Slashdot Mirror


Universal Software Radio Peripheral From GnuRadio

The Universal Software Radio Peripheral for GNURadio has now gone into production and is available for purchase for $450. It used to be insanely expensive to acquire this technical equipment. Now the price has dropped by two orders of magnitude, to something about as expensive as a high-end graphics card. How long will it be till it's labeled a terrorist tool and banned?

320 comments

  1. How long? by cnelzie · · Score: 2, Funny

    I don't know, allow me to contact the Office of Homeland Security and inform them about this device and find out...

    (Just kidding)

    --
    If you ignore the other uses of a tool, does that make the tool less useful, or you less useful?
  2. Terrorist Tool by FunWithHeadlines · · Score: 3, Insightful
    "How long will it be till it's labeled a terrorist tool and banned? "

    It just happened. At least for those who know enough to use Google, but don't have enough common sense to handle context issues. Which sounds remarkably like those congressfolk who go around labeling things terrorist tools. Except for the knowing how to use Google bit.

    1. Re:Terrorist Tool by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That makes about as much sense as a fish on a bulldozer.

    2. Re:Terrorist Tool by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If you are a bulldozer operator who enjoys a good fish sandwich for lunch, a fish on a bulldozer makes quite a lot of sense.

    3. Re:Terrorist Tool by screwedcork · · Score: 1

      ...huh?

    4. Re:Terrorist Tool by Anne+Thwacks · · Score: 1
      Except for the knowing how to use Google bit

      I have RTFM and can find any documentation on the "Google Bit".

      Should it be cleared or set? and why?

      --
      Sent from my ASR33 using ASCII
    5. Re:Terrorist Tool by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Google will index this slashdot story and any one who does a search for "terrorist tool gnuradio" will get a hit.

    6. Re:Terrorist Tool by FunWithHeadlines · · Score: 1
      "I have RTFM and can find any documentation on the "Google Bit".

      Should it be cleared or set? and why?"

      Just set it a little bit...

    7. Re:Terrorist Tool by dbIII · · Score: 2, Insightful
      Which sounds remarkably like those congressfolk who go around labeling things terrorist tools.
      A spade is no longer a spade - it is a terrorist tool.

      All this overemphasis on terrorism is just as stupid as an extreme born again Christian going into a supermarket and thinking "what sort of ice cream would Jesus choose?"

    8. Re:Terrorist Tool by virgil_attack · · Score: 1

      Jesus loves all types of ice cream!

    9. Re:Terrorist Tool by MendicantMonkey · · Score: 1

      Cherry Garcia

    10. Re:Terrorist Tool by FunWithHeadlines · · Score: 1

      When you pick the wrong ice cream, you make the baby Jesus cry.

  3. Re:But does it ... by koreaman · · Score: 2, Funny

    No, it GNU/runs GNU/Linux.

    Regards,
    RMS

  4. Claws by Manan+Shah · · Score: 2, Funny

    Not long. Government likes banning things. Next thing on the list: a hammer. Since it can be used for terroristic activites.

    1. Re:Claws by jellomizer · · Score: 2

      No lets just go to the source of the problem. All these terrorist need is food. Without food they are unable to operate their terrorist orginizations. Lets put a law in congress out outlaw all editible products.

      --
      If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
    2. Re:Claws by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      They just banned lighters on airplanes. Why? Because if the shoe bomber had used a lighter instead of matches he might have gotten the fuse lit without anyone noticing. Of course it wasn't the TSA that was that stupid, but congres.

    3. Re:Claws by itwerx · · Score: 1

      ...terroristic activites.

      Is that you Dubya?

      :)

    4. Re:Claws by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      all he had to do was go to the crapper....

      pointless

    5. Re:Claws by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Claws...hammers...claw hammers...I use a ball peen hammer. Is that exempt?

    6. Re:Claws by decepty · · Score: 1

      Yup. Rumor has it he's been on the internets a lot lately.

      --
      Be careful! Bears shouldn't consume large furry dogs.
    7. Re:Claws by virgil_attack · · Score: 1

      I tried to edit my lunch the other day but I forgot to save it :(

    8. Re:Claws by Doctor+Memory · · Score: 1

      Next thing on the list: a hammer

      A hammer! Who's got $600 to spend on one of those?

      --
      Just junk food for thought...
  5. What's it do? by Darth+Muffin · · Score: 4, Insightful
    For those of us who aren't up on our RF TLAs, can someone describe, in english, WTF this thing does?

    Neither of the links provided are much help.

    --
    Real programmers use "copy con program.exe"
    1. Re:What's it do? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It gets the hype from slashdot or it gets the hose again.

    2. Re:What's it do? by SECProto · · Score: 0

      I am having the same problem.

    3. Re:What's it do? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Informative

      Software radio or SDR - an intresting subject where mathematical formulas become radio.

      See http://comsec.com/software-radio.html for a high level overview.

      Good reading is Understanding digital Signal processing by Richard G. Lyons. Prentice Hall, 1st ed: ISBN 0201634678 (amazon.com, search). 2nd ed: ISBN 0-13-108989-7 (amazon.com, search)

      VanuBose 's company Vanu Technology demonstrated a software radio based on an iPAQ with a digital radio "backpack", in May 2003. Here are some links:

      http://slashdot.org/articles/03/05/12/203225.sht ml ?tid=137&tid=100

      http://www.linuxdevices.com/news/NS7890250038.ht ml

      http://www.vanu.com/handheld.html

      http://www.vanu.com

      Here's a note on the future of software defined radio: http://www.cryptonomicon.net/modules.php?name=News &file=article&sid=649

      Several relevant pointers available at http://www-sop.inria.fr/planete/SoftwareRadio/

    4. Re:What's it do? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

      A quick search on google revealed what this thing is.. Basically it allows you to build radio receiving equipement using software instead of traditional hardware (resistors, capacitors, transistors etc..). To quote something I just read 'getting code closer to the antenna'. Interesting idea cause it means you could theoretically write a receiver to decode digital signals (like TV) without paying for it? (Ok, perhaps a little un-realistic at the moment but this is the basic idea).

    5. Re:What's it do? by PixelThis · · Score: 1

      If I'm reading the wiki properly, it's a device for capturing to your computer, stuff off the airwaves (radio, tv, hdtv, et al). http://comsec.com/wiki?GnuRadioWiki

    6. Re:What's it do? by |<amikaze · · Score: 2, Informative

      Interesting idea cause it means you could theoretically write a receiver to decode digital signals (like TV) without paying for it?

      It is already capable of tuning HDTV. Screenshots

    7. Re:What's it do? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Parent is ripped from http://comsec.com/wiki?SoftwareRadio

    8. Re:What's it do? by rasz · · Score: 0

      for example you can tap into GSM network, A5 is simple to crack

    9. Re:What's it do? by plcurechax · · Score: 4, Informative

      Basically it allows you to build radio receiving equipement using software instead of traditional hardware (resistors, capacitors, transistors etc..).

      Partial true, it does not eliminate, but reduces the the electronics used by do as much of the decoding (demodulation, etc.) of the RF signa l in programming hardware (FPGA) and in software (GNU Radio code itself). You still need a RF front-end typically for VHF ~100 MHz and higher (microwave signals a la Wi-Fi, GPS, DSS TV, etc.) and hardware like the USRP.

      ould theoretically write a receiver to decode digital signals (like TV) without paying for it?

      You can legally receive signals in the US, you cannot legally bypass copyright security measures like encryption to decode a satellite TV signal to enable to watch it. There is a moderate large hobby of people who listen or watch un-encrypted signals, we use to call them scanner listeners, but scanners evolved into Software Defined Radio devices as well. NB: There are explicit laws about listening into telephone conversations (both cordless and cellular) in ths US, AFAIK.

    10. Re:What's it do? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

      The idea behind soft-radio is that you grab a signal from the air and use software to 'decode' it instead of hardware. So all decoding becomes an issue of software and not hardware.

      You can grab an FM signal from an antenna, use some software 'stuff', and get your favorite local station to come out the computer speaker. The only hardware you need is an antenna and a frontend to pump the signal into your computer. This device is that frontend interface between the RF capture device (antenna, dish, etc) and the computer, via a USB2 plug. The reason it was developed was that this kind of hardware was either very specific (grab only FM signals or TV signals) or very expensive (the cost of a new computer or two).

      The reason this will be labeled a terrorist device is because you can grab any signal from the spectrum (if you can make an antenna) so all the decoding becomes a software problem. You develop a program to decode HBO's satellite feed, and bang, this thing gets banned as a pirate device, err terrorist device as that's the buzzword dejour. Special interests will push this through Gov like everything else and claim it's destroying American capitalism, meanwhile never mentioning their monopolies destroy fair competition and hurt the consumer when prices rise.

      Geeks will lament as not only is this device a reciever but it's a transmiter as well. Want to make an ad-hoc WiFi-like network on some other frequency? What about a smart 'cell' phone that makes it's own network so you don't need a common provider (think p2p phones)? As it's so new, the possibilities have not been well thought out, but technologies like this are a solution looking for a problem, kinda like the PC in the 1980s.

    11. Re:What's it do? by Performaman · · Score: 0

      So, if you wanted a TV tuner, you could just download the code for it instead of having to buy one? That is ridiculously cool.

      --

      I have gas, but my car uses petrol.
    12. Re:What's it do? by spectral · · Score: 1

      I want ad hoc networks between cars. Just plug in something like this, and I'd be able to know if/where people around me with the same tech are. Quite obviously, they'd have to be using the same frequency and protocol..

      Of course, I'm a spoiled little brat, so I'd want it to tie in to the rest of my car, and I'd want information on the other person's car. So basically I'd want it to transmit their phone number, and store it in my car's phone book, and have them appear on my nav system, and have the audio from this system piped to my car's speakers, and use my car's microphone.

      Hell, I'd leave the device on just because it was cool, even if I only ever found one other person with it, it'd be worth it. Until, of course, it reached critical mass, and everyone had one, and then it's just lame and just like usenet and stuff and anyone who cares wouldn't use it anymore, and teenagers (wow I'm just out of my teens and already I'm insulting them.) would use it to ask the people next to them out on a date. Oh well.

    13. Re:What's it do? by Your+Anus · · Score: 1

      Unless something has changed, only cellular telephone conversations are illegal to receive. Cordless telephones, which have a land-line base, do not fall under the same rules. Since both cordless and cellular calls are now (usually) digitally transmitted over the air, it's a bit harder to surreptitiously listen in. Not impossible, of course.

      --

      In the USA, we like stuff watered down, like beer, television, and freedom.
    14. Re:What's it do? by madman101 · · Score: 1

      RTFA You'd have to buy a daughterboard.

    15. Re:What's it do? by martinoforum · · Score: 1

      You know, there are easier ways to make friends...

    16. Re:What's it do? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Earlier this year Linux Journal had an expose type piece on GnuRadio and this hardware. The CPU requirements for this are pretty stiff -- top of the line P4/Athlon. For most of the uses you've mentioned it's cheaper and more portable to use a purpose built device.

      Personally, where I can see this taking off is third parties bundling a GNU/Linux box with GnuRadio and the forthcoming PCIe version of this hardware to minimize the amount of hardware required to implement satellite data systems. I was working on a weather distribution system and some of our data came in via satellite. Each system had a box to drive the LNB? and then spit the data into some custom PCI card -- better to forgo the middleman, especially when the cpu load for the rest of the system was pretty low (just serving files).

    17. Re:What's it do? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Interesting idea cause it means you could theoretically write a receiver to decode digital signals (like TV) without paying for it?

      Holy shit! Decode digital TV signals without paying for them? Kind of like any HDTV tuner can already do?

    18. Re:What's it do? by kennyj449 · · Score: 1

      For the audio part of what you're doing, a CB radio will work just fine. Be warned; it's mostly cabbies and truckers that use it.

    19. Re:What's it do? by Anonymous+Writer · · Score: 1

      Want to make an ad-hoc WiFi-like network on some other frequency?

      A couple of questions- could it handle things like WiFi and Bluetooth anyway? I've read on /. that Ham radio hobbyists get into it with computers nowadays. Is this device something that Ham radio users have been clamouring for? And I believe that hardware for intercepting police radio and cellphone calls have been made illegal. Does this device fit that category?

    20. Re:What's it do? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      old analog cordless phones were subject to the "can cause no interference/must accept interference" part of the FCC rules. Now digital 900 MHz/2.4GHz/5.8GHz phones, that probably have some sort of digital protection scheme, probably fall under the DCMA.

      As far as listening to cell phone conversations, I don't think it's really illegal until you act on it somehow. Sure, it's illegal to do it, but unless you're stalking someone, posting conversation transcripts between the Speaker of the House and someone else (ala Jim McDermott and Newt Gingrich), etc., you're not really going to be busted per se for listening in on them.

  6. Next insanely great thing by bhima · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Yep, I can see all the slashdot readers going out and getting this... with all of the other VME stuff we have.

    --
    Nothing in the world is more dangerous than sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity.
    1. Re:Next insanely great thing by networkBoy · · Score: 1

      Hey, I have a VXI chassis I was wondering what to do with. I so far have a Mains supply for the backplane, and a dc power supply. I have 8 open slots left (which means I could fit 8 of these by the looks of them). Hmmm... Wish I was more into this stuff I might dedicate a couple hundred to acquiring one of these boards.
      -nB

      --
      whois gawk date unzip strip find touch finger mount join nice man top fsck grep eject more yes exit umount sleep dump
    2. Re:Next insanely great thing by bhima · · Score: 1

      hey it's better than the X-Box thing.. ain't it!

      --
      Nothing in the world is more dangerous than sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity.
    3. Re:Next insanely great thing by networkBoy · · Score: 1

      I don't know actually. I can get three Xboxes for the cost of one of those boards...
      That and I'm not a huge TV person anyway.
      As to Hamming and what not, I had my FCC licence revoked some years ago, so I'll need to move if I'm going to get back on the air.
      -nB

      --
      whois gawk date unzip strip find touch finger mount join nice man top fsck grep eject more yes exit umount sleep dump
    4. Re:Next insanely great thing by StarKruzr · · Score: 1

      I'm curious. What'd you do that got it revoked?

      --

      +++ATH0
    5. Re:Next insanely great thing by networkBoy · · Score: 1

      Nothing too major, but I thought a pushbutton was a momentary switch and it wasn't. I held the button down, did my PSA, flubbed it, let go of the button and proceeded to give a colourful commentary about how I thought I did. Enough people complained that I went bye bye.
      -nB

      --
      whois gawk date unzip strip find touch finger mount join nice man top fsck grep eject more yes exit umount sleep dump
  7. GNURadio? by missing000 · · Score: 1

    It's been around for years...

  8. Slashdot commentary by daveschroeder · · Score: 5, Insightful

    How long will it be till it's labeled a terrorist tool and banned?

    When HAM radio is?

    Seriously, what kind of commentary is this, especially with the FCC giving unprecedented amounts of frequency bandwidth back to the public?

    Couldn't the article have done just as well without the last sentence?

    1. Re:Slashdot commentary by JustinXB · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      Couldn't the article have done just as well without the last sentence?

      This is Slashdot! Of course not.

    2. Re:Slashdot commentary by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Judging from all the threats that HAMS on the net made in regards to BPL it may not be that long till they are labeled terrorists.

      I mean threating to pump out a 1-3KWatt signal on the BPL frequencies JUST TO DOS THEM isn't a way to win friends when the facts are on your side.

    3. Re:Slashdot commentary by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It appears Michael's fondess for editorializing has rubbed off on others.

    4. Re:Slashdot commentary by Karma+Farmer · · Score: 1

      HAM radios can pump out 3 kwatt signals?

      And, if BPL means "broadband over powerline", are you saying that a HAM can set up a 3 kwatt signal on a powerline at the right frequency to blow up the equipment?

    5. Re:Slashdot commentary by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How about when they realize this can receive any frequency range including cell phones.

      By the way, giving frequency bandwidth to the public must be code word for giving frequency bandwidth to the highest bidder? Right?

    6. Re:Slashdot commentary by John+Miles · · Score: 4, Interesting

      I remember an editorial in QEX not too long ago that suggested there were already political efforts under way to regulate the sale of high-performance ADCs.

      SDR is eventually going to make the Stalinist wannabees on Capitol Hill very nervous indeed. There is already precedent for banning the manufacture and sale of certain types of receiving equipment (Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 1987), so I would not take the availability of this technology for granted if I were you. It wouldn't be the least bit surprising to see a Federal ban on private ownership of high-speed analog-to-digital converters at the IC level.

      --
      Dahlmann tightly grips the knife, which he may have no idea how to use, and steps out into the plain.
    7. Re:Slashdot commentary by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hams are licensed to use high output amplifiers (or legally build their own and use then without FCC certifying the amp) but they can legally transmit only 1.5kW per station. An individual can have multiple stations, high gain antennas, etc. but as far as blowing up equipment? I doubt it.

    8. Re:Slashdot commentary by miu · · Score: 1

      I could have done without that editorial line myself, but your comment about the FCC giving bandwidth back to the public is either naive or intentionally misleading. When it comes to making political hay and rewarding the appropriate cronies the policies of the FCC are very closely aligned with Bush. Bush is doing a reasonable job in protecting the nation against terrorism, but many people believe that Bush is a little too quick to apply the terrorist label to things for no reason other than to benefit himself or his supporters or raise public awareness of how much he is doing to protect us.

      --

      [Set Cain on fire and steal his lute.]
    9. Re:Slashdot commentary by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      When they outlaw 1GSPS ADCs, only outlaws will have 1GSPS ADCs.

    10. Re:Slashdot commentary by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah, HAM radio should be banned because we know the 9/11 terrorists used it to, uh, well, surely they used it for something, or they were in the same cities where there are HRO stores, and that has to mean something.

      It actuality, the terrorists used email, cellphones, snailmail, and landlines to communicate. As far as anyone knows, they did not use ham radio because they didn't need to, not when they had cellphones and other things readily available.

      There is rather infamous videotape of Osama using what appears to be a ht of some sort, possibly CB or 6m, but there's NO way to know what type of gear it was and it certainly was not in the US at the time.

    11. Re:Slashdot commentary by VE3ECM · · Score: 4, Informative
      No, but if a ham is within the 'sphere of interference' that BPL causes on certain portions of the spectrum that they are legally entitled to operate on, there is nothing the BPL provider can do if the ham decides to park an antenna within 100 yards of the lines and broadcast 1500 W of power into the air at the freq's the BPL is operating on... thereby causing complete distruction (from a transmission perspective) of internet connectivity.

      Section 5 of the FCC regulations state that any device operating must accept any harmful interference from any device that is licensed to operate at similar frequencies.

      Now, that being said... because BPL advocates have much larger lobbies than amateur radio, they have managed to get the FCC to basically ignore their own regulations and all but 'stick it' to the ham operator, even though the ham is legally entitled to that slice of the pie.

      The Amateur Radio Relay League site on BPL has a lot more information.

    12. Re:Slashdot commentary by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I agree!!!

    13. Re:Slashdot commentary by kd5ujz · · Score: 2
      I belive this is what you are refering to, part 15, not part 5.

      Sec. 15.5(b) Operation of an intentional, unintentional, or incidental radiator is subject to the conditions that no harmful interference is caused and that interference must be accepted that may be caused by the operation of an authorized [licensed] radio station, by another intentional or unintentional radiator, by industrial, scientific and medical (ISM) equipment, or by an incidental radiator.


      And also, now many houses are 100 Yards from a Power line?
      I would say most are more along the lines of 10-20 yards from the transformer.

      --
      -William
      God is everything science has yet to explain.
    14. Re:Slashdot commentary by ars · · Score: 3, Interesting

      This thing can recieve HDtv - so you can ignore the broadcast flag. That obviously makes it a terrorist tool.

      --
      -Ariel
    15. Re:Slashdot commentary by VE3ECM · · Score: 1
      I did mean 15, I guess I missed a keystroke.

      Also, I should have said "...near a power line", instead of giving a specific distance... I realized after the fact that giving a specific value may have been too specific.

      When I said 100 yds, I meant high tension lines, not regular lines running into homes.

    16. Re:Slashdot commentary by kd5ujz · · Score: 1

      Sorry to be picky. Others will take things too seriously. I was pretty sure you ment to convey that, but I was just covering the bases.
      I wonder how close you have to be to ANY power lines though, if it will go into any house, I would figure any house could interfere.

      --
      -William
      God is everything science has yet to explain.
    17. Re:Slashdot commentary by VE3ECM · · Score: 1
      If that were the case (although I don't think that's how it works, technically - I don't believe it operates along the lines of 'broadcast' over ethernet) it would be next to impossible for the BPL ops to track down the interference, and very easy for hams to cripple the system.

      The next few years will be interesting to say the least.

      I hope there are some presentations at Dayton this year about it, actually.

    18. Re:Slashdot commentary by evilviper · · Score: 1
      It wouldn't be the least bit surprising to see a Federal ban on private ownership of high-speed analog-to-digital converters at the IC level.

      On the contrary, it would be VERY surprising.

      First of all, because the high-tech industry is where the money is. Second, because this (and variations of it) has many, many practical uses. Third because stealing a high-speed digital capture card from a university or company would be trivial. And finally, because people could make these out of their garages if need-be (same reason DRM won't be legally mandated on computers).
      --
      Slashdot gets worse every day... Pipedot: News for nerds, without the corporate slant
    19. Re:Slashdot commentary by phoenix.bam! · · Score: 1

      Used a wireless router lately? Or a walkie talkie with a 2-mile range? All recent products that have been developed to use frequencies that were not given to the highest bidder, but released to the general public. Please go post stupid somewhere else.

    20. Re:Slashdot commentary by Elwood+P+Dowd · · Score: 1

      1) This nothing to do with HAM radio.

      2) There are many reasons this tool could be banned, as it could theoretically be used to interfere with or listen in on radio transmissions that are now protected via FCC regulation of devices.

      3) The FCC allowing the public to use a few bands relatively freely does not prevent them from regulating other bands very strictly.

      4) The last sentence incites a very pertinent discussion, although the "terrorist" statement was unnecessary.

      5) You are a jackass.

      --

      There are no trails. There are no trees out here.
    21. Re:Slashdot commentary by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Here it is.

      http://www.arrl.org/qex/040304qextoc.pdf

      Page two.

    22. Re:Slashdot commentary by bill_mcgonigle · · Score: 1

      Couldn't the article have done just as well without the last sentence?

      That last sentence probably generated a thousand ad impressions.

      --
      My God, it's Full of Source!
      OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
    23. Re:Slashdot commentary by John+Miles · · Score: 1

      Thanks; I didn't know they put their TOCs online. My copy of the magazine isn't handy, and I misstated one detail: according to the editorial, the FCC's request for comment referred to DACs rather than ADCs. For the moment, they appear to be more concerned about transmitting capability than receiving capability. (Which is even more asinine, as anyone seeking to cause ruckus on the airwaves can do it without a fast DAC. Are they going to repeal Lenz's Law next?)

      Does anyone have a docket number for that RFC?

      --
      Dahlmann tightly grips the knife, which he may have no idea how to use, and steps out into the plain.
    24. Re:Slashdot commentary by kd5ujz · · Score: 1

      I would imagine it would work the same as CATV, if you connect a transciever up to a CATV network, match your finals to 75ohms, key up on 59.75MHZ(CATV channel 2 voice carrier), Im sure you will bleed over onto the entire coax side of your neighborhood network.

      Coax networks are not run THAT far, there are fiber trancievers every so often from the CO.
      If you were on a non-cablemodem/digital cable network, there could be filterd taps on the main lines, but for RR/digital cable to work, you will have to be on a tap that will allow transmit, and recieve.

      --
      -William
      God is everything science has yet to explain.
    25. Re:Slashdot commentary by MendicantMonkey · · Score: 1

      The cost of eternal vigilance is lots of bitching. Constant criticism is good for freedom.

    26. Re:Slashdot commentary by StarKruzr · · Score: 1

      It could very easily have a great deal to do with Amateur Radio, couldn't it? I for one am looking forward to the opportunity of using an SDR as my communications rig for HF, VHF and SW.

      -KC2KOA

      --

      +++ATH0
  9. terrorist tool? by Twid · · Score: 3, Informative

    Well, since neither link in the submission actually explains what it does, I think whatever-it-is is safe from being labeled a terrorist tool. :)

    --
    - "When you want something with all your heart, the entire universe conspires to give it to you" -Paulo Coelho
    1. Re:terrorist tool? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You assume wrong. This allows either listening or transmission on any radio frequency. Most likely this will be banned but a new version from MS (or some other homage paying company) will be allowed.

    2. Re:terrorist tool? by TheCabal · · Score: 1

      With politicos still being conned into banning dihydrogen monoxide, it's still a safe bet this can be too.

  10. Editor incoherence by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Two orders of magnitude? Did it really cost $45,000? And what's with the terrorist comment?

    1. Re:Editor incoherence by Karma+Farmer · · Score: 0, Troll

      Unless explicitely stated otherwise, an order of magnitude is e, or about 2.71. So, about $3300.

    2. Re:Editor incoherence by brolewis · · Score: 1

      My understand, as well as that of several websites and fellow co-workers, is that an order of magnitude is an exponential change of plus-or-minus 1 in the value of a quantity or unit. Thus, the original author's comment seems to be correct.

      --
      A little learning never hurt anyone.
    3. Re:Editor incoherence by Karma+Farmer · · Score: 0, Troll

      Well, I don't see how that works. The unit is dollar. By your second definition, two orders of magnitude is 450 dollar^3, i.e. cubic dollars.

      No, an order of magnitude is an exponential change in the value, never the unit. And, unless a base has been specified (i.e., 10 or 2 or 5 or 60 or something), the only one you can universally assume is e.

    4. Re:Editor incoherence by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wiki disagrees with you, and so do I: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Order_of_magnitude

    5. Re:Editor incoherence by brolewis · · Score: 2, Informative

      Your right about the value (I was unclear in my previous post that I also understood this to be the case), however, I would argue that the universal is base-10, thus making it 10^2. Maybe to the scientific community e can be assumed, but to those of us who reside outside of the scientific community, we find the order of magnitude to be based on base-10.

      --
      A little learning never hurt anyone.
    6. Re:Editor incoherence by scheme · · Score: 3, Informative
      No, an order of magnitude is an exponential change in the value, never the unit. And, unless a base has been specified (i.e., 10 or 2 or 5 or 60 or something), the only one you can universally assume is e.

      You can say what you like, but the commonly accepted usage in the physics (and most likely the physical sciences and mathematics) has an order of magnitude being equivalent to a factor of 10. So two orders of magnitude would be 100. I've never seen anyone use two orders of magnitude = e^2 before.

      --
      "When you sit with a nice girl for two hours, it seems like two minutes. When you sit on a hot stove for two minutes, it
    7. Re:Editor incoherence by ambrosen · · Score: 1

      Obviously, as e is a natural unit for dollars, unlike 10.

    8. Re:Editor incoherence by jericho4.0 · · Score: 1
      10^1 vs. 10^2, no logarithims required....

      --
      "A language that doesn't affect the way you think about programming, is not worth knowing" - Alan Perlis
    9. Re:Editor incoherence by TheGavster · · Score: 2, Informative

      Actually, I think the size of an order of magnitude was implied by the way the figure was given, in base ten. If someone says "two orders greater than 450h" you can figure they mean a factor of 256, likewise "two orders greater than 450e" would indicate a factor of e^2.

      --
      "Because Science" is one step from "Because old book". Try "Because of my experiment testing my falsifiable assertion".
    10. Re:Editor incoherence by Karma+Farmer · · Score: 0, Troll

      the commonly accepted usage in the physics (and most likely the physical sciences and mathematics)

      In physics and mathematics, I assure you it is e. I have no idea what they use in engineering. But, engineering has nothing to do with physics, so I don't know why I would bring that up.

    11. Re:Editor incoherence by delphi125 · · Score: 1

      These disagree:

      http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=Dicti on ary&va=order+of+magnitude
      http://www.askoxford.co m/concise_oed/orderofmagnit ude?view=uk
      http://dictionary.reference.com/searc h?q=order%20o f%20magnitude
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Order_ of_magnitude
      http://www.vendian.org/envelope/Temp oraryURL/what_ is_oom.html

      I can assure you that you have no idea what mathematicians use. QED.

    12. Re:Editor incoherence by dougmc · · Score: 1
      I assure you it is e
      Odd. I have degrees in Physics and Astronomy, and I've never heard of `an order of magnitude' meaning anything other than a factor of 10.

      (Of course, in Astronomy, your results are generally considered `accurate' if they're within an order of magnitude.)

    13. Re:Editor incoherence by Karma+Farmer · · Score: 0, Troll

      Mathematicians don't spend much time thinking about numbers, frankly. "Order of magnitude" isn't going to show up in a mathematician's work very often. When it does, I assure you're they're not going to think in terms of 10.

    14. Re:Editor incoherence by Karma+Farmer · · Score: 0, Redundant
      So, your claim is that:
      • If someone says 0x1C2 dollars, an order of magnitude is 16.
      • If someone says 111000010 dollars, an order of magnitude is 2.
      • If someone says 0702 dollars, an order of magnitude is 8.
      • If someone says 450 dollars, an order of magnitude is 10.
      • If someone says e^6.109 dollars, an order of magnitude e?
      I like my way better.
    15. Re:Editor incoherence by The_Wilschon · · Score: 1

      In physics and mathematics, I assure you it is e.

      How odd. Are you a physicist? Are you a mathematician? IANA physicist... Yet. I am in my third year of undergrad work for a degree in physics, and currently I work for the Collider Detector at Fermilab experimental collaboration. And yet, I have never heard of anyone refer to an order of magnitude as anything other than a factor of 10.

      For the mathematics side, check out wolfram's mathworld site. In the parentheses, in the line of text after the first expression, we see that the exponent used in scientific notation (which has a base of 10) is called the "order of magnitude."

      --
      SIGSEGV caught, terminating

      wait... not that kind of sig.
    16. Re:Editor incoherence by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Face it Karma Farmer - you got owned.

    17. Re:Editor incoherence by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "What exactly does "order of magnitude" mean?

      Regretably, it is used to mean various things.
      On this site, it means a number's nearest power of ten.
      Elsewhere,

      "Note that the phrase "order of magnitude" is also used in other ways.
      A number's oom, we have discussed.
      An oom by itself (eg, "it went up by three orders of magnitude"),
      is a factor of ten (so, "it went up by 10^3").
      And there is a somewhat unrelated, "big-O" "little-o" notation for
      describing how fast a function's output grows as its input grows,
      but I won't go into that.
      And sometimes it is just used to mean rough/approximate/etc,
      especially with "within a factor of ten"-ish kinds of things."

      And instead of 10 to the x, powers of ten, decimal oom ("doom"), it can sometimes mean 2 to the x, powers of two, binary oom ("boom"). Also e to the x, powers of the natural log. What a zoo. But 10 to the x is the most common."
      http://www.vendian.org/envelope/Temporar yURL/what_ is_oom.html

    18. Re:Editor incoherence by MemoryAid · · Score: 1
      Here's what I found on Froogle when pricing software controlled radios:

      Bug-sweeping system, $17,550.00

      Another one, $7,999.95

      Wide-band receiver, $4499.95

      Shortwave receiver, $3950.00

      That first item is two orders of magnitude more expensive than our subject, but the others are only one greater. I think the really good radios are hard to find prices for, unless you are a qualified customer, perhaps with an account with the vendor.

      I've also noticed that items from retailers targeted toward spies charge more for their products than other retailers do. I suppose that is because spies are backed by some deep-pocketed government (or James Bond wannabe types are suckers).

      --
      Language students: Don't try to learn English here. This ain't it.
  11. And this does what? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Funny

    Is this just a radio tuner card for PCs?

  12. Sweet ! by BigJim.fr · · Score: 3, Interesting

    This is great news : software defined radios are über-cool and the Gnuradio project is quite promising. I hope that someone will soon package it with enclosure and daughtercards and market it to people who are not willing to do the seemingly required hardware assembly.

    1. Re:Sweet ! by John+Miles · · Score: 3, Informative

      What you're talking about already exists, actually. See www.flex-radio.com.

      --
      Dahlmann tightly grips the knife, which he may have no idea how to use, and steps out into the plain.
    2. Re:Sweet ! by HanClinto · · Score: 4, Informative

      I've assembled and used a Flex Radio -- they really are pretty cool.
      We actually didn't use it for a Ham radio -- we used it to build a fairly inexpensive, high-quality DRM reciever (not Digital Rights Management, it stands for Digital Radio Mondiale -- pretty cool tech).

    3. Re:Sweet ! by pe1chl · · Score: 2

      Flex-radio is designed for narrowband use. With the PC-soundcard as an A/D converter it is limited to 20-40 kHz bandwidths. With the faster hardware mentioned in this article it is possible to receive wideband signals.

  13. What does this do? by Brain+Stew · · Score: 1

    I must seriously be out of the loop (hardware's not my thing), but what does this radio do exactly? And why would it be classified as a terror instrument?

    --
    "Here's a spoiler: You're will die alone."-Triumph the Insult Comic Dog
    1. Re:What does this do? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      why would it be classified as a terror instrument?
      It is capable of playing Céline Dion songs.
    2. Re:What does this do? by Detritus · · Score: 2, Interesting
      A software-defined radio effectively replaces most of the guts of a radio with a computer program running on a specialized computer. Similar to how a microprocessor can replace a room full of hardwired relay logic with a program.

      With the right software, it takes control away from the FCC and Congress. The SDR doesn't care if the software that you download isn't type accepted by the FCC or does things that Congress doesn't like, like listening to their cell phone calls.

      --
      Mea navis aericumbens anguillis abundat
    3. Re:What does this do? by FuzzyDaddy · · Score: 1
      Well, you could use it to spoof GPS satellite signals and cause airplanes or boats to go off course.

      --
      It's not wasting time, I'm educating myself.
    4. Re:What does this do? by westlake · · Score: 1
      The SDR doesn't care if the software that you download isn't type accepted by the FCC or does things that Congress doesn't like, like listening to their cell phone calls.

      Using software rather than hardware does not make the intercept of a cell phone call legal.

    5. Re:What does this do? by dougmc · · Score: 1
      Well, you could use it to spoof GPS satellite signals and cause airplanes or boats to go off course.
      Sure, except that it's a receiver, not a transmitter. But beyond that, sure.
    6. Re:What does this do? by Detritus · · Score: 1

      It may be a law, but it's a bad joke. It usually only gets enforced when some prominent politician gets embarrassed by someone taping his indiscreet cell phone conversations. There are millions of existing, and legal, receivers and scanners that can listen to analog cell phone calls. Rather than secure their broken networks, the cell phone carriers "fixed" the problem (bad publicity) by lobbying Congress for a law that criminalized listening to certain radio frequencies. This changed the decades old federal policy that you could listen to any radio frequency as long as you did not disclose the content to a third party.

      --
      Mea navis aericumbens anguillis abundat
    7. Re:What does this do? by arodland · · Score: 1

      Pay attention. That was the point.

      The thinking is "we could control hardware, but we don't have control of this software. So we need to either gain complete control of the software development process (trusted computing) or effectively ban software that could potentially be used in any way we don't like (DMCA).

      Anything that moves control from specialized hardware to software running generalized hardware, is a target for the wrath of various organizations.

    8. Re:What does this do? by FuzzyDaddy · · Score: 1
      From the web site:

      2 Daughterboard slots hold any RF transmitter

      4 High-Speed DA Converters (128 MS/s, 14-bit) to generate signals up to about 50 MHz (same chip as above).

      --
      It's not wasting time, I'm educating myself.
    9. Re:What does this do? by dougmc · · Score: 1
      2 Daughterboard slots hold any RF transmitter
      So, this device, _plus a transmitter_, can be used. Gotcha. Of course, you could probably do the same by outputting the appropriate signal through your sound card output into the appropriate transmitter, and skipping this device entirely. But beyond that, sure.
      to generate signals up to about 50 MHz
      Except that GPS signals are at 1575 mHz. So even if you stuff that 50 mHz signal into an antenna (and the signal will likely be incredibly weak) it's not going to do it.

      Sorry, but this thing is not capable of spoofing a GPS receiver, not as designed. It's a receiver. Yes, if you added a transmitter, then maybe you could, but you wouldn't need this device to do it.

    10. Re:What does this do? by FuzzyDaddy · · Score: 1

      The 50 MHz indicates the BANDWIDTH of the transmitter signal. It is easy to build a mixer and amplifier using off the shelf components (see www.minicircuits.com) to upconvert this signal to the GPS frequency band. You can buy an off the shelf (and cheap) GPS frequency range antenna - hell, pull one out of your existing GPS unit. An undergrad EE with one semester of RF design could build one for well under $100 in a day.

      The point of this project is that it is very easy to take a signal and frequency shift it to a higher frequency for transmission (or a lower frequency for reception). Generating the unshifted signal is the hard part, and this board allows you to do it. GPS signals have a very low bandwidth, so 50 MHz is plenty to acheive this.

      It's neither a receiver or a transmitter until you plug in a daughter board. It solves the hard part to the problem of GPS spoofing. An off the shelf mixer, power amplifier, and patch antenna do the rest.

      If the intent was to only use it to 50 MHz, it wouldn't even be able to pick up "Classic Rock" (88.5 MHz around here).

      --
      It's not wasting time, I'm educating myself.
    11. Re:What does this do? by aminorex · · Score: 1

      > Sure, except that it's a receiver, not a transmitter. But beyond that, sure.

      But with SDR, you can use reversible logic, and
      run it backwards, when you want to transmit. This
      has the advantage that you can reuse all the stored power from the forward run, reducing the power
      requirements to almost nothing.

      --
      -I like my women like I like my tea: green-
    12. Re:What does this do? by dougmc · · Score: 1
      The 50 MHz indicates the BANDWIDTH of the transmitter signal
      Sure. But if you just hook it up to an antenna, you've got a very weak transmitter that can do 0-50 mHz. To go higher, you need to add more circuitry -- a transmitter.

      The point of this project is that it is very easy to take a signal and frequency shift it to a higher frequency for transmission (or a lower frequency for reception)
      Sure, it's easy. Every transmitter and receiver does this. You don't need this device to do it. This device will not do much to help you spoof a GPS satellite signal, and certainly cannot do it by itself.
      You can buy an off the shelf (and cheap) GPS frequency range antenna
      You could, but why? All you need is a 7.5 mm long dipole -- whammo, GPS frequency range antenna.
      If the intent was to only use it to 50 MHz, it wouldn't even be able to pick up "Classic Rock" (88.5 MHz around here).
      You're not getting me. This thing will not help you spoof a GPS satellite. I imagine that you could use it to do so, after adding an appropiate transmitter, but it certainly can't do it by itself. And once you add that appropriate transmitter, you don't even need this device -- your computer sound card probably has enough bandwidth to do the job.

      I guess the terrorists will just have to look elsewhere for their doomsday weapons.

    13. Re:What does this do? by dougmc · · Score: 1
      All you need is a 7.5 mm long dipole -- whammo, GPS frequency range antenna.
      Sorry, 9.1 cm long half-wave dipole. Silly non-metric units tripping me up again ...
    14. Re:What does this do? by FuzzyDaddy · · Score: 1
      Ah. I think the crux of the disagreement is the difficulty of implementing the IF for generating spoofing of a GPS signal. You're contending that the IF generation is trivial enough that this hardware adds little to easing the problem of a GPS spoofer. If IF generation is easy, then clearly this board adds little to the problem.

      Your point about the low bandwidth of the GPS satelite signal is well taken, and this specialized hardware is probably overkill for that purpose. I guess I was thinking about the supporting free software tools which may or may not yet exist for programming this thing, which could make it a remote controlled, stand alone GPS spoofer. The board appears to be about five inches across (if that is 100 mil header in the corner, anyway), so a complete system could be about 5"X5"X3". Depending on the software tools, this would certaintly aid me in building a GPS spoofer, but I'm not well rounded enough engineer to know if the IF generation could be easily implemented on another platform - a small computer running RTLinux, for example.

      [And a dipole antenna is no more than 50% efficient in this case, as GPS uses circularly polarized signals ;)]

      --
      It's not wasting time, I'm educating myself.
  14. naive question by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

    This looks like an excellent step towards a turn-key software defined radio but I have a dumb question:
    Why go with usb2.0 as the interface instead of pci or multiple usb2.0 connectors (is the usb 2.0 bandwidth limit a total value or a per/channel value?) I know you want to isolate the radio receiver from all the RF noise inside the PC but there are giga-sample a/d cards that go inside boxes already... Just wondering

    1. Re:naive question by plcurechax · · Score: 4, Informative

      Why go with usb2.0 as the interface instead of pci or multiple usb2.0 connectors

      Because USB2.0 was the fastest commonly available connection found on home PCs and laptops.

      PCI rules out laptops, but the developers (Eric and Matt) use and demo their work on laptops.

      Firewire wasn't as well developed and as well supported on all Free/Open OSes (OpenBSD in particular) when the decision was made.

      The on-board ADC / DAC and FPGA will reduce the needs for most applications to something that works, such as a single HDTV ATSC signal (which is roughly 6MHz bandwidth).

    2. Re:naive question by pe1chl · · Score: 1

      Ethernet? Gigabit ethernet ports are becoming common on PC and laptop systems. There are more systems supporting ethernet than USB.

    3. Re:naive question by Reteo+Varala · · Score: 1

      Something like a WinModem, but for radio.

      Oh, and it's not limited to Windows.

      Simply put, the hardware grabs the radio-wave signals from the air, while the computer then proceeds to turn it into something a human can understand, or something a computer can use.

      I wonder if this new toy would double as a random number generator, even if it's just to make /dev/urandom that much more random?

  15. Savings are overrated by YU+Nicks+NE+Way · · Score: 1

    The commercial board provides considerably more than the "free" board, for approximately a correct ratio for the price. (Eight times as amany quadrature channels for eight times the price, since a quadrature channel on the GnuRadio requires the purchase of four daughterboards at $50 each.) More than that, the commercial board includes documentation, and is easier to reduce to a standard FPGA implementation for inclusion in hardware.

    Where's the bargain, here?

    1. Re:Savings are overrated by dr_nik · · Score: 1

      There is an absolute bargain here. Take a look at similar offerings from ICS (www.ics-ltd.com) and altera (www.altera.com). i would've liked to see more SRAM on this board though.

    2. Re:Savings are overrated by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      Most people will want this to record one or two channels simultaneously, and to play only one. My problem with it is that it uses USB which is well-known to imply a significant expenditure of processing power as compard to, say, 800Mbps IEEE1394, which is probably three times the real-world speed of USB2. There is no way I can take this thing seriously enough to spend $450 if I have to screw around with USB. I would have preferred a PCI card to USB, as well, even with the potentially high PITA factor.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
  16. Ah yes but by Rosco+P.+Coltrane · · Score: 0

    Being able to receive, record and replay, with pure clarity, in glorious stereo, dozens of simultaneous radio stations ... all owned by ClearChannel and all playing the same uniform shit? Not sure I'm that interested...

    At any rate, I wager they'll let their law dogs loose the second they realize you can skip commercials with it...

    --
    "A door is what a dog is perpetually on the wrong side of" - Ogden Nash
    1. Re:Ah yes but by Jeffrey+Baker · · Score: 1

      you could use this hardware to pull in terrestrial HDTV. Given the right RF frontend, you could also do satellite work. It's a highly useful peripheral.

    2. Re:Ah yes but by plcurechax · · Score: 1

      you could use this hardware to pull in terrestrial HDTV.

      You could, but you would be better off using the pcHDTV HD-3000 card which is designed to work well with terrestial, aka Over The Air (OTA), HDTV, "legacy" NTSC, and can legally ignore the FCC Broadcast Flag until June 2005.

      To clarify, GNU Radio is a Free Software software defined radio implementation, and the USRP (Universal Software Radio Peripheral) is the semi-official reference hardware platform designed by Matt Ettus. The USRP is real-life useless without additional modules for basicRX (receiver) and/or basicTX (transmitter). Depending on the usage, you might require a up/down converter aka a transverter.

      There are others working on similar hardware (e.g. SSRP for a bit simpler and lower cost, or the amateur radio oriented Flex-Radio) as well, and I expect that the USRP hardware will be copied, cloned, and improved upon in a short time.

    3. Re:Ah yes but by Jeffrey+Baker · · Score: 1
      You could, but you would be better off using the pcHDTV HD-3000 card which is designed to work well with terrestial, aka Over The Air (OTA), HDTV, "legacy" NTSC, and can legally ignore the FCC Broadcast Flag until June 2005.

      You could just buy an HDTV, too, but that wouldn't have as much hacking value. I assume anyone who is interested in this hardware is also interested in experimenting with it, and the HD-3000 doesn't leave much room for that.

    4. Re:Ah yes but by plcurechax · · Score: 1

      True, the HD-3000 does not have the hacking value of the USRP, but if someone just wants to watch HDTV from their Linux computer the HD-3000 is a cheaper and plug-and-play Linux solution.

      So, if I just wanted to watch (or record) HDTV, I would get a HD-3000, but as soon as I can get a US dollar money order, I am ordering my USRP and RX/TX modules.

  17. Can you say "Software Decoder? by CheapEngineer · · Score: 4, Informative

    It's apparently a general purpose software decoder of digital signals; decode DTV at a software level, apply software filters to analog audio, basically thru programming replicate all those arcane things done in both analog and digital radio/tv/shortwave signals.

    1. Re:Can you say "Software Decoder? by Mister+Transistor · · Score: 1

      It won't do that. At least not what you are thinking it might, It won't help to DECRYPT digital (TV) information.

      It does receive RF signals and convert them to a digital bitstream, but any further processing, such as demultiplexing the data streams and further decrypting the signals has to be done using the current crop of ASIC's you'll find in a standard set-top DTV box.

      The RF receiver portion (that this GNURadio could replace) is only about 1/2 of the crap inside a box. The other half is devoted to decryption, video decompression, macrovision generation, RGB output conversion/DAC, audio, modem and power supply.

      Even when the DTV hacking was at it's heyday, you could use a software emulator to do 99% of the work, but you still needed that custom ASIC in the card to do the actual public key decrypt on the video stream. There just isn't a substitute (hardware or software) because no one outside of the manufacturer knew the exact polynomials and algorithms used to do the scrambling.

      So, as you say "Software Decoder", well, it is in the same way that your table radio is a "Hardware Decoder" of RF signals into audio. Most of the "Decoding" still needs to be done downstream to make the decoded RF (now a digital bit stream) into something more useful, like video or audio.

      --
      -- You are in a maze of little, twisty passages, all different... --
  18. anyone ever use this? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
  19. I dont know but you arent helping by MajorDick · · Score: 1, Insightful

    How long will it be before people see it as a possible terrorist tool ?

    I dono but I sure as hell would have never thought iti until YOU brought it up.

    Somtimes things are best left unsaid , especially in a world of paranoid radicals that will look for ANY reason to take your freedoms away,

    To that end you hve just been very helpfull in giving them ammuntion, you should congratulate yourself.

    1. Re:I dont know but you arent helping by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sort of like the paranoid radicals that are all too quick to stifle the right to free speech, especially regarding those so-called unmentionables you just so self-righteously... mentioned?

    2. Re:I dont know but you arent helping by LS · · Score: 0

      Oh GOD!!! Are the terrorists that you speak of THAT retarded? Must they scour Slashdot for technical ideas? It's just encryption, not rocket science. If you think the terrorists are that stupid, I hope you don't also believe that terrorists have the capability to create nukes and bioweapons, because they are several orders of maginitude more difficult to create or obtain.

      LS

      --
      There is a fine line between being a cultivated citizen and being someone else's crop. - A. J. Patrick Liszkie
    3. Re:I dont know but you arent helping by MajorDick · · Score: 1

      No, and it wasnt the "Terrorist" I was worried about, the people who wish to do something harmful are very resourceful and will find a way, period.

      I have read the works of Che and others as I have a solid interest in military history, Where there is a will there is a way, and to be quite honest I am suprised we have not seen a terrorist detonation of a nuke, dirty bomb, or biological (they must be either a little dumber than I give them credit for, or b, even have their own limits, which I doubt)

      What I am talking about are all the morons in DC that think passing new laws to stifle freedom is doing a public service.

      Most of those morons (i.e Politicians) would have never in their own feeble minds drawn a link between a project like this and "Terrorism", not until some other moron did it for them.

      I am not talking about stifling freedom of speach either (as a lower post says), I am saying some things are better left unsaid, and asking if this could be used a a terrorist tool was one of them, let them try to draw their own links, dont give them (the politicians) extra fuel for the "If you complain about us taking freedom away to protect against terrorists you are being unamerican" bandwagon fire

    4. Re:I dont know but you arent helping by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Unless of course, that was his goal in the first place... :)

    5. Re:I dont know but you arent helping by LS · · Score: 1

      Ok, I would normally agree with you, but in this case many people would think of using the radio in this fashion. It's a straightforward logical deduction. Now something I definitely agree with you on is sample virus source code. There are several instances where a university researcher has released prototype virus source code just to prove that an exploit can be done. That is just stupid.

      LS

      --
      There is a fine line between being a cultivated citizen and being someone else's crop. - A. J. Patrick Liszkie
    6. Re:I dont know but you arent helping by dedalus2000 · · Score: 1
      I believe that
      paranoid radicals that will look for ANY reason to take your freedoms away
      is actually referring to the neo cons in government not the terrorists. They are roughly equivalent though.
      --
      My keyboads not woking popely.
    7. Re:I dont know but you arent helping by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The Radical position, in the political sense, rejects what you consider paranoid and at times may even make use of the supposed "terrorist acts" as they are eminently pragmatic and efficient for resources expended.

    8. Re:I dont know but you arent helping by surprise_audit · · Score: 1
      Heh - I read your first line as:
      How long will it be before people are seen as a possible terrorist tool ?

      I thought, "what, they're not already??"

    9. Re:I dont know but you arent helping by MajorDick · · Score: 1

      Point taken,

      I was trying to figure out how to phrase the exact portion of political types who would be reactionary in nature, radical cam to mind first but in afterthought your position is agreed

  20. Terrorism my ... by Handbrewer · · Score: 2, Funny

    My favorite quote ever: #137692 +(191)- [X]

    Procyon> I don't know the world around me!
    Procyon> I'm scared, and confused!
    DS> have you felt a strong desire to vote for george w. bush recently?

    Same with terrorism, it sucks. But the politicians should stop banning random stuff out of fear - i want people to start using their brains, for once. In the US they already slashed constitutional rights, and want me to give my fingerprints and digital foto when i travel into US. Forget it!

    Too bad the US has influence on the world - the EU is aching to introduce similar laws, what country can i migrate too now? :)

    1. Re:Terrorism my ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Welcome to Canada! :)

    2. Re:Terrorism my ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Too bad the US has influence on the world - the EU is aching to introduce similar laws, what country can i migrate too now? :)

      Have a crappy government? Blame the US. Disagree with your country's policing actions? Blame the US? Get a cold. Blame the US.

      Jesus fscking Christ on a death camp. Did it ever occur to you that people are just people and that power brings out their worst inclinations? Bad government policies exist everywhere, and they're not all the fault of the U.S. Police powers are a symptom in the U.S. lately, but how is your crappy experience in the E.U. the U.S.'s fault? Maybe, just maybe, your government is not the kind, benevolent, grandfatherly, loving institution you think it is. Maybe, just maybe, people are people all over the world, and you're stuck with the same shit government system we all are: in democracies, some people lose.

      Consider this: if you blame the U.S. for every damn bad thing that goes wrong in your country (likely the same country my ancestors fled from because of narrow-minded inbred fucks like yourself), why then you damn sure better give the U.S. credit when anything good happens. And that means one thing: If the US is responsible for what's right and what's wrong in your little patch of dirt, then the U.S. should get to tax you, since we're making all the hard calls. :)

      I dislike the Patriot Act and other abuses in the U.S. more than anyone. But comments like yours do NOTHING to help, and in fact give ammunition to the right-wing commentators who are looking for silly comments to make fun of. I half suspect you are really in favor of increased police powers, and are just posting such lame-o crap to make the opposition look weak, and unfocused.

    3. Re:Terrorism my ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hehe - when it comes to anti-terror FUD, the US is the #1 FUD machine, which ofcourse makes my dumb politicians, who reminds me more of chickens than humans, to run around the henhouse panicking and using the media attention to spin alittle. Which ofcourse is dumb in retrospekt, but they dont want to admit mistakes, so they quietly keep passing the laws. Ofcourse its not the US's fault directly, but lets look at US as a barometer of what will happen in the future - then all western countries will be police states before we can say "I used to live in a democratic country!"

      The current president of the "free" and "brave" is not helping the situation :). In fact he and his staff must be the worst FUD'er around.

  21. 2 orders of magnitude? by NoseBag · · Score: 2, Funny

    ...was the previous price really 10x10x450=$45K?

    Wow...that's some cost reduction.

    --
    Cloned foods give the statement "We had that last week!" a whole new meaning.
    1. Re:2 orders of magnitude? by pclminion · · Score: 1

      Uhh, this is Slashdot. Our orders of magnitude come in factors of 2, not 10 :-)

    2. Re:2 orders of magnitude? by MemoryAid · · Score: 1
      Speak for yourself, physicist*. I find my orders of magnitude 2.303 times more useful than I find yours.

      *The use of the term 'physicist' is not intended to be derogatory.

      --
      Language students: Don't try to learn English here. This ain't it.
  22. Hacker Radio by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I listen to all of my hacker radio at Hacker Media . They podcast over four dozen different amateur talk radio shows.

  23. Limiting factors. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

    The text claims the limiting factor is the USB2 bus but when you get into the details of the circuitry, the Raceway Link, the Aquisition bus, and the Arbitar all connect through one single 32bit local data bus. I assume this is a change from the previous design and build. Now I know why the price is a few orders of magnatude lower.

    On a side note, I really have no idea what I am talking about. Just pulled that out of the air based on 10 seconds looking at the two included links, Based on the current comments that no one has any idae what this thing is for (myself included), I bet I could have fooled quite a few people though.

    1. Re:Limiting factors. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      rotfl ... 5!

  24. too soon, perhaps by jeif1k · · Score: 1

    It might have been good for this to come out 1-2 years later. Why? Because then HDTV and digital radio broadcasters would have had more time to get sloppy on the encryption and DRM under the (false) assumption that the need to have their hardware radios in order to receive the signal is protection enough.

    With software radios widely and inexpensively available during the initial deployment of the next generation of radio and television broadcasts, broadcasters may recognize too soon the need for bullet-proof cryptographic methods and may not screw it up again like they did before.

    1. Re:too soon, perhaps by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well, they might try (maybe succeed) but... if they fail then hackers will have tools for penetrating bullet proof encryption.

  25. what kind of commentary is this ??? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Remember, the US government banned digital audio tape and taxes CDs to thwart "pirates". It's not much of a stretch to imagine that other useful equipment will be labeled "terrorist". Microsoft spokesmen have called Linux a "security threat".

    Furthermore, what's wrong with a little trolling on Slashdot?

    1. Re:what kind of commentary is this ??? by Lord+Kano · · Score: 1

      I think it's funny, the music industry went to such lengths to make sure that US consumers never got DAT equipment, but instead they got Napster, Kazaa, and eMule.

      Smart move guys!

      LK

      --
      "Hi. This is my friend, Jack Shit, and you don't know him." - Lord Kano
    2. Re:what kind of commentary is this ??? by cayenne8 · · Score: 1
      " Remember, the US government banned digital audio tape and taxes CDs to thwart "pirates"."

      Funny...I live in the US...and have never been taxed on a CD purchase to cover 'pirating'.....

      --
      Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
    3. Re:what kind of commentary is this ??? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      " Remember, the US government banned digital audio tape and taxes CDs to thwart "pirates"."

      Funny...I live in the US...and have never been taxed on a CD purchase to cover 'pirating'....


      Computer CD-R is not covered by the tax, only Audio CD-R. What's the difference? The Label and sometimes the sale's location in the store. Congress gets to make the music industry happy with a tax, and computer folks happy with a loophole (that's the system - a law for each interest group!)

  26. Yay! by Phoenix-IT · · Score: 0

    I'll begin writing the XM Radio descrambler tonight. J/K

  27. This is what Wikipedia says: by mahesh_gharat · · Score: 4, Informative


    A software-defined radio (SDR) system is a radio communication system which uses software for the modulation and demodulation of radio signals.

    An SDR performs significant amounts of signal processing in a general purpose computer, or a reconfigurable piece of digital electronics. The goal of this design is to produce a radio that can receive and transmit a new form of radio protocol just by running new software.

    Software radios have significant utility for the military and cell phone services, both of which must serve a wide variety of changing radio protocols in real time.

    The hardware of a software-defined radio typically consists of a superheterodyne RF front end which converts RF signals from and to analog IF signals, and analog to digital converter and digital to analog converters which are used to convert a digitised IF signal to and from analog form.

    Software-defined radio can currently be used to implement simple radio modem technologies. In the long run, software-defined radio is expected by its proponents to become the dominant technology in radio communications. GNURadio is a project to implement software-defined radio as free software.

    URL:: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Software-defined_radi o

  28. Instrumentation uses by Animats · · Score: 3, Interesting
    This could be valuable for high-bandwidth instrumentation applications. Wideband data-acquisition cards tend to be both overpriced and out of date, because the product volumes are small.

    Some years ago, I was doing some work on a laser rangefinder, and got to the point where I needed about $20K in test gear to find out why it wasn't working right. Something like this would have been a big help.

    Radio hams will find uses for this. It should be great for working on new data transmission schemes for high-noise links, like HF.

    LabView support would be nice.

  29. The current... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    hiding place of Osama - who happens to like Linux so much that his middle name is named after a Linux directory so Linux must be a terrorist tool that must be banned too! - please stop the world I want to get off...

  30. Salon Article about the broadcasting spectrum... by dcowart · · Score: 5, Informative

    Essentially this is a device to 'tune' to any of the millions of frequencies that are in the upper part of the non-visible Electromagnetic spectrum. TV and Radio are broadcast in the long wavelength low frequency part of the specturm. Pretty pictures at Nasa

    Anyway, Here's a Salon Article about the polictical & technical aspects of it:
    http://www.salon.com/tech/feature/2003/03/12/spect rum/index.html (Warning: you may have to click through a stupid ad.)

    --
    www.rdex.net
  31. SDR and hacking radios... by VE3ECM · · Score: 5, Informative
    SDR has long been considered the 'Holy Grail' in radio communications.

    There were quite a few pages dedicated to the advances in digital radio and SDR in Monitoring Times a few months back.

    One of the biggest advantages to a true SDR radio is that the manufacturer can build one or two models of radios, and have different software loads depending on bandsplit, features, costs, etc.

    Motorola tried that with their Jedi-series and XTS series of handy talkies over the past decade... biggest problem was that it is pretty simple (technologically) to take a radio with no special features (smartnet, digital modes, tone signalling, etc.) and enable the features by cloning the software load of another model.

    They did smarten up to that with the MTS2000 line of radios; any attempt to force a 'codeplug' into it that didn't belong would turn the unit into a brick, and you'd have to send it back to Motorola for a costly repair (as well as a stern talking to for 'hacking' at the radio).

    True software defined radios would be a lot easier to secure... on paper it would drive prices way down... in reality, as long as the radio manufacturers control the public service contracts, prices will still remain sky high.

    As an aside, WiNRADiO markets a device that could *almost* be considered an SDR device... super pricey for a receiver, but neat concept.

    I am looking forward to the day we see true SDR transceivers.

  32. Giving? by dougmc · · Score: 1
    especially with the FCC giving unprecedented amounts of frequency bandwidth back to the public?
    Giving? Don't you mean selling? I'm a ham, and I don't recall any large new unlicensed bands showing up, or any large new ham bands. I suspect you're talking about the spectrum auctions, but that's hardly `giving' back to the public.

    Couldn't the article have done just as well without the last sentence?
    Better, even.
  33. Never by gtrubetskoy · · Score: 1, Insightful

    How long will it be till it's labeled a terrorist tool and banned?

    It's not a transmitter as far as I understand.

    1. Re:Never by plcurechax · · Score: 2, Interesting

      It's not a transmitter as far as I understand.

      Correct, the USRP (Universal Software Radio Peripheral) base module itself is not an transmitter. There is an additional $50 USD basicTX modules available.

      "Terrorist tool" is simply nonsense on the part of the submitter or editor. Ignore the poor fool.

      Unlicensed operation and interference are not a new issue, (radio stations use to "compete" by trying to transmit by "out-gunning" by using more power (Watts) on a given frequency (e.g. 105.7 MHz)) are why departments like the FCC were created.

      The basicTX module is low enough power on its own (1mW I believe it produces) that it does not require regulation AFAIK.

  34. Any Frying Pan can be used as a terrorist tool! by kremvax · · Score: 3, Interesting

    But, he's right in pointing out that the powers that be do not have a vested interest in allowing citizens to own a general purpose reciever/transmitter. It marginalizes their sense of control.

    Like PGP/GPG, buy one, use it, build an economy around it BEFORE they start thinking about making it illega.

    Kremax

    --
    --- Little Atomo - The Amazing Thinking Robot from Atomocom! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GIP9KisHi4k
  35. With Tags by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

    Is it really so hard to use tags?

    Software radio or SDR - an intresting subject where mathematical formulas become radio.

    See for a high level overview.

    Good reading is Understanding digital Signal processing by Richard G. Lyons. Prentice Hall, 1st ed: ISBN 0201634678 (amazon.com, search). 2nd ed: ISBN 0-13-108989-7 (amazon.com, search)

    VanuBose 's company Vanu Technology demonstrated a software radio based on an iPAQ with a digital radio "backpack", in May 2003. Here are some links:

    Slashdot article

    Linuxdevices.com

    Vanu.com

    Vanu.com

    Here's a note on the future of software defined radio

    Several relevant pointers available here

  36. Slashdot commentary-Paranoids on parade. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

    "It wouldn't be the least bit surprising to see a Federal ban on private ownership of high-speed analog-to-digital converters at the IC level."

    Look up dual-use technology and try again. Don't you guys get tired of being paranoid every second of every day, about everything? It's draining just reading your post.

    1. Re:Slashdot commentary-Paranoids on parade. by John+Miles · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Look up dual-use technology and try again.

      Care to tell me what in the world that has to do with anything? A Google search on "dual-use technology" returns nothing particularly enlightening. The term usually comes up in connection with technology exports.

      A receiver that covers 870-890 MHz has legitimate uses beyond monitoring AMPS cell-phone conversations, but that didn't stop the cellular lobby from buying the ECPA. What, in your obviously-informed opinion, is going to stop a similar consortium of HDTV broadcasters from buying legislation to outlaw unprotected high-bandwidth conversion hardware?

      Don't you guys get tired of being paranoid every second of every day, about everything?

      So sayeth the Anonymous Coward....

      --
      Dahlmann tightly grips the knife, which he may have no idea how to use, and steps out into the plain.
    2. Re:Slashdot commentary-Paranoids on parade. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Apperantly you don't get tired of reading it, or for that matter even commenting on it. Life must be pretty fucking draining for you.

    3. Re:Slashdot commentary-Paranoids on parade. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Care to tell me what in the world that has to do with anything? A Google search on "dual-use technology" returns nothing particularly enlightening. The term usually comes up in connection with technology exports."

      The idea that high-speed conversion technology is for more than just illicit use.

      "A receiver that covers 870-890 MHz has legitimate uses beyond monitoring AMPS cell-phone conversations, but that didn't stop the cellular lobby from buying the ECPA."

      Those with legitimate needs can secure needed equipment.

      "What, in your obviously-informed opinion, is going to stop a similar consortium of HDTV broadcasters from buying legislation to outlaw unprotected high-bandwidth conversion hardware?"

      Encryption technology, and dual use of high-speed conversion technology.

      "So sayeth the Anonymous Coward.... "

      I haven't said anything "paranoid", and a "name" wouldn't change your behavior any.

    4. Re:Slashdot commentary-Paranoids on parade. by John+Miles · · Score: 1

      Those with legitimate needs

      Legitimate in whose opinion? Yours? My "need" for a general-coverage receiver was "legitimate" enough before 1987, but evidently not after that.

      "What, in your obviously-informed opinion, is going to stop a similar consortium of HDTV broadcasters from buying legislation to outlaw unprotected high-bandwidth conversion hardware?"

      Encryption technology, and dual use of high-speed conversion technology.

      Yeah, because licensed commercial encryption keys never leak to the public, resulting in all kinds of crazy court rulings that prevent me from even being able to link to an example without legal consequences.

      Yeah, I guess I'm just paranoid. You're right. Carry on! </adjust_tinfoil>

      --
      Dahlmann tightly grips the knife, which he may have no idea how to use, and steps out into the plain.
    5. Re:Slashdot commentary-Paranoids on parade. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Those with legitimate needs can secure needed equipment. In teory; yes. In the real world; not everyone.

      Just look at any field with restricted information flow like chemistry, biology or crypto. Sure "those that need it for legitimate needs" can get it. They will just need to go through never ending loops of paperwork, permissions and security systems. To get access to some things they willl need to "just" pay some insane tutition to the irght university or get a job in the "right" company (mil-industrial).

      A friend of a friend of mine tried to get access to some crypto stuff for his company. After wasting several months on paperwork and thousands of dollars he realized that the chance of getting all the clarance and bureaucratic stuff done would take at least two years, by that time some bigger company would have got access too and made a better product anyway...

    6. Re:Slashdot commentary-Paranoids on parade. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Legitimate in whose opinion? Yours? My "need" for a general-coverage receiver was "legitimate" enough before 1987, but evidently not after that."

      Technology comes into existance. You can get a good coverage reciever. It just has holes poked were cellular goes. Now what legitimate reason do you have for listening to cell phone converstaions (ignoring the encryption and the "right to privacy" issue for a moment).

      "Yeah, because licensed commercial encryption keys never leak to the public, resulting in all kinds of crazy court rulings that prevent me from even being able to link to an example without legal consequences."

      We're discussing dual-usage hardware technology. DeCSS has only one purpose. Also the author did win the DeCSS case.

    7. Re:Slashdot commentary-Paranoids on parade. by John+Miles · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Now what legitimate reason do you have for listening to cell phone converstaions (ignoring the encryption and the "right to privacy" issue for a moment).

      Let's see. As a licensed Amateur Radio operator, I'm not only permitted but required to ensure that my transmitted RF emissions are below certain thresholds outside the band I'm operating on. Now, I have no way to check my 902 MHz rig for spurious emissions in the adjacent AMPS band.

      I can't even buy a used pre-ECPA receiver on eBay at this point. I guess if I ever accidentally interfere with the cellular folks, they can buy me a new HP 8565EC spectrum analyzer, and I'll track down the problem for them. That'll work.

      Oh, and since I'm, like, this uber-paranoid guy, I'm constantly worried about bugs. I have a legitimate need to check for hidden transmitters in that portion of the spectrum, but now I can't, and they're HIDDEN UNDER THE FLOORBOARDS AND IRRADIATING ME FROM THE WALLS... (Sorry about that, ahem.)

      Seriously, the ECPA's only exemption is for government agencies and (presumably) licensed government contractors. De jur, no other private citizen or company has a legitimate "need" for this technology. It was passed so the cellular companies could reassure their customers that nobody (who didn't own a TV set capable of tuning all the way up to UHF channel 83) could listen to them. Now that PCS, GSM, and other encrypted wireless technology has obviated the need for the ECPA, why hasn't it been repealed?

      DeCSS has only one purpose.

      Yep, you're right. To violate a law that did not exist before it was written and paid for by the same people I'm talking about here. "Legitimate uses" such as allowing people with Linux PCs to watch DVDs they legitimately purchased didn't enter into the equation, did they?

      Your faith in the legislative and judicial branches is inspirational, I'll give you that much.

      Also the author did win the DeCSS case.

      Only because he didn't live in the "land of the free" (sic). The person who posted a simple href link to the code wasn't so lucky. See the link I provided.

      --
      Dahlmann tightly grips the knife, which he may have no idea how to use, and steps out into the plain.
    8. Re:Slashdot commentary-Paranoids on parade. by tepples · · Score: 1

      "Legitimate uses" [of DeCSS] such as allowing people with Linux PCs to watch DVDs they legitimately purchased didn't enter into the equation, did they?

      Jon Johansen should have waited to first publish DeCSS until Linux had support for the UDF file system used on DVD Video discs. The defense could have made a more substantial legitimate use argument that way.

    9. Re:Slashdot commentary-Paranoids on parade. by Alsee · · Score: 1

      Why? Is there any less legitimacy to using DeCSS on my Windows machine to watch a DVD I legitimately purchased*?

      * Hypothetical, because thus far I have refused to pay a single bloody cent for DMCA-encryption crippled products.

      -

      --
      - - You can't take something off the Internet! That's like trying to take pee out of a swimming pool.
    10. Re:Slashdot commentary-Paranoids on parade. by anthony_dipierro · · Score: 1

      What, in your obviously-informed opinion, is going to stop a similar consortium of HDTV broadcasters from buying legislation to outlaw unprotected high-bandwidth conversion hardware?

      Why in the world would they do that? HDTV broadcasters want you to watch their television stations, that's how they make money (by showing you ads).

    11. Re:Slashdot commentary-Paranoids on parade. by WNight · · Score: 1

      Examine it again. DeCSS is almost exactly like a receiver. It lets you receive with a homemade device a signal/data that a big company or the government wants you to receive in their way only. ("Licensed" viewing, holes poked into coverage range, remote disabling of certain device features...)

      DeCSS is only different because is "breaks" what was assumed to be strong protection whereas radio receivers are being selectively disabled in order to provide what many mistakenly assume to be strong protection against evesdropping.

      The argument of "but it's still available to those who can demonstrate a valid need" is just a rewording of "only those with something to hide want privacy." Neither are valid - they both place the burden on the individual to enforce his own rights. They make goverment crackdowns on users of these technologies easy by providing a handy list of registrants to start enforcing the rules on.

    12. Re:Slashdot commentary-Paranoids on parade. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes. They're so unconcerned about you watching their TV for free that they got the FCC to mandate a copy bit for HD broadcasts, implemented in all hardware decoders sold from July 2005 onwards.

      They'll also be similarly unconcerned enough to try and ban this technology, as they tried to do with PVRs (this was just a few years ago when they tried to outlaw Tivo and ReplayTV, remember?)

    13. Re:Slashdot commentary-Paranoids on parade. by Anonymous+Writer · · Score: 1

      Why in the world would they do that? HDTV broadcasters want you to watch their television stations

      I think they're referring to satellite pay-TV broadcast, like the ones you have to subscribe to on cable.

    14. Re:Slashdot commentary-Paranoids on parade. by John+Miles · · Score: 1

      Their worst nightmare is Tivo: they don't want you to be able to skip commercials. Hence the "broadcast flag" bit that's intended to cripple devices capable of making time-shiftable copies of the stream.

      Devices which can circumvent the broadcast flag will be highly sought-after in the coming years.... and vigorously suppressed. This is one of those devices.

      --
      Dahlmann tightly grips the knife, which he may have no idea how to use, and steps out into the plain.
    15. Re:Slashdot commentary-Paranoids on parade. by anthony_dipierro · · Score: 1

      Very interesting. I feel like my fundamental rights have been violated, yet I can't point to anything specific. Maybe the good old "right to privacy", that the government shouldn't get involved in what commercials I skip in the privacy of my own home.

  37. MOD PARENT UP! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Isn't it interesting how the FCC is fucking the little guy?

  38. Whoooeeeeeee by Buelldozer · · Score: 2, Funny

    I hope the equipment they sell holds up better than their server! ;-)

  39. What does this do?-Chicken Little. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "And why would it be classified as a terror instrument?"

    Because some are paranoid fools that couldn't tell the difference between a legitimate threat, and just hot air. That's why they're called "chicken little's". That's also why they're usually ingnored. Just like the boy who cried wolf one too many times.

  40. What else has been banned? by east+coast · · Score: 2, Interesting

    How long will it be till it's labeled a terrorist tool and banned?

    I'm seriously asking what else has been banned under the concerns of terrorism?

    --
    Dedicated Cthulhu Cultist since 4523 BC.
    1. Re:What else has been banned? by TheGratefulNet · · Score: 1

      in fact, if you ASK about some laws, they refuse and cite 'security issues'.

      so the very fact of disclosing what you've done will be (is) outlawed in many situations.

      thanks. nice world we have here. well, it USED to be a real nice place.

      --

      --
      "It is now safe to switch off your computer."
    2. Re:What else has been banned? by HeghmoH · · Score: 2, Informative

      All manner of harmless items have been banned on airliners, such as nail clippers and children's scissors.

      The current administration is already seriously discussing jamming cell phones and GPS in the event of a terrorist attack. While it's not a ban, it's in the same ball park as far as the kind of thinking goes.

      --
      Mod down posts with a "Free Mac Mini/iPod" sig, they're spam!
    3. Re:What else has been banned? by east+coast · · Score: 1

      The current administration is already seriously discussing jamming cell phones and GPS in the event of a terrorist attack.

      Please, not what may happen but what has happened... Clinton had plans to nuke North Korea but that's far from saying he killed X million Koreans.

      All manner of harmless items have been banned on airliners, such as nail clippers and children's scissors.

      Box cutters too maybe? In any case this isn't an outright ban. This really is no different than not allowing trucks with explosives in public roadway tunnels. If you don't think you can't harm/kill someone with saftey scissors you're dead wrong.

      --
      Dedicated Cthulhu Cultist since 4523 BC.
    4. Re:What else has been banned? by HeghmoH · · Score: 1
      All manner of harmless items have been banned on airliners, such as nail clippers and children's scissors.
      Box cutters too maybe? In any case this isn't an outright ban. This really is no different than not allowing trucks with explosives in public roadway tunnels. If you don't think you can't harm/kill someone with saftey scissors you're dead wrong.

      I don't care if you can hurt or kill people with it. The question is whether you can successfully destroy or hijack an airliner with a given item. The answer is "yes" for bombs and guns, and "no" for box cutters and scissors. It worked once with box cutters, and it will never work again with anything short of a firearm. Even the gun will probably need to be semiautomatic to succeed against a bunch of angry passengers with nothing to lose. Confiscating scissors and nail clippers is not doing anything to enhance my safety.
      --
      Mod down posts with a "Free Mac Mini/iPod" sig, they're spam!
    5. Re:What else has been banned? by east+coast · · Score: 1

      It worked once with box cutters, and it will never work again with anything short of a firearm.

      Ha! That's a hoot. Even when the people rose against the hijackers it didn't really stop them. Don't get me wrong, they did something amazing but once in the cockpit do you really think the same thing would happen? Or are you naive enough to think that only the passengers can change their tactics and not the hijackers? Either way it's still not a ban.

      --
      Dedicated Cthulhu Cultist since 4523 BC.
    6. Re:What else has been banned? by HeghmoH · · Score: 1

      The hijackers won't make it as far as the cockpit next time. The door will be locked, and then they will all be tackled by their fellow passengers.

      The only reason the 9/11 hijackers were as successful as they were was because all of the passengers "knew" that if they kept their heads down and waited, they would survive the day. As soon as people knew that this was no longer true, the hijackers lost. The only reason the plane crashed is because the hijackers had a long time to do what they wanted before the passengers got wise to what was going on.

      If the hijackers are going to change their tactics, then why are we expending so much effort towards banning the things that they used the last time? This is particularly bizarre considering that these things are now useless.

      --
      Mod down posts with a "Free Mac Mini/iPod" sig, they're spam!
  41. Re:Knee-jerk? by kd5ujz · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Did you look at the website in the article? this thing will accept up to 4 transmitter and 4 reciever daughter boards. The boards avaliable are not that harmfull, but anyone with basic electronic and programming knowledge could "re-wire" the thing. ITs a nice radio, but it will transmit and receive, and easily do it in the 88-108MHZ WFM radio band.

    --
    -William
    God is everything science has yet to explain.
  42. If Copyright Infringment == Terrorism, yes by YetAnotherName · · Score: 4, Insightful

    The nice thing about GnuRadio is that you can build things like an ATSC digital television receiver, all in software. The problem is that, thanks to the heavy weight of the MPAA and other media lobbies, the FCC gave us the broadcast flag, meaning that a programmer can set a bit that says "do not record" such-and-such.

    But to make the broadcast flag effective, you also have to mandate that equipment pay attention to it, and be robust against user modification. You've got to make it otherwise illegal to make an ATSC receiver that doesn't obey it. And sure enough, that's what the FCC has done; July 2005, any equipment that doesn't obey the flag is illegal to sell, trade, create, etc.

    And with GnuRadio, you write an ATSC receiver that does or doesn't pay attention to it ... at your own peril. It makes specific uses of GnuRadio illegal, and even if you wrote your GnuRadio software to pay attention to the flag, a simple programming error would make your product illegal.

    Heck, it might even be said that GnuRadio itself will be illegal this year, since it fails the robustness rules.

    Now, is this copyright infringement? Refusing to record a pristine ATSC transport stream or recording it for personal use isn't necessarily a distinction the MPAA et al. are likely to make. But it does facilitate the distribution of perfect copies of Desperate Housewives and other quality programming (ahem), and the MPAA have used the copyright infringement/terrorism analogy before.

    1. Re:If Copyright Infringment == Terrorism, yes by duffbeer703 · · Score: 1

      The funny thing is that the broadcasters could have avoided all of this crap by simply sticking to analog technology...

      --
      Conformity is the jailer of freedom and enemy of growth. -JFK
    2. Re:If Copyright Infringment == Terrorism, yes by TheGratefulNet · · Score: 1

      didn't the ITU pass a world wide law some 70+ yrs
      ago, saying that you can receive ANY transmission that is wireless as long as you don't 'act' on it (use the info in a 'bad' way).

      this was the law that tried to fight radar detectors.

      is there ANY hope of using this international regulation in supporting our right to receive any airware signal that is sent out/broadcast?

      or, will the fear mongers also try to revoke THAT right, also?

      (its par for the course. I expect our civil liberties to look nothing like what we once had, given a few more republican years in office..)

      --

      --
      "It is now safe to switch off your computer."
    3. Re:If Copyright Infringment == Terrorism, yes by swillden · · Score: 1

      I expect our civil liberties to look nothing like what we once had, given a few more republican years in office..

      It's not a Republican/Democrat issue. Don't forget that the DMCA signed into law by Bill Clinton and the CBDTPA bill was proposed by a Democrat.

      Arguably, the media industry has bee more successful at buying Democrats than Republicans. But they've bought enough of both to make the question academic.

      --
      Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
    4. Re:If Copyright Infringment == Terrorism, yes by tepples · · Score: 1

      the broadcasters could have avoided all of this crap by simply sticking to analog technology

      No. The FCC is forcing ATSC on all U.S. television broadcasters by the end of 2006.

    5. Re:If Copyright Infringment == Terrorism, yes by TheGratefulNet · · Score: 1

      it surely is a republican agenda. I've never before seen such an assault on our CL's.

      lately, repubs seem to be for bigger aggression and world conquest. those agendas will always lower the CL's of the people who finance the war (ie, us little guys, via our taxes). happens in every war.

      demos and repubs are bought. no question. thing to ask is - what happens when a repub is bought vs when a demo is bought. in the clinton years, the 'worst' we had to deal with was an errant blowjob [grin]. today, we have 10's of thousands of people dying, the world angry at us, and an economy that is just barely above recession.

      I know this is offtopic - but I couldn't let you lump the demos and repubs together in the same bucket. they are each owned, to be sure; but their owners ARE different people, and, well, it DOES matter.

      lessor of two evils is the best game you can get, sometimes.

      --

      --
      "It is now safe to switch off your computer."
    6. Re:If Copyright Infringment == Terrorism, yes by swillden · · Score: 1

      I know this is offtopic - but I couldn't let you lump the demos and repubs together in the same bucket. they are each owned, to be sure; but their owners ARE different people, and, well, it DOES matter.

      Not when you're talking about IP issues. Same owners. Same results.

      --
      Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
    7. Re:If Copyright Infringment == Terrorism, yes by Alsee · · Score: 1

      I certainly have my gripes about various republican attacks on rights, and I am certainly no fan of our cough cough brilliant and beloved president, but as far as I can tell dems are generally about as bad as repubs when it comes to copyright issues.

      -

      --
      - - You can't take something off the Internet! That's like trying to take pee out of a swimming pool.
    8. Re:If Copyright Infringment == Terrorism, yes by iminplaya · · Score: 1

      It looks like the developers will have to work anonymously. If software is to become so heavily regulated, it will become time to quit looking for attribution and just throw everything into the public domain where nobody can do anything about it. It stuff gets used in closed source or proprietary software, it won't matter. They can't prevent us from using or selling it also. So the argument about GPL of other open source software being "stolen" amounts to nothing. Let 'em have their money. We still have our software.

      --
      What?
  43. Interesting Link by VE3ECM · · Score: 1
    BPL is seriously degraded by nearby radio transmitters

    From the page:

    "...amateurs have done experimentation that shows that as little as 5 watts of power from a nearby radio transmitter can seriously degrade the performance of BPL. In some cases, the interference logged off a BPL user, requiring a reconnection to the network."

    So you can see, it would take very little effort for hams to pretty much kill BPL by driving up to some power lines, broadcasting crap on that frequency at 5W (most handheld tranceivers can hit 5W no problem) for a couple of hours (how's prime time sound (when most users are online)?) and then driving away, long before anyone can figure out where he is?

    I tell you, I don't even use the portion of the spectrum that BPL causes interference on, but the total disregard by the FCC of their own rules makes me want to turn vigilante myself.

  44. s/VME/USB/ by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

    The VME board was linked as a reference. The real news is the USB interfaced card.

    Besides, I have 3 or 4 VME cards sitting around here, including one 9U monster. They're all "trophy" boards from back when I used to design hardware.

  45. So how many fingers do you have? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    PS - you left the base off of the numeric values in your post, too. If you want to be pedantic to an asinine degree - much less an incorrect asinine degree - you'd best do it right.

    1. Re:So how many fingers do you have? by Karma+Farmer · · Score: 2

      The base for your number doesn't have to be the same as the base for your order of magnitude.

      For example, since minutes and seconds are measured in base 60, would you say that the amount of time one order of magnitude greater than one second is one minute, and two orders of magnitude is one hour? What happens as you go beyond that? Do you change base? Is the amount of time three orders of magnitude greater than a second equal to one day? Is four orders equal to a week, a month, or a year? A fortnight, perhaps?

      Anyhow, it's fun to be an ass on slashdot. It's not like you were going to find useful comments in a thread predicated on "gnu radio is for teh terrorists! lol!"

    2. Re:So how many fingers do you have? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The base for your number doesn't have to be the same as the base for your order of magnitude.


      Yes it does. Your example of time is a bad example, because even though the underlying system is base-60, we are still using base-10 to express the quantities. That is why "60 minutes" is often used. It is still decimal, and the order of magnitude is therefore a power of 10.

    3. Re:So how many fingers do you have? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm currently reading the book Prime Obsession and assuming that logarithms and "orders of magnitude" are related, it seems they are, then the book would seem to support e as the natural base for an order of magnitude as in natural logarithm. That is from the mathematicians perspective. I'm not a mathematician and I have always assumed OOM to be 10 based but after reading a little I am starting to understand why mathematicians use e as the default base for logs, if you want to used base 10 you have to be explicit, and in that case using e for OOM does not seem to far fetched in that context. Like I said, I am not by any stretch a mathematician but there seem to be many reasons and much history for using e. Of course I have not finished the book yet. Any pure mathematicians listening?

  46. Impressive by FrostedWheat · · Score: 1

    It can also create signals! This is a really nifty device! Except for one thing, it's only avaliable as a USB device! I'd have thought that PCI would be a bit more sensible for something this data hungry?

    1. Re:Impressive by FrostedWheat · · Score: 2, Informative

      Wait, nevermind. Just re-read the text. Possible PCI or PCI-X version later (for higher bus bandwidth)

    2. Re:Impressive by pe1chl · · Score: 1

      Consider that putting such things on a PCI board also has some disadvantages.
      - the board will be inside the noisy environment of a PC. not really what you want for a receiver.
      - PC buses tend to be short-lived. PCI is on its way out, so in 5 years everyone will be asking how you could design a card for which no motherboards are available (it happened to ISA, MCA and EISA before!)

    3. Re:Impressive by lachlan76 · · Score: 1

      If you put the circuitry inside an earthed metal enclosure, that would protect it from RF inside a PC.

    4. Re:Impressive by pe1chl · · Score: 1

      But not from noise on the supply, and the highspeed databus.

    5. Re:Impressive by lachlan76 · · Score: 1

      You can have a regulator the inside of the earthed metal box, and extend the box all the way to the backplate.

  47. Re:Knee-jerk? by plcurechax · · Score: 2, Informative

    easily do it in the 88-108MHZ WFM radio band.

    Ah, no. The USRP and basicRX / basicTX only operate themselves up to 30 or 50 MHz I believe. You would need an additional RF front-end (aka transverter) for VHF frequences like broadcast WFM.

  48. cellular by SuperBanana · · Score: 1
    Seriously, what kind of commentary is this, especially with the FCC giving unprecedented amounts of frequency bandwidth back to the public?

    If it can tune in cellular frequencies, sorry, it's already illegal in the US and pretty much any other developed nation. Various dictatorship-countries would probably instantly declare anyone they found owning this kind of thing to be a 'spy'.

    I imagine this scares the crap out of the FCC. , because prior to this the only thing that stood between your phone call and...well..anyone...was that they had a leash on all the companies that could make such devices.

    PS: Coral links, people? Universal Software Radio Peripheral

    1. Re:cellular by exhilaration · · Score: 1

      Umm... don't all digital cell phones (which almost everyone uses in the United States) use some kind of basic encryption? GSM phones do though it might not be perfect, I don't know about the other standards.

    2. Re:cellular by bill_mcgonigle · · Score: 1

      The law was written at the time of analog cell phones.

      And my provider (US Cellular) won't always honor a request for encryption, though that's no excuse for dashing the FCC act.

      --
      My God, it's Full of Source!
      OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
  49. Isn't this already banned? by Concern · · Score: 2, Interesting

    If you examine the madwifi driver FAQ it makes reference to regulations explicitly permitting "open" code controlling hardware that can receive/transmit many frequencies.

    5.3. Why is the HAL closed source?

    The Atheros chipset can tune to frequencies that are out of the ISM band(s). These frequencies are licensed by various regulatory agencies, and radar systems thus an open HAL is disallowed by just about every regulatory institution in existence (i.e. FCC etc). On a practical/usability note: Were it not for the binary nature of the HAL, then the same nerds who deploy the "power hack" for the WET11 could be generating emissions all over the restricted bands using madwifi hardware. Ask yourself, which would you rather have, more power, or less interference?


    I expect just receivers will bear less of a burden, but I would not be surprised if Gnu Radio was already illegal with massive criminal penalties associated.

    Which is an atrocity, frankly. Please correct me. Please.

    --
    Tired of Political Trolls? Opt Out!
    1. Re:Isn't this already banned? by plcurechax · · Score: 1


      I expect just receivers will bear less of a burden, but I would not be surprised if Gnu Radio was already illegal with massive criminal penalties associated.

      Which is an atrocity, frankly. Please correct me. Please.


      The FCC, et all (IC, RA, PTO, ...) have regulated RF transmissions for nearly 100 years now. They goal is so that the spectrum can be peacefully shared amongst users nationally, and internationally with as little interference as possible. Spark-gap transmitters are also illegal to use.

      I'll ignore the half-baked idea from "futurists" that all radio devices in the world should be replaced by expensive smart radio technologies such as spread-spectrum, SDR, because it is far too costly to actually do.

      The basicTX module for the USRP outputs 1/100th the typically power output of a WiFi PC card (i.e. basicTX outputs 1mW AFAIK), which I believe is low enough not to be regulated unless the use of a particular device causes interference, then under the Radio Act, the FCC can order the shut off that particular device.

      Of course someone could combine it with additional RF power amplifer, but that has been a reality for nearly 100 years now, well before SDR (software defined radio) was a possibility.

  50. What does this do?-No Limit Life. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "With the right software, it takes control away from the FCC and Congress."

    It also takes away FCC "limits of interferance" as well. Are you willing to die, so some hobbyiest can get his jollies "taking control" of the emergency frequencies?

    "The SDR doesn't care if the software that you download isn't type accepted by the FCC or does things that Congress doesn't like, like listening to their cell phone calls."

    People have been able to do this without SDR for years. Also that's what encryption is for. Something SDR doesn't help with.

    1. Re:What does this do?-No Limit Life. by Detritus · · Score: 1
      It also takes away FCC "limits of interferance" as well. Are you willing to die, so some hobbyiest can get his jollies "taking control" of the emergency frequencies?

      It happens already, with conventional radio equipment. There are plenty of loons in places like Los Angeles who get their jollies by interfering with other radio users, including the police. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to re-channel a surplus radio.

      --
      Mea navis aericumbens anguillis abundat
    2. Re:What does this do?-No Limit Life. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "It happens already, with conventional radio equipment. There are plenty of loons in places like Los Angeles who get their jollies by interfering with other radio users, including the police."

      True. Just as before digital, people could make copies of music, movies, and books.

      However no one would argue that with the advent of digital the potential for mischief is increased by several orders of magnitude.

      "It doesn't take a rocket scientist to re-channel a surplus radio.""

      Even less to reprogram a SDR, or burn a CD.

  51. Universal? by Quixote · · Score: 1
    If it is truly universal, why do they have various packs for different frequency ranges? I would have assumed that it would let you tune into any frequency (upto a certain maximum, of course); that is the premise of a software radio, isn't it?

    Prolly I'm a bit confused here.

    1. Re:Universal? by dr_nik · · Score: 1

      Well, you really can't have a front end with infinite bandwidth or even covering all the frequency ranges they specify. There are practical limitations on the front-end amplifier. This board is intended for baseband processing about 6 MHz of BW.

    2. Re:Universal? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Someone asked why different packs are needed for different frequency ranges.

      It has to do with tunability of the analog parts of the radio. Control of the transceiver, and modulation and demodulation, can be digital. But at the RF level, radio is, and will remain, eternally analog. It would be very difficult to design a receiver or transmitter that could be tuned from (as hams say) DC to daylight.

      I sometimes get the impression from those who grew up in the digital age that analog phenomena are somehow made obsolete by digital technology. Nothing could be further from the truth. We live in an analog universe. Anything that is described using equations rather than code is obviously analog.

      There is nothing obsolete or old-fashioned about analog technology. It will always be with us, just because of the way the universe works.

    3. Re:Universal? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      An analogy occurred to me...

      Expecting a transmitter to function over an extremely broad frequency range would be like expecting a speaker to respond over an extremely broad frequency range. There are reasons why high frequency speakers can be small and why lower frequencies are better handled by bigger speakers.

      A speaker is an analog transducer for audio frequency waves.

      A transmitter and antenna is an analog transducer for radio frequency waves.

    4. Re:Universal? by Mister+Transistor · · Score: 1

      That's an excellent analogy!

      One other way to look at it is gain.

      You want to capture signal, not noise. In order to do that, you need to tune the circuit. A wire will pick up all signals, but also all noise. There's no gain. In order to capture a part of the spectrum you're interested in you have to give up the rest in order to make the part you're interested in discernable. You trade off bandwith for gain.

      You see this in antennas, too, with the physical aspect of directionality. You can trade off a circular omni signal on a vertical antenna for a directional beam, and thus concetrate all your energy in a single direction instead of everywhere. This is also called gain!

      --
      -- You are in a maze of little, twisty passages, all different... --
    5. Re:Universal? by dbacher · · Score: 1

      Code is just another form of equation, with a different way of recording numbers.

      --
      If your code is acting bloated, and is running rather slow, it's likely and predicted that some loops you will unroll.
  52. I know a terrorist by A+nonymous+Coward · · Score: 3, Interesting

    He was told by a store to come in and pick up a refund check. WHen he got there, they told him it wouldn't be ready til the next day. He got pissed, ranted and raved, cops showed up, and told him it was a terrorist threat to challenge the manager to meet him outside.

    Anything the Powers That Be want to label as terrorist; that's what is terroristic these days. When Disney sees SDR as a threat to Mickey Mouse, it will be labeled a terrorist tool.

    1. Re:I know a terrorist by east+coast · · Score: 1

      He got pissed, ranted and raved, cops showed up, and told him it was a terrorist threat to challenge the manager to meet him outside.

      This has been on the books for a much longer time than terrorism (on the levels we know of it now) has been a threat. The fact is that you can not threaten someone with bodily harm. Perhaps there is a level of provocation that makes it legal but I doubt it.

      Anything the Powers That Be want to label as terrorist; that's what is terroristic these days.

      As I said, this threat being termed as "terroristic" is nothing new. It's not a recent issue at all.

      When Disney sees SDR as a threat to Mickey Mouse, it will be labeled a terrorist tool.

      Until a court ruling comes out in black and white stating such I take this as little more than a knee-jerk reaction.

      Slashdotters, as well as a large segment of the general public, like to kick the term "terrorism" around a lot. That's fine as long as they realize that it's almost satirical how it's done. I still have yet to see a single instance of anything that has been banned under the flag of terrorism.

      --
      Dedicated Cthulhu Cultist since 4523 BC.
    2. Re:I know a terrorist by dbIII · · Score: 1
      I still have yet to see a single instance of anything that has been banned under the flag of terrorism
      Due process for one. The USA can hold people without charge for years and has cobbled together some special court system so they don't have to try the Cuba inmates under US civil or military law. I can only speculate that it is either to produce the desired convictions or perhaps even to listen to evidence which would be inadmissable elsewhere (ie. admitted under torture).

      Terrorism is the universal excuse - but think closely, people that are using it as the excuse are just using all of those deaths in New York for their own trivial and grubby little ends. Those people did not die for Mickey Mouse.

    3. Re:I know a terrorist by sokoban · · Score: 1

      That is "terroristic threatening". This label is not new in any way, shape, or form. The police weren't calling him a terrorist, they were just saying what he would be charged with terroristic threatening if the manager wished to press charges against him. Here is a link describing Terroristic threatening: http://www.state.de.us/attgen/main_page/teachers/l aws/11delc621.htm

      --
      09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0 is the magic number.
  53. What else has been banned?-Obvious. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "I'm seriously asking what else has been banned under the concerns of terrorism?"

    Your post.

  54. Umm ... excuse me ... but ... by daviddennis · · Score: 2, Insightful

    could someone tell me what this device is, what it does, and why it should be interesting to us?

    The web site certainly wasn't much help, and the jargon-laden responses I've seen so far aren't much help either.

    Many thanks.

    D

    1. Re:Umm ... excuse me ... but ... by pe1chl · · Score: 2, Informative

      The device is mainly a fast analog-to-digtal and digital-to-analog converter, with USB interface.
      It allows you to quickly readout a couple of analog signals using a PC, and to generate some analog signals under program control.

      With some additional radio hardware (supplied on daughterboards) you can convert a certain frequency band into analog signals that are then fed to the converters. With proper software you can use this as a radio that does not have a tuning knob but can be tuned in software and/or to receive an entire radio frequency band and process all the signals in parallel.

      For example, you can draw a picture of the signal strength for each frequency, plot this versus time. Or you could write software that receives all FM stations in your area simultaneously and converts their broadcasts to streaming audio channels.

    2. Re:Umm ... excuse me ... but ... by stienman · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Of the set of problems in the world that can be solved using software only, hardware only, or a mix of the two, problems are generally moving toward the software solving side.

      In other words, radio can be completely received, down converted, and demodulated in hardware and by and large this is how it is done.

      However, if you instead receive and downconvert the radio signal, then you can let software take over for the demodulation, and in the case of HDTV further digital decoding.

      Further, this device can work on about 32MHz of the signal spectrum at a time. This doesn't mean much until you realize that the entire FM radio band (88.1MHz - 107.9MHz) fits within that slice of bandwidth. You can use this radio to decode the entire audio of all the radio statiosn in the area simultaneously. Live in detroit? Listen to and record every single radio station with one device. Not so terribly useful for the consumer, but nice for the re-streamer, radio fanatic, FCC, NSA, etc.

      Bandwidth of an NTSC TV signal is about 6MHz. Watch/record 4-5 consecutive channels simultaneously.

      HDTV is about 8MHz. Watch and record 3-4 consecutive channels simultaneously.

      In short, it's a move from less hardware to more softare. The biggest advantage is not less hardware, but more flexibility. This one tuner can be used to tune your HDTV, TV, radio, 802.11, bluetooth, etc.

      -Adam

    3. Re:Umm ... excuse me ... but ... by anaradad · · Score: 1

      OK, let's try that again in language most people can understand.

      If they were selling this at Best Buy, what would they call it? What would the happy smiling people in the commercials be doing with it?

    4. Re:Umm ... excuse me ... but ... by pe1chl · · Score: 1

      It is not intended for that kind of customer.

  55. Moderators?! WHERE ARE YOU?! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Christ?! Moderators seem to be on the ball today. Realllll funny. Totally.

    My skull sometimes bleeds when I read slashdot. It was a part of the disclaimer when I started, I know. It's like a terrible crack addiction.

  56. How Is This Different From Other Radios? by reallocate · · Score: 0

    >> How long will it be till it's labeled a terrorist tool and banned?

    Just more evidence of the kneejerk juvenile pandering we've come to expect from SLashdot.

    How and why is this thing any more of a terrorist boon that other radios, the web, or cell phones?

    --
    -- Slashdot: When Public Access TV Says "No"
    1. Re:How Is This Different From Other Radios? by revscat · · Score: 1

      How and why is this thing any more of a terrorist boon that other radios, the web, or cell phones?

      Because it is a shot across the bow of the broadcast powers-that-be and their Republican cronies in congress. This device has the potential, however remote, to remake the broadcast landscape, and there are many powerful people who quite like the status quo. To restrict such devices they would need to show or invent a criminal use for it. "Terrorism" is the current scare word. Go back 80 years and replace it with "Jew" or, if you're in Texas, "gay" and you can rest assured that the population will quietly acquiesce to such a ban.

    2. Re:How Is This Different From Other Radios? by gerardrj · · Score: 1

      Because ulike a frequency/modulation locked radio you can use a device like this to tune to restricted frequencies/channels/communications. Ex: you can't purchase a scanner that will tune to cell phone frequencies, but a software radio would have no such limitations.

      As for the "knee jerk" comment, this is the same government that now coniders model rocket engines to be a terrorist tool and have been highly restricted. If you know anything about these engines you'd know that they are almost entirely useless to terrorists. there's probably more propulsive power in a can of hairspray than in these engines. Yet I now need to submit to a background check and fingerprinting to purchase engines, but I can purchase all the hairspray I want.

      --
      Article X: The powers not delegated... by the Constitution...are reserved...to the people
    3. Re:How Is This Different From Other Radios? by reallocate · · Score: 1

      I'm with you on the dangers inherent in scare-tactic politics, not with you on the equation of the senseless fear of gays and Jews with the rather sensible fear of terrorists, but rather lost aout how this thing is going to generate content and spawn broadcast stations.

      Not that the GNU folks are bothering to explain anything (why break old habits?) but this appears to be little more than a $450 piece of digital hardware intended to substitute for much cheaper existing technology. And, a receiver, to boot. I don't see that reshaping the broadcast landscape.

      No technology will reshape that landscape. The thing that counts is not the tool that broadcasts content, it's the content itself.

      --
      -- Slashdot: When Public Access TV Says "No"
    4. Re:How Is This Different From Other Radios? by reallocate · · Score: 1

      Well, I actually spent part of my wasted youth playing with model rockets, and I know that it doesn't take many shotgun-shell sized model rocket engines to power something lethal, or that the paperbacks I bought that explained how to make 6-foot tall rockets didn't explain how they couldn't carry an explosive payload.

      Since I think people ought to go through hell to legally carry a gun, I'm not upset that someone fingerprinted you and ran a background check.

      --
      -- Slashdot: When Public Access TV Says "No"
    5. Re:How Is This Different From Other Radios? by revscat · · Score: 1

      No technology will reshape that landscape. The thing that counts is not the tool that broadcasts content, it's the content itself.

      Well, as I see it it has the potential (again, remote) of affecting things by finally putting to bed the lie about "interference" that the big media companies and (surprisingly) NPR claim will affect their signal. That could open the door for the microbroadcasting issue being revisited.

      Content is important, but technology and regulations can be and is used to affect how that content is shaped.

    6. Re:How Is This Different From Other Radios? by Obfuscant · · Score: 1
      Ex: you can't purchase a scanner that will tune to cell phone frequencies, but a software radio would have no such limitations.

      Writing the software to decode/encode signals is not a trivial task for those who do not understand such things. For example, most of the population.

      Just as computing divides the planet into three classes (knows how to do it on their own, knows where the power switch is, and doesn't give a shit), SDR will create the same three classes. The technically capable will be able to write or modify the available software so it does what they want, the ones who know where the power switch is will use what they were sold, and the rest of the planet will go "so what?".

      This is not a new situation. Whilst you may not legally purchase a scanner capable of receiving AMPS cellular calls, the circuitry you need to add to one to receive them is pretty trivial -- well within the abilitites of the "technically capable". The rest of the planet either receives what they are allowed to or doesn't care.

      The MAIN difference is that now you are talking software instead of hardware. Software may be easier to distribute, but it would still fall under the ECPA limits when combined with the hardware.

      And yes, I did say "sold". The new buzzword for shortwave listening is DRM. As I understand it, DRM is patented technology with a watchful organization selling licenses. The only way you can legally have a DRM radio without paying the license fee is if you write the code yourself, and that's not trivial even for those who DO know how to do it. The rest of the world gets to pay for the software.

    7. Re:How Is This Different From Other Radios? by reallocate · · Score: 1

      I'd argue that content is everything re: attracting an audience. If you don't attract an audience, why broadcast?

      This GNU thing seems to be a receiver (although it could be an electric eggbeater since the GNU site pretends we don't need to know what it does). I don't see how a receiver is going to allow me and my neighbors to listen to anything that isn't already being broadcast.

      I don't see anything wrong with microbroadcasting, but I don't see anything especially interesting about it, either. If tiny bands of people with something in common want to use radio to preach to their choirs, more power to them.

      On interference: I'm sure current broadcasters are using that to ward off potential competition. However, improperly maintained eqipment can generate interference across the spectrum. Tiny shoestring operations maintained by technical neophytes are likely to have their share of maintenance problems.

      --
      -- Slashdot: When Public Access TV Says "No"
  57. "Orders of magnitude" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Unless explicitely stated otherwise, an order of magnitude is e, or about 2.71.

    Um. No. Like anything else you're going to read or talk about, it's more reasonable to assume that humans deal in base-10, especially when orders of magnitude are concerend.

    The expression "orders of magnitude" is really only useful if your audience agrees on its definition, and the overwhelming majority of definitions I can find point to exponents of 10, not of e.

    Can you show us otherwise, to any overwhelming degree?

  58. Digital Oscilloscope by willy_me · · Score: 2, Insightful

    With 4 x 64MHz AtoD converters, this board could be easily turned into a descent digital oscilloscope. Right now such equipment is so very costly, but the right IO module might just make this a possibility for low frequency work.

    1. Re:Digital Oscilloscope by pe1chl · · Score: 1

      To make a digital oscilloscope, you need more than A/D converters. Input amplifiers/attenuators, some trigger/sync logic, and a lot of software seems to be the minimum.
      So while this is possible, it is similar to saying that a continuous-coverage (cable) tv tuner can easily be turned into a spectrum analyser. People have done that.

    2. Re:Digital Oscilloscope by Garak · · Score: 1

      You wouldn't really need any trigger/sync logic, that can be easily done in software. The input amplifiers and attenuators wouldn't take much. The tricky part is creating reference signals for calibration.

      --
      God, root, what is the difference?
    3. Re:Digital Oscilloscope by pe1chl · · Score: 1

      A real digital scope has logic to display periodic signals that are above the sampling rate, by sampling the signal at different points over time.
      That would require hardware trigger and sync.

  59. Isn't this already banned?-Anarchy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "Which is an atrocity, frankly. Please correct me. Please."

    Why is it an atrocity being unable to interfere with regulated bands? Are nerds really that gung ho about anarchy?

  60. Not only Yes but HECK Yes! by ChiefPilot · · Score: 1

    Parent is absolutely correct - please mod parent up!

  61. Cable Pirates Cheer by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    How soon would someone come up with software necessary to decode digital cable signals? I'd
    imagine people would buy this card, plug into their
    PCs, hook in the cable feed from the coax from the
    wall and watch all the shows for free!

  62. Definition of an order of magnitude by YU+Nicks+NE+Way · · Score: 1

    An order of magnitude is an astronometric term referring to the brightness of stars. A single "order of magnitude" (from A to O, for instance) correstponds to a factor of ten in luminance.

    Of course, that doesn't explain Slashdot's interesting use to day.

  63. make a software cable modem with it. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    No need for hacking cable modems anymore: http://it.slashdot.org/it/04/12/27/1310230.shtml?t id=222&tid=218

  64. No, bullshit by A+nonymous+Coward · · Score: 1

    This kind of threat was never known as terrorism untl the Patriot act gave the police new powers.

    As far as things banned under the flag of terrorism, or not knowing about the nonsense legislation Disney has bought, you must have been hiding under a rock these last several years.

    Why don't you go crawl back under it? You're not contributing anything worthwhile.

    1. Re:No, bullshit by east+coast · · Score: 1

      This kind of threat was never known as terrorism untl the Patriot act gave the police new powers.

      Heh. Sorry. This has been known as a terroristic threat for a long long time.

      As far as things banned under the flag of terrorism, or not knowing about the nonsense legislation Disney has bought, you must have been hiding under a rock these last several years.

      Ah yes, because Disney is combating terrorism now... OK... Quote me something about it.

      You're not contributing anything worthwhile.

      Whatever troll.

      --
      Dedicated Cthulhu Cultist since 4523 BC.
  65. Avast! We be havin' poor fiscal judgment! by adb · · Score: 1

    $450 plus custom software plus the effort of the hookup plus the risk of jail, all to save forty pieces of eight per month? Arrr, that do sound like a bum deal, matey. I'd rather be robbin' cruise ships off the Phillipines.

  66. Since when is it just the Republicans? by adb · · Score: 1

    Hollings and Berman are both Democrats, frex.

    1. Re:Since when is it just the Republicans? by revscat · · Score: 1

      Just? Not. Predominantly? Yes, absolutely. Money follows power.

  67. Google literacy by learn+fast · · Score: 1

    I propose we come up a term for people's competency in using Google akin to reading literacy. So, if you know how to use Google you are "Google literate", if you don't know you're "Google illiterate" and if you know how but simply choose not to you are "Google aliterate", etc.

    So, we could cosponsor Google literacy drives to combat Google illiteracy in the population, and so forth.

    1. Re:Google literacy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Shouldn't it be Google Galiterate?

  68. Banning equipment rather than acts is dubious. by adb · · Score: 1

    Many general-purpose tools can be misused to commit crimes. Banning them can make it difficult or impossible to do the legitimate things they're intended for.

    1. Re:Banning equipment rather than acts is dubious. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Many general-purpose tools can be misused to commit crimes. Banning them can make it difficult or impossible to do the legitimate things they're intended for."

      Most laws however don't "ban" the equipment outright, but simply say you can't use it for a particular purpose (banning the act).

  69. You can ignore the Broadcast Flag anyway by daveschroeder · · Score: 1

    It is legal to purchase equipment that ignores the Broadcast Flag until 1 July 2005, after which point ALL such equipment may still be used and even resold. Now, yes, NEW equipment sold after that date to consumers must respect the Broadcast Flag...but what constitutes "consumer" equipment? Price? Usability? Purpose? Function? That is another question...but the point is, Broadcast Flag-free equipment can be purchased now, legally, and will remain legal indefinitely.

    http://www.eff.org/broadcastflag/

    We have until July 1, 2005, to buy, build, and sell fully-capable, non-flag-compliant HDTV receivers. Any receivers built now will "remain functional under a flag regime, allowing consumers to continue their use without the need for new or additional equipment." Any devices made this year can be re-sold in the future.

  70. Becoming common != already common by tepples · · Score: 1

    Gigabit ethernet ports are becoming common on PC and laptop systems.

    Accent on the becoming. Right now, there are a lot of laptops with High Speed USB and 100BASE-TX Ethernet. High Speed USB, at 480 Mbps half-duplex, is faster than 100BASE-TX Ethernet, at 100 Mbps full-duplex. Besides, which connection has a simpler interface chip?

    1. Re:Becoming common != already common by plcurechax · · Score: 1

      Well based on prototype USRP reports, most USB chipsets seem to max out around 30-33 MBps (240-264Mbps).

      Of course, USB 2.0 interface chips are simpler than Ethernet too.

      You are correct about gigabit becoming popular, and not yet common for laptops.

  71. Riiiight by A+nonymous+Coward · · Score: 1

    OK... Quote me something about it.

    Show me your quotes on mere threats being considered terrorism.

    Otherwise you're still buried under a rock in a deep dark hole and still not contributing anything.

    1. Re:Riiiight by east+coast · · Score: 1

      Show me your quotes on mere threats being considered terrorism.

      Sure thing... State of Pennsylvania law

      It took me about 5 seconds to google this up... There's TONS of examples of legislation such as this on the books in nearly all, if not all states. Please note that the update to this law happened before Bush & Co took office and I know that this term was used well before than too.

      --
      Dedicated Cthulhu Cultist since 4523 BC.
    2. Re:Riiiight by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Umh, dummass, that law clearly refers to threats such as "if you don't give me ONE BILLION DOLLARS I'll send sharks with frikkin' lasers". "Let's go outside" is another kind of threat (if you ask me, it's a childish threat), the intent is not to terrorize, but to 'release tension', heh.

    3. Re:Riiiight by east+coast · · Score: 1

      "Let's go outside" is another kind of threat (if you ask me, it's a childish threat), the intent is not to terrorize, but to 'release tension', heh.

      From the law:

      A person commits the crime of terroristic threats if the person communicates, either directly or indirectly, a threat to:
      commit any crime of violence with intent to terrorize another;


      You MUST be stupid if you don't understand the letter of this law. So go on, be a troll. No wonder you posted AC... you know you're just a fucking retard. Either way; I'm right and you and the "other poster" are wrong. Black and fucking white.

      --
      Dedicated Cthulhu Cultist since 4523 BC.
  72. Actually that would probably be illegal by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    While Part 15 specifies that equipment must accept inbound interference, it does not give free reign to interfere. It's still illegal to knowingly broadcast a radio signal for the purpose of jamming another signal, or causing equipment to malfunction. Packing up a powerful mobile HAM set and driving it around just to kill BPL signals seems like it might qualify.

    1. Re:Actually that would probably be illegal by kd5ujz · · Score: 1
      .......and that interference must be accepted that may be caused by the operation of an authorized [licensed] radio station......

      It specifically states that an unlicensed (BPL) must accept interferance from a licensed (amatuer operator).
      Read it again. Amature radio operators can broadcast over the top of the signal, just as long as they are using it ligitamatly ( not screaming, makinig beep noises)

      --
      -William
      God is everything science has yet to explain.
  73. Russian radio on guitar pedal by jago25_98 · · Score: 1

    oh, my guitar tuner did that.

    I used to have a Korg Pandora guitar effects pedal (revision1). When left amplified to my 200watt Marshall amp and then TURNED TOTALLY OFF it would pick up a mix of

    Russian and German radio!

    Fantastic easter egg!

  74. DVD Video even without CSS is still patented by tepples · · Score: 1

    Is there any less legitimacy to using DeCSS on my Windows machine to watch a DVD I legitimately purchased*?

    Yes, but for an unrelated reason. Every DVD Video player app licensed under the MPEG-2 and Dolby Digital patents also happens to include a licensed CSS decoder. CSS isn't patented, as the inventors unwisely chose trade secret protection instead, but if you're decoding video with DeCSS, you're probably also decoding MPEG-2 video in violation of patents and decoding AC3 audio in violation of patents. So in addition to being unlawful under the DMCA, there's an argument that DeCSS was also a contributory infringement of the patents on DVD Video.

    1. Re:DVD Video even without CSS is still patented by Alsee · · Score: 1

      LOL, interesting approach.

      Actually by that logic the reverse is more likely true. If I'm viewing it on a Windows machine I'm more likely to be running the result through Microsoft or other commercially supplied (and presumably decoder-licenced) software.

      -

      --
      - - You can't take something off the Internet! That's like trying to take pee out of a swimming pool.
  75. Which is fine, but... by adb · · Score: 1

    ...isn't the phenomenon the original comment was talking about.

  76. RTFPITM by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Read the fine print in the manual

    You are allowed to transmit without a license during states of emergencies. Still there on the books. The US government is currently operating under a variety of states of emergencies.

    The HAMS don't like that little bit of data brought up, as it would require them to acknowledge their entire subservience and groveling to government thing, the first amendment and what it really means, and the barely constrained "leetness" factor.

    I like radios, and I like most HAMS I know, but this is true facts, too. FWIW. IMO, there is no "pirate" radio, but there is "pirate" government.

  77. Re:Knee-jerk? by kd5ujz · · Score: 1
    From the Site.
    Everything (FPGA circuitry and USB Microcontroller) is programmable over the USB2 bus. The FPGA contains digital up and down converters, decimators, interpolators, and glue logic. Highly competent users will be able to reprogram the FPGA to implement other functions too.


    --
    -William
    God is everything science has yet to explain.
  78. Flex Radio by leighklotz · · Score: 1

    See also Flex-Radio which can transmit (if you have a license), has a similar price point (within 3dB ;-), works with GnuRadio software, and comes with its own Visual Basic software (source).

  79. Dvorak on SDRs by cojsl · · Score: 1

    John Dvorak coincidentally has an article about SDRs over at www.pcmag.com: http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,1759,1745361,00.as p

  80. Re:Knee-jerk? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    also transmit and receive in the 800 Mhz cell phone band.

    or your local fire/police department.

    or your local airport.

    or...

    Obviously there are many "bad" things it could be used for. Just like the kitchen knife in your drawer.

  81. violates motorola's 'Symphonic' DSP fm patents!!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    violates motorola's 'Symphonic' DSP fm chipset patents!!!

    (24-bit Onyx DSP and special parallel code)

    therefore this will never go fully commercial with fm radio working as a preset for many many years!!!

    you read it here first on slashdot Dec 2004.

    too bac AC posts sre not archived.

    but 'i told you so' once again

    http://mrtmag.com/dealers/automotive/radio_motor ol as_symphony_digital/

  82. I understand. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    My God--do you know what could be done with one of these devices? If it were programmed to learn? It's better than having your own standing army. It would be like having a key to the entire world.

  83. I know a terrorist-Supreme Court by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "Due process for one. The USA can hold people without charge for years and has cobbled together some special court system so they don't have to try the Cuba inmates under US civil or military law. "

    Which the US supreme Court overruled

    1. Re:I know a terrorist-Supreme Court by dbIII · · Score: 1
      Which the US supreme Court overruled
      That was a long time ago, but nothing has changed. So when do the suspects get to go through a real legal system or get released? Will it happen at all after the next few appeals to delay the release? Two and a half years is a very long time to detain citizens of your allies without charge.
  84. Gov Bastards. by ShagratTheTitleless · · Score: 1

    And who knows how long before those jack-booted government thugs start banning firearms. Oh wait, that happened before the terrorists. Our rights have been eroding since long before the public knew about those wahabi goatfuckers. And that will continue as long as people are grandstanding about such things as illegal foreign combatants not getting the protection of the geneva convention (which they are NOT entitled to) and the US constitution (Does not apply outside the US ; mind that imperialist attitude!) instead of noticing the politicians they vote for slowly removing rights that apply to them.

    --
    Sometimes at night I imagine the darkness is filled with horrible things with too many teeth, like Julia Roberts.
  85. Re:SDR on wikipedia by 183771 · · Score: 1

    See Software Defined Radio on wikipedia

  86. Re:Moderators?! WHERE ARE YOU?! by Abcd1234 · · Score: 1

    My skull sometimes bleeds when I read slashdot.

    Just stop banging your head against the desk, dude. I know, it's hard to stop, but, as much as you want it to, it won't change the contents of the article summary.

  87. terrorist tool by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Software controlled radio signal receive/transmit is no more or less a terrorist threat than fertilizer and truck fuel, or DNA sequence machines and a smallpox database, or a fueled in flight 747.

    Every day that passes, technology puts more power in the hands of individuals. Dangerous times are a-comin'. The Uni-bomber warned us we are on a path leading to a cliff. But he was as crazy as John Brown in 1856.

    No sane informed person thinks the answers to tehnologies conundrums will be simple.

  88. Look it up! by evilviper · · Score: 1

    For all the people saying they don't know what it does, you know it has something to do with GNURadio, is it so hard to look that up yourselves?

    Next time there's a story about an XBox video game or peripheral, I should reply to every post, asking what an XBox is...

    --
    Slashdot gets worse every day... Pipedot: News for nerds, without the corporate slant
  89. Re:Knee-jerk? by plcurechax · · Score: 1

    The FPGA contains digital up and down converters

    The FPGA is not an analog RF front-end, but is for programmable digital logic (gate arrays).

    The FPGA can only modify digital signals that have been through the ADC (or before they go through the DAC).

    The USRP cannot transmit a RF signal greater than the ADC and basicTX module can handle. "... the BasicTX will put out about 1mW up to about 50 MHz ..." (Source: USRP FAQ).

  90. Revolution Blues by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    i am really starting to think that the reason why the man doesn't want us building our own communications and transport devices is because he wants to keep holding us by the balls by therefore keeping us all on the same planet until he feels that we've been pumped enough to go work for him on another planet filled with valuable resources...

  91. Re:But does it ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "Stallman, you are a moron... You dumbass acid-dropping hippie!" Really fixed.

  92. are you a troll, a tard, or by alizard · · Score: 1

    Yet Another Slashdot Astroturfer?

    1. Re:are you a troll, a tard, or by reallocate · · Score: 1

      Typical Slashdot behavior: Ridicule of anyone who deviates from the cult's accepted behavior.

      Try thinking next time.

      --
      -- Slashdot: When Public Access TV Says "No"
  93. for discussion of banning private ADC possession by alizard · · Score: 1
    for low-speed ADCs, google on "Plugging the Analog Hole".

    America is in the process of becoming a "no go" zone for non-commercially sponsored electronics R&D. Anyone familiar with electronics should be able to come up with any number of devices used on an everyday basis that was invented in a homebrew workshop, not a corporate R&D shop.

  94. Wow! software by FM ...again! by nazsco · · Score: 1

    Remember the TRS80 or TK-something era?

    My trs80 had a tape drive. I recorded software transmited live by the local college FM radio station. then i had a maze game or flight sim to play with.

  95. This could be used to JAM or SPOOF ATC systems by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Current ATC systems are too weak, this kind of device could be easy modified, to enable it to send false signals to aircrafts, guiding it to collisions, this is to hijack a plane w/o hijackers inside.