The text version doesn't answer this question: before I sign the zones the first time, shouldn't I update the serial number in the SOA record from the current published one? That is, is the sequence 1. edit zone file to update serial 2. sign zone 3. publish new zone.signed instead of old zone file?
I operate a low-level iGate in Palo Alto, CA. It's built out of a WRT54G running aprs4r (Ruby) and using an Argent Data modem, based on an integrated design by Chris K6DBG. I didn't hear the balloon directly, but I did hear it repeated from three mountain-top digipeaters (i.e., one radio hop away) and gatewayed the packet to the internet.
Here's the first packets I heard; the very first had a bad decode for most of it.
APRS is based on AX.25 unproto, which is kind of the IP equivalent of UDP (as AX.25 is derived from X.25). It uses source routing, so you can see K6RPT-13 directed its packet at the "destination" APBL10, and the destination in APRS is usually a unique software identifier. That got picked up directly by WR6ABD on Loma Prieta mountain near Santa Cruz, CA. WR6ABD retransmitted it ("WIDE2" is a hope count for how to route over RF), and then gatewayed to the Internet ("QAR") by KG6HWF, and my WRT54G picked that up off the internet feed. The third line logs a packet I received directly and correcly from WR6ABD My WA5ZNU-10 iGate would have also done the same after the 3rd packet there.
This reminds me of Pump 6, by Paolo Bacigalupi: "...it made me nervous thinking about all those maintenance warnings glowing down there in the dark: Mercury Extender Seal, Part #5970-34, Damaged, replace. Whatever the hell that meant."
Tomato seems to be a little stale, at the moment. See TomatoUSB: http://tomatousb.org/
I have to cron reboot my tomato router daily and it still goes into the ozone sometimes. Any advice for upgrading from tomato to tomato-usb (no-usb) on a WRT54GS from someone who's tried that route? I spent some time at the tomato-usb site so I saved nvram off box for reference and will save away the various config pages. So just firmware upgrade to the 2.4kernel no-usb build and 30-30-30 reset?
>JSON is quick and lightweight, and when something is missing, you're going to notice anyway.
Sure, why bother to make sure anything matches the documentation. Or the function parameters. If it breaks you can just use Firebug to fix the data and press resume to get back to your FB page, right?
Before I had a skull MRI, I would have said that there was no real chance of any sort of biological response to EMI. Then I had the skull MRI. During certain parts of the roughly half hour scan, I experienced a tingling sensation in various random parts of my body as it scanned various parts of my brain.
Our broadband family of RF power amplifiers spans the range from 8 MHz to 300 MHz, allowing for a wide range of imaging options. These amplifiers provide the outstanding performance essential for high-quality MR imaging at power levels up to 8 kW.
So, up to 8 kilowatts at a frequency range that is known to produce heating in human subjects.
Now, compare that to 0.1 watt in a laptop Wifi, and that's about 5 orders of magnitude bigger. And not pointed directly at your head in a focused beam. And not accompanied by 8.5 Tesla magnets.
Radio transmitters are not banned there. Licensed ham stations have minimal limitations: for example, the main amateur radio restriction is that it's not allowed without permission to establish a "beacon" (transmit-only) station, and those themselves are already limited to 28 MHz and up anywhere in the US.
What news are you reading to say "no one respectable has said that for decades"???
They put RF in the same risk category as coffee. They didn't do any of their own research, just reviewed existing research. You can review the same existing research here and come to your own conclusions, just like they did: http://www.cancer.gov/cancertopics/factsheet/Risk/cellphones
There are two ways anyone can visit PARC: 1. PARC Forum every Thursday http://www.parc.com/events/forum.html
Not a guided tour, but you get to ask questions. And the talks are available for viewing afterward.
I've asked questions of Guido van Rossum (a famous Dutchman no doubt you know) and Jill Tarter (SETI), and dozens of others. 2. Art exhibits
There are art exhibits occasionally and they have guided tours of the art on specified days.
You don't get to ask any questions; it's just an art exhibit space.
Intel has a small museum you can visit, and the Computer History Museum in Mountain View is a must-see. The Tech computer museum in San Jose is iffy even if you have kids (exhibits aren't well maintained) though the imax theatre there is nice.
Guys, I was illustrating flawed thinking - my whole post was about flaws. I was not asserting that UV cannot deliver enough energy to break bonds. Of course it can.
I'm still kinda lost but I'm willing to believe you're saying something. Want to try again?
As far as your other points about density of cell towers, going from an area with a single distant tower to an area with great cell coverage (i.e. an increase in cell tower density) would cause a decrease in phone transmit power at the phone of tens of dB, and a decrease in absolute power of at least several hundred milliwatts, which would result in a drastically decreased SAR. The increase in power from the surrounding cell towers received in the area with higher tower density would be in the nanowatt range. Receive threshold for a cell phone is in the roughly -100dBm range, or 10^-10 milliwatt or 10^-13 watt. If you had poor cell coverage, that's what the signal strength would be at your phone. If you have two cell towers which give you that same amount of received power, the total power received would be -97dBm, or in round terms, still about 10^-10 milliwatt. If you had ten towers nearby each was -90dBm (i.e. ten times as strong) that's 20dB difference or a signal strength of -80dBm total or about 10^-8 milliwatt. So the increase in power at your point is in the nanowatt range.
So going from one barely usable cell tower to ten strong ones gives you an increase in received power of a nanowatt, and yet your phone transmit power goes down from 1 watt to 20dB less or 10 milliwatts. So total, you transmit 990 mw less and receive 1 nanowatt more. The nanowatt is clearly so small that you can ignore it.
TL;DR: If there are more cell towers, the absolute only thing that matters is your phone transmit power is now drastically lower when the cell coverage is better.
The nature of EMF from transmitters is that most communications and food preparation equipment are operating at near the resoant frequency of water:
No, that's wrong. Dipole resonance of water molecules is around 20 GHz. Microwave ovens are 2.5 GHz and 915 MHz. Those frequencies are allocated as ISM bands. All RF causes heating by absorption, even light.
cell phones and WIFI are operating near the resonant frequency of water to improve their line-of-sight communications through the atmosphere, while microwave ovens actuallty agitate the water molecules in edible food
No, that's wrong. If something absorbs RF and turns it into heat, it's not going to pass it through without loss as well. You're claiming two contradictory things in the same sentence.
to generate heat that supposedly cooks the food if not change the chemical structure of it to something worse.
Yes, you're right. Heat does cook food. Cooking food changes the chemical structure. That's why we cook it. It's done by heat. A 2000 watt Infrared lamp in a stove can cook food because of heat, but it doesn't cause cancer. A 2000 watt microwave oven can cook food because of heat. A fire can cook food because of heat. A lens can concentrate the electromagnetic radiation from the sun and cook a hot dog or kill an ant. If you look at the sun, the lens in your eye will concentrate the energy on a sensitive part of your anatomy and you will go blind. A 2000 watt radio transmitter can cook you because of heat, and you would not want that, so you should avoid being near concentrated electromagnetic energy, because it will induce heat into the soft tissues of your body just as it does chicken breast, and you will get cooked.
In the matter of Cell Phones, wherever region that transmitter is held on the body is where it impugns the Immune System from fuctioning
So what is your proposed mechanism by which some frequencies you have picked ("cell phones", "wi fi") cause immune system suppression now that you know that the special distinction you supposed for these frequencies (by exciting water molecules at resonance) isn't true? How do you propose to decide that heat energy induced in the body by cell phones is more dangerous that heat energy induced by the heat lamp in the bathroom ceiling, or the heat you get from sitting in the sunny part of the yard instead of the shady part?
You want to read about microwave ovens? Go to wikipedia.
Slashdot Mirror
I wrote a 6502 assembler in Logo in 1981 and we shipped it with the utilities disk.
The text version doesn't answer this question: before I sign the zones the first time, shouldn't I update the serial number in the SOA record from the current published one? That is, is the sequence 1. edit zone file to update serial 2. sign zone 3. publish new zone.signed instead of old zone file?
OOPS, that was K6RPT-13, a different balloon . Here's the balloon, K6RPT-11:
2011-12-11T16:18:25: K6RPT-11>APBL10,WR6ABD*,WIDE2:!????????/?????????O???/??/A=189423V288 CNSP-11
2011-12-11T16:18:37: K6RPT-11>APBL10,WR6ABD*,WIDE2:!????????/?????????O???/???/A=109373V266 CNSP-11
2011-12-11T16:20:31: K6RPT-11>APBL10,WR6ABD*,WIDE2:!?????????/????????O???/??/A=109373V255 CNSP-11
2011-12-11T16:24:31: K6RPT-11>APBL10,WR6ABD*,WIDE2:!3715.57N/12152.44WO328/000/A=000082V255 CNSP-11
Here's both: http://aprs.fi/?call=K6RPT-13,K6RPT-11&mt=roadmap&z=9&timerange=259200&_s=ss_call
I operate a low-level iGate in Palo Alto, CA. It's built out of a WRT54G running aprs4r (Ruby) and using an Argent Data modem, based on an integrated design by Chris K6DBG.
I didn't hear the balloon directly, but I did hear it repeated from three mountain-top digipeaters (i.e., one radio hop away) and gatewayed the packet to the internet.
Here's the first packets I heard; the very first had a bad decode for most of it.
2011-12-09T17:13:02: K6RPT-13>APBL10,WR6ABD*,WIDE2:!????????/o?O???/???/A=109373
2011-12-09T17:15:06: K6RPT-13>APBL10,WR6ABD*,WIDE2,QAR,KG6HWF:!3715.25N/12153.29WO140/000/A=000193CNSP-13
2011-12-09T17:15:06: K6RPT-13>APBL10,WR6ABD*,WIDE2:!3715.25N/12153.29WO140/000/A=000193CNSP-13
APRS is based on AX.25 unproto, which is kind of the IP equivalent of UDP (as AX.25 is derived from X.25). It uses source routing, so you can see K6RPT-13 directed its packet at the "destination" APBL10, and the destination in APRS is usually a unique software identifier. That got picked up directly by WR6ABD on Loma Prieta mountain near Santa Cruz, CA. WR6ABD retransmitted it ("WIDE2" is a hope count for how to route over RF), and then gatewayed to the Internet ("QAR") by KG6HWF, and my WRT54G picked that up off the internet feed. The third line logs a packet I received directly and correcly from WR6ABD My WA5ZNU-10 iGate would have also done the same after the 3rd packet there.
And "Like looking at Egyptian Hieroglyphs." Anonymous author of TFA should definitely read this.
This reminds me of Pump 6, by Paolo Bacigalupi: "...it made me nervous thinking about all those maintenance warnings glowing down there in the dark: Mercury Extender Seal, Part #5970-34, Damaged, replace. Whatever the hell that meant."
I think you're joking. If not, I'm sorry for you.
Fabrice's original came with tcc and qemacs, both of which he wrote.
As GP said, you have to look to forks. Google "tomato" and top hit is main polarcloud site, which is stale.
Tomato seems to be a little stale, at the moment. See TomatoUSB: http://tomatousb.org/
I have to cron reboot my tomato router daily and it still goes into the ozone sometimes.
Any advice for upgrading from tomato to tomato-usb (no-usb) on a WRT54GS from someone who's tried that route?
I spent some time at the tomato-usb site so I saved nvram off box for reference and will save away the various config pages. So just firmware upgrade to the 2.4kernel no-usb build and 30-30-30 reset?
You might like this: http://lemonodor.com/archives/2002_05.html#000103
>JSON is quick and lightweight, and when something is missing, you're going to notice anyway.
Sure, why bother to make sure anything matches the documentation. Or the function parameters. If it breaks you can just use Firebug to fix the data and press resume to get back to your FB page, right?
Before I had a skull MRI, I would have said that there was no real chance of any sort of biological response to EMI. Then I had the skull MRI. During certain parts of the roughly half hour scan, I experienced a tingling sensation in various random parts of my body as it scanned various parts of my brain.
This this product sheet for an MRI amplifier says:
So, up to 8 kilowatts at a frequency range that is known to produce heating in human subjects.
Now, compare that to 0.1 watt in a laptop Wifi, and that's about 5 orders of magnitude bigger.
And not pointed directly at your head in a focused beam.
And not accompanied by 8.5 Tesla magnets.
Radio transmitters are not banned there. Licensed ham stations have minimal limitations: for example, the main amateur radio restriction is that it's not allowed without permission to establish a "beacon" (transmit-only) station, and those themselves are already limited to 28 MHz and up anywhere in the US.
It is hardly 4 months since a panel of 31 scientist came to the conclusion that cell phone radiation increases the risk for cancer:
http://www.cbloomnews.com/TopNews.aspx?Article_id=85332&Cat=5
http://www.cnn.com/2011/HEALTH/05/31/who.cell.phones/index.html
http://www.pcworld.com/businesscenter/article/229054/cell_phones_may_cause_cancer_says_the_who_what_to_do.html
What news are you reading to say "no one respectable has said that for decades"???
They put RF in the same risk category as coffee. They didn't do any of their own research, just reviewed existing research.
You can review the same existing research here and come to your own conclusions, just like they did:
http://www.cancer.gov/cancertopics/factsheet/Risk/cellphones
C# had it 10 years ago.
Lisp had it 30 years ago. Go suck eggs.
Well, old Qfwfq was right.
There are two ways anyone can visit PARC:
1. PARC Forum every Thursday http://www.parc.com/events/forum.html
Not a guided tour, but you get to ask questions. And the talks are available for viewing afterward.
I've asked questions of Guido van Rossum (a famous Dutchman no doubt you know) and Jill Tarter (SETI), and dozens of others.
2. Art exhibits
There are art exhibits occasionally and they have guided tours of the art on specified days.
You don't get to ask any questions; it's just an art exhibit space.
Intel has a small museum you can visit, and the Computer History Museum in Mountain View is a must-see.
The Tech computer museum in San Jose is iffy even if you have kids (exhibits aren't well maintained) though the imax theatre there is nice.
Now, what can I see in Amsterdam ;-)
Is that the moon in the background?
I'm totally lost here; want to try again?
Uh. Yeah. I think FCC rules prohibit encryption.
They do not.
And we are talking about radio, not wired communications.
Security issues in radio and wired communications are almost the same unless you can guarantee no physical access to your wire.
You want privacy? Use a phone.
Phones are radios.
I'm surprised nobody's mentioned imapproxy. http://trac.roundcube.net/wiki/Howto_Performance
When I finally gave in and decided to switch to Google Apps...Can't live without it.
Just hope they don't delete your account.
Guys, I was illustrating flawed thinking - my whole post was about flaws. I was not asserting that UV cannot deliver enough energy to break bonds. Of course it can.
I'm still kinda lost but I'm willing to believe you're saying something. Want to try again?
As far as your other points about density of cell towers, going from an area with a single distant tower to an area with great cell coverage (i.e. an increase in cell tower density) would cause a decrease in phone transmit power at the phone of tens of dB, and a decrease in absolute power of at least several hundred milliwatts, which would result in a drastically decreased SAR. The increase in power from the surrounding cell towers received in the area with higher tower density would be in the nanowatt range. Receive threshold for a cell phone is in the roughly -100dBm range, or 10^-10 milliwatt or 10^-13 watt. If you had poor cell coverage, that's what the signal strength would be at your phone. If you have two cell towers which give you that same amount of received power, the total power received would be -97dBm, or in round terms, still about 10^-10 milliwatt. If you had ten towers nearby each was -90dBm (i.e. ten times as strong) that's 20dB difference or a signal strength of -80dBm total or about 10^-8 milliwatt. So the increase in power at your point is in the nanowatt range.
So going from one barely usable cell tower to ten strong ones gives you an increase in received power of a nanowatt, and yet your phone transmit power goes down from 1 watt to 20dB less or 10 milliwatts. So total, you transmit 990 mw less and receive 1 nanowatt more. The nanowatt is clearly so small that you can ignore it.
TL;DR: If there are more cell towers, the absolute only thing that matters is your phone transmit power is now drastically lower when the cell coverage is better.
Imagine this statement: "Sunlight is not ionizing radiation therefore it is unthinkable that it can cause cancer."
You're massively confused. Sunlight *is* ionizing radiation, at least the UV portion. That's why sunlight causes cancer.
http://cancer.stanford.edu/skincancer/skin/causes/uvrad.html
The nature of EMF from transmitters is that most communications and food preparation equipment are operating at near the resoant frequency of water:
No, that's wrong. Dipole resonance of water molecules is around 20 GHz. Microwave ovens are 2.5 GHz and 915 MHz. Those frequencies are allocated as ISM bands. All RF causes heating by absorption, even light.
cell phones and WIFI are operating near the resonant frequency of water to improve their line-of-sight communications through the atmosphere, while microwave ovens actuallty agitate the water molecules in edible food
No, that's wrong. If something absorbs RF and turns it into heat, it's not going to pass it through without loss as well. You're claiming two contradictory things in the same sentence.
to generate heat that supposedly cooks the food if not change the chemical structure of it to something worse.
Yes, you're right. Heat does cook food. Cooking food changes the chemical structure. That's why we cook it. It's done by heat. A 2000 watt Infrared lamp in a stove can cook food because of heat, but it doesn't cause cancer. A 2000 watt microwave oven can cook food because of heat. A fire can cook food because of heat. A lens can concentrate the electromagnetic radiation from the sun and cook a hot dog or kill an ant. If you look at the sun, the lens in your eye will concentrate the energy on a sensitive part of your anatomy and you will go blind. A 2000 watt radio transmitter can cook you because of heat, and you would not want that, so you should avoid being near concentrated electromagnetic energy, because it will induce heat into the soft tissues of your body just as it does chicken breast, and you will get cooked.
In the matter of Cell Phones, wherever region that transmitter is held on the body is where it impugns the Immune System from fuctioning
So what is your proposed mechanism by which some frequencies you have picked ("cell phones", "wi fi") cause immune system suppression now that you know that the special distinction you supposed for these frequencies (by exciting water molecules at resonance) isn't true? How do you propose to decide that heat energy induced in the body by cell phones is more dangerous that heat energy induced by the heat lamp in the bathroom ceiling, or the heat you get from sitting in the sunny part of the yard instead of the shady part?
You want to read about microwave ovens? Go to wikipedia.