Driving in the Left lane constantly tends to make people mad. They want to pass you. They will try to pass you on the right, the left, the shoulder... they will cut people off to pass you.
Therefore if you drove in the right (i.e. correct and/or rightmost) lane you wouldn't have all of these "Opportunities" to avoid accidents, because you wouldn't be bombarded by infuriated idiots trying to get around you.
I can see his logic. The more of these "opportunities" you live through the better driver you will become... and if you don't live through them, hopefully you take one (or more) of those infuriated idiots off the road with you. I don't agree with the notion, but after 50 years of teaching brats to drive you would probably develop devious and senile ways of using your driving students as vehicles (pun unintended) for your revenge on society.
Drive in the correct lane... it's safer, even if you don't get the experience of avoiding accidents all the time.
There is another point to be made here. Let's say the cost of this "mat" is $2000 USD and it produces 1mw per footstep (purely examples to illustrate a point, I don't know the cost or the energy-generating potential per impact).
If I were to install this in my entryway and I estimate about 50 footsteps on this mat on average (probably high but makes the math easy), at $0.032 USD per KWh it would take 197,129 years to pay for that $2000 mat.
However, if you consider a subway station would have millions of foot impacts per day that number comes down quickly. For example 1 million footsteps per day makes it under 10 years for ROI on the theoretical system.
The efficiency of this system, and therefore the ROI on the system is directly proportional to the scale of the installation and the amount of usage.
(I know my calculations are not rigorous, but then again I'm pulling all of the numbers out of.. uh.. let's say thin air. I'd like to see the "real" numbers on this, as it would be interesting to see what the actual usage requirements would be to make it profitable. I'm guessing the main terminal would have enough foot traffic to warrant such a system while some of the smaller ones may not have the traffic to support the initial cost.}
The point is that a major update should not be made suddenly and without the user's consent to something as critical to the user's experience as their browser (for some it is their computer's sole raison d'être).
IE 6 should remain a viable option for a resonable period of time after the release of IE 7, replete with security patches and all. The users should be able to choose when and how they update to the new version and be fully aware of the transition to the new software.
The scerario I described in my post above was mostly a description of the conversations that commenced for the first few days after the forced update, wherein we were unable to properly assist our customers. IE 7 had not been around long enough for our technicians to know the little tricks and nuances assoiated with the fully redesigned user interface. Our customers were upset at the unexpected changes and this caused them to be impatient with us in our efforts to help them.
In short, the rollout for IE 7 by Microsoft was poorly implemented and hasty. The users and those of us in the computer support industry were not given proper notice to prepare for the transition.
-- The terms "should" and "should not" are used in this post as described in RFC2119
I can't tell you how annoying it was to have IE7 forced through the automatic updates system. I would normally say it is a good thing to update the browser... as it is the single most common entry point for spyware, adware, etc (with the email client being the single most common entry point for viruses).
HOWEVER:
a) The "Menu" bar is missing by default (yea the File, Edit, View, Etc... toolbar).
Try explaining to a client over the phone how to "Right-click in an area toward the top of the browser below the title bar, but above the content window, and not in the address bar, oh and not on another toolbar, somewhere kinda blank, maybe to the right of the green arrow, oh that area isn't blank on your screen, oh yea I don't mean blank, just without buttons, did you get the menu, well it should have check marks next to toolbar names, uh something like Standard / Address Bar / Links, yea you got it, wait no, I didn't say click on address bar, ok do it again and turn address bar back on, oh it wasn't on... yea turn it on and then turn on, yes I mean make a check mark by it, yes, ok try it again and turn on the one called, uh something like, just read me what your menu says, yes, that one, ok now do you have File / Edit / View at the top of the window, oh no it's below the address bar and buttons, yea, ok bring up the menu again and uncheck "lock toolbars", then click on the edge, it has little bumps, well more like lines, yea you can grab it there and move it, then you didn't click on the right area, yea try again, ok move it up, well then you have to move the address bar back down, try wiggling it at the top, move it around until the address bar goes onto its own line, yea keep trying, you aren't wiggling it properly, then just drop it there and move the address bar, no it can't go all the way at the top, I don't know why, ask Microsoft why, yea, ok well was there anything else..." and so on.
b) The "Address" bar is hidden by default
See "a"
c) FTP is broken (yep, just fails with "cannot be displayed" when you click an ftp:// link... you have to go into "File > Open With Windows Explorer" to get it to open properly)
Here is a big problem, most software download sites have mirrors at ftp:// links, which fail without any reason. IE 6 and previous would re-task the current IE window to a Windows Explorer window and process the FTP request... no so with IE 7(they may have fixed this since). The net result is that users who may try to update their software, or download new software, are unable to. Sites that worked last night suddenly don't. (I first ran into this when a customer called me saying they couldn't download the new version of their anti-virus software, talk about security updates).
d) Common buttons are missing or drastically re-skinned to the extent that users are lost
e) Tabs confuse IE Users (yes I know they are off by default, but users click on things and enable things accidently, and then call me asking why it is broken).
. . .
Shortly after IE 7's relese we implemented a remote desktop application for all phone support requests.
If you want to use two DSL modems, the best option for this is to use actual PCI ADSL modems, such as the Sangoma S518. If you are using a stand-alone DSL modem/router you will be limited greatly by the hardware whithin it. Using an internal DSL card you will be able to directly connect to the ATM network without using multiple bridges between multiple technologies. This allows layer 2 bonding (if your ISP supports MLPPP) instead of just layer 3 bonding. This means you can load balance each alternating bit (much like RAID striping), instead of just by connection (as in the case of server load balancing).
In the US you can find a CLEC (Competetive Local Exchange Carier) in your area. The Public Utilities Commision in your state should provide a list of registered CLECs. Call them all and ask if they provide Bonded ADSL links, and how much they charge. Ask them if they are just a Reseller CLEC or if they are actually a Facilities-Based Colocation CLEC.
CLECs are smaller phone companies. In almost all cases they are much more flexible and customer-oriented. Their support staff are usually the same guys that actually go out in the field and hook people up, not just some outsourced company in India or Pakistan.
CLECs come in two flavors, Reseller and Facilities-Based. Reseller CLECS are just marketing companies, they don't provide any services and will not be able to provide anything beyond that which your ILEC provides. Facilities-Based CLECs actually have facilities and rely on the ILEC as little as possible for providing services. In many cases the copper lines going to your house are all owned by the ILEC so they will need to lease the last leg of the circuit from the ILEC, or your location may be outside of the area they provide service so they will lease a digital circuit to your location and provide the ISP portion of the Internet connection.
If you are using Cable Internet and ADSL to provide even greater redundancy (I would strongly suggest this if reliability is more important that speed) the cable modems out there usually are just a bridge device and therefore you can use one ethernet port for the Cable modem and one ADSL card (or use an ethernet port for the dsl modem, but make sure to turn off NAT on the DSL modem/router and _route_ [not DMZ] all trafic to the real gateway/router/firewall box... don't ever double-NAT as it is hard to troubleshoot and causes all sorts of problems). When using two different providers you will only be able to do Layer 3 connection-based bonding.
Another method is to use a consumer router designed to provide layer 3 bonding and failover. The Linksys RV042 router supports these features, as well as QoS, VPN, etc.
You sound like my H.A.M operator friend I got talking about this with after writing that last post. Unfortunatly after much deliberation, I agree with you both.
That doesn't stop the marketing machines from selling it as a security feature, and exploiting this unintentional "SIDE-EFFECT" as you put it.
I still stand by my original statement that was merely a CLAIRIFICATION of the point made by the GP of my post. While arguing the minute details of an issue is fun, it was also a SIDE-EFFECT and was not the intent of the post.
Solar flares charge the ionosphere effecting lower frequency signals. These are signals in the 30 MHz and below range that are intended to bounce off the ionosphere and return to the earth. The frequencies that will be utilized in this type of radio network will be what are commonly referred to as "line-of-sight" because they are unaffected by the ionosphere.
If the solar flares become so strong that they are ionizing the entire atmosphere to the point where it is effecting all radio transmissions we will have much worse problems than our cell phones and military ad-hoc radio networks failing (for example our bodies being cooked by radiation).
If I detected a WEP encoded transmission I would just log weak packets and then use a program to find patterns in the packets to be able to see the original information.
Just because it is easy to determine the pattern by which the data is encrypted/encoded does not mean that it is not encryption. That just means it is weak. In and of itself I would not use FHSS as encryption on a military spec radio network.
Now tell me how you would detect the conversation using FHSS? You are telling me that you have equipment that can detect a modulated signal from a minuscule snippet of the conversation? Maybe so, I haven't played with a wide-band receiver and a FHSS device. If I had access to a wide-band 900MHz receiver I would put it to test on my FHSS cordless phone and see what I could pick up (albeit far from military spec, it would prove or disprove your concept). My guess is that it would become exponentially more difficult to detect the farther you are away from the source (i.e. the receiver 6" away from the transmitting antenna would show spikes but 6' away would be unable to show any significant variation from the noise).
All of this is secondary to the fact that FHSS was and still is sold as a method of securing radio transissions on consumer electronic devices. In fact it was once touted as a method of securing military radio transmissions. I will have to look up the reference although I clearly remember reading a Popular Science article 10 or 12 years ago where FHSS was described in reference to military radio transmissions as a method of transimtting from within enemy teritory without giving up your location or even being detected as a radio transmission (this was shortly after I got my H.A.M radio license so the information was particularly of interest to me, which is why I remember it so clearly).
See my previous comment regarding FHSS. By using both a long, complex frequency list and an algorythm that decreases transmission power to just above the point where data begins to be lost (think auto-focusing a camera lens) it would be conceivable that they could evade detection very easily.
I am a H.A.M radio operator and know how "foxhunts" go. Imagine you have this "foxhunting" gear and are trying to locate enemy soldiers/vehicles using this technology. How would you determine what frequency to tune your directional reciever to? You would scan for strong signals that present a clear modulated signal that the equipment you are using can "tune-in" to. This will not work with FHSS. As your receiver scans through it will get pops and clicks that is is DESIGNED to ignore. It sees no modulated signals so it moves on. Even if you connect the receiver to an osilliscope and snoop around the radio waves for anomolous waveforms you won't be able to see them with your superior pattern recognition abilities of your human brain (the human brain is amazing at pattern recognition) because it will look like pops and clicks in the noise that are normal in background noise.
The only way to get a lock on the signal is to know the frequency list, and calibrate a FHSS receiver to the list and lock onto the scattered modulated signal. Then using a phase shift, yagi, parabolic reflector or other directional antenna you can trace the signal to its source (providing the signal is not too chaotic to interfere with the method of direction finding you are using, traditional signal strength based triangulation is probably your best bet).
Frequency Hopping Spread Spectrum is the technology the GP was referring to rather than the broader term "encryption". While FHSS can and usually is considered a form of encription not all flowers are roses.
The benifit to FHSS is that both endpoints know the frequency list so they know which frequencies and what order they should be hopping through therefore it is seamless as long as both endpoints remain in synch.
There are two ways that devices synch up their frequency list. One is physical connection (e.g. a 900MHz FHSS cordless phone placed in the cradle will re-synchronise the "channel" list and, if additional encription is implemented, their encryption key). The second method is during the handshake, or initial connection period of the radio link, on a pre-defined static frequency the frequency list is transmitted, then subsequent transmissions are carried out on the specified frequencies. In this case an encryption key is usually used to prevent eavesdroppers from being able to collect and use this frequency list. A new frequency list can be transmitted after the initial connection is made and perodically updated to increase the security or reliability of the link if needed.
Now this appears to be background noise as only very small snippets of the conversation, often times digital and/or encrypted to futher obfuscate the transmission, will be transmitted on any given frequency. This means that the pieces that can be received on any given frequency are tiny spikes in the transmission which are clicks or pops and would not be discernable from the "noise".
FHSS has been in use for many, many years by everyone from civilians to ultra top secret government orginizations to both hide or "encrypt" the communications and to reduce the interferance of similar devices operating on the same frequency bands.
The problem isn't that the format is lossy. Nor is it that your ears are even more lossy... The problem is that transcoding causes artifacts and distortion.
A lossless recording format will capture MUCH more information than your ears will ever hear, but it will also reproduce much more information than your ears will pick up... therefore you will not get muddled effects caused by transcoding or compressing that ARE ascertainable by the human ear.
For example, let's say that you record something at 1440Kbps with a sample rate of 320KHz, and then compressed it to 1439Kbps with a sample rate of 319KHz. If this process caused distortion of the sound waves in such a way that the voice at one point was inaudible over the bass drum, which was not present in the original recording the fact that BOTH digital files are far beyond your ability to hear the loss between them does not matter in the least. The second file would be discernable from the first.
Therefore a 128Kbps FBR file could sound better than a 320Kbps VBR depending on the nuances and specifics of the codec or transcoding process used to compress (or recompress) the file.
The real question here is what settings and what specific codec are they using to compress the files. If they are using a slow and very detailed process it will have very good results even at lower bitrates... on the other hand, if they use a fast and generic process it doesn't matter much that they are using 256Kbps AAC, it will still have artifacts and distortion.
I think what is meant is that at 192Kbps the lessening of the annoyance ceases to exist, therefore "start not to be less annoyed" makes perfect sense.
Just because it is a double negative does not make it a positive. The lessening of the annoyance starts to not exist. By default that does not mean that the annoyance begins to exist again.
If you take the phenomenon of annoyance lessening as a concept... then when the concept of your annoyance subsiding has ceased to be present in your conciousness it could be said that "be[ing] less annoyed" has been negated (not).
Anyone who could not, or refuses to understand what was meant by that obviously is one of those people who are so uncreative that they can only spel things one way, always put a comma before their buts and uses two spaces after every sentence.
This statement is accurate. I recently looked for datacenter hosting and one company quoted their bandwidth in the form of 256kpbs 95th percentile average usage. What this means is if you take the top 5% of the bandwidth usage off and discard it, then average the remaining 95% out you can use on average 256 kbits per second without buying additional bandwidth. This IS a hard limit of total transfer.
On their basic plan they are offering about 3.5GB of total transfer, I can see why they list it out in such a bizzare and confusing way, who wants to pay $100/mo plus $25 per "U" for just 3.5GB of transfer?
Now how this relates to the current topic... It doesn't matter if you use Seconds or Months to describe the transfer limit of your line, it is all equivalent because 1 month = 2,629,743.83 seconds therefore you can convert one to the other.
So if your ISP is only giving you 60GBytes of download in a month, you are limited to an average of 0.186907939 Mbps for that month regardless of whether you can spike up to 6Mbit/s for almost a full day and then nothing for the rest of the month.
The "Unlimited" is referring to dialup ISPs restricting you to "hours per month" of time connected to their service. When Dialup ISPs offered unlimited plans they meant that you could dial up as often and for as long as you wanted. When ISDN, DSL and Cable Internet came along, they advertised it again as "Unlimited" because there was no limit to your connection time. People used it when they were at their computers and it sat idle (hopefully) when they were not using it. Now, the real killer is not even video sites but more than that Bittorrent and other Peer-to-peer file sharing applications that can litterally use every bit of bandwidth available for an entire month.
Now consider that many smaller ISPs have a single 100Mbit fiber connection for the entire town (sometimes even less), and are offering 1.5, 3 and even 6MBit connections to their hundreds of customers. In one instance I heard of a company that had (past tense, this was a few years ago) 2 T1s (total bandwith 3Mbit) offering 10MBit (5Mbit upstream) connections to their (hundreds or thousands of) customers. This is often combined with huge caching proxy-servers that appear to speed up the connection, but for true streaming connections like video and P2P this will not do.
The best point brought up so far is the fact that the Telcos have been given BILLIONS of dollars to roll out upgraded services such as Fiber Optic networks, VDSL (Very high speed DSL) and other upgraded services, and they have done NOTHING with the money for the customers and tax payers. We have already paid for the upgraded networks and they sit on the dark fiber and piles of money claiming that they need to raise prices and limit usage... this will not do.
First, let me just start by saying "CLI>reload" will reload the configuration files WITHOUT DROPPING ANY CALLS! Let's see, so I can reconfigure EVERY config file on my PBX including what did you say "switch type, signaling, NFAS - FAS" and reload asterisk, without dropping ANY calls? Yes that's right! The next call placed will use the new settings.
However WHY would anyone change the Signalling on a line on a live system? Groundstart and Loopstart are not compatible. That really needs to be planned before the system goes live. But, let's say you could instantly know when your Telco changes the signaling protocol for the lines, and change your configs in Asterisk at the same instant, it would work fine. Just type Reload at the Asterisk CLI and the next call inbound or outbound on that line would use the new signaling.
Furthermore switching from FAS to NFAS (Facility Associated Signalling / Non-FAS) would likewise be a major modification in your trunking and would be unwise to do on a live system. If needed, you could, theoretically, change that configuration and reload the configs without dropping any calls.
If for any reason you DO need to Restart (instead of reload) you can use the 'restart when convenient' command which will wait until there are no active calls and restart Asterisk. By default it will not restart if there are active calls, you have to type 'restart now' to override this behavior.
If you need to reboot the computer you have either made a significant change to the operating system (i.e. kernel upgrade) or you have a serious configuration error with the PBX, and I doubt that Nortel would be any different in this respect.
To further demonstrate my point, on one occasion during the TESTING of an Asterisk-based PBX setup I have intentionally ground the PBX to a halt (SSH/Web-GUI not responding) and maintained a conference call on that server for over one hour without dropping audio. Can a Nortel system keep a single call (let alone a conference call) active dispite the fact that every other process on the PBX was locked up.
Now your car analogy was lacking. Let's say instead: would you want to drive a BMW / Benz / Rolls Royce / Bugatti / Ferarri or would you rather drive a Toyota / Nissan / Honda that costs a THIRD as much and performs JUST AS WELL, if not BETTER (forget the pretty grills and decals, if you like that sort of thing see the first set of options)? Obviously this is not perfect, but have you ever seen a car analogy (including yours) that was perfect?
Let's leave the conversation to those not currently on the payroll of Nortel, as you certanly have no real-world knowledge of the capabilities of Asterisk-based PBX systems or Digium Hardware, but push the Nortel hardware pretty strongly. I think you may have been referring to Microsoft Telephony Server in your post with how often you referred to restarting "servers".
PS: Saying that Nortel is a Hardware company is misleading. What you mean is that Nortel controls the manufacturing/develophen of both the Hardware and Software for their products and can lock you into their products, unlike open-source products that offer an open standard interface and allow ANYONE to write compatible software/hardware for their products. If you don't like the hardware provided by Digium use Rhino or another open-source hardware vendor. Don't like Asterisk use OpenPBX or another open-source PBX software vendor. Don't like Nortel's switch software, go with... hmm Asterisk?
Definition of words is always relative. You define one word with others which, hopefully, the reader understands and thereby understands the word being defined.
Therefore the word "liberal" according to the previously posted definition is dependant on the definition of the word "strict". So first we determine whether Darth Vadar could be considered "strict" and I would say, given my perceptions of the behaviors of the other creatures in that particular fictional universe, Darth Vadar was indeed strict. Therefore Darth Vadar was not liberal (in behavior).
In the particular comment wherein the word liberal was initially used in reference to the RIAA the poster compared two possible behaviors of the RIAA. The first being use of the entire word "music" on a web site being considered by the RIAA as copyright infringement. The second being the use of the letters "m", "u", "s", "i" and "c", inclusively and regardless of combination with other letters, on a web site as being potential copyright infrengement. Comparing the two behaviors would indicate that the first behavior is more liberal than the second.
-- Those who point out the size of other's brains are usually compensating for and/or attempting to obfuscate a defenciency, preceived or real, in their own grey matter.
Ok, so as I read through the nearly 400 posts on this (ok, maybe not read through, but skimmed)... I couldn't help thinking about how the actual "Chip" would work. I would guess, based on the description, it is using some sort of polymer that changes color, or aligns molecules or something based on the "electrical current" sent through the film (liquid crystal?). This brings up MANY questions in my mind, the most important being:
How long does this film stay transparent?
CDs and DVDs (and I'd assume the new format optical discs) have this little problem, they last indefinitely. The producers of the content are basically giving you a licence to view, listen, install and sometimes even make copies of their content virtually FOREVER. What if this "film" they apply has a wonderful side-effect of rendering the disc useless unless it is periodically "re-activated" (or re-purchased)?
Another point: BlueRay and HD-DVDs have a very THIN margin for material between the surface of the disc and the data layer. How thick does this layer need to be? Will it de-laminate over time? Will it scratch easily? and again, will it eventually grow dark spots due to UV, physical pressure, RF energy from cellphones, etc?
$400,000,000 in loss due to theft... what is the cost of this equipment for a nation-wide retail chain? Will it be Internet dependant? RFIDs can be unique much like a product activation key for software... will there be an easy "algorithm" for deactivating the chip that could be discovered... or do they validate with a central server? Can this link be exploited/rendered useless for such a period of time that the industry suffers?
Could the manufacturer of the chips hold the industry "ransom" after enough of the devices were implemented, unless they agree to pay an exorbanant amount of money for the new chips (never thought about inventory going on strike). Or even the manufacturer revoking activation keys for all the products they have shipped to a certian retail chain...
There are a lot of questions that this brings up, mostly about how this technology could be exploited.
If I were a retail chain I would be primarily concerned with REDUCING the complexity of the devices and INCREASING the chance that they will work for the customer.
--- Disclaimer: I am not a lawyer, but I heard this from someone who says they heard it from someone who [had this happen to them]/[heard it from a lawyer]
You mention a "dollar threashold"... the interesting thing about this is that many stores have that specific rule because if they detain someone and their claims turn out to be false, the detainee can then press charges against the store for false arrest. This means that if someone steals a pack of batteries worth $2, a lawsuit would cost much more than that, so they have to be damn sure.
Also, in some states the alleged theif must make an effort or actually show intention of leaving the premises. This includes the outdoor area if the store sells items outside the store (such as pallets of potting soil or lumber outside a Home Depot). This makes it difficult to chase someone down after they have left the store, and unless it is worth it, most don't.
--- end of disclaimer
The real problem is that most of these systems are ignored. Go in about 80% of the stores that have the electronic tags and watch what happens when someone accidentally trips the alarm system... most of the time, nothing. If they actually do try to do something it is usually to look at the items in the bag and check the receipt, and let the "inconvinenced" customer/theif out the door. Very few actually take the customer back to a register and re-buzz all of their items.
Other stores have implemented systems that CAUSE the alarms to go off constantly. For example, the Home Depot has added the "self checkout" lanes recently. They did not, however, add the devices to deactivate the electronic tags on their products to the self-checkout lanes. This means that anyone who buys anything with an electronic tag WILL set off the alarm as they exit. And they actually do check the contents of your cart 50% of the time. I usually expect it to go off and just walk out the door without looking back, often ignoring the persistant "Sir! SIR!" coming from behind me.
The truth is these systems are ineffective and, as Lumpy says above, all the stores EXPECT a certian percentage of loss to theft. Even online stores expect loss to theft. When Amazon.com receives an order they can only check so many details about the customer, if the card is stolen and is not reported until after the product has shipped they may be out that money when Visa charges back the purchase.
MOST loss due to theft from retail stores is theft by employees. How many "black bubbles" do you think actually have cameras in them on the sales floor in most retail stores? Very few. How many cameras are operational on the loading docks, storage rooms, hallways and other areas of the store meant for employee access only? All of them.
Theft prevention devices are not about preventing theft. They are to create the Illusion of Security, much like the rest of the Security industry (both physical and virtual). They keep those who haven't stolen from stealing, catch the "stupid" criminals, and slow down the real theives. Real security is expensive, much more expensive than accepting a small percentage of sales lost to theft.
The funny thing is... I get commercials on my broadcast channels too. It seems Fox, et. al. are just as bad over the air as they are on the coax and/or dish.
I'd like to see the frequency go to... well I guess it doesn't matter since it won't. Some big company will grab it up and use it for something stupid like out-of-band bank password verification devices until someone realizes that all you need is an old TV set and some 128 bit hex string to MITM the system and it will be up for auction again before you know it.
The Federal Communications Commission is a department of the US Government that regulates RF transmissions in the borders of the USA.
The money collected for this goes to the government and is used for administrative costs such as issuing licences, tracking down violators and other general expenses.
Over the years since we first started modulating RF energy to send encoded data and voice transmissions the FCC has grown to regulate many other aspects of broadcast media. As it relates to your question, the various frenquency bands need to be regulated because, as we all know, you can't just trust people to "do the best thing".
The FCC allocates frequencies for radio stations, commercial, H.A.M Radio, various consumer technologies such as 802.11x, CB, walkie-talkies (usually implemented on the CB bands), cell phones, and just about anything that transmits a radio signal of any kind. These frequencies can become very crowded and oftentimes overlap (for example H.A.M Radio operators are allowed to transmit on 2.4 GHz in the same band that wireless networking is allocated).
At one point the bands were allocated according to what they determined to be the "Best Public Use" (or something like that). Now they just auction it off to the highest bidder. Some qualifications and guidelines are set out for both who can bid and what the frequency can be used for, how much power they can transmit on that frequency, etc.
Slashdot Mirror
"_Opportunities_ to avoid an accident"
Driving in the Left lane constantly tends to make people mad. They want to pass you. They will try to pass you on the right, the left, the shoulder... they will cut people off to pass you.
Therefore if you drove in the right (i.e. correct and/or rightmost) lane you wouldn't have all of these "Opportunities" to avoid accidents, because you wouldn't be bombarded by infuriated idiots trying to get around you.
I can see his logic. The more of these "opportunities" you live through the better driver you will become... and if you don't live through them, hopefully you take one (or more) of those infuriated idiots off the road with you. I don't agree with the notion, but after 50 years of teaching brats to drive you would probably develop devious and senile ways of using your driving students as vehicles (pun unintended) for your revenge on society.
Drive in the correct lane... it's safer, even if you don't get the experience of avoiding accidents all the time.
--
-- This sig intentionally left blank --
There is another point to be made here. Let's say the cost of this "mat" is $2000 USD and it produces 1mw per footstep (purely examples to illustrate a point, I don't know the cost or the energy-generating potential per impact).
If I were to install this in my entryway and I estimate about 50 footsteps on this mat on average (probably high but makes the math easy), at $0.032 USD per KWh it would take 197,129 years to pay for that $2000 mat.
However, if you consider a subway station would have millions of foot impacts per day that number comes down quickly. For example 1 million footsteps per day makes it under 10 years for ROI on the theoretical system.
The efficiency of this system, and therefore the ROI on the system is directly proportional to the scale of the installation and the amount of usage.
(I know my calculations are not rigorous, but then again I'm pulling all of the numbers out of .. uh .. let's say thin air. I'd like to see the "real" numbers on this, as it would be interesting to see what the actual usage requirements would be to make it profitable. I'm guessing the main terminal would have enough foot traffic to warrant such a system while some of the smaller ones may not have the traffic to support the initial cost.}
You should read the wiki articles you link to. The serial comma would be the one AFTER the word "usage".
The point is that a major update should not be made suddenly and without the user's consent to something as critical to the user's experience as their browser (for some it is their computer's sole raison d'être).
IE 6 should remain a viable option for a resonable period of time after the release of IE 7, replete with security patches and all. The users should be able to choose when and how they update to the new version and be fully aware of the transition to the new software.
The scerario I described in my post above was mostly a description of the conversations that commenced for the first few days after the forced update, wherein we were unable to properly assist our customers. IE 7 had not been around long enough for our technicians to know the little tricks and nuances assoiated with the fully redesigned user interface. Our customers were upset at the unexpected changes and this caused them to be impatient with us in our efforts to help them.
In short, the rollout for IE 7 by Microsoft was poorly implemented and hasty. The users and those of us in the computer support industry were not given proper notice to prepare for the transition.
--
The terms "should" and "should not" are used in this post as described in RFC2119
Or can you Plug in your prius?
I can't tell you how annoying it was to have IE7 forced through the automatic updates system. I would normally say it is a good thing to update the browser... as it is the single most common entry point for spyware, adware, etc (with the email client being the single most common entry point for viruses).
HOWEVER:
a) The "Menu" bar is missing by default (yea the File, Edit, View, Etc... toolbar).
Try explaining to a client over the phone how to "Right-click in an area toward the top of the browser below the title bar, but above the content window, and not in the address bar, oh and not on another toolbar, somewhere kinda blank, maybe to the right of the green arrow, oh that area isn't blank on your screen, oh yea I don't mean blank, just without buttons, did you get the menu, well it should have check marks next to toolbar names, uh something like Standard / Address Bar / Links, yea you got it, wait no, I didn't say click on address bar, ok do it again and turn address bar back on, oh it wasn't on... yea turn it on and then turn on, yes I mean make a check mark by it, yes, ok try it again and turn on the one called, uh something like, just read me what your menu says, yes, that one, ok now do you have File / Edit / View at the top of the window, oh no it's below the address bar and buttons, yea, ok bring up the menu again and uncheck "lock toolbars", then click on the edge, it has little bumps, well more like lines, yea you can grab it there and move it, then you didn't click on the right area, yea try again, ok move it up, well then you have to move the address bar back down, try wiggling it at the top, move it around until the address bar goes onto its own line, yea keep trying, you aren't wiggling it properly, then just drop it there and move the address bar, no it can't go all the way at the top, I don't know why, ask Microsoft why, yea, ok well was there anything else..." and so on.
b) The "Address" bar is hidden by default
See "a"
c) FTP is broken (yep, just fails with "cannot be displayed" when you click an ftp:// link ... you have to go into "File > Open With Windows Explorer" to get it to open properly)
Here is a big problem, most software download sites have mirrors at ftp:// links, which fail without any reason. IE 6 and previous would re-task the current IE window to a Windows Explorer window and process the FTP request... no so with IE 7(they may have fixed this since). The net result is that users who may try to update their software, or download new software, are unable to. Sites that worked last night suddenly don't. (I first ran into this when a customer called me saying they couldn't download the new version of their anti-virus software, talk about security updates).
d) Common buttons are missing or drastically re-skinned to the extent that users are lost
e) Tabs confuse IE Users (yes I know they are off by default, but users click on things and enable things accidently, and then call me asking why it is broken).
. . .
Shortly after IE 7's relese we implemented a remote desktop application for all phone support requests.
I have recently looked into this for a project and here is some information I found.
http://www.cyberciti.biz/howto/question/static/linux-ethernet-bonding-driver-howto.php
http://linux-ip.net/html/ether-bonding.html
http://www.automatedhome.co.uk/Internet/ADSL-Bonding-How-To-and-Review.html
If you want to use two DSL modems, the best option for this is to use actual PCI ADSL modems, such as the Sangoma S518. If you are using a stand-alone DSL modem/router you will be limited greatly by the hardware whithin it. Using an internal DSL card you will be able to directly connect to the ATM network without using multiple bridges between multiple technologies. This allows layer 2 bonding (if your ISP supports MLPPP) instead of just layer 3 bonding. This means you can load balance each alternating bit (much like RAID striping), instead of just by connection (as in the case of server load balancing).
In the US you can find a CLEC (Competetive Local Exchange Carier) in your area. The Public Utilities Commision in your state should provide a list of registered CLECs. Call them all and ask if they provide Bonded ADSL links, and how much they charge. Ask them if they are just a Reseller CLEC or if they are actually a Facilities-Based Colocation CLEC.
CLECs are smaller phone companies. In almost all cases they are much more flexible and customer-oriented. Their support staff are usually the same guys that actually go out in the field and hook people up, not just some outsourced company in India or Pakistan.
CLECs come in two flavors, Reseller and Facilities-Based. Reseller CLECS are just marketing companies, they don't provide any services and will not be able to provide anything beyond that which your ILEC provides. Facilities-Based CLECs actually have facilities and rely on the ILEC as little as possible for providing services. In many cases the copper lines going to your house are all owned by the ILEC so they will need to lease the last leg of the circuit from the ILEC, or your location may be outside of the area they provide service so they will lease a digital circuit to your location and provide the ISP portion of the Internet connection.
On the Colorado Public Utilities Commision website they provide a PDF document of all CLECs in Colorado:
http://www.dora.state.co.us/PUC/telecom/TelcomProviders.htm
Your state should provide a list as well in some form.
If you are using Cable Internet and ADSL to provide even greater redundancy (I would strongly suggest this if reliability is more important that speed) the cable modems out there usually are just a bridge device and therefore you can use one ethernet port for the Cable modem and one ADSL card (or use an ethernet port for the dsl modem, but make sure to turn off NAT on the DSL modem/router and _route_ [not DMZ] all trafic to the real gateway/router/firewall box... don't ever double-NAT as it is hard to troubleshoot and causes all sorts of problems). When using two different providers you will only be able to do Layer 3 connection-based bonding.
Another method is to use a consumer router designed to provide layer 3 bonding and failover. The Linksys RV042 router supports these features, as well as QoS, VPN, etc.
You sound like my H.A.M operator friend I got talking about this with after writing that last post. Unfortunatly after much deliberation, I agree with you both.
That doesn't stop the marketing machines from selling it as a security feature, and exploiting this unintentional "SIDE-EFFECT" as you put it.
I still stand by my original statement that was merely a CLAIRIFICATION of the point made by the GP of my post. While arguing the minute details of an issue is fun, it was also a SIDE-EFFECT and was not the intent of the post.
=)
Solar flares charge the ionosphere effecting lower frequency signals. These are signals in the 30 MHz and below range that are intended to bounce off the ionosphere and return to the earth. The frequencies that will be utilized in this type of radio network will be what are commonly referred to as "line-of-sight" because they are unaffected by the ionosphere.
If the solar flares become so strong that they are ionizing the entire atmosphere to the point where it is effecting all radio transmissions we will have much worse problems than our cell phones and military ad-hoc radio networks failing (for example our bodies being cooked by radiation).
WEP is not encryption.
If I detected a WEP encoded transmission I would just log weak packets and then use a program to find patterns in the packets to be able to see the original information.
Just because it is easy to determine the pattern by which the data is encrypted/encoded does not mean that it is not encryption. That just means it is weak. In and of itself I would not use FHSS as encryption on a military spec radio network.
Now tell me how you would detect the conversation using FHSS? You are telling me that you have equipment that can detect a modulated signal from a minuscule snippet of the conversation? Maybe so, I haven't played with a wide-band receiver and a FHSS device. If I had access to a wide-band 900MHz receiver I would put it to test on my FHSS cordless phone and see what I could pick up (albeit far from military spec, it would prove or disprove your concept). My guess is that it would become exponentially more difficult to detect the farther you are away from the source (i.e. the receiver 6" away from the transmitting antenna would show spikes but 6' away would be unable to show any significant variation from the noise).
All of this is secondary to the fact that FHSS was and still is sold as a method of securing radio transissions on consumer electronic devices. In fact it was once touted as a method of securing military radio transmissions. I will have to look up the reference although I clearly remember reading a Popular Science article 10 or 12 years ago where FHSS was described in reference to military radio transmissions as a method of transimtting from within enemy teritory without giving up your location or even being detected as a radio transmission (this was shortly after I got my H.A.M radio license so the information was particularly of interest to me, which is why I remember it so clearly).
See my previous comment regarding FHSS. By using both a long, complex frequency list and an algorythm that decreases transmission power to just above the point where data begins to be lost (think auto-focusing a camera lens) it would be conceivable that they could evade detection very easily.
I am a H.A.M radio operator and know how "foxhunts" go. Imagine you have this "foxhunting" gear and are trying to locate enemy soldiers/vehicles using this technology. How would you determine what frequency to tune your directional reciever to? You would scan for strong signals that present a clear modulated signal that the equipment you are using can "tune-in" to. This will not work with FHSS. As your receiver scans through it will get pops and clicks that is is DESIGNED to ignore. It sees no modulated signals so it moves on. Even if you connect the receiver to an osilliscope and snoop around the radio waves for anomolous waveforms you won't be able to see them with your superior pattern recognition abilities of your human brain (the human brain is amazing at pattern recognition) because it will look like pops and clicks in the noise that are normal in background noise.
The only way to get a lock on the signal is to know the frequency list, and calibrate a FHSS receiver to the list and lock onto the scattered modulated signal. Then using a phase shift, yagi, parabolic reflector or other directional antenna you can trace the signal to its source (providing the signal is not too chaotic to interfere with the method of direction finding you are using, traditional signal strength based triangulation is probably your best bet).
Hope that clears a few things up.
Frequency Hopping Spread Spectrum is the technology the GP was referring to rather than the broader term "encryption". While FHSS can and usually is considered a form of encription not all flowers are roses.
The benifit to FHSS is that both endpoints know the frequency list so they know which frequencies and what order they should be hopping through therefore it is seamless as long as both endpoints remain in synch.
There are two ways that devices synch up their frequency list. One is physical connection (e.g. a 900MHz FHSS cordless phone placed in the cradle will re-synchronise the "channel" list and, if additional encription is implemented, their encryption key). The second method is during the handshake, or initial connection period of the radio link, on a pre-defined static frequency the frequency list is transmitted, then subsequent transmissions are carried out on the specified frequencies. In this case an encryption key is usually used to prevent eavesdroppers from being able to collect and use this frequency list. A new frequency list can be transmitted after the initial connection is made and perodically updated to increase the security or reliability of the link if needed.
Now this appears to be background noise as only very small snippets of the conversation, often times digital and/or encrypted to futher obfuscate the transmission, will be transmitted on any given frequency. This means that the pieces that can be received on any given frequency are tiny spikes in the transmission which are clicks or pops and would not be discernable from the "noise".
FHSS has been in use for many, many years by everyone from civilians to ultra top secret government orginizations to both hide or "encrypt" the communications and to reduce the interferance of similar devices operating on the same frequency bands.
Hope that is helpful.
The problem isn't that the format is lossy. Nor is it that your ears are even more lossy... The problem is that transcoding causes artifacts and distortion.
A lossless recording format will capture MUCH more information than your ears will ever hear, but it will also reproduce much more information than your ears will pick up... therefore you will not get muddled effects caused by transcoding or compressing that ARE ascertainable by the human ear.
For example, let's say that you record something at 1440Kbps with a sample rate of 320KHz, and then compressed it to 1439Kbps with a sample rate of 319KHz. If this process caused distortion of the sound waves in such a way that the voice at one point was inaudible over the bass drum, which was not present in the original recording the fact that BOTH digital files are far beyond your ability to hear the loss between them does not matter in the least. The second file would be discernable from the first.
Therefore a 128Kbps FBR file could sound better than a 320Kbps VBR depending on the nuances and specifics of the codec or transcoding process used to compress (or recompress) the file.
The real question here is what settings and what specific codec are they using to compress the files. If they are using a slow and very detailed process it will have very good results even at lower bitrates... on the other hand, if they use a fast and generic process it doesn't matter much that they are using 256Kbps AAC, it will still have artifacts and distortion.
Just my 10 or 15 cents.
I think what is meant is that at 192Kbps the lessening of the annoyance ceases to exist, therefore "start not to be less annoyed" makes perfect sense.
Just because it is a double negative does not make it a positive. The lessening of the annoyance starts to not exist. By default that does not mean that the annoyance begins to exist again.
If you take the phenomenon of annoyance lessening as a concept... then when the concept of your annoyance subsiding has ceased to be present in your conciousness it could be said that "be[ing] less annoyed" has been negated (not).
Anyone who could not, or refuses to understand what was meant by that obviously is one of those people who are so uncreative that they can only spel things one way, always put a comma before their buts and uses two spaces after every sentence.
--
Right Yoda had it. Not is grammer to be Nazid.
This statement is accurate. I recently looked for datacenter hosting and one company quoted their bandwidth in the form of 256kpbs 95th percentile average usage. What this means is if you take the top 5% of the bandwidth usage off and discard it, then average the remaining 95% out you can use on average 256 kbits per second without buying additional bandwidth. This IS a hard limit of total transfer.
256Kbps over the course of one month = 3.3 GB
On their basic plan they are offering about 3.5GB of total transfer, I can see why they list it out in such a bizzare and confusing way, who wants to pay $100/mo plus $25 per "U" for just 3.5GB of transfer?
Now how this relates to the current topic... It doesn't matter if you use Seconds or Months to describe the transfer limit of your line, it is all equivalent because 1 month = 2,629,743.83 seconds therefore you can convert one to the other.
So if your ISP is only giving you 60GBytes of download in a month, you are limited to an average of 0.186907939 Mbps for that month regardless of whether you can spike up to 6Mbit/s for almost a full day and then nothing for the rest of the month.
The "Unlimited" is referring to dialup ISPs restricting you to "hours per month" of time connected to their service. When Dialup ISPs offered unlimited plans they meant that you could dial up as often and for as long as you wanted. When ISDN, DSL and Cable Internet came along, they advertised it again as "Unlimited" because there was no limit to your connection time. People used it when they were at their computers and it sat idle (hopefully) when they were not using it. Now, the real killer is not even video sites but more than that Bittorrent and other Peer-to-peer file sharing applications that can litterally use every bit of bandwidth available for an entire month.
Now consider that many smaller ISPs have a single 100Mbit fiber connection for the entire town (sometimes even less), and are offering 1.5, 3 and even 6MBit connections to their hundreds of customers. In one instance I heard of a company that had (past tense, this was a few years ago) 2 T1s (total bandwith 3Mbit) offering 10MBit (5Mbit upstream) connections to their (hundreds or thousands of) customers. This is often combined with huge caching proxy-servers that appear to speed up the connection, but for true streaming connections like video and P2P this will not do.
The best point brought up so far is the fact that the Telcos have been given BILLIONS of dollars to roll out upgraded services such as Fiber Optic networks, VDSL (Very high speed DSL) and other upgraded services, and they have done NOTHING with the money for the customers and tax payers. We have already paid for the upgraded networks and they sit on the dark fiber and piles of money claiming that they need to raise prices and limit usage... this will not do.
--Just my ten or fifteen cents...
First, let me just start by saying "CLI>reload" will reload the configuration files WITHOUT DROPPING ANY CALLS! Let's see, so I can reconfigure EVERY config file on my PBX including what did you say "switch type, signaling, NFAS - FAS" and reload asterisk, without dropping ANY calls? Yes that's right! The next call placed will use the new settings.
... hmm Asterisk?
However WHY would anyone change the Signalling on a line on a live system? Groundstart and Loopstart are not compatible. That really needs to be planned before the system goes live. But, let's say you could instantly know when your Telco changes the signaling protocol for the lines, and change your configs in Asterisk at the same instant, it would work fine. Just type Reload at the Asterisk CLI and the next call inbound or outbound on that line would use the new signaling.
Furthermore switching from FAS to NFAS (Facility Associated Signalling / Non-FAS) would likewise be a major modification in your trunking and would be unwise to do on a live system. If needed, you could, theoretically, change that configuration and reload the configs without dropping any calls.
If for any reason you DO need to Restart (instead of reload) you can use the 'restart when convenient' command which will wait until there are no active calls and restart Asterisk. By default it will not restart if there are active calls, you have to type 'restart now' to override this behavior.
If you need to reboot the computer you have either made a significant change to the operating system (i.e. kernel upgrade) or you have a serious configuration error with the PBX, and I doubt that Nortel would be any different in this respect.
To further demonstrate my point, on one occasion during the TESTING of an Asterisk-based PBX setup I have intentionally ground the PBX to a halt (SSH/Web-GUI not responding) and maintained a conference call on that server for over one hour without dropping audio. Can a Nortel system keep a single call (let alone a conference call) active dispite the fact that every other process on the PBX was locked up.
Now your car analogy was lacking. Let's say instead: would you want to drive a BMW / Benz / Rolls Royce / Bugatti / Ferarri or would you rather drive a Toyota / Nissan / Honda that costs a THIRD as much and performs JUST AS WELL, if not BETTER (forget the pretty grills and decals, if you like that sort of thing see the first set of options)? Obviously this is not perfect, but have you ever seen a car analogy (including yours) that was perfect?
Let's leave the conversation to those not currently on the payroll of Nortel, as you certanly have no real-world knowledge of the capabilities of Asterisk-based PBX systems or Digium Hardware, but push the Nortel hardware pretty strongly. I think you may have been referring to Microsoft Telephony Server in your post with how often you referred to restarting "servers".
PS: Saying that Nortel is a Hardware company is misleading. What you mean is that Nortel controls the manufacturing/develophen of both the Hardware and Software for their products and can lock you into their products, unlike open-source products that offer an open standard interface and allow ANYONE to write compatible software/hardware for their products. If you don't like the hardware provided by Digium use Rhino or another open-source hardware vendor. Don't like Asterisk use OpenPBX or another open-source PBX software vendor. Don't like Nortel's switch software, go with
Definition of words is always relative. You define one word with others which, hopefully, the reader understands and thereby understands the word being defined.
Therefore the word "liberal" according to the previously posted definition is dependant on the definition of the word "strict". So first we determine whether Darth Vadar could be considered "strict" and I would say, given my perceptions of the behaviors of the other creatures in that particular fictional universe, Darth Vadar was indeed strict. Therefore Darth Vadar was not liberal (in behavior).
In the particular comment wherein the word liberal was initially used in reference to the RIAA the poster compared two possible behaviors of the RIAA. The first being use of the entire word "music" on a web site being considered by the RIAA as copyright infringement. The second being the use of the letters "m", "u", "s", "i" and "c", inclusively and regardless of combination with other letters, on a web site as being potential copyright infrengement. Comparing the two behaviors would indicate that the first behavior is more liberal than the second.
--
Those who point out the size of other's brains are usually compensating for and/or attempting to obfuscate a defenciency, preceived or real, in their own grey matter.
Ok, so as I read through the nearly 400 posts on this (ok, maybe not read through, but skimmed)... I couldn't help thinking about how the actual "Chip" would work. I would guess, based on the description, it is using some sort of polymer that changes color, or aligns molecules or something based on the "electrical current" sent through the film (liquid crystal?). This brings up MANY questions in my mind, the most important being:
How long does this film stay transparent?
CDs and DVDs (and I'd assume the new format optical discs) have this little problem, they last indefinitely. The producers of the content are basically giving you a licence to view, listen, install and sometimes even make copies of their content virtually FOREVER. What if this "film" they apply has a wonderful side-effect of rendering the disc useless unless it is periodically "re-activated" (or re-purchased)?
Another point: BlueRay and HD-DVDs have a very THIN margin for material between the surface of the disc and the data layer. How thick does this layer need to be? Will it de-laminate over time? Will it scratch easily? and again, will it eventually grow dark spots due to UV, physical pressure, RF energy from cellphones, etc?
$400,000,000 in loss due to theft... what is the cost of this equipment for a nation-wide retail chain? Will it be Internet dependant? RFIDs can be unique much like a product activation key for software... will there be an easy "algorithm" for deactivating the chip that could be discovered... or do they validate with a central server? Can this link be exploited/rendered useless for such a period of time that the industry suffers?
Could the manufacturer of the chips hold the industry "ransom" after enough of the devices were implemented, unless they agree to pay an exorbanant amount of money for the new chips (never thought about inventory going on strike). Or even the manufacturer revoking activation keys for all the products they have shipped to a certian retail chain...
There are a lot of questions that this brings up, mostly about how this technology could be exploited.
If I were a retail chain I would be primarily concerned with REDUCING the complexity of the devices and INCREASING the chance that they will work for the customer.
--- Disclaimer: I am not a lawyer, but I heard this from someone who says they heard it from someone who [had this happen to them]/[heard it from a lawyer]
... the interesting thing about this is that many stores have that specific rule because if they detain someone and their claims turn out to be false, the detainee can then press charges against the store for false arrest. This means that if someone steals a pack of batteries worth $2, a lawsuit would cost much more than that, so they have to be damn sure.
... most of the time, nothing. If they actually do try to do something it is usually to look at the items in the bag and check the receipt, and let the "inconvinenced" customer/theif out the door. Very few actually take the customer back to a register and re-buzz all of their items.
You mention a "dollar threashold"
Also, in some states the alleged theif must make an effort or actually show intention of leaving the premises. This includes the outdoor area if the store sells items outside the store (such as pallets of potting soil or lumber outside a Home Depot). This makes it difficult to chase someone down after they have left the store, and unless it is worth it, most don't.
--- end of disclaimer
The real problem is that most of these systems are ignored. Go in about 80% of the stores that have the electronic tags and watch what happens when someone accidentally trips the alarm system
Other stores have implemented systems that CAUSE the alarms to go off constantly. For example, the Home Depot has added the "self checkout" lanes recently. They did not, however, add the devices to deactivate the electronic tags on their products to the self-checkout lanes. This means that anyone who buys anything with an electronic tag WILL set off the alarm as they exit. And they actually do check the contents of your cart 50% of the time. I usually expect it to go off and just walk out the door without looking back, often ignoring the persistant "Sir! SIR!" coming from behind me.
The truth is these systems are ineffective and, as Lumpy says above, all the stores EXPECT a certian percentage of loss to theft. Even online stores expect loss to theft. When Amazon.com receives an order they can only check so many details about the customer, if the card is stolen and is not reported until after the product has shipped they may be out that money when Visa charges back the purchase.
MOST loss due to theft from retail stores is theft by employees. How many "black bubbles" do you think actually have cameras in them on the sales floor in most retail stores? Very few. How many cameras are operational on the loading docks, storage rooms, hallways and other areas of the store meant for employee access only? All of them.
Theft prevention devices are not about preventing theft. They are to create the Illusion of Security, much like the rest of the Security industry (both physical and virtual). They keep those who haven't stolen from stealing, catch the "stupid" criminals, and slow down the real theives. Real security is expensive, much more expensive than accepting a small percentage of sales lost to theft.
The funny thing is... I get commercials on my broadcast channels too. It seems Fox, et. al. are just as bad over the air as they are on the coax and/or dish.
... well I guess it doesn't matter since it won't. Some big company will grab it up and use it for something stupid like out-of-band bank password verification devices until someone realizes that all you need is an old TV set and some 128 bit hex string to MITM the system and it will be up for auction again before you know it.
I'd like to see the frequency go to
The Federal Communications Commission is a department of the US Government that regulates RF transmissions in the borders of the USA.
a uctions_home
The money collected for this goes to the government and is used for administrative costs such as issuing licences, tracking down violators and other general expenses.
Over the years since we first started modulating RF energy to send encoded data and voice transmissions the FCC has grown to regulate many other aspects of broadcast media. As it relates to your question, the various frenquency bands need to be regulated because, as we all know, you can't just trust people to "do the best thing".
The FCC allocates frequencies for radio stations, commercial, H.A.M Radio, various consumer technologies such as 802.11x, CB, walkie-talkies (usually implemented on the CB bands), cell phones, and just about anything that transmits a radio signal of any kind. These frequencies can become very crowded and oftentimes overlap (for example H.A.M Radio operators are allowed to transmit on 2.4 GHz in the same band that wireless networking is allocated).
At one point the bands were allocated according to what they determined to be the "Best Public Use" (or something like that). Now they just auction it off to the highest bidder. Some qualifications and guidelines are set out for both who can bid and what the frequency can be used for, how much power they can transmit on that frequency, etc.
FCC Aucitons Website: http://wireless.fcc.gov/auctions/default.htm?job=