All the 'inefficiency' in your computer gets emitted as heat, noise, RF or light.
Ultimately, most of the non-heat forms of energy loss get turned into heat in the surroundings when they get absorbed by something, like a wall.
So if you are trying to maintain your house at a higher temperature than it is outside, then all the lost energy from your computer goes to do useful work heating your surroundings. Hence a 100% power efficient computer.
Now if we could efficiently generate electricity, we might have an efficient total system. I don't see that happening soon.
Odd. I like the Mentor tools that run.. Like ModelSim.
For FPGA stuff, Leonardo was very nice to use. Its a crap tool for ASICs but really well suited to filling the occasional Altera, with a lot less fuss than Ambit or DC.
PrecisionRTL is their Leonardo follow on. It runs on Redhat 7.1. It does not run on Redhat 9 or later and does not run on any 2.6 kernel. This kind of sucks if you have a spiffy new machine with SATA and 875 chipsets that confuse 7.1.
They can make Modelsim run on pretty much anything, as it should. So why on earth does PrecisionRTL not run. You can't even install the bloody license server without RH7.1, thus preventing you from running the tool elsewhere, like on a windows box.
Maybe once he's arrived, he can pop round to Mentor Graphics and have a chat with them about making their tools run on something more recent than Redhat 7.1.
>Ok, seeing as you wrote it, explain to those who might be too lazy to RTFA, why 802.16 is better than 802.11[a|b|g].
It's not better; it's different.
5 mile radius cells = metro area service = MAN = 802.16 = lower bps/unit_area 100m radius cells = local area service = LAN = 802.11 = higher bps/unit_area
The 802.16 standard standard stack terminates at one of A) An ATM convergence sublayer B) An IP Packet convergence sublayer C) An 802.3 Packet convergence sublayer D) An 802.1Q CS - Ignore, this one is braindead
So there is no compulsion to spit L2 user traffic out of the BS.
I have seen a variety of implementations, from the IP routing being right in the base station, next to the radio, through to L2 traffic being routed over a closed IP network back to an aggregation point elsewhere in the network and varieties that lay somewhere in between.
SS1 -- 802.16 BS -- SS2 is feasible and real.
There is nothing in 802.16 that demands you work hard at L2. Although some people clearly think there is a reason to try, hence 802.1AB provider bridging.
WiMax is to 802.16 as the Wifi Alliance is to 802.11. It determines interoperability criteria for 802.16 systems.
802.16 is an effort to standardize an existing market in MMDS and LMDS systems. There are many manufacturers that have been making and selling this stuff for a long time. What is new is that there is a standardized MMDS/LMDS protocol coming out of the IEEE.
WiMax can serve eiher big carriers, small carriers or private users. The standard is flexible in this respect. It can work in licensed or unlicensed spectrum. It can be fixed or mobile. It can be point to point or point to multipoint.
The IEEE 802.11 working group is meeting right now in Garden Grove, California.
They are collectively raising their eyes to the sky and saying "Duh! Another idiot stating the obvious".
A posse is being organized. Hundreds of angry engineers, all bearing their IEEE Wirless Interim meeting badges, will descend on the offending researchers with pitchforks and other spikey objects.
Yes, I read the article. It has all the signs of something that needs justly debunking.
The 'no formal training' genius. Power out > Power in Use of the words 'over unity' A tale of skepticism from scientists Little guy vs. big guyes woes Failing to identify the 'fundamental force of nature' that is being harnessed.
But in the end, you don't need to look futher than the violation of the laws of thermodynamics.
My music buying money and the music buying money of my friends goes to allofmp3.com.
Its cheap, legal, non DRM, supports all the formats you want including MP3, AAC, OGG at various bits rates and there are lossless compression modes as well for people who want PCM.
It has what appears to be a sufficiently complete collection of music.
You pay per megabyte. At 320kbps, albums cost around 86 cents.
So why on Earth do people choose any of the US based DRM download merchants?
Err.. no There are two polarizations, left and right. A different set of channels are sent on each polarization. To be sure that you can decode any two channels and dump them to disk, you need to be able to receive both RF signals at the same time.. dual LNBs, dual tuners, two streams of digital data from which you can such the relevant program.
1) 802.11i is still not yet approved as a standard 2) WPA (the impetuously released TKIP variant) is not widely available and like 802.11i relies on 802.1X. 3) 802.1X has been withdrawn by the IEEE pending a re-write. Its broken for wireless. Don't expect to see the revision any time soon. 4) No semblance of a seamless, inter operator, inter hotspot, non web-pagey user authentication scheme for mobile devices is widely deployed for 802.11. 5) Other wireless networks that are deployed are insecure (E.G. GSM)
Addressing inter operator hotspot authentication and billing for 802.11 is one part of the solution.
There is also network detection and selection to consider. There are other interfaces to consider (802.16e?). There is the issue of optimal interface selection to consider like with laptops (docked 802.3 -> undocked 802.11 -> outdoors 802.16).
To solve all this stuff you need things to be addressed at multiple layers.
Presentation - Tim Moore, Doug Whiting, Jesse Walker - doc 02/545r0 - Mapping Password to PSK Standardize a method to generate a 256 bit PSK from an ASCII password. PSK = PBKDF2(password, ssid, ssidlen, 4096, 256)
Jesse: Only do this if you have to. Security is bad. Tim: Use hard to guess passwords. Also change SSID from default. Jesse: I would suggest that every AP ship with a different SSID. Comment: This forces the administrator to set them to a common value in order to roam.
Comment: Why so big (4096) Doug: Increases the number of effective bits by that amount. Comment: How long does this take? Tim: 17ms on my machine. Comment: There is a Unicode problem here with UTF8. Results will be different based on code page used. Comment: Will a 1 byte SSID cause a problem with this? Tim: This will work, but won't be very good. Doug: Doc says don't use this in the corporate environment. Suggested for home use.
Comment: Apple had a concept of pass phrase. Is this the same? Chair: I don't believe they ran it through a function. Tim: How much time to people want to review the draft? Chair: If we postpone a motion, will anybody look at it? Jesse: Do you want it incorporated as normative? Comment: It could be normative for optional. Tim: Either we make it normative or WECA does. Jesse: We could put it in an informative annex.
Motion by Russ Housley Motion to incorporate document 02/545r0 as an informative annex. Second: Jesse Walker
Discussion: Comment: Request to change document to use passphrase instead of password.
Motion to amend by Donald Eastlake. Change motion to be: Motion to incorporate document 02/545r0 as an informative annex with password replaced by passphrase. Second: Paul Lambert.
Discussion: Comment: We have not properly defined "passphrase". Does the editor know this definition? Jesse: I have seen it before. Comment: Call the question Chair: Any objection? None
Vote on motion to amend: 22-1-2 Passes
New main motion: Motion to incorporate document 02/545r0 as an informative annex with password replaced by passphrase.
It is the fact that an OFFLINE dictionary attack is possible. If the protocol did not enable an offline attack, then you would be able to see the attacker attempting to guess the password with a live attack and then countermeasuers could be imposed.
Slashdot Mirror
In the brave new world, the terrorists will come armed with coloured tape to control the robot hoards.
All the 'inefficiency' in your computer gets emitted as heat, noise, RF or light.
Ultimately, most of the non-heat forms of energy loss get turned into heat in the surroundings when they get absorbed by something, like a wall.
So if you are trying to maintain your house at a higher temperature than it is outside, then all the lost energy from your computer goes to do useful work heating your surroundings. Hence a 100% power efficient computer.
Now if we could efficiently generate electricity, we might have an efficient total system. I don't see that happening soon.
Odd. I like the Mentor tools that run.. Like ModelSim.
For FPGA stuff, Leonardo was very nice to use. Its a crap tool for ASICs but really well suited to filling the occasional Altera, with a lot less fuss than Ambit or DC.
PrecisionRTL is their Leonardo follow on. It runs on Redhat 7.1. It does not run on Redhat 9 or later and does not run on any 2.6 kernel. This kind of sucks if you have a spiffy new machine with SATA and 875 chipsets that confuse 7.1.
They can make Modelsim run on pretty much anything, as it should. So why on earth does PrecisionRTL not run. You can't even install the bloody license server without RH7.1, thus preventing you from running the tool elsewhere, like on a windows box.
Maybe once he's arrived, he can pop round to Mentor Graphics and have a chat with them about making their tools run on something more recent than Redhat 7.1.
>Ok, seeing as you wrote it, explain to those who might be too lazy to RTFA, why 802.16 is better than 802.11[a|b|g].
It's not better; it's different.
5 mile radius cells = metro area service = MAN = 802.16 = lower bps/unit_area
100m radius cells = local area service = LAN = 802.11 = higher bps/unit_area
What about the Redline Communications AN-100?
The 802.16 standard standard stack terminates at one of
A) An ATM convergence sublayer
B) An IP Packet convergence sublayer
C) An 802.3 Packet convergence sublayer
D) An 802.1Q CS - Ignore, this one is braindead
So there is no compulsion to spit L2 user traffic out of the BS.
I have seen a variety of implementations, from the IP routing being right in the base station, next to the radio, through to L2 traffic being routed over a closed IP network back to an aggregation point elsewhere in the network and varieties that lay somewhere in between.
SS1 -- 802.16 BS -- SS2 is feasible and real.
There is nothing in 802.16 that demands you work hard at L2. Although some people clearly think there is a reason to try, hence 802.1AB provider bridging.
WiMax is to 802.16 as the Wifi Alliance is to 802.11. It determines interoperability criteria for 802.16 systems.
802.16 is an effort to standardize an existing market in MMDS and LMDS systems. There are many manufacturers that have been making and selling this stuff for a long time. What is new is that there is a standardized MMDS/LMDS protocol coming out of the IEEE.
WiMax can serve eiher big carriers, small carriers or private users. The standard is flexible in this respect. It can work in licensed or unlicensed spectrum. It can be fixed or mobile. It can be point to point or point to multipoint.
This looks nothing in the slightest like Iridium.
802.16 is a highly asymmetric protocol. To SSs (SS = Subcriber Station) cannot talk together directly. They communicate with a BS (Base Station).
There is a mesh version in the standard, but it is incomplete and insecure.
Hey! I like that Wimax article thats linked to. It's kind of familiar. Oh, that's it. I wrote it. Duh.
The IEEE 802.11 working group is meeting right now in Garden Grove, California.
They are collectively raising their eyes to the sky and saying "Duh! Another idiot stating the obvious".
A posse is being organized. Hundreds of angry engineers, all bearing their IEEE Wirless Interim meeting badges, will descend on the offending researchers with pitchforks and other spikey objects.
"And if I'm not mistaken, Apple's literature referred to it as "FAT" (I wish now I hadn't given all that old stuff away a few years ago)."
Don't think so...
From 'Beneath Apple DOS', the major structural elements are..
VTOC - Volume Table of Contents
The Catalog - Kind of obvious
The Track/Sector List - Also kind of obvious
"There is NO SUCH THING as a passive amplifier."
Yes there is. A transformer for instance. This can be configured to be either a passive current or passive voltage amplifier.
Now a passive power amplifier would be the non-thing to which you are referring.
Your are entirely correct. Fortunately its not my calculation, its from the article.
Yes, I read the article. It has all the signs of something that needs justly debunking.
The 'no formal training' genius.
Power out > Power in
Use of the words 'over unity'
A tale of skepticism from scientists
Little guy vs. big guyes woes
Failing to identify the 'fundamental force of nature' that is being harnessed.
But in the end, you don't need to look futher than the violation of the laws of thermodynamics.
"9.144 volts and 192mA output. 1.8 x 0.15 x 2 = 540mW input and 9.144 x 0.192 = 1.755W out. "
So there's nothing real to be seen here. Move on.
My music buying money and the music buying money of my friends goes to allofmp3.com.
Its cheap, legal, non DRM, supports all the formats you want including MP3, AAC, OGG at various bits rates and there are lossless compression modes as well for people who want PCM.
It has what appears to be a sufficiently complete collection of music.
You pay per megabyte. At 320kbps, albums cost around 86 cents.
So why on Earth do people choose any of the US based DRM download merchants?
Err.. no .. dual LNBs, dual tuners, two streams of digital data from which you can such the relevant program.
There are two polarizations, left and right. A different set of channels are sent on each polarization. To be sure that you can decode any two channels and dump them to disk, you need to be able to receive both RF signals at the same time
I have owned the deadhat.com domain for a few years now. It is a simple pun on RedHat and the site is of interest to a very limited group of people.
I am not at all happy that someone has sullied the good name of my website with a worm.
That would be the universe's most powerful box of flashing lights in transparent tubing.
Orac had a thing going on with Servilan.
Are we there yet? Lets see..
1) 802.11i is still not yet approved as a standard
2) WPA (the impetuously released TKIP variant) is not widely available and like 802.11i relies on 802.1X.
3) 802.1X has been withdrawn by the IEEE pending a re-write. Its broken for wireless. Don't expect to see the revision any time soon.
4) No semblance of a seamless, inter operator, inter hotspot, non web-pagey user authentication scheme for mobile devices is widely deployed for 802.11.
5) Other wireless networks that are deployed are insecure (E.G. GSM)
I think maybe there's a way to go yet.
To solve all this stuff you need things to be addressed at multiple layers.
That's why the IEEE has started 802.21.
But will they introduce a user replaceable battery?
Presentation - Tim Moore, Doug Whiting, Jesse Walker - doc 02/545r0 - Mapping Password to PSK
Standardize a method to generate a 256 bit PSK from an ASCII password.
PSK = PBKDF2(password, ssid, ssidlen, 4096, 256)
Jesse: Only do this if you have to. Security is bad.
Tim: Use hard to guess passwords. Also change SSID from default.
Jesse: I would suggest that every AP ship with a different SSID.
Comment: This forces the administrator to set them to a common value in order to roam.
Comment: Why so big (4096)
Doug: Increases the number of effective bits by that amount.
Comment: How long does this take?
Tim: 17ms on my machine.
Comment: There is a Unicode problem here with UTF8. Results will be different based on code page used.
Comment: Will a 1 byte SSID cause a problem with this?
Tim: This will work, but won't be very good.
Doug: Doc says don't use this in the corporate environment. Suggested for home use.
Comment: Apple had a concept of pass phrase. Is this the same?
Chair: I don't believe they ran it through a function.
Tim: How much time to people want to review the draft?
Chair: If we postpone a motion, will anybody look at it?
Jesse: Do you want it incorporated as normative?
Comment: It could be normative for optional.
Tim: Either we make it normative or WECA does.
Jesse: We could put it in an informative annex.
Motion by Russ Housley
Motion to incorporate document 02/545r0 as an informative annex.
Second: Jesse Walker
Discussion:
Comment: Request to change document to use passphrase instead of password.
Motion to amend by Donald Eastlake.
Change motion to be:
Motion to incorporate document 02/545r0 as an informative annex with password replaced by passphrase.
Second: Paul Lambert.
Discussion:
Comment: We have not properly defined "passphrase". Does the editor know this definition?
Jesse: I have seen it before.
Comment: Call the question
Chair: Any objection?
None
Vote on motion to amend: 22-1-2 Passes
New main motion:
Motion to incorporate document 02/545r0 as an informative annex with password replaced by passphrase.
Any discussion on new main motion?
None
Vote on new main motion: 24-0-1 Passes
No, its worse than that.
It is the fact that an OFFLINE dictionary attack is possible. If the protocol did not enable an offline attack, then you would be able to see the attacker attempting to guess the password with a live attack and then countermeasuers could be imposed.