No. I do work for a manufacturer of 802.11 silicon and I am one of the many authors of the 802.11 specification. I have done research into the deployment of dense 802.11 networks.
I'm all for municipal WiFi in principle. I think the government should provide data highways the same way they provide water and roads, as a necessary national infrastructure.
However that doesn't make 802.11 an ideal municipal, wide area data service technology. Let the municipalities dig holes in the road and deploy fibre so us saps at the endpoint can freely attach things like APs and interesting servers, without the telcos in the way.
> But then the problem arises (and please correct me if I'm wrong) of users not having the correct hardware to connect to the better WiFi standards. My university has done a fairly good job maintaining a 802.11g network that services thousands of us at a time with little trouble, and plenty of people connect with plain-ol' wireless B. I know the university paid a lot for that, though, which is probably more than most municipalities are willing to pay per block.
Yes. The CCK and OFDM in 2.4GHz PHYs work well. People will not in typically have WiMAX or 11a even though both work better in their place (11a -> more channels -> higher density deployments possible. WiMAX -> cellular data services).
802.11 works well in an organization where the users are nominally 'members'. It works well in campus scenarios. It works well in home scenarios. It works well extending an existing wired network.
802.11 was designed for indoor use. Read the spec. It talks about indoor propagation and describes a coordination function that works well with that model.
802.11 doesn't scale well to large footprint cells or high density deployments with lots of APs and clients. It excels indoors allowing a small number of people to attached wirelessly to a wired network.
The backhaul services are not standardized in 802.11 and so are generally neither interoperable not secure (E.G. UAM at airports).
Compare with 802.16. It is designed for outdoor base stations, large footprints, indoor, outdoor or mobile clients and has a backhaul architecture and protocol set defined by the WiMAX forum.
802.11 Municipal WiFi is a round technology crowbarred into a square application.
American: All of them absolutely kick ass. British : They are all the dog's bollocks.
The average British expatriate in the USA has to be careful not the blurt out "All of them absolutely kicked the dog's bollocks", which would not be good for the dog.
I was hoping after the fact that people would think it was a witty reference to something they didn't know about, when in reality it was a typographic error.
As someone who has FIOS, the difference in service is clear. With copper I was free to choose my ISP. I chose a very, very good local mom and pop ISP. With Fiber I'm stuck with Verizon.
The technology may be more modern, but the terms of service are in the stoneage. It would be better in the long run if the terms of service were forcibly opened, as with copper, since they don't appear willing to open them voluntarily.
This is something of a reversal of history though. Verizon didn't deploy the stuff until they got a waiver of the copper rules requiring they open them to other ISPs. They were active in closing the terms of service and the government went right along with them.
>So, why are companies even allowed to submit a standard without such a letter? Seems like a recipe for wasting work that you allow a standardization process to even start without assurances from all stakeholders that they'll not interfere with it becoming a standard (i.e. that anyone can implement).
Strictly speaking, companies do not submit work to the IEEE, individuals do. IEEE 802 rules states clearly that people attend as individuals.
Entities with patents essential to standards are encouraged to submit LOAs.
The article is BS. LOAs are not a promise not to sue. They are a promise to license such patents under RAND (Reasonable And Non Discriminatory) terms.
>From what little exposure I've had to MySQL - it can't do much of anything for you or anyone else. I think if you move to PostgreSQL you will find that it will do your dishes for you and make you a better person.
Well it stores my data and meets my performance requirements. Is there something else I need it to do, given that I already own a dish washing machine.
Yes, I've done my share of PHP. It can go in cgi-bin as much as it can go anywhere else.
If computer security is your profession (as it is mine) then you might be aware that a not uncommon technique is to configure the web server to disallow the execution of any code, including PHP, outside of a specific place such as cgi-bin. Thus reducing the attackable footprint.
>Out of the box, Joomla makes it relatively easy to build Web sites that allow collaborative editing of content, attractive styling via prebuilt templates, and many more features.
I.E.
Makes it relatively easy to put together a website that allows lots of attackers to inject their data into the system, exploiting vulnerabilities you are completely unaware of, embedded in the guts of a multi megabyte codebase you downloaded and threw into cgi-bin.
But it is not free as in beer. You pay the TV license fee to watch BBC programing in the UK. Its already been paid for by the users that are being denied access to the programming.
You weren't being pedantic, you were being pernickety.
Re:Geeks do- everyone else doesn't.
on
The DRM Scorecard
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
> "You mean you can supply me with uncrackable protection from unauthorized copying?" >"That's right!"
It's more like the media execs were asking for it, so the IT execs sold it. I work in one of those huge companies that defined those crackable, ineffective DRM standards. I'm a security expert in that company. I know the other security experts. There's not one of them that believes the DRM standards can work, because we understand that DRM cannot work from a fundamental point of view. It is an intractable problem.
So the engineers and security experts that defined those standards, in my opinion, to a one, did not think the DRM standards would last long and as such, dutifully rolled out the pointless technical specs knowing in the long terms it would not matter. The keys would fail. The IT execs got their solution based on unsupportable assumptions (the keys in the equipment can be hidden from the owner of the equipment) and the unsupportable assumptions turned out to be just that. The media execs got what they asked for and were disappointed when they found that the assumptions were so easily violated.
What failed, as is typical, is that the execs were deaf to the technical arguments of the experts and went for it anyway. They will do so again and again, because snake oil sells.
He's taking a whole load of independent businesses that happen to use more modern web protocols and formats (because they can) and using the common element of the web protocols they use to label it a bubble.
Rekeying security protocols when handover mobile devices from one AP or BS to another takes time and disrupts communications. So fix it. That's what HOKEY does.
>High Speeds Standards Group. How hard is it to read the summary? Slashdot: where people don't only RTFA, they don't RTFS.
No. It's High Speed Study Group. In IEEE 802 this makes a huge difference.
A study group studies and recommends what standards are to be written by a Working Group (in this case, the WG is 802.3). They do this by arguing for a while then drafting a scope and purpose for the new spec (you'll find this in the first few pages of each IEEE spec). This is sent up the hierachy (the IEEE 802 EC (executive committee) and IEEE SA NESCOM (IEEE Standards Association New Standards Committee)The Working Group then goes off and writes the spec if the EC and NESCOM approve the PAR (Project Authorization Request).
So the HSSG is not a standards writing group at all, it is a bit of pre work to decide what work is going to be done. Arguing over link speeds is exactly the sort of arguing it is chartered to do.
> Panorama's gone to hell since it became weekly. That shift is an example of one of the main causes of shoddy journalism today - overworked journos trying to meet deadlines, leaving no time to do any proper investigative reporting.
I left Britain in 1999. I have learned to let go. That Panorama has gone to hell is of no concern to me anymore. Yay.
>1. The Indianapolis is the biggest annual sporting event. Period. More people attend, and more people watch on TV worldwide then any other event. If you wanted to get the message about linux out there, this would be the place to do it.
I simply do not believe this. For example, the world cup and the olympics are both watched world wide. The Indy is a local USA thing.
>2. This year all Indy cars run on Ethanol 85. While this isn't solar, it's far better then the traditional Gas of the past (hell I believe NASCAR is just now *thinking* about phasing out leaded gas).
Who cares about the fuel? That's a geek detail.
>3. The engineering involved in these cars is amazing, not only as far as engine development (Honda had relatively little time to develop these engines to run on Ethanol 85, and have done so admirably). Also, the engines themselves are interesting in that they are normally aspirated (i.e. no Turbo, so SuperCharger just incredibly engineered 8Cyl Engines That can drive none stop at high speeds for ling distances. FWIW Honda wasn't picked to be the only engine supplier for indy cars, they got that way through attrition. The last year there were multiple engine manufacturers Honda so blew away Chevy that it just didn't make sense for them to continue.
The engineering in other formulas is also amazing compared to normal cars, but not compared to say a IC fab. I happen to have worked both for a F1 team and an IC manufacturer. So I know.
F1 doesn't use Turbo either. They banned it to slow the cars down.
>4. Engineering! Since the engines these days are identical (as are the tires) there is a great deal of parity initially, however engineers get to figure out best race packages using aerodynamics, gear boxes, Tire Pressure etc, and on top of that figure in fuel mileage (which should be interesting since as mentioned, the fuel is different this year) tire wear, etc.
That's what race teams do in many formulas. It doesn't make Indy special.
>5. Of course given all that, the Drivers and Pit Crews make the difference. Of all the drivers (33) my guess would be that only about half of them have the mental toughness and backing human element to actually have a realistic chance of winning (and of that only a handful would have good vegas odds).
Mental toughness? BS. A team wins on testing and competence. Mostly testing. The more money you have, the more testing you can do, the more tweaking you can do and the more bugs you can iron out. That's how the wealthy teams stay wealthy. True for Indy and F1.
>6. Then of course there's a shred of luck and the unexpected that always makes this totally unpredictable. Weather, Freak accidents, mechanical issues, human error, just being in the wrong place at the wrong time, all can have a hugh effect on the outcome.
Also, true for other sports/motorsports. It doesn't make Indy special.
>7. Finally... Indy Car racing is by far the most competitive racing series out there today. Lot's of passing, and lot's of skill (a minor mistake in an indy car, and you are in the wall with your car breaking away into pieces).
Get real. It's an oval.
>8. Technological advancement. The Indy Car Series (and the IMS (Indianapolis Motor Speedway)) Have been at the forefront of many automotive advances. The Ethanol thing is one recent, but the technologies devised for driver safety have not only been adopted by almost every other racing series, but have also been instrumental in the development of safety features for all cars built today.
Give us the data. Check the dates on specific safety feature being put in the rules. You will find Indy was first on about 0 of them.
Slashdot Mirror
No. I do work for a manufacturer of 802.11 silicon and I am one of the many authors of the 802.11 specification. I have done research into the deployment of dense 802.11 networks.
I'm all for municipal WiFi in principle. I think the government should provide data highways the same way they provide water and roads, as a necessary national infrastructure.
However that doesn't make 802.11 an ideal municipal, wide area data service technology. Let the municipalities dig holes in the road and deploy fibre so us saps at the endpoint can freely attach things like APs and interesting servers, without the telcos in the way.
> But then the problem arises (and please correct me if I'm wrong) of users not having the correct hardware to connect to the better WiFi standards. My university has done a fairly good job maintaining a 802.11g network that services thousands of us at a time with little trouble, and plenty of people connect with plain-ol' wireless B. I know the university paid a lot for that, though, which is probably more than most municipalities are willing to pay per block.
Yes. The CCK and OFDM in 2.4GHz PHYs work well. People will not in typically have WiMAX or 11a even though both work better in their place (11a -> more channels -> higher density deployments possible. WiMAX -> cellular data services).
802.11 works well in an organization where the users are nominally 'members'. It works well in campus scenarios. It works well in home scenarios. It works well extending an existing wired network.
802.11 was designed for indoor use. Read the spec. It talks about indoor propagation and describes a coordination function that works well with that model.
802.11 doesn't scale well to large footprint cells or high density deployments with lots of APs and clients. It excels indoors allowing a small number of people to attached wirelessly to a wired network.
The backhaul services are not standardized in 802.11 and so are generally neither interoperable not secure (E.G. UAM at airports).
Compare with 802.16. It is designed for outdoor base stations, large footprints, indoor, outdoor or mobile clients and has a backhaul architecture and protocol set defined by the WiMAX forum.
802.11 Municipal WiFi is a round technology crowbarred into a square application.
> All of them absolutely kick arse
Argh! Mixing British and American English.
American: All of them absolutely kick ass.
British : They are all the dog's bollocks.
The average British expatriate in the USA has to be careful not the blurt out "All of them absolutely kicked the dog's bollocks", which would not be good for the dog.
> seemed better than on 1xRTT than EVDO
That's because you are possibly the only person in the world left using 1XRTT. You had a lightly loaded service.
>... the Bible. It contains more math than you can shake a stick at and it's pretty entertaining too!
Then stay the bloody hell away from my circles Mr Pi=3 thicky.
I was hoping after the fact that people would think it was a witty reference to something they didn't know about, when in reality it was a typographic error.
As someone who has FIOS, the difference in service is clear. With copper I was free to choose my ISP. I chose a very, very good local mom and pop ISP. With Fiber I'm stuck with Verizon.
The technology may be more modern, but the terms of service are in the stoneage. It would be better in the long run if the terms of service were forcibly opened, as with copper, since they don't appear willing to open them voluntarily.
This is something of a reversal of history though. Verizon didn't deploy the stuff until they got a waiver of the copper rules requiring they open them to other ISPs. They were active in closing the terms of service and the government went right along with them.
Bastards.
Every new application that places a large footprint of code in the line of fire on the internet will be subject to attack.
Media apps are big, hairy and process gobbets of data straight from the attacker's server. What did people expect?
>So, why are companies even allowed to submit a standard without such a letter? Seems like a recipe for wasting work that you allow a standardization process to even start without assurances from all stakeholders that they'll not interfere with it becoming a standard (i.e. that anyone can implement).
Strictly speaking, companies do not submit work to the IEEE, individuals do. IEEE 802 rules states clearly that people attend as individuals.
Entities with patents essential to standards are encouraged to submit LOAs.
The article is BS. LOAs are not a promise not to sue. They are a promise to license such patents under RAND (Reasonable And Non Discriminatory) terms.
>From what little exposure I've had to MySQL - it can't do much of anything for you or anyone else. I think if you move to PostgreSQL you will find that it will do your dishes for you and make you a better person.
Well it stores my data and meets my performance requirements. Is there something else I need it to do, given that I already own a dish washing machine.
The chips are groovy. Very groovy.
They do. There's a monkey there with a bone as well.
>cgi-bin? hmm, not too familiar with php, are we?
Yes, I've done my share of PHP. It can go in cgi-bin as much as it can go anywhere else.
If computer security is your profession (as it is mine) then you might be aware that a not uncommon technique is to configure the web server to disallow the execution of any code, including PHP, outside of a specific place such as cgi-bin. Thus reducing the attackable footprint.
BBC America doesn't just show BBC made programs. I've seen ITV stuff on there too.
What BBC America doesn't show is anything good enough that they can sell it to other networks in the US.
That is why BBC America's programming is a joke.
>Out of the box, Joomla makes it relatively easy to build Web sites that allow collaborative editing of content, attractive styling via prebuilt templates, and many more features.
I.E.
Makes it relatively easy to put together a website that allows lots of attackers to inject their data into the system, exploiting vulnerabilities you are completely unaware of, embedded in the guts of a multi megabyte codebase you downloaded and threw into cgi-bin.
But it is not free as in beer. You pay the TV license fee to watch BBC programing in the UK. Its already been paid for by the users that are being denied access to the programming.
You weren't being pedantic, you were being pernickety.
> "You mean you can supply me with uncrackable protection from unauthorized copying?"
>"That's right!"
It's more like the media execs were asking for it, so the IT execs sold it.
I work in one of those huge companies that defined those crackable, ineffective DRM standards.
I'm a security expert in that company. I know the other security experts. There's not one of them that believes the DRM standards can work, because we understand that DRM cannot work from a fundamental point of view. It is an intractable problem.
So the engineers and security experts that defined those standards, in my opinion, to a one, did not think the DRM standards would last long and as such, dutifully rolled out the pointless technical specs knowing in the long terms it would not matter. The keys would fail. The IT execs got their solution based on unsupportable assumptions (the keys in the equipment can be hidden from the owner of the equipment) and the unsupportable assumptions turned out to be just that. The media execs got what they asked for and were disappointed when they found that the assumptions were so easily violated.
What failed, as is typical, is that the execs were deaf to the technical arguments of the experts and went for it anyway. They will do so again and again, because snake oil sells.
He's taking a whole load of independent businesses that happen to use more modern web protocols and formats (because they can) and using the common element of the web protocols they use to label it a bubble.
Laughable.
HOKEY = Hand Over Keying
Rekeying security protocols when handover mobile devices from one AP or BS to another takes time and disrupts communications. So fix it. That's what HOKEY does.
>High Speeds Standards Group. How hard is it to read the summary? Slashdot: where people don't only RTFA, they don't RTFS.
No. It's High Speed Study Group. In IEEE 802 this makes a huge difference.
A study group studies and recommends what standards are to be written by a Working Group (in this case, the WG is 802.3). They do this by arguing for a while then drafting a scope and purpose for the new spec (you'll find this in the first few pages of each IEEE spec). This is sent up the hierachy (the IEEE 802 EC (executive committee) and IEEE SA NESCOM (IEEE Standards Association New Standards Committee)The Working Group then goes off and writes the spec if the EC and NESCOM approve the PAR (Project Authorization Request).
So the HSSG is not a standards writing group at all, it is a bit of pre work to decide what work is going to be done. Arguing over link speeds is exactly the sort of arguing it is chartered to do.
But you can't eat what they'd be growing, you can only smoke it. They don't know how to make carrots.
> Panorama's gone to hell since it became weekly. That shift is an example of one of the main causes of shoddy journalism today - overworked journos trying to meet deadlines, leaving no time to do any proper investigative reporting.
I left Britain in 1999. I have learned to let go. That Panorama has gone to hell is of no concern to me anymore. Yay.
Did they screw up the theme tune as well?
Myopia is a wonderful thing...
>1. The Indianapolis is the biggest annual sporting event. Period. More people attend, and more people watch on TV worldwide then any other event. If you wanted to get the message about linux out there, this would be the place to do it.
I simply do not believe this. For example, the world cup and the olympics are both watched world wide. The Indy is a local USA thing.
>2. This year all Indy cars run on Ethanol 85. While this isn't solar, it's far better then the traditional Gas of the past (hell I believe NASCAR is just now *thinking* about phasing out leaded gas).
Who cares about the fuel? That's a geek detail.
>3. The engineering involved in these cars is amazing, not only as far as engine development (Honda had relatively little time to develop these engines to run on Ethanol 85, and have done so admirably). Also, the engines themselves are interesting in that they are normally aspirated (i.e. no Turbo, so SuperCharger just incredibly engineered 8Cyl Engines That can drive none stop at high speeds for ling distances. FWIW Honda wasn't picked to be the only engine supplier for indy cars, they got that way through attrition. The last year there were multiple engine manufacturers Honda so blew away Chevy that it just didn't make sense for them to continue.
The engineering in other formulas is also amazing compared to normal cars, but not compared to say a IC fab. I happen to have worked both for a F1 team and an IC manufacturer. So I know.
F1 doesn't use Turbo either. They banned it to slow the cars down.
>4. Engineering! Since the engines these days are identical (as are the tires) there is a great deal of parity initially, however engineers get to figure out best race packages using aerodynamics, gear boxes, Tire Pressure etc, and on top of that figure in fuel mileage (which should be interesting since as mentioned, the fuel is different this year) tire wear, etc.
That's what race teams do in many formulas. It doesn't make Indy special.
>5. Of course given all that, the Drivers and Pit Crews make the difference. Of all the drivers (33) my guess would be that only about half of them have the mental toughness and backing human element to actually have a realistic chance of winning (and of that only a handful would have good vegas odds).
Mental toughness? BS. A team wins on testing and competence. Mostly testing. The more money you have, the more testing you can do, the more tweaking you can do and the more bugs you can iron out. That's how the wealthy teams stay wealthy. True for Indy and F1.
>6. Then of course there's a shred of luck and the unexpected that always makes this totally unpredictable. Weather, Freak accidents, mechanical issues, human error, just being in the wrong place at the wrong time, all can have a hugh effect on the outcome.
Also, true for other sports/motorsports. It doesn't make Indy special.
>7. Finally... Indy Car racing is by far the most competitive racing series out there today. Lot's of passing, and lot's of skill (a minor mistake in an indy car, and you are in the wall with your car breaking away into pieces).
Get real. It's an oval.
>8. Technological advancement. The Indy Car Series (and the IMS (Indianapolis Motor Speedway)) Have been at the forefront of many automotive advances. The Ethanol thing is one recent, but the technologies devised for driver safety have not only been adopted by almost every other racing series, but have also been instrumental in the development of safety features for all cars built today.
Give us the data. Check the dates on specific safety feature being put in the rules. You will find Indy was first on about 0 of them.