That's enough for at least two non-overlapping channels. 802.11n has specs offering over 75 MB per 20 mhz non-overlapping channel and over 400 MB for a 40 mhz channel.
This isn't ground breaking, but it is one more tool in the aresenal potentially.
Will the processor being used actually support 4 802.11a or g channels? I am willing to be that the overhead of the OS + the overhead with the packet processing (signal vs noise) and finally raw data processing and routing will likely cripple one with 4 radios.
802.11n will likely prove the real backbone of mesh networking in the next year.
The more modes of communication that law enforcements have available the better. I don't see why you would think that having one more is a bad thing. Remember that during 9/11 and the recent hurricanes that it was ham radio operators that did most of the communicating.
Most telcos that I have experience with will NOT provide any SLA on a DSL line in and of itself due to the simple fact that beyond a DSLAM, they cannot guarantee anything. A building contractor could have put in crappy copper wiring that causes the sync to drop in and out and a whole host of other problems. With T1 circuits, they have a better idea of end to end quality and as such can monitor and administer it better.
With business lines and such you can get an MIR and CIR which is probably what you mean. An MIR is a Minimum Information Rate. That means they are guaranteeing you a bare minimum of bandwidth. It is extraordinarily rare for a home market to get this kind of guarantee. What you usually get is a CIR or Confirmed Information Rate. That means that if it is 3AM and no one else is using the Internet from your provider, you will definitely get your 1.5MB or whatever.
Business class customers will get their MIR because they are paying more for that dedicated bandwidth. But even business class DSL customers don't usually get guaranteed uptime.
No, I didn't RTFA. I don't need to. Why? I have a Linux box with a passphrase over 100 characters that is an easy to remember wording. It is a ROYAL pain in the ass. You miss one character and you have to type in the whole thing again. Yes, I have tried changing it, but for some unexplained reason, the box refuses to let me change it. I haven't taken the time to research it. I digress.
I don't agree that corporations need to stick with IE for version control.
Whether or not you agree with it has nothing to do with the realities that IT managers of extremely large organizations face.
they should still code their web applications to generally cohere to standards.
I don't disagree. There are, however, massive internal websites that large organizations run that weren't coded this way. IBM is one of them. This can be a real problem that isn't easily fixed.
No, that doesn't stop at helping people with issues. That includes version control, patches, internal web development testing and maybe even a little training.
Large organizations that have IE in an Active Directory environment with SUS servers, they can easily push patches out and manage versions. That is a level of comfort that they just don't get with Firefox so far.
Nonsense. Just like chalkboards, whiteboards, calculators and all the other tools that are used to enhance learning, computers can have their place if properly integrated.
For example, imagine in a calculus class that is very large that students are working a problem out on a touch screen tablet PC. A teacher could work more efficiently if she could have an interactive terminal session and show where in the problem solving the student went wrong or give hints. Instead of having to walk back and forth to each student, the teacher could quickly jump back and forth from screen to screen from their desk. Sounds dumb until you realize that the teacher would have more energy throughout the day to help students better.
There could be many more examples, this is just one. Jsut because you lack the foresight to see how computers in the classroom could be good doesn't mean they couldn't be.
I can't speak for your bank, but mine allows you to download a file created on the fly of bank transactions for either Quicken or Microsoft Money. Burning those to a CD and putting them on a non-connected PC would be extremely trivial. Given that, are you saying that a non-connected PC running Quicken would refuse to import the file? I highly doubt it.
Any time you try to import a text transaction file (QFX), the program calls home to see if the organization you downloaded from paid its "Quicken Tax".
I am curious how it is supposed to do this on machines that are in no way shape or form connected to the Internet. Many people run Quicken on machines that aren't connected to the Internet for security reasons. So are you saying that if you try to import one of those files while it is offline (think copying the files to a CD) that it will refuse to do so?
I am a big proponent of FOSS. I use it every day and love it. Yet I must point out that my attempt to use GnuCash was not great. I found it extraordinarily unintuitive and cumbersome. Things just didn't seem to work the way they should. No, I can't remember too many specifics except one. I entered a transaction and found no easy way to modify it. I just had to give up on it.
Unless a lot has changed in the past year or so, it has a LONG way to go to being a suitable replacement to Quicken IMHO.
There was a time when IE was the best browser (sort of). It was during that time or on the tail end of that time that many organizations developed IE only websites. I'm not saying it's a good idea, but it has happened.
There is a tremendous amount of inertia to try to rectify that. You are talking about a complete overhaul of code to move to a standards based solution. That means expense. It is difficult to cost justify fixing something that technically isn't broken. No, being IE only doesn't make a web page broken, only short sighted and very limited.
Funny you mention Kentucky. The state government of Kentucky has one of the largest user bases of Outlook/Exchange in the world. If you could get THEM to use Evolution on Windows instead of Outlook, that would truly be inspirational.
This may be as easy to fix as a firmware update or driver download
Doubtful. The wireless encoding is almost certainly hardware and not software(firmware). While it is not guaranteed that if the ratified standard is slightly different from the one they implemented that their products will work with truly standardized equipment, neither is it a guarantee that it won't.
Consider if someone had made 802.11b equipment prior to standarization but the only thing they left out was WEP. So long as you didn't intend on using WEP, you would have been fine. Similarly, there could be something included in the standard not in their implementation which are ancillary to basic functionality and vice versa. Consider Cisco LEAP avaiable in an all Cisco environment yet not available for other manufacturers offerings.
If the differences in the ratified standard are such that existing hardware implementations by Belkin are not compatible, you can forget any firmware upgrades to fix it.
At the current rate, 802.11n networks could grow faster than WiMax and be cheaper in a shorter amount of time. Plus 802.11n networks will have the benefit of being backwards compatible to 802.11b/g.
WiMax is well on its way to being too little too late.
Spammers will hit the open access points to flood their product onto the net.
Exactly how will this be any different from open access points in neighborhoods, coffee shops and airports now? Seems a bit silly for a spammer to trample upon federal or state territory to send spam when they can do it from the comfort of their car in any decent sized neighborhood. I imagine they wouldn't have a prayer with the lawsuit that would ensue from that.
Kids will steal as many access points as possible.
It is not difficult to make it extremely hard to steal an AP. Say, lock the AP's inside a locked enclosure welded to a tower. If they felt really paranoid, they could use amps and put the AP's on the inside and just have antennas outside.
Tax payers will wonder what the hell they are doing putting wi-fi out in the middle of nowhere instead of giving wi-fi to rural Texas... where it might actually improve quality of life.
Or maybe they will wonder why they haven't done this sooner to increase visitors to parks. Personally, I think they should offer metered service for full access and offer slowed speed for free for those that just want to quickly check the weather and e-mail. Kind of like many parks now have free parking for day hiking but you must pay a fee to stay overnight.
Also, this may open the door to people that are workaholics to go with their families as long as they know they can perform some work and stay connected for emergencies.
Let's be perfectly honest. If grandma does actually read those messages, don't you think she might be smart enough to understand what you mean when you say "no, it't ok grandma. this one is safe. click yes on this one only"
The whole notion of a little box that says signed or unsigned software is just plain silly. Anybody with some money to burn can get a certificate.
This is qualitatively a subjective response. I personally do not share your assessment. If the difference in searching styles is what makes or breaks a browser for you, then more power to you. Personally, I don't spend that much time disecting an individual web page to worry how the browser searches.
What does matter to me is speed and extensions. Last time I checked, Firefox blows Moz away in both. To be fair, I don't know whether Firefox extensions work in Moz and I just don't feel like checking right now.
As for email, in Thunderbird I just clicked on Tools -> Import and I see that mine has the option to import from Communicator 4.x, Eudora, Outlook and Outlook Express. Sounds good to me. But if you have some exotic mail program not widely used that stores mail in some obscure format, well I can't really see what the complaint is if Thunderbird can't import from it.
The fact that P2P networks persist in spite of the online presence of legitimate media content says otherwise.
Wrong. They persist because they fulfill the criteria I set forth better than current paid models.
If content providers would meet the criteria in the same way only better, they would prevail.
More specifically:
*Easy to find music *Easy to download *Low cost *Non DRM encumbered *Cross platform (many formats i.e. mp3, ogg) *Multiple qualities (low for portables, high for CD/DVD burning)
The networks wouldn't allow a DRM free system as it could, and would, be used to distribute shows to people who didn't pay.
If history has shown anything, it has shown that DRM will never stop those that want to circumvent paying. What DRM will do is impose restrictions on legitimate paying customers. That is bad business. Although it may take time, market forces will eventually correct and weed out those bad apples.
DRM distribution of files would allow the networks to promote their shows. Sign up for the service, and get one free episode from each show on the upcoming fall lineup.
I see no reason that DRM would be especially beneficial to marketing content. Why not just release free downloads with the first 5 or 10 minutes of a show? Much like some artists offer free/non-DRM downloads on their websites offering high quality snips or very low quality full versions of their songs to entice you to pay to get the real deal.
While I understand what you are saying, I think the fundamental assumptions behind this line of thinking is just plain flawed. If you give people an easy and inexpensive way to get their fix without limitations, they will gladly pay for it.
The key is cheap, easy and universal access. In my opinion, the first content provider that provides content matching these criteria will win.
Slashdot Mirror
That's enough for at least two non-overlapping channels. 802.11n has specs offering over 75 MB per 20 mhz non-overlapping channel and over 400 MB for a 40 mhz channel.
This isn't ground breaking, but it is one more tool in the aresenal potentially.
Will the processor being used actually support 4 802.11a or g channels? I am willing to be that the overhead of the OS + the overhead with the packet processing (signal vs noise) and finally raw data processing and routing will likely cripple one with 4 radios.
802.11n will likely prove the real backbone of mesh networking in the next year.
The more modes of communication that law enforcements have available the better. I don't see why you would think that having one more is a bad thing. Remember that during 9/11 and the recent hurricanes that it was ham radio operators that did most of the communicating.
Most telcos that I have experience with will NOT provide any SLA on a DSL line in and of itself due to the simple fact that beyond a DSLAM, they cannot guarantee anything. A building contractor could have put in crappy copper wiring that causes the sync to drop in and out and a whole host of other problems. With T1 circuits, they have a better idea of end to end quality and as such can monitor and administer it better.
With business lines and such you can get an MIR and CIR which is probably what you mean. An MIR is a Minimum Information Rate. That means they are guaranteeing you a bare minimum of bandwidth. It is extraordinarily rare for a home market to get this kind of guarantee. What you usually get is a CIR or Confirmed Information Rate. That means that if it is 3AM and no one else is using the Internet from your provider, you will definitely get your 1.5MB or whatever.
Business class customers will get their MIR because they are paying more for that dedicated bandwidth. But even business class DSL customers don't usually get guaranteed uptime.
No, I didn't RTFA. I don't need to. Why? I have a Linux box with a passphrase over 100 characters that is an easy to remember wording. It is a ROYAL pain in the ass. You miss one character and you have to type in the whole thing again. Yes, I have tried changing it, but for some unexplained reason, the box refuses to let me change it. I haven't taken the time to research it. I digress.
IMHO, the time for biometric passwords is here.
I don't agree that corporations need to stick with IE for version control.
Whether or not you agree with it has nothing to do with the realities that IT managers of extremely large organizations face.
they should still code their web applications to generally cohere to standards.
I don't disagree. There are, however, massive internal websites that large organizations run that weren't coded this way. IBM is one of them. This can be a real problem that isn't easily fixed.
One word: support.
No, that doesn't stop at helping people with issues. That includes version control, patches, internal web development testing and maybe even a little training.
Large organizations that have IE in an Active Directory environment with SUS servers, they can easily push patches out and manage versions. That is a level of comfort that they just don't get with Firefox so far.
Nonsense. Just like chalkboards, whiteboards, calculators and all the other tools that are used to enhance learning, computers can have their place if properly integrated.
For example, imagine in a calculus class that is very large that students are working a problem out on a touch screen tablet PC. A teacher could work more efficiently if she could have an interactive terminal session and show where in the problem solving the student went wrong or give hints. Instead of having to walk back and forth to each student, the teacher could quickly jump back and forth from screen to screen from their desk. Sounds dumb until you realize that the teacher would have more energy throughout the day to help students better.
There could be many more examples, this is just one. Jsut because you lack the foresight to see how computers in the classroom could be good doesn't mean they couldn't be.
I can't speak for your bank, but mine allows you to download a file created on the fly of bank transactions for either Quicken or Microsoft Money. Burning those to a CD and putting them on a non-connected PC would be extremely trivial. Given that, are you saying that a non-connected PC running Quicken would refuse to import the file? I highly doubt it.
Hmm, maybe my memory is skewed. I remember trying desperately to edit something and was unable to do so. Maybe I need to revisit it.
Any time you try to import a text transaction file (QFX), the program calls home to see if the organization you downloaded from paid its "Quicken Tax".
I am curious how it is supposed to do this on machines that are in no way shape or form connected to the Internet. Many people run Quicken on machines that aren't connected to the Internet for security reasons. So are you saying that if you try to import one of those files while it is offline (think copying the files to a CD) that it will refuse to do so?
I am a big proponent of FOSS. I use it every day and love it. Yet I must point out that my attempt to use GnuCash was not great. I found it extraordinarily unintuitive and cumbersome. Things just didn't seem to work the way they should. No, I can't remember too many specifics except one. I entered a transaction and found no easy way to modify it. I just had to give up on it.
Unless a lot has changed in the past year or so, it has a LONG way to go to being a suitable replacement to Quicken IMHO.
There was a time when IE was the best browser (sort of). It was during that time or on the tail end of that time that many organizations developed IE only websites. I'm not saying it's a good idea, but it has happened.
There is a tremendous amount of inertia to try to rectify that. You are talking about a complete overhaul of code to move to a standards based solution. That means expense. It is difficult to cost justify fixing something that technically isn't broken. No, being IE only doesn't make a web page broken, only short sighted and very limited.
No, for them it would be a support and inertia issue.
Funny you mention Kentucky. The state government of Kentucky has one of the largest user bases of Outlook/Exchange in the world. If you could get THEM to use Evolution on Windows instead of Outlook, that would truly be inspirational.
This may be as easy to fix as a firmware update or driver download
Doubtful. The wireless encoding is almost certainly hardware and not software(firmware). While it is not guaranteed that if the ratified standard is slightly different from the one they implemented that their products will work with truly standardized equipment, neither is it a guarantee that it won't.
Consider if someone had made 802.11b equipment prior to standarization but the only thing they left out was WEP. So long as you didn't intend on using WEP, you would have been fine. Similarly, there could be something included in the standard not in their implementation which are ancillary to basic functionality and vice versa. Consider Cisco LEAP avaiable in an all Cisco environment yet not available for other manufacturers offerings.
If the differences in the ratified standard are such that existing hardware implementations by Belkin are not compatible, you can forget any firmware upgrades to fix it.
Google "pre-n review" and you get
Belkin Wireless Pre-N Router
From this link:
we measured throughput of 40.7 Mbps at 60 feet from the router (where 802.11g products typically deliver 15 Mbps)
So at 60 feet, they were getting 40.7 full duplexed, 81.4 half. Considering wireless overhead that must be involved, that isn't bad throughput.
What is most interesting is that the throughput at 1 foot from the router was actually less than at 60 feet by over 20 Mbps.
At the current rate, 802.11n networks could grow faster than WiMax and be cheaper in a shorter amount of time. Plus 802.11n networks will have the benefit of being backwards compatible to 802.11b/g.
WiMax is well on its way to being too little too late.
Spammers will hit the open access points to flood their product onto the net.
Exactly how will this be any different from open access points in neighborhoods, coffee shops and airports now? Seems a bit silly for a spammer to trample upon federal or state territory to send spam when they can do it from the comfort of their car in any decent sized neighborhood. I imagine they wouldn't have a prayer with the lawsuit that would ensue from that.
Kids will steal as many access points as possible.
It is not difficult to make it extremely hard to steal an AP. Say, lock the AP's inside a locked enclosure welded to a tower. If they felt really paranoid, they could use amps and put the AP's on the inside and just have antennas outside.
Tax payers will wonder what the hell they are doing putting wi-fi out in the middle of nowhere instead of giving wi-fi to rural Texas... where it might actually improve quality of life.
Or maybe they will wonder why they haven't done this sooner to increase visitors to parks. Personally, I think they should offer metered service for full access and offer slowed speed for free for those that just want to quickly check the weather and e-mail. Kind of like many parks now have free parking for day hiking but you must pay a fee to stay overnight.
Also, this may open the door to people that are workaholics to go with their families as long as they know they can perform some work and stay connected for emergencies.
Let's be perfectly honest. If grandma does actually read those messages, don't you think she might be smart enough to understand what you mean when you say "no, it't ok grandma. this one is safe. click yes on this one only"
The whole notion of a little box that says signed or unsigned software is just plain silly. Anybody with some money to burn can get a certificate.
quite simply, it's a better browser
This is qualitatively a subjective response. I personally do not share your assessment. If the difference in searching styles is what makes or breaks a browser for you, then more power to you. Personally, I don't spend that much time disecting an individual web page to worry how the browser searches.
What does matter to me is speed and extensions. Last time I checked, Firefox blows Moz away in both. To be fair, I don't know whether Firefox extensions work in Moz and I just don't feel like checking right now.
As for email, in Thunderbird I just clicked on Tools -> Import and I see that mine has the option to import from Communicator 4.x, Eudora, Outlook and Outlook Express. Sounds good to me. But if you have some exotic mail program not widely used that stores mail in some obscure format, well I can't really see what the complaint is if Thunderbird can't import from it.
The fact that P2P networks persist in spite of the online presence of legitimate media content says otherwise.
Wrong. They persist because they fulfill the criteria I set forth better than current paid models.
If content providers would meet the criteria in the same way only better, they would prevail.
More specifically:
*Easy to find music
*Easy to download
*Low cost
*Non DRM encumbered
*Cross platform (many formats i.e. mp3, ogg)
*Multiple qualities (low for portables, high for CD/DVD burning)
The networks wouldn't allow a DRM free system as it could, and would, be used to distribute shows to people who didn't pay.
If history has shown anything, it has shown that DRM will never stop those that want to circumvent paying. What DRM will do is impose restrictions on legitimate paying customers. That is bad business. Although it may take time, market forces will eventually correct and weed out those bad apples.
DRM distribution of files would allow the networks to promote their shows. Sign up for the service, and get one free episode from each show on the upcoming fall lineup.
I see no reason that DRM would be especially beneficial to marketing content. Why not just release free downloads with the first 5 or 10 minutes of a show? Much like some artists offer free/non-DRM downloads on their websites offering high quality snips or very low quality full versions of their songs to entice you to pay to get the real deal.
While I understand what you are saying, I think the fundamental assumptions behind this line of thinking is just plain flawed. If you give people an easy and inexpensive way to get their fix without limitations, they will gladly pay for it.
The key is cheap, easy and universal access. In my opinion, the first content provider that provides content matching these criteria will win.
So they are all vulnerable?
Let the race to see who fixes first begin. Any bets on who fixes it first?
*ducks*
Let's be honest. How many of us sit down to "just check e-mail" and find that nearly an hour has passed without really doing anything productive?
If usage goes up but productive usage doesn't go up, then time is wasted.