businessman is a hybrid of a dancer and a calculator. -- Paul Valery
All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective owners. Comments are owned by the Poster. The Rest © 1997-2002 OSDN.

[ home | awards | contribute story | older articles | OSDN | advertise | self serve ad system | about | terms of service | privacy | faq ]

We stil have a long journey for WLAN

[foodb4nk]

WLAN have along way to go. This is just the beginning of future troubles being brought on to wireless networks. Even some wireless routers (provided by earthink that is) caught interfernce by microwaves and cordless phones. There will be ways around this type of RF waves. technology is still behind on where we want it to be right now. In due time my friend in due time....

abcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyz

[Anonymous Coward]

That kills WiFi

[Arsewiper]

This obviously renders WiFi useless for any mission critical networking. Any signal that can be interfered with that easily should not be adopted by businesses.

Re:That kills WiFi

[Ziviyr]

This obviously renders WiFi useless for any mission critical networking. Any signal that can be interfered with that easily should not be adopted by businesses.

That last line should say "Any signal can be interfered with easily." The extra words don't add much. :-)

Really though, way too many people hear wireless and think voodoo point to point portable wormhole technology or somesuch ignoring that its basically sending data by making waves in the air (okay, the nontechnical version). Whoever thought it could be trivially made secure or that someone else couldn't make the area too noisy is running off of the idea of voodoo.

guesse what

[Anonymous Pancake]

I reeeeeeeeeeealy need to get laid

but not by you MR. Malda!

Movin' High Tech to India

[Anonymous Coward]

"Despite decades of social change, the general perception remains that technical workers, scientists, and engineers are unusually intelligent white men who are socially inept, absent-minded nerds."

Isn't this illegal?

[cybermint]

Isn't there some kinda regulation that says something about this? Disrupting all (wireless) internet traffic within a half mile radius has got to be illegal some how. Who needs lights anyway? The only light I need comes from my monitor glow!

Re:Isn't this illegal?

[illerd]

It's perfectly legal for these lights the "wreck" havoc all over your WiFi networks because the spectrum was set aside for industrial use long before anyone thought about WiFi. Part of the agreement the 802.11b people made with the FCC was that if some application came up in the future that interfered with 802.11b, they would just have to deal with it. I read all this on some site that was linked to from a /. article a few weeks ago. I forget where. Search in the archive for "fusion lighting" or "microwave lighting" or something. Long story short, WiFi was betting that no one would come up with an interfering device, and they did, so WiFi is screwed.

on a related note, where the hell did this WiFi acronym come from and why does it stand for Wireless Fidelity? My dad mentioned was reading a news paper and he says "Son have you heard of this WiFi or Wireless Fidelety?" and i laughed in his face and made fun of him for getting suckerd by an ignorant news reporter who was just assuming what WiFi stood for (HiFi means High Fidelity, so WiFi must mean Wireless Fidelity) The logic seemed assinine to me at the time, even though I didn't know what the Fi stood for. Turns out _I_ was the rube. Does anyone have any idea what Fidelity has to do with computer networking? Isn't fidelity sort of implied when you're dealing with digital transmission? Am I getting too worked up over a stupid marketing ploy?

Than you for yelling at me in the library!

[Anonymous Coward]

You changed my life! I now script all my crapfloods! Here's a little something I llike to call "Pr0n By Numbers":

1. The next morning she was off to work early, knowing she had a lot to make up because of yesterday's absence.
2. She hopped on the bus and took a seat about halfway back from the driver.
3. Still a little tired, she kept nodding off, being jolted back awake by the jerking motion of the bus.
4. It was during one of the moments when she was just about under, when it started happening again.
5. She could feel it in her vagina! Trying to stop it, she struggled to open her eyes, but to no avail.
6. It was almost like seeing an accident in slow motion, you think you can stop it, but it just seems to be a little out of your reach.
7. Again her whole being was being swept along by a mystical force, far more powerful than she was capable of resisting.
8. Her vagina was leaking juice, making her crack drip onto her lace panties, making them damp with the aroma of fresh sex.
9. Her breathing became shallow as her body responded to the excitement that coursed through her.
10. While she had never had any problem cumming, her body was now an instrument of sexual desire!
11. She could feel this tremendous orgasm welling up inside of her, no human being had ever made her feel so female!
12. What ever was causing Tara sat down on the desk in front of Miss Linder, spreading her legs, showing off her body just like the older woman liked her to.
13. At last, leaning forward in her chair, Miss Linder asked, "Does baby want mama to suck on her cherries?" Before Tara could answer, Miss Linder took a ripe nipple into her mouth and sucked on it fervently.
14. Tara made a contented sigh, and gently cradled the older woman's head in her arms.
15. The old cunt could really suck a tit, and soon Tara's vagina was leaking juice all over the top of the desk.
16. Sensing that the young girl was getting close to her orgasm, Miss Linder dropped away from Tata's chest and buried her face into her smooth pussy.
17. Her probing tongue quickly found Tara's erect little clit, flicking at it harshly, making Tara jerk with each connection.
18. Tara cupped her breasts and twisted her pink nipples while she stared down at the woman eating her hot young slit.
19. Her head began to spin out of control as the lust in her clit spread like fire all over her body.
20. Her loud groan signaled that the first orgasmic contraction was ripping through her dripping pussy.
21. Over and over again her cunt muscles squeezed together, each time resulting in another orgasm.
22. When it was over, Miss Linder's face was glistening with the sticky juice that had erupted with Tara's climax.
23. Since time was of the essence, Tara hopped off the desk and quickly put on her clothes.
24. She didn't want to be totally naked any longer than was necessary, just in case someone would happen by and want in. The little cunt and fuck her from the rear!"
25. Now almost on automatic pilot, Howard dropped to his knees behind his daughter's cute little ass.
26. Her cunt, glistening with moisture, was unbelievably beautiful!
27. Taking his cock in hand, he slid it up and down her lips, teasing her with his big head.
28. Finally settling over her hole, he slowly sank deep into her crack.
29. She let out a loud moan as the huge pecker forced it's way into her tight cunt.
30. Howard started stroking with slow rhythmic strokes, gradually increasing the pace as he went on.
31. By now all three family members were in a state of sexual frenzy!
32. Faye was bucking her hips forward trying to get her daughter's mouth to suck even harder, and Howard was now using his own daughter as his own personal fuckdoll!
33. He was now slamming his meat clear to the hilt with piston like strokes!
34. Chelsea for her part was wild with lust, and she couldn't get enough of the hot cunt in her mouth, and the feeling of getting fucked doggy style by her own father was sending her over the edge!
35. Vic panned in for tight close ups of the quickly moving crotches, focusing on Chelsea's cute little pussy.
36. Faye was the first one to go when she screamed, "God you're eating my pussy and I'm cumming in your mouth!"
37. She nearly smothered Chelsea when she reached up and grabbed the back of her neck to pull her tight against her pussy lips!
38. Hearing her mother cum, Chelsea's cunt spasmed around the tube of fuck flesh deep in her pussy.
39. Her orgasm was deep and long, the result of a pussy in her mouth and a big dick deep inside of her!
40. Howard, although he was pretty much gone by now, had the good sense to pull his cock out of his daughter's pussy when he shot his load and sprayed it all over her pretty little ass, his cum running down the crack of her butt!!!
41. "Got it all, got it all," Vic shouted!!!
    
42. Never in his life had he had a woman who could suck Gayebony Male Escorts his cock like Sarah could, and this time was no exception!
43. Oh my, she hissed, Do you Ghetto Black Porn Sex know what you're doing to me!?!
44. Just the sight of it going into such a small tight hole made Ghetto Black Sex Porn his eyes roll back into his head as he became delirious with lust!
45. Then it hit her, she felt something or someone inside of her Girl Black Bikini driving her to the most massive orgasm she had ever felt in her young life!
46. Pushing her hand out of the way, she replaced it with Girl Fucking Black Girls a tongue that had lapped hundreds of pussies in it's day!
47. I got to go up to the second floor and work on a broken sink in the Girl With A Black Cat 'Matisse' boys rest room, he told her, so I can't be waitin' down here for you!
48. She gave her name to the hostess, and went into Girls Fucking Monster Size Black Cocks the bar to kill the half hour wait for her table.
49. Her whole body shook as her orgasm Girls In Black Stockings spread from her crotch up to her chest!
50. Cindy's nipples seemed especially excited by the Girls In Black Tights exercise, as her nubs popped through the skin tight material!
51. Hello, Lennie, this is Girls Suckin Big Black Cock Luanne, what are you doing tonight!
52. I've got and idea, opined Mrs. London, why don't you come over to my place tonight, we'll have some dinner Girls With Black Hair and maybe watch a little TV, I don't think you should be alone tonight, and I'm not doing anything special!
53. After several moments of recuperation, Duke Gratis Black Sex announced it was time for the final initiation.

Re:Than you for yelling at me in the library!

[TrollBurger]

Did you know if you ROT-13 this post, and then, starting from the second character from the end, take every fifth character (not including punctuation or the numbering from the bullet points) going in reverse direction, you get "httpwwwgoatsecx"? Seriously. I can't believe i discovered it.

Re:Than you for yelling at me in the library!

[TrollBurger]

Sorry, i should have been more clear, i meant the post above: ('than you for yelling at me in the library') - not my post. thanks.

What's worse?

[negativekarmanow tm]

** Windows has detected a mouse movement.
** Please restart Windows so changes can take effect.
or
>Hey guys, I moved my mouse on my new linux install, and now it stopped working. How do I fix this?
>fsck'ing luser, rtfm, y00 n33d t0 recompile the kernel for that. What, YOU DON'T KNOW HOW????!?!?!? What a pathetic lowlife luser are you.

it's not just the WiFi though

[lingqi]

Please read the article before you guys get all "the story sucks" -- XM radio uses this frequency band as well;

WiFi i can't care less -- 802.11a is already making headways, by the time any kind of remotely user base of the light bulbs are established, i would have (as i assume a large portion of the rest of y'all) moved onto 5.8Ghz; or drop the speed down to 2Mbps; -- DSL is only 1.5 anyway -- and if i was really gonna move that much file -- i would just pull a cable temporarily or start the transfer and get some coffee -- either way i do not see it being a big problem for WiFi.

on the other hand, i don't see the feasibility of XM radios getting an upgrade... so if these bulbs do get popular, it means XM would work everywhere except the cities. ha!

so if they are really that troublesome, we will be seeing the company getting squashed in no time; there are too much $$ at stake for XM;

Do you drive?

[wirefarm]

How much oil and gas do people consume getting to and from work?
Wireless networks will further allow people to telecommute, reducing dependancy on oil. Sure, right now, most people are a few meters away from the access point, but creative people are building long-range networks using these things, within the boundaries of the current laws, using well-engineered antennas and low-power transmitters.

Look at those super-efficient flourescent bulbs that have been available for years. People just don't use them, probably because they cost more than the super-cheap incandescants that most people are used to.

On a personal level, I've spent a couple hundred dollars building my wireless network at home. Am I supposed to just toss that equipment into a landfill because my neighbor wants to save a few cents and feel that he is being 'green'?

What about the regulations that the FCC has on RF noise-emitting devices - don't they apply, even though the spectrum is free?

Re:Do you drive?

[Xugumad]

I'd just like to back up the original poster, and add no, I don't drive, I walk to work. Every day. Oh, and I use the flourescent bulbs.

I understand your annoyance about the fact that the wireless network and bulbs work on the same frequency. I'd use the bulbs without hesitation, if it only affected my house...

Oh, and while we're on the subject of energy saving bulbs, when was the last time anyone here thought about energy consumption of a computer they put together? How about all those who boast about uptimes - are you really using it continuously? Imagine the waste of electricity from that!

Re:Do you drive?

[krmt]

How much oil and gas do people consume getting to and from work? Wireless networks will further allow people to telecommute, reducing dependancy on oil.

Would you like to tell me how I'm going to sell clothing at my retail job from home? Or perhaps how I'm going to centrifuge my DNA for my research at home?

Telecommuting is great for some people, but most people actually need to physically be somewhere to get work done, and that includes me.

And incidentally, I take the bus to work. Yes, it burns oil and gas, but public transportation goes a long way towards helping the problem. Here in Los Angeles, there is very little public transportation for various reasons (one is that we have a subway system that is completely filled with concrete, thank you corporate America!) and this is another problem.

While you might be enjoying wireless in your home for various reasons, I can guarantee you that less than 1% of the people in my neighborhood would even consider such a thing if they knew it existed, given their meager budgets. Most people aren't going to use wireless, but efficient lightbulbs will help these people. The fluorescent lights don't have the natural light feel of incandescents, and if these new bulbs provide that then I'd be surprised if they weren't used.

Oh, and Cringley covers the part about FCC regulations in his article.

WiFi Distributed DoS

[ZaneMcAuley]

Ok everyone. Disco time.

lightswitch on...off...on...off...on...off...on...off...

Re:WiFi Distributed DoS

[Xaltlee]

Ey Mods. This is NOT offtopic. Someone who's not yet used their metamoderation for the day up, boot whoever modded this 'offtopic'. Geeze, people. It's a joke. Read the thing, read the title of the post. At best it should get "Funny" and at worst no moderation at all. But offtopic? Gimme a break. Now THIS post, this is offtopic.

Solution to a temporary problem

[Keith_Beef]

Reading the Cringely article, the problem seems to be a temporary one, that won't even hit us straight away...

These new light bulbs are not ready yet. By the time they are ready, a new WiFi standard will be available, using a spectrum with which the bulbs do not interfere... Well, there may be some overlap, between early adopters of the new light technology, and people who cling to the outdated first WiFi.

For these people, how about requiring the use of Faraday Cage Light Shades [TM] around these new bulbs?

Point taken -

[wirefarm]

(I cycle to work myself, but only use flourescents in the summer, when I start to notice that the halogens are making it warmer in my place. Awful things, those...)

About the server, yes, I am one of those 'uptime' boasters - (294 days - Woohoo.) but I specifically chose a machine with pretty low power consumption, plus, where I live, the power comes from nuclear, not oil or coal.

Still, if my neighbor's porch light starts to interfere with my por^H^H^H downloading, I'm going to buy an air rifle...

j00 r teh sux

[on by]

eye r haf teh frist porst! suck it down wench

Shielding

[redwoodtree]

The solution is simple, Apple already proved that using a bit of titanium shielding can effectively diminish the strenght of the 2.5 ghz single. So there you go!! And thanks to Apple for the early tibooks!

Implied effect on the economy

[Taliban Lecher]

according to the article is: We are all saving money on imported oil and stuff.

Come on, guys! Every little bit of power produced domestically pushes the economy forward. Every petro dollar spent to import oil comes back to our warlord industry sooner or later. Making us wealthy and mighty. So bringing consumers WiFi will turn on economy, and using less than optimal electricity will do it another time. Or did any of you care about the power your CPU or Video eats up with regard to environment rather than fan noise?

Furthermore light is not exactly the most power eating energy according to peoples' mind, once they figure out what their hairdryer, dishwasher, stove, washing machine w/dryer or even heating will eat.

True enough

[wirefarm]

You probably can't do *your* work from home, but if you are my neighbor using these lights, you may be denying me the ability to telecommute.

I still think that if you introduce a technology that uses a shared public resource such as public bandwidth, you have a responsibility to not trash the resource for others. (Kind of like not organizing a football game in an area of a park where people happen to be having picnics.) Sure, it may be legal, but it's rude.

I'd guess also, that if your neighbors *do* get 'wired' in the next few years, the best way would be using this technology. Wireless NICs will be incredibly cheap in the next few years, while retrofitting apartment buildings with LAN cable will never be.

Do you think these bulbs would be allowed if they interfered at all with television signals, no matter how well they conserve energy? Doubtful.

Re:True enough

[krmt]

You make some good points, but in reality these lights will never prevent you from telecommuting. A DSL or Cable line will allow you to do the same thing, although it will cost a bit. There's nothing really new in wireless, just mobility, and if you're telecommuting, there's no reason for you to have to be able to take your work with you to the park or something.

And for those people who might need that kind of instant access (reporters are one example I can think of) cellular modems would allow quick submission of data.

As for wiring whole buildings, you're right about that, although many people only have one computer (if that) so they don't need to wire their entire place, they can simply get their connection via their pre-existing phone or cable jack. If they need a LAN, wireless is great, but most people don't need that in the slightest.

I agree though, that these lights shouldn't trash the spectrum. Someone mentioned engineering them using shielding the same way LCD's are shielded, so hopefully something to that effect would be in place. My original post was more hypothetical than anything, a sort of "what do you value more?" thing. I'd easily sacrifice wireless to save on my energy bill, and I'd imagine a lot of other people would do the same. Hopefully we'll never actually have to make that sort of choice, if they can figure out how to properly shield these bulbs.

Non-issue

[texwtf]

Put a thin wire mesh over the bulb during manucaturing. This will act as a faraday cage blocking all 2.4ghx radiation. 2.4ghz is microwave frequency. Every burned your eyes looking at a microwave oven? No? Maybe blocking 2.4Ghz isn't that hard after all.

Golly. . .

[bplipschitz]

. . .we've been talking about avoiding RF-fired bulbs in ham radio world for a couple of years now. This is news? Did anyone bother to get a spectrum analyzer near one of these bulbs? Will they really be putting out that much radiation at 2.4 GHz?

Most of the concern in the past has been that they will interfere with the HF spectrum [2-30 *MHz*]. The article reads a bit like Chicken Little to me. . .

Use light for communication

[Anonymous Coward]

The solution is simple and running in at least three links. Is called Ronja 10M Metropolis and gives you 10M full duplex over up to 1km and you can build it yourself, the project is
from the beginning GPL. See http://atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz/~clock/twibright/r onja

Microwave oven???

[intu]

Wait a minute... as i remember, microwave oven works with frequency about 2.45GHz, ofcourse, oven is more powerfull, like 700W, but does it mean that if i would have big lamp with a 1KW bulb like that i can go duckhunting with it? Wow, shooting down fried ducks.. sounds like days when first microwave radars were built...

Ok, i understand, that power of that electromagnetical wave would be small... but i actually don't wan't to burn my brain out with that kind of lightbulb on my desk...

Has anyone checked out dimmers?

[jejones]

Light dimmers using varacs have been around for a long time, and they generate huge amounts of RFI--as an SWLer I hate them with a passion. Does anyone know whether the hash they emit extends up into the band used for WiFi?

Re:Has anyone checked out dimmers?

[SN74S181]

Light dimmers using variacs would generate NO amount of RFI.

You mean light dimmers that use SCRs (silicon controlled rectifiers).

You'd better get your story straight. If you could convince your neighbors to replace their cheap but noisy SCR-based dimmers with the more expensive Variac dimmers the interference would go away. But not if you don't have a clue what to tell them.

Re:Has anyone checked out dimmers?

[dickens]

Don't you mean triacs ? SCRs are for DC, I think (IANAEE)

Alarmist

[Spazmania]

Someone has yet to offer me a satisfactory explanation of how these new lights are going to SAFELY emit enough energy at microwave-oven frequencies to disable dsss wireless lans (using low power at the same frequencies) 100 feet away.

The again, someone has yet to explain to me how its a good idea to hold a low-power microwave oven next to your head for an hour while chatting with your friends (2.4 ghz cordless phone).

Fusion Lighting Microwave Lamps

[Anonymous Coward]

I've been using various prototypes of these lamps for plant growth studies since 1996. They are a fantastic light source - the closest thing to full spectrum since the sun, but without the heat load. They are basically a microwave oven with a sulphur 'bulb' in it. We've had them tested for leakage - they don't. The systems we have played with had RF sensors which will shut them down if there ever is a leak. As there are no filaments to burn out, you never have to change the bulb - unfortunately the magnetrons don't seem to like continuous duty...

Re:Fusion Lighting Microwave Lamps

[ttroutma]

http://www.thekrib.com/Lights/sulphur.html
Here is the PopSci article from 1995, as well
as other information. Sounds like excellent
technology to me.

I had never thought of using it for growing plants! Now that's an excellent idea. I'd be
very interested in hearing more about that.

spell check

[muaddib]

Could the morons who posted that article please check the spelling of "Fusion Lighting" next time? It is clearly spelled in the article, and google knows how to spell it too. That would be helpful for those of us who wanted more information about these new cool light bulbs!

Low-powered blubs?

[Jadsky]

"low-power light blubs"

Good old Webster's defines the verb blub to mean "to puff out, as with weeping."

Hm. I'm using my imagination here, and I still can't think of a way that a lot of sniffling and minor lamenting would interfere with Wi-Fi usage.

I guess... if you went war driving, but then you got stuck behind a funeral procession and couldn't go anywhere...?

Which would I prefer?

[constantnormal]

I'd prefer LED-based lighting, with still-higher efficiencies and none of the troublesome RF pollution. I think LED-based lighting (using a mix of various colored LEDs and white LEDs to simulate a natural spectrum) is a lot closer to reality than Bob's bogeyman technology, with there already being LED-based lighting in specialty apps (such as theater spotlights that don't get hot and last a very long time (http://ledmuseum.home.att.net/digital.htm), in addition to burning a lot less electricity).

My Money's on Wireless.

[lynx_user_abroad]

Even if the worst fears of the new electric lights are true, I still think 802.11 will survive.

It will take less people and dollars (in designers) to work around the problem of sharing the 2.4 GHz (or some other unregulated) band than it would take (in lawyers) to get permission to use a band that's currently regulated for some other purpose.

Given the choice between solving a technology problem and solving a political problem, I think most geeks would prefer the former.

Low cost lighting or wireless?

[GeekyMike]

gimme wireless, I tend to avoid light anyway

Did you know...

[Anonymous Coward]

That there's been low powered efficient lightbulbs around since lightbulbs were first made. The orignal light bulb could last 20 years, but feeling that a 20 year light bulb would not make them much money, Edison & Co gimped it down to a 40 hour light bulb.

And to this very day they've been making money off of it. Holding back technology they knew they had so they could sell inferior products with higher throw away rates.

Fushion Lightning?

[evanh23]

At first sight, I'm not sure whether this is a really cool lightbulb which uses fusion or something that's going to zap me everytime sit on the couch.

Now I'm pretty sure they meant "lighting", but for "fushion", the question remains (or at least until i read the article ;)).

Spell checks would be nice before stories are posted ;)

E

Re:Savings? - Cluebat.

[BrokenHalo]

Actually I am not one of the guys who pulled out of Kyoto. There are /.ers out here who are not resident in the US, you know...

This is ridiculous...

[anthony_dipierro]

We need at least two frequencies dedicated to public TCP/IP over wireless. One in the high bandwidth, medium-low distance NLOS range (such as 2.4 Ghz), and one in the low bandwidth, long distance NLOS range (such as 154.6 Mhz).

Fariday cage?

[tomdarch]

Couldn't the bulbs just have a built in grounded wire mesh? (OK, so standard lamp sockets aren't grounded - hmmm)

Why this isn't an issue (again)

[stormcrow969]

I worked for the company that did the first large scale installation of this sort of lighting.. That was several years ago.

Short version of the story: there were major problems with the system and after a year of installation the whole (very large) system was torn out at our companies expense? Why? Because we were losing money daily fixing the things when they broke.. This from a system that was supposed to save BIG $$$$$$ on maintenance. The company that makes these things was in bancruptcy last time I heard.

Slightly longer version:

- the lights are VERY expensive
- they work by radiating a glass globe with a bit of sulfur in it with microwaves. The sulfur turns to plasma and puts out a lot of light (and heat). To keep the plasma from burning through the glass that encloses it the globe is constantly turned and blown on by a fan (the globe is actually stuck in the center of the fan wheel).
- the lights break.. a lot. The 1st generation units had a 50% failure rate on their power supplies. Even the later units had many fan failures.. When the fan stops turning, so does the bulb. Bulb goes *POOF*.
- the units run very hot, this causes breakdown of plastics used in close proximity to the lights. Since one of the major applications of these units in our installation (and touted for use elsewhere) was light pipes (made the whole 100' long pipe look like a huge glowing flourescent bulb) and it made the light pipes break down, this is BAD.

Conclusion: was a great idea, and in 10 years someone else might try it and overcome the problems because it IS an energy efficient way to make a whole lot of light. Just a small reality check though: we aren't talking about 100 watt light bulb replacements. These things replace the big honking metal halide lights you see at sports stadiums on a 2 for one ratio (that is you can replace 2 big monster metal halides for ONE of these). The only place I can think of where they would be put out in public would be stadiums.. If the light pipes worked they would be perfect for large cubicle farms. But these things are VERY VERY expensive and put out a WHOLE lotta light.

Short term I wouldn't worry about it.

-] Crow

Not fond of 802.11a

[Anonymous Coward]

I am wondering if 802.11a is a bit of a scam.
The pluses
1. It is faster.
2. It is not in the 2.4ghz band.

But the down side is it has a much shorter range.
This seems to kill the idea of WIFI community networks. One AP covers one house? maybe?

The speed is not all that important for most home users. How many people have more than 2 mbits/sec internet access? Now if they drop the speed down two 11mbits and give us longer range and more channels that would be an improvement.

"wreck" havoc?

[Anonymous Coward]

Supposedly the new kind of light bulb is a real electricity saver and can wreck havoc to wireless networks in a half a mile radius.

Can't we go a single day without a Slashdot story mangling the language?

It's wreak havoc, not wreck havoc. Look up "wreak" in the dictionary:

To bring about; cause: wreak havoc.

Is it too much to expect, at the very least, an absence of such obvious blunders in stories posted by people who are paid to do so?

Re:"wreck" havoc?

[slickwillie]

Well, it's not just Slashdot. I've run across "wreck havoc" at least five time in the past two weeks on other sites.

Not part 18

[panurge]

The only emr these devices emit as part of their functioning is light. The microwaves are NOT functional.

This seems to explain it in simple words:
http://www.emclab.umr.edu/emcproc.html
The fact that part of the spectrum is not regulated is irrelevant - just as in Europe, these devices are covered if they emit radiation as an incidental byproduct of their functioning. FCC regulations cover separately:
Communications devices using emr and
Devices not for communication but which still produce emr as an intrinsic part of their functioning (like physiotherapy equipment.

Licensing Spectrum

[rstewart]

Since it appears that the FCC will not worry about devices that play havoc with other devices as long as they follow the rules of the unlicensed spectrum it seems as though no matter where in the spectrum wireless standards move they may end up being disrupted. Would it instead be more intelligent of the standards bodies to accept donations from companies that wish to create devices following the standard and then license the necessary spectrum for the industry to use as long as the specifications of the standard are followed.

shielding

[Anonymous Coward]

Would they be able to build a Farraday cage using fine wire into the bulb itself to shield it?

Wind? Solar? You're kidding, right?

[JCMay]

Oh good grief. Wind? Solar? These things have been "up and coming" for YEARS and they have never been successful.

First, wind power generation requires massive farms of windmills. Not picturesque little ones here and there like in the Netherlands. We're talking tall stalky turbines covering hundreds of acres. Resistance to building wind farms on a proper scale has been nothing short of monumental. Furthermore, working on them is dangerous, and turbines have required frequent maintenance. Finally, the Greenies don't like them because they've been known to kill birds. This page includes a formula for generating power out of a wind turbine. If 100% efficiency is assumed, and assume a turbine that has blades 100 feet long operating in a 15 mile per hour wind, we find that this turbine will generate 519.5 kW. Plant Votgle, a nuclear power facility in Georgia, has a combined output of 2430 MW (2430 million watts). We'd need almost 4700 windmills to equal the power output of Plant Votgle.

Solar power. What happens when it is cloudy? Or Dark? I don't know anyone that would volunteer to only have electricity only on sunny days. Furthermore, it has the same scale problems as wind. According to this page, the average incident solar power density is 164 watts per square meter. At 100% efficiency, a solar plant would have a collector surface area of 14.82e6 square meters to equal Plant Votgle's power output (that's a square a little less than four kilometers on a side). A chart on this page says that efficiency for collectors used to heat water is between 60 and 80%, increasing our required collector size even more.

The energy density of solar or wind is not nearly high enough to replace fossil or nuclear fuels for electricity production on a large scale.

use 802.11a

[Anonymous Coward]

Stop being little bitches and switch over to 802.11a. No it is not compatable to WiFi but if everybody switches to it 5ghz band, there won't be any interference and it is several times faster and is more powerful to boot.

Re:use 802.11a

[cybermint]

But the distance sucks on 802.11a. Check the specs.

oh yeah!

[rocket97]

Can you install Linux on it?

Re:/Cringly? & did you read the article?

[mycal]

Plus Cringly has been known to "bend" the truth, some of his actions have been pure fantacy.

His 2.4Ghz passive repeater seemed to bend the laws of physics and he wouldn't answer questions about it but the nocat guys seem to think it was a hoax.

So take what Cingly says as entertainment, nothing more.

-M

Very nice indeed. Can't wait to get a case

[Anonymous Coward]

I have a neighbor with a 802.11b wireless network who is the block pain in the rear.

He likes to brag about being able to set out on his steps and work his laptop with no cordies.

I happen to have a 100Base-T ethernet network built into my walls: ) Can't wait to start saving some money...

Bzzzzt!

[Erris]

You must have missed the story, a few weeks ago, where the FCC invited an MIT proffesor to tell them that spred specturm would eliminate the spectrum scarcity and the FCC's mission, to regulate that scarce public comodity, would be over. The FCC may wish to crush the technology before it crushes them. They did the same thing to amature TV broadcasts as well. You know, 69 empty channles on the TV? Ever wonder why no one was broadcasting on them or over ham radio? So sad, too bad.

So what do you want? Unlimited cheap personal freedom of press and perfect universal news retreival or an alternate light bulb? I see fine at night right now, thank you, but I have to pay $65/month for cable. It would be just fine for the FCC to let these folks blot out the 2.4 GHz band, so long as they give the rest of the specturm back to the people.

Re:Wind? Solar? You're kidding, right?

[Cody Hatch]

Oh good grief. Wind? Solar? These things have been "up and coming" for YEARS and they have never been successful.

The total cost per kWh (counting upfront capital costs) has been dropping for years, and has now come within a hair of hitting the cost of fossil fuels (for wind). Solar is more expensive, but advances already in the pipeline should bring it to less than nuclear within ten years.

There is indeed resistance to building wind turbines. But in case you've been asleep since the 70's, there's a little resistance to building nuclear power plants too (we haven't built a nuclear power plant since Three Mile Island). And while they kill birds, it's is (and would be, even with a massive increase in generation) a handful. Plate glass windows kill 97 million birds in the US alone (and cars kill another 50 million), whereas wind turbines in the US kill 70,000. That means it'd take a 1000-fold increase before the two are even comparable.

Also, comparing the output of a single wind turbine to a single nuclear power plant is stupid. The question is, how many kWh of production capacity does a given dollar buy you when spent on Nuclear versus Wind? And the answer is, Wind, because the turbines are dirt cheap (compared to a nuclear power plant!).

As for solar panels, they do stop producing when it's cloudy and dark (much like wind turbines stop on calm days). There are two solutions. Large storage batteries, and nuclear plants to help keep them topped up during dark, overcast, calm periods.

Your figure for solar power density isn't completly correct. That's appears to be an average figure, but solar power density depends on your latitude, and ranges from 250 to 100 betweeen the equator and the poles. That means it would only take a square 500km on a side to supply the entire Earth's energy needs if built on the equator. Of course, shipping power from the equator isn't a great idea, but the US's power needs could be met several times over by coverering half of Texas in panels. :-)

That solution isn't cheaper than nuclear (not at the moment), but solar panels have been halving in price every decade since their inception, and it looks like this will continue to around 2030 (at least). Around 2010, both wind and solar will be cheaper than nuclear, and by some estimates wind will cheaper than fossil. And don't forget, fossil fuel generation can't really get any more efficient due to the laws of thermodynamics. The only way fossil fuel generated energy prices are going is up.

Why i hate /. readers

[smileyy]

One wreaks havoc, not wrecks havoc.

Are basic english skills too much to ask for? And I'm not whining about people who speak English as a second language. I'm talking about the english-is-my-first-language-but-i'm-too-fucking-i ncompetent-to-speak/write-it-correctly crowd.

Trivial concern

[Anonymous Coward]

Everybody's fussing about this because this lighting will interfere with current wireless networking standards, but when we start using 5GHz spectrum in the next iteration it will be a moot point. It's rather selfish to throw a fit about your wireless network being disrupted since these lights have the potential to save a lot of power, which in turn saves natural resources. Adaptation has been no problem for us in the past!

show em what for

[illerd]

If they ever get this lighting off the ground, and it does cause enough interference to muck with your precious wireless networking, then just start throwing rocks at the bulbs. They're going to be hideously expensive. If enough bulbs get broken, facilities considering adopting this lighting technology will think twice because they know the cost of replacing bulbs will be more than the difference in their power bill.

And I don't want to hear any conservation jibberjabber from anyone who has any incandescent bulbs in their house.

Nothing that a pellet gun can't fix

[Anonymous Coward]

I'd be the first to "light one up" if it came to my neighborhood and suddenly thousands of dollars of wireless equipment stopped working ... and I don't even own a gun (yet).

Panasonic 2.4Ghz Cordless Phones

[Anonymous Coward]

My Panasonic 2.4Ghz Cordless phone wreaks havoc on my Airport Basestation. (No matter what channel it is set to).

Make sure you wear a lead helmet....

[Anonymous Coward]

...when standing under one of these things.

Bear in mind that the problem caused by RF lighting is microwave emissions - 802.11 emits microwaves too, but only very noncontinuously (about 2% of the time on average under heavy use) and at low power (much less than a cellphone). Now we introduce RF lighting that can knock out 802.11 communications up to a mile away. In any direction and 100% of the time.

Have you any idea just how much emission you're talking about to do that? You would have to be utterly insane to stand around anywhere near one of these things. This is a truly evil idea for a product, and there's no way these should be permitted on health and safety grounds.

White LED

[Axe]

White LED are recent - just as blue and UV.

Hey ALU (or any other dimmer experts)

[slickwillie]

Can you tell me what dimmer to use to get rid of the hum on my new light fixture with a magnetic transformer? The lighting expert at Home Depot didn't know (but he did ask if I wanted fries with it).

This is a catch-22

[RennieScum]

Laptop == light source.

If there are more people out and about enjoying wireless networking, there will be less call for light sources. The reverse is also true.

May the best technology win!

Re:Wind? Solar? You're kidding, right?

[Dastardly]

At 100% efficiency, a solar plant would have a collector surface area of 14.82e6 square meters to equal Plant Votgle's power output (that's a square a little less than four kilometers on a side).

Not bad, but the nice thing about solar is it can allow distributed energy generation. Using more realistic numbers at 30% efficiency. And, a middle of the road average of 4000Whr/sq m per day in the US. And, an average home usage of 10,000whr/day. It would take 10,000/(.3*4000)= 8.3 sqm of solar panels to power a single home. Call it a square 10ft on a side.

See here to provide power for the entire US. A square 100 miles by 129 miles. Sounds like a lot, but there are some very desolate deserts in the southwest that could easily fit that. Of course you woudln't want it all in one place, so ideally, you cover every rooftop, and then put whatever extra is needed in the most god forsaken desolate piece of desert in the southwest you can find.

Add some wind, which will tend to smooth out the valleys of solar. Some nuclear, just in case. And, Water to hydrogen electrolysis and fuel cells to store energy for nights and peaks.

Dastardly

Re: WiFi

[|<amikaze]

I was wondering the same thing. I heard a Mac guy mention Wireless Fidelity and his Airport card. I snickered under my breath. Then I looked it up and doh... :(

So what is the deal with that anyways?

Saving power

[Tibe]

Our light bulbs save power... they get people to stop using there computers.

Less Power Plants

[morph3ous]

As much as I love the internet and networks, I'd have to say that I prefer the lightbulbs. Where can I get my hands on one.

Kewl

[Anonymous Coward]

Show me where I can get some of these!