In the past I remember some software would get a small academic paper, enough for a conference. Then it would get cited many times by others who used it. But software is getting more complex now and may need more than a team of 2 or 3 grad students to develop and maintain it.
These program are often being written by academics which can cut into time doing research. But these programs are vital for the research. If this were physics and the academic spent a significant portion of the year helping to build and manage a new particle collider, do they get credit for it or get accused of wasting time instead of writing papers?
This is not a binary freeware versus commercial software debate.
It's a joke, sheesh. Calm down and lower the gun. These are usually kids doing this anyway to test out the.22 they got for christmas.
Besides there are parts of the country where it's hard to find a stop sign without a hole in it, and power utilities have said a common reason for transformer failures is from bullet holes and sensor devices can help monitor this (this includes capacitor or inductor banks or anything else that sits up on a pole).
The logic is straight forward though. Screw up their country and they'll apologize to Saint Putin. The more they are hurt today the more they will smile tomorrow and sign up for Russian language classes.
Actually, nothing sounded exciting on paper. There are already many standards using those bands, many devices using that bands, etc. 802.11ah is just another newcomer to add to the mix is all.
Some of these IoT devices are already in wide use. Today. Smart meters for example, one per house. Maybe two to three per house in the future with water and gas as well, plus various sensors scattered for other uses. No one really called these IoT until recently.
There are existing standards for those bands not related to 802.11. The way 802.11 works it does best for higher bandwidth and higher power, but does not readily adapt itself to other purposes. Many existing low speed systems use meshing for instance rather than plopping access points every fifty meters. There are devices that wake up only a few times each day to transmit then go back to sleep.
The worry is that bringing 802.11 to these bands will force those devices to seek out other public bands, the same way that 802.11 forced out everyone from the 2.4GHz bands. It's not like there's an infinite supply of public bands though.
The worry I have is that the 2.4GHZ saturation will now migrate to 900MHz bands. That band is not empty and unused, it is currently in active use by current internet of things devices and other devices that can use lower speeds in exchange for better power usage or longer range. The IoT devices are already dotting the landscape. Remember, wi-fi is not the only radio or radio standard out there. There are classes of devices in the 900MHz bands which used to use 2.4GHz until that became oversaturated. The point of public bands is that it be used by the public for multliple uses rather than be dominated only by wi-fi.
I only have 2 devices, sometimes three, in the house. 5GHz works great and the band is nearly empty, 2.4GHz is saturated. I don't need to have a link that goes 100 feet, or even 25 feet. I just need to go down one floor to the TV where signal should be good, and to my phone where signal can be crappy and slow. So 5GHz does work and does what it's advertised to do, it just doesn't work in some situations where you need range.
A lot of uses of 2.4GHz migrated away from there because of immense interference from wi-fi, and many went to the 800/900MHz bands instead (which vary with each country). Things like baby monitors, cordless phones (not as common now), etc. Since the bands are public they're *already* being used for internet of things, just not with 802.11.
800 and 900 MHz ranges are already being used for internet of things and the like. Smart meters, street lights, low speed sensors. Stuff that uses 150Kbps even. And there are existing standards, there is no need to bring wifi over.
There is public spectrum in that range in most countries. Which is why wi-fi wants it. But it's already in use by many, often because the 2.4GHz is clogged by wi-fi.
There's no realy reason for 802.11 to be in that range, there are already standards that use that range. High speed ubiquitous use by wi-fi will kill of low speed, low power usses. If a vendor wants to use that range then they can use existing standards that use that range instead of wi-fi.
It would be nice to have a smart phone too where some minimal effort was spent on reducing power consumption. The general attitude seems to be why bother, because everyone keeps their plugged in all the time. Although in general power consumption in computing was often overlooked and it's only recently with internet of things and others where it's become important again.
True, but it's useful to know it is undefined, and useful to know possibly what was intended. Because some sorts of code might have that and you end up being asked to fix the bug. I see a lot of people in interviews or online who refuse to concern themselves with weird stuff like that because it's not how they write code, even though most of the job deals with reading and modifying other people's code.
Before NAT that's how a lot of things were done. People forget that masquerading with NAT wasn't always in common use either. Even as recent as ten to fifteen years ago it wasn't hard to find some ISPs or routers that didn't support NAT.
People are trying to apply IPv4 concepts to IPV6, rather than learn IPv6. But many network administrators and techs only know what is taught in certificate courses and have difficulty doing something different (even if it's only due to time constraints).
Remember, NAT is not all that old, it was new once and at the time a lot of people felt it was a hack. It took time to iron out the NAT problems, making sure routers and applications could work with it correctly. IPv6 should be treated the same way. At one time the ten customers who wanted NAT were treated as a headache, and today the 10 customers wanted IPv6 are being treated as a headache.
Slashdot Mirror
In the past I remember some software would get a small academic paper, enough for a conference. Then it would get cited many times by others who used it. But software is getting more complex now and may need more than a team of 2 or 3 grad students to develop and maintain it.
These program are often being written by academics which can cut into time doing research. But these programs are vital for the research. If this were physics and the academic spent a significant portion of the year helping to build and manage a new particle collider, do they get credit for it or get accused of wasting time instead of writing papers?
This is not a binary freeware versus commercial software debate.
It's a joke, sheesh. Calm down and lower the gun. These are usually kids doing this anyway to test out the .22 they got for christmas.
Besides there are parts of the country where it's hard to find a stop sign without a hole in it, and power utilities have said a common reason for transformer failures is from bullet holes and sensor devices can help monitor this (this includes capacitor or inductor banks or anything else that sits up on a pole).
We should get smart shooters too. Most of them seem to keep hitting stop signs and electricity transformers.
Don't worry comrade, Putin will invade the Luddites once he is done with the Ukraines.
The logic is straight forward though. Screw up their country and they'll apologize to Saint Putin. The more they are hurt today the more they will smile tomorrow and sign up for Russian language classes.
Ture, but the Zigbee protocol is pretty ugly in a lot of places (SEP 2.0 that is). Low speed link yet binary data is transmitted using XML? Ludicrous.
Mop errant duck!
Actually, nothing sounded exciting on paper. There are already many standards using those bands, many devices using that bands, etc. 802.11ah is just another newcomer to add to the mix is all.
But meter reading is already done today, without any help from 802.11ah. 802.11ah does not bring anything new to the table.
Some of these IoT devices are already in wide use. Today. Smart meters for example, one per house. Maybe two to three per house in the future with water and gas as well, plus various sensors scattered for other uses. No one really called these IoT until recently.
IoT devices already exist in this band. Apparently they are cooperating. Who knows what the upstart newcomer of 802.11 will do though.
There are existing standards for those bands not related to 802.11. The way 802.11 works it does best for higher bandwidth and higher power, but does not readily adapt itself to other purposes. Many existing low speed systems use meshing for instance rather than plopping access points every fifty meters. There are devices that wake up only a few times each day to transmit then go back to sleep.
The worry is that bringing 802.11 to these bands will force those devices to seek out other public bands, the same way that 802.11 forced out everyone from the 2.4GHz bands. It's not like there's an infinite supply of public bands though.
The worry I have is that the 2.4GHZ saturation will now migrate to 900MHz bands. That band is not empty and unused, it is currently in active use by current internet of things devices and other devices that can use lower speeds in exchange for better power usage or longer range. The IoT devices are already dotting the landscape. Remember, wi-fi is not the only radio or radio standard out there. There are classes of devices in the 900MHz bands which used to use 2.4GHz until that became oversaturated. The point of public bands is that it be used by the public for multliple uses rather than be dominated only by wi-fi.
Why can you use existing 900MHz radio standards that have been in operation for a long time now?
I only have 2 devices, sometimes three, in the house. 5GHz works great and the band is nearly empty, 2.4GHz is saturated. I don't need to have a link that goes 100 feet, or even 25 feet. I just need to go down one floor to the TV where signal should be good, and to my phone where signal can be crappy and slow. So 5GHz does work and does what it's advertised to do, it just doesn't work in some situations where you need range.
Why is it interesting? It's already been done. Those bands are already used by devices, with 802.11 wi-fi being the latecomer to the show.
A lot of uses of 2.4GHz migrated away from there because of immense interference from wi-fi, and many went to the 800/900MHz bands instead (which vary with each country). Things like baby monitors, cordless phones (not as common now), etc. Since the bands are public they're *already* being used for internet of things, just not with 802.11.
800 and 900 MHz ranges are already being used for internet of things and the like. Smart meters, street lights, low speed sensors. Stuff that uses 150Kbps even. And there are existing standards, there is no need to bring wifi over.
There is public spectrum in that range in most countries. Which is why wi-fi wants it. But it's already in use by many, often because the 2.4GHz is clogged by wi-fi.
There's no realy reason for 802.11 to be in that range, there are already standards that use that range. High speed ubiquitous use by wi-fi will kill of low speed, low power usses. If a vendor wants to use that range then they can use existing standards that use that range instead of wi-fi.
It would be nice to have a smart phone too where some minimal effort was spent on reducing power consumption. The general attitude seems to be why bother, because everyone keeps their plugged in all the time. Although in general power consumption in computing was often overlooked and it's only recently with internet of things and others where it's become important again.
True, but it's useful to know it is undefined, and useful to know possibly what was intended. Because some sorts of code might have that and you end up being asked to fix the bug. I see a lot of people in interviews or online who refuse to concern themselves with weird stuff like that because it's not how they write code, even though most of the job deals with reading and modifying other people's code.
Before NAT that's how a lot of things were done. People forget that masquerading with NAT wasn't always in common use either. Even as recent as ten to fifteen years ago it wasn't hard to find some ISPs or routers that didn't support NAT.
People are trying to apply IPv4 concepts to IPV6, rather than learn IPv6. But many network administrators and techs only know what is taught in certificate courses and have difficulty doing something different (even if it's only due to time constraints).
Remember, NAT is not all that old, it was new once and at the time a lot of people felt it was a hack. It took time to iron out the NAT problems, making sure routers and applications could work with it correctly. IPv6 should be treated the same way. At one time the ten customers who wanted NAT were treated as a headache, and today the 10 customers wanted IPv6 are being treated as a headache.
I also want a phone that makes phone calls with a battery life longer than a day. But now we had to sacrifice that in order to sell apps to kids.