The WiFi bands are unlicensed and users *must* accept interference from other users. The FCC already went through this with the Port Authority when they tried to ban their tenets from offering WiFi services.
INCORRECT. They are not putting a restriction on the devices operation, they are forbidding you from using the device. A restriction would be sub-licensing and not allowed. Not allowing their use at all is actually fine.
And the reason you cannot do this with radio is that the noise from the transmitter is greater than the received signal.
Actually you CAN manage it with radio - very difficultly, with very careful antenna design.
But the combined antenna has to be far from anything that reflects, absorbs, or just phase-shifts any substantial amount of the transmitted signal energy. If not, the discontinuity destroys the careful balance that nulls out the transmitted signal at the receiver. That gets you back to the "transmitter shouts in the receiver's ear much louder than the distant communications partner" case. So it's not very practical in the real world.
I have only seen it done where the transmit and receive antenna had considerable separation. Oddly enough, I designed some yagi antennas for minimum sidelobes which could meet this requirement. They had lower gain than a normal yagi but when testing them in the field, they could *see* reflections from things like trees and bushes 100s of yards away. I never got them to be better than about 30dB because that was as good a hilltop used as an antenna test range as I could find. Using them to passively track aircraft at 10s of miles from their reflections was trivial and gave a real feel for how radar and stealth work.
Cancelling the near end crosstalk requires sampling the transmitted signal. If it is sampled before the final amplifier, then noise added by the final amplifier clobbers the received signal. If it is sampled after the final amplifier, then the dynamic range difference between the transmitted signal and transmitted noise clobbers the measured transmitted noise so that cannot be cancelled anyway. Apparently someone has solved this problem in an integrated form but I am dubious of their claims.
Back when I was first playing with SSB transmitters, I noticed the problem when keying up an SSB transmitter with no modulation which produced noise across the entire band which was more than 20dB higher than the background noise. You could still receive signals of course but maximum range was reduced by more than an order of magnitude. Every 6dB halves the distance. This neatly explains why hilltop transmitters include fixed cavity filters.
Sharing a fast connection is awesome, you save tons of money, but one problem arises. One of your neighbors sets up a server and hosts web sites for three or four of his friends, then another neighbor leaves Netflix streaming 24/7 in two different rooms, when he's not even home. That's quite wasteful, but what does he care, he's only paying a tiny fraction of the cost. You get less of the shared bandwidth because dumbass is streaming HD video to an empty living room.
If only there was some solution which involved, oh, I don't know, shaping the traffic to each subscriber based on a refilling bucket of tokens or something. Maybe they could pay for it by not having to pay for extra complexity in the billing and customer complaint system.
There is no perfect solution to that, but about the best solution we have are caps. Unfortunately ISPs haven't been clear about what the caps are for different pricing tiers. Most consumers probably don't know how many GBs they want, so that's part of the problem.
What is good for ISPs in an environment which lacks competition has nothing to do with what is good for the customers.
The ISP's solution is *designed* to increase revenue with fines created because the ISP does not provide real time usage information to the customer and the customer is subject to unsolicited traffic (incoming UDP among others) anyway. You know how telephone companies charge customers for unsolicited calls and text messages? It is the same thing.
Yes, using the internet is like eating Oreos except for that part about paying ahead of time for a specific number of Oreos, eating one more so I now have negative Oreos, and getting fined for it. At least with Oreos, I can unambiguously count the number of Oreos I have left.
Tell me again why pay as you go internet does not end when I run out of bytes that I paid for?
NAT is still possible with IPv6. It would really just force people to "break" the internet if they tried something like that.
Sure NAT is still possible although I would not put it beyond them to eventually try getting people charged with violations of the CFAA or some other law for using it without permission.
And why wouldn't they want to break the internet? We are after all talking about companies like AT&T who once told me that they were blocking IPv6 tunneling because otherwise customers could get free static IPv6 IPs without paying for them.
Wasn't Germany one of the countries that had a hard time with google street view? Are they going to accept millions of cameras driving around sharing everything they see?
It is not like the usual suspects had to kill AH to protect their need for mass-spying, making ESP optional would be enough (and outlaw it where required). But no, they need to actually be able to inject false traffic (which *is* against the !@#$!@#$ law everywhere, even for governments)...
Better to kill AH now to prevent people from thinking they have a right to any unapproved and secure cryptography. Plus there is the whole wanting to inject false traffic issue.
When people talk about an IPv6 address being 128 bits they're technically true but they miss the bigger picture. In practice you can't assign anything smaller than a/64 so really there are only 64 bits of address space as we think of it today. 1 IPv4 address hosting a subnet with NAT vs. an IPv6/64 prefix are roughly equivalent. It's still way more address space than we'll ever reasonably need, but not quite as ridiculous as it looks at first glance.
No worries, ISPs will soon figure out how to issue single IPv6 addresses or at least block all but one unless you pay for the feature of having a complete allocation.
In 99% of police interactions if you comply with their instructions, you will not be injured or worse.
Oh good. So only 1% of the time will I be injured or worse. And only in 1% of of the time when people are detained or arrested will they be injured or worse. That percentage is completely unacceptable.
Are there overjealous, brutish police officers? Yes, undoubtedly. Are the majority of police officers reasonable human beings? Yes.
The guards in the Standford Prison Experiment were reasonable human beings. This problem has nothing to do with the character of the officers. They are *trained* to act like thugs, to steal property, to evade the law, and extenuate circumstances to justify their own actions. The difference between law enforcement and common criminals is law enforcement expects your sanction of their actions. Common criminals are more honest.
The only recourse is to *always* exercise your 4th, 5th, and 6th amendment rights during *every* interaction with law enforcement with absolutely no exceptions. Of course doing this will get you injured or worse as well.
"As a country, we must engage in an honest, transparent, and data-driven conversation about police use of force," California Attorney General Kamala Harris said in a news release.
Obey the instructions of the police officer and let your lawyer / attorney / barrister handle any disputes. The solution does not even require technology. Priceless.
So you mean let your lawyer handle burying you in your grave?
What we need to be doing is getting executives arrested for violating the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act. That awful law has been used to prosecute hackers and hobbyists for much more minor things than this, and has been twisted enough to fit various cases that there's more than enough precedent now.
Ya, I can see the CFAA being used against a user who bypassing the company's root kit.
Interesting. Do you know how long ago that study was done? I"m curious if smaller manufacturing geometries have made newer processors more vulnerable.
The sensitivity of DRAM actually leveled off a few generations ago. I think what happened is that there is a minimum capacitance needed per DRAM cell so as the cells became smaller and the dielectric constant was increased to make up for it, the charge stored in a given volume became *greater* so an ionizing radiation impact spreading charge over a greater number of DRAM capacitors without enough charge to affect them individually.
High performance SRAM used for integrated caches became more vulnerable and has been protected by parity and ECC for a long time now.
The SRAM structures used for integrated high performance processor cache are orders of magnitude more sensitive than discrete DRAM to radiation induced soft errors. Some of this is simply because the bandwidth is so high which exposes a greater capture area of logic. And so high performance processor cache has included parity and ECC protection for a long time.
Of course it depends where you are on the ground. I used to work in a data center in Colorado Springs, at about 6000 feet altitude. We saw quite a few correctable memory errors in the logs (and a few random crashes).
The soft error rate do to cosmic rays is an order of magnitude higher at Colorado springs than at ground level. For aircraft it is another order of magnitude higher but they have a very small capture area; I assume safety critical aircraft systems are designed with this in mind. Placing systems in a deep basement has the opposite result do to greater shielding.
A lot of memory*hours are needed for it to become a significant problem which is why systems with either lots of memory or systems which run continuously for long times (or both) are the most affected. Oddly enough, the error rate is also proportional to memory bandwidth because use of the logic controlling the memory array increases the capture area.
Slashdot Mirror
What America desperately needs is to start throwing politicians in jail.
I am sure the legislators (lawyers), judges (lawyers), and prosecutors (lawyers) will get right on that.
Why can't we have "progressives" who are in favor of, you know, progress? We had them in Roosevelt's day, so why not now?
For the same reasons we cannot have "liberals" who are in favor of, you know, liberty.
Can you imagine hacking the system and sending out an alert with a link to malware, beautiful .
I do not have to; I have a system with Microsoft Windows.
The gun is. The drone isn't.
Ya, fuck the Ninth Amendment. If a right is not listed in the Bill of Rights, then you do not have it.
Given that that particular CEO has been found to have lied under oath, it's not particularly surprising that no one cares what he says.
Boy. Wolf. Etc.
If the FBI thinks he lied to them, then they can give him the Martha Stuart treatment.
It is a vast right wing Russian hacking conspiracy.
The WiFi bands are unlicensed and users *must* accept interference from other users. The FCC already went through this with the Port Authority when they tried to ban their tenets from offering WiFi services.
http://www.govtech.com/policy-...
https://www.cnet.com/news/fcc-...
INCORRECT. They are not putting a restriction on the devices operation, they are forbidding you from using the device. A restriction would be sub-licensing and not allowed. Not allowing their use at all is actually fine.
Really?
http://www.govtech.com/policy-...
https://www.cnet.com/news/fcc-...
And the reason you cannot do this with radio is that the noise from the transmitter is greater than the received signal.
Actually you CAN manage it with radio - very difficultly, with very careful antenna design.
But the combined antenna has to be far from anything that reflects, absorbs, or just phase-shifts any substantial amount of the transmitted signal energy. If not, the discontinuity destroys the careful balance that nulls out the transmitted signal at the receiver. That gets you back to the "transmitter shouts in the receiver's ear much louder than the distant communications partner" case. So it's not very practical in the real world.
I have only seen it done where the transmit and receive antenna had considerable separation. Oddly enough, I designed some yagi antennas for minimum sidelobes which could meet this requirement. They had lower gain than a normal yagi but when testing them in the field, they could *see* reflections from things like trees and bushes 100s of yards away. I never got them to be better than about 30dB because that was as good a hilltop used as an antenna test range as I could find. Using them to passively track aircraft at 10s of miles from their reflections was trivial and gave a real feel for how radar and stealth work.
Cancelling the near end crosstalk requires sampling the transmitted signal. If it is sampled before the final amplifier, then noise added by the final amplifier clobbers the received signal. If it is sampled after the final amplifier, then the dynamic range difference between the transmitted signal and transmitted noise clobbers the measured transmitted noise so that cannot be cancelled anyway. Apparently someone has solved this problem in an integrated form but I am dubious of their claims.
Back when I was first playing with SSB transmitters, I noticed the problem when keying up an SSB transmitter with no modulation which produced noise across the entire band which was more than 20dB higher than the background noise. You could still receive signals of course but maximum range was reduced by more than an order of magnitude. Every 6dB halves the distance. This neatly explains why hilltop transmitters include fixed cavity filters.
Sharing a fast connection is awesome, you save tons of money, but one problem arises. One of your neighbors sets up a server and hosts web sites for three or four of his friends, then another neighbor leaves Netflix streaming 24/7 in two different rooms, when he's not even home. That's quite wasteful, but what does he care, he's only paying a tiny fraction of the cost. You get less of the shared bandwidth because dumbass is streaming HD video to an empty living room.
If only there was some solution which involved, oh, I don't know, shaping the traffic to each subscriber based on a refilling bucket of tokens or something. Maybe they could pay for it by not having to pay for extra complexity in the billing and customer complaint system.
There is no perfect solution to that, but about the best solution we have are caps. Unfortunately ISPs haven't been clear about what the caps are for different pricing tiers. Most consumers probably don't know how many GBs they want, so that's part of the problem.
What is good for ISPs in an environment which lacks competition has nothing to do with what is good for the customers.
The ISP's solution is *designed* to increase revenue with fines created because the ISP does not provide real time usage information to the customer and the customer is subject to unsolicited traffic (incoming UDP among others) anyway. You know how telephone companies charge customers for unsolicited calls and text messages? It is the same thing.
And the reason you cannot do this with radio is that the noise from the transmitter is greater than the received signal.
Yes, using the internet is like eating Oreos except for that part about paying ahead of time for a specific number of Oreos, eating one more so I now have negative Oreos, and getting fined for it. At least with Oreos, I can unambiguously count the number of Oreos I have left.
Tell me again why pay as you go internet does not end when I run out of bytes that I paid for?
NAT is still possible with IPv6. It would really just force people to "break" the internet if they tried something like that.
Sure NAT is still possible although I would not put it beyond them to eventually try getting people charged with violations of the CFAA or some other law for using it without permission.
And why wouldn't they want to break the internet? We are after all talking about companies like AT&T who once told me that they were blocking IPv6 tunneling because otherwise customers could get free static IPv6 IPs without paying for them.
Wasn't Germany one of the countries that had a hard time with google street view? Are they going to accept millions of cameras driving around sharing everything they see?
It is not fascism when they do it.
And the manufacturers will start sending false data to competitors.
I don't think I need a big conspiracy about AH/ESP. They were really awkward approaches, and largely redundant with higher layer strategies.
They were made really awkward by the conspiracy to prevent usage.
It is not like the usual suspects had to kill AH to protect their need for mass-spying, making ESP optional would be enough (and outlaw it where required). But no, they need to actually be able to inject false traffic (which *is* against the !@#$!@#$ law everywhere, even for governments)...
Better to kill AH now to prevent people from thinking they have a right to any unapproved and secure cryptography. Plus there is the whole wanting to inject false traffic issue.
When people talk about an IPv6 address being 128 bits they're technically true but they miss the bigger picture. In practice you can't assign anything smaller than a /64 so really there are only 64 bits of address space as we think of it today. 1 IPv4 address hosting a subnet with NAT vs. an IPv6 /64 prefix are roughly equivalent. It's still way more address space than we'll ever reasonably need, but not quite as ridiculous as it looks at first glance.
No worries, ISPs will soon figure out how to issue single IPv6 addresses or at least block all but one unless you pay for the feature of having a complete allocation.
In 99% of police interactions if you comply with their instructions, you will not be injured or worse.
Oh good. So only 1% of the time will I be injured or worse. And only in 1% of of the time when people are detained or arrested will they be injured or worse. That percentage is completely unacceptable.
Are there overjealous, brutish police officers? Yes, undoubtedly. Are the majority of police officers reasonable human beings? Yes.
The guards in the Standford Prison Experiment were reasonable human beings. This problem has nothing to do with the character of the officers. They are *trained* to act like thugs, to steal property, to evade the law, and extenuate circumstances to justify their own actions. The difference between law enforcement and common criminals is law enforcement expects your sanction of their actions. Common criminals are more honest.
The only recourse is to *always* exercise your 4th, 5th, and 6th amendment rights during *every* interaction with law enforcement with absolutely no exceptions. Of course doing this will get you injured or worse as well.
"As a country, we must engage in an honest, transparent, and data-driven conversation about police use of force," California Attorney General Kamala Harris said in a news release.
Obey the instructions of the police officer and let your lawyer / attorney / barrister handle any disputes. The solution does not even require technology. Priceless.
So you mean let your lawyer handle burying you in your grave?
What we need to be doing is getting executives arrested for violating the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act. That awful law has been used to prosecute hackers and hobbyists for much more minor things than this, and has been twisted enough to fit various cases that there's more than enough precedent now.
Ya, I can see the CFAA being used against a user who bypassing the company's root kit.
I am not.
Interesting. Do you know how long ago that study was done? I"m curious if smaller manufacturing geometries have made newer processors more vulnerable.
The sensitivity of DRAM actually leveled off a few generations ago. I think what happened is that there is a minimum capacitance needed per DRAM cell so as the cells became smaller and the dielectric constant was increased to make up for it, the charge stored in a given volume became *greater* so an ionizing radiation impact spreading charge over a greater number of DRAM capacitors without enough charge to affect them individually.
High performance SRAM used for integrated caches became more vulnerable and has been protected by parity and ECC for a long time now.
I am not sure about high performance logic.
The SRAM structures used for integrated high performance processor cache are orders of magnitude more sensitive than discrete DRAM to radiation induced soft errors. Some of this is simply because the bandwidth is so high which exposes a greater capture area of logic. And so high performance processor cache has included parity and ECC protection for a long time.
Of course it depends where you are on the ground. I used to work in a data center in Colorado Springs, at about 6000 feet altitude. We saw quite a few correctable memory errors in the logs (and a few random crashes).
The soft error rate do to cosmic rays is an order of magnitude higher at Colorado springs than at ground level. For aircraft it is another order of magnitude higher but they have a very small capture area; I assume safety critical aircraft systems are designed with this in mind. Placing systems in a deep basement has the opposite result do to greater shielding.
A lot of memory*hours are needed for it to become a significant problem which is why systems with either lots of memory or systems which run continuously for long times (or both) are the most affected. Oddly enough, the error rate is also proportional to memory bandwidth because use of the logic controlling the memory array increases the capture area.