It really is pretty bad. I've used my TiBook in 3 different locations. At work even with several high gain antennas (on the base side), the TiBook always had much worse range than the G3 Wallstreet's did.
It was so bad at home that I opened up my airport and added an external antenna as to try and help performance. Its just a small Lucent 2.5db that I had laying around. It helps a bit, but really its the laptop that needs the better antenna.
At both my last house and my current home, the TiBook has only been able to get roughly 30ft from the base station when there are any walls involved. I've never had a situation where it has a long line of sight, so I can't say what that would be like.
My question is, if this isn't a capability of the existing system, how can the courts order a company to develop specific software for spying on the users?
What if being rushed through development it turns out buggy? Who pays for the QA? How long of a development schedule does this version get?
Besides the 100 reasons why I think this is all wrong.
Since when did courts start doing software? If I we're them and they get forced to do this, I would make the courts pay for it!
It is important for a variety of reasons not to let up upon the current technological pace occurring today. There are so many factors to consider economically, scientifically, and sociologically. If we allowed a slow down of the current pace of technological advancement it could have a devastating impact on our society at large.
First off, it is naive to think that current users wouldn't use or enjoy more powerful computers. It is the software industries fault that end users are unable to fully utilize the more powerful machines being built. Already plenty of comments have suggested a variety of applications from facial recognition to video editing that all would benefit from faster more powerful computers.
It is actually important to me that regardless of the 'need' the average user has for more powerful computers, that the software industry does its job to drive the users to want more power.
Only by nurturing and then feeding the publics appetite for technology does the industry continue to push us forward technologically. If millions of people and companies didn't demand the upgrades and new features that are available with more powerful systems we risk losing all the potential gains for the future that these desires produce.
Someone recently asked me about stand alone video servers that could serve up a web page of their security cameras over the internet. I'm sure you could build one with linux and a cheap camera for like $10 and some pocket fuzz...or legos for cheaper...But for anyone who wants a compact complete solution...here are some of the products I found. I hope someone finds them useful.
Axis 2400 $1250-1650
Serves 5 video inputs.
http://www.axis.com
Axis 240 $900-950
Older discontinued version of the above, no info on web page, but seems to be still available through some dealers.
http://www.axis.com
Axis 2401 $750-1000 (I've seen a ton of demo models for $635)
Single video input server
http://www.axis.com
PelcoNet Video Server $1375-1750
Single video channel
http://www.pelco.com
Tango II $1200-$1650
Serves 4 Video inputs
http://www.silent-witness.com/products_tango.htm l
http://www.gyyrcctv.com
Netgator 104 $1000
Serves 1 video from 4 Video inputs with optional cable.
http://www.darim.com
Flexwatch 200 $1130
Single channel
http://www.flexwatch.com
Flexwatch 300 $1650
6 Inputs but can control 36 of their flexcameras
http://www.flexwatch.com
Why no details? Got to be a fake...
on
Apple PDA?
·
· Score: 1
Besides the more obvious video flaws when you zoom in on the handwriting video, my biggest question is, why no details?
Rumer sites are ALL ABOUT specifications, software details, etc...
If it were real they would be writing about the cool new features.
My advice:
1. Don't be so ambitious next time with your videos and blow them up to check for problems.
2. Create better ficticious features. Like a list of built in software.
3. Get details on a likely chip and post specifications for that chip.
A friend of mine got one for his Dad and swears by it. When you hear the telemarketer start to say anything to you, you hit the * key and a precanned message asks that you are to be put on the 'do not call list'.
Advantages:
1. Removes all the effort from having to deal with them.
2. Puts you on the 'do not call list'
3. Doesn't confuse your friends (unless you want to!?
Disadvantages:
1. Its $50
2. Its got a really lame voice.
On a second note, i've been using my cell phone in LA, CA for about a year without any problems with NO LANDLINE.
A friend of mine got one for his Dad and swears by it. When you hear the telemarketer start to say anything to you, you hit the * key and a precanned message asks that you are to be put on the 'do not call list'.
Advantages:
1. Removes all the effort from having to deal with them.
2. Puts you on the 'do not call list'
3. Doesn't confuse your friends (unless you want to!?
Disadvantages:
1. Its $50
2. Its got a really lame voice.
On a second note, i've been using my cell phone in LA, CA for about a year without any problems with NO LANDLINE.
1. I agree that HTML that accesses the network is bad.
2. Javascript is also a big DUH!
3. I'm not a big MS advocate...
But, I'm surprised more email clients don't have the ability to turn off network access. In MS Entourage for MacOS, you can click a preference under Mail & News Preferences that reads, "Allow network access when displaying complex HTML". If you uncheck this, your email client wont display anything that isn't contained within the email message itself and it won't try to access the network.
Hey, I made a 6Kbyte version of the top original "3Mbyte original" using standard JPEG compression! And it looks as good as the top one! Does that mean I've achieved 500:1 compression?! You would think they would a more REAL example, like include the original 3Mbyte file, a real JPEG and maybe a converted TIFF or something lossless of their compression format. Bah...
Slashdot Mirror
It really is pretty bad. I've used my TiBook in 3 different locations. At work even with several high gain antennas (on the base side), the TiBook always had much worse range than the G3 Wallstreet's did.
It was so bad at home that I opened up my airport and added an external antenna as to try and help performance. Its just a small Lucent 2.5db that I had laying around. It helps a bit, but really its the laptop that needs the better antenna.
At both my last house and my current home, the TiBook has only been able to get roughly 30ft from the base station when there are any walls involved. I've never had a situation where it has a long line of sight, so I can't say what that would be like.
My question is, if this isn't a capability of the existing system, how can the courts order a company to develop specific software for spying on the users?
What if being rushed through development it turns out buggy? Who pays for the QA? How long of a development schedule does this version get?
Besides the 100 reasons why I think this is all wrong.
Since when did courts start doing software? If I we're them and they get forced to do this, I would make the courts pay for it!
It is important for a variety of reasons not to let up upon the current technological pace occurring today. There are so many factors to consider economically, scientifically, and sociologically. If we allowed a slow down of the current pace of technological advancement it could have a devastating impact on our society at large.
First off, it is naive to think that current users wouldn't use or enjoy more powerful computers. It is the software industries fault that end users are unable to fully utilize the more powerful machines being built. Already plenty of comments have suggested a variety of applications from facial recognition to video editing that all would benefit from faster more powerful computers.
It is actually important to me that regardless of the 'need' the average user has for more powerful computers, that the software industry does its job to drive the users to want more power.
Only by nurturing and then feeding the publics appetite for technology does the industry continue to push us forward technologically. If millions of people and companies didn't demand the upgrades and new features that are available with more powerful systems we risk losing all the potential gains for the future that these desires produce.
Someone recently asked me about stand alone video servers that could serve up a web page of their security cameras over the internet. I'm sure you could build one with linux and a cheap camera for like $10 and some pocket fuzz...or legos for cheaper...But for anyone who wants a compact complete solution...here are some of the products I found. I hope someone finds them useful.
m l
Axis 2400 $1250-1650
Serves 5 video inputs.
http://www.axis.com
Axis 240 $900-950
Older discontinued version of the above, no info on web page, but seems to be still available through some dealers.
http://www.axis.com
Axis 2401 $750-1000 (I've seen a ton of demo models for $635)
Single video input server
http://www.axis.com
PelcoNet Video Server $1375-1750
Single video channel
http://www.pelco.com
Tango II $1200-$1650
Serves 4 Video inputs
http://www.silent-witness.com/products_tango.ht
http://www.gyyrcctv.com
Netgator 104 $1000
Serves 1 video from 4 Video inputs with optional cable.
http://www.darim.com
Flexwatch 200 $1130
Single channel
http://www.flexwatch.com
Flexwatch 300 $1650
6 Inputs but can control 36 of their flexcameras
http://www.flexwatch.com
Besides the more obvious video flaws when you zoom in on the handwriting video, my biggest question is, why no details?
Rumer sites are ALL ABOUT specifications, software details, etc...
If it were real they would be writing about the cool new features.
My advice:
1. Don't be so ambitious next time with your videos and blow them up to check for problems.
2. Create better ficticious features. Like a list of built in software.
3. Get details on a likely chip and post specifications for that chip.
Fake Rating:
7/10 Good job!
The Phone Butler
http://www.phonebutler.com/
A friend of mine got one for his Dad and swears by it. When you hear the telemarketer start to say anything to you, you hit the * key and a precanned message asks that you are to be put on the 'do not call list'.
Advantages:
1. Removes all the effort from having to deal with them.
2. Puts you on the 'do not call list'
3. Doesn't confuse your friends (unless you want to!?
Disadvantages:
1. Its $50
2. Its got a really lame voice.
On a second note, i've been using my cell phone in LA, CA for about a year without any problems with NO LANDLINE.
Can anyone give a rough breakdown the typical power usage by subsystems in a laptop?
The drive, fan, and HD info is available. What about the rest of the parts?
Display, backlight, motherboards, CPU, etc...
Anyone already done the research?
The Phone Butler
http://www.phonebutler.com/
A friend of mine got one for his Dad and swears by it. When you hear the telemarketer start to say anything to you, you hit the * key and a precanned message asks that you are to be put on the 'do not call list'.
Advantages:
1. Removes all the effort from having to deal with them.
2. Puts you on the 'do not call list'
3. Doesn't confuse your friends (unless you want to!?
Disadvantages:
1. Its $50
2. Its got a really lame voice.
On a second note, i've been using my cell phone in LA, CA for about a year without any problems with NO LANDLINE.
Quick Disclaimer:
1. I agree that HTML that accesses the network is bad.
2. Javascript is also a big DUH!
3. I'm not a big MS advocate...
But, I'm surprised more email clients don't have the ability to turn off network access. In MS Entourage for MacOS, you can click a preference under Mail & News Preferences that reads, "Allow network access when displaying complex HTML". If you uncheck this, your email client wont display anything that isn't contained within the email message itself and it won't try to access the network.
Solving the problem...
Hey, I made a 6Kbyte version of the top original "3Mbyte original" using standard JPEG compression! And it looks as good as the top one! Does that mean I've achieved 500:1 compression?! You would think they would a more REAL example, like include the original 3Mbyte file, a real JPEG and maybe a converted TIFF or something lossless of their compression format. Bah...