I have thought about this too. I can see one big problem though. Long ago back in my pre-high school days I built a hydrolosis display where I had mixed a salt-water solution and placed two electrodes in the water and pumped DC through it to create two opposite charged nodes. Sure enough the water split easily. The PROBLEM was that as the water split into H and O the catalyst to the reaction (salt) began to built up on the nodes to the point that it greatly interfered with the reaction. I can't help but wonder how bad that would be if you did that on a large scale. You would have to have some sort of cleaning system to periodically clean away the catalyst.
I don't have a link handy but I am sure someone does. Code from another operating system HAS been copied line for line into Linux before. I remember some time back that someone from the BSD community was a bit upset that some of their code was copied line for line with no credit. I seem to recall it being a SCSI driver or something like that.
I am sure it was more of a misunderstanding where someone just copied it with no hesitation because BSD is OSS too.
I really don't understand this mode of thinking. It seems to me that a website operator that provides an open forum for discussion should be no more at fault for the content of patron conversation than a restaurant owner should when people sit and chat there.
Besides there is a fairly descriptive disclaimer on the front page that specifically says the site is for people who live in countries where such information isn't illegal. No company should have a right to extend their arm of influence beyond the laws and regulations of the countries where they provide service.
To put it in perspective imagine if some country had a specific ban on sports of any type so people from that country demanded that all sports web sites shut down and turn their domains over to them.
Intelligent being from other planets would be bound by the same physics we are which means they have to use the same frequency transmissions that we do. The radio spectrum is only so big. We know all frequencies they would use. Not all frequencies have the capabilities to travel vast distances.
Assuming they have learned how to properly use radio frequencies and they fully understand their properties then any attempts to contact us would most certainly be on frequencies they KNOW would reach vast distances.
It is also entirely possible that the first messages received will not be designed for contact. We may well suddenly start hearing the transmission of some distant planet for decades before we receive the "we come in peace" message. Instead we may find ourselves watching or hearing their early broadcasts just as they will be receiving ours.
At a place I used to work we had two Engarde boxes sitting in a DMZ acting as DNS servers. In two years I was there they NEVER went down and as far as we could tell had never been cracked. Our IDS did record quite a few attempts though.
I can't say the same for our Citrix servers . ..
IMHO the price is definitely worth it. I have spoken with the CEO Dave Wreski many times and he has helped me through several tough problems. Hands down their tech support has been unbelievable. I recommend their product to every company that I believe has a need that their products can fill.
For most/. users their products won't make much sense because they are targeted to an enterprise level customer.
If you happen to work for one of these companies you will not find a more out of the box secure solution for Web, DNS, E-mail or file serving.
Actually I think the warning should be that their 2.4 ghz phones might actually stop working.
The funniest thing I have ever seen was during a site survey, we pointed a 24dbi grid antenna with enough power going into it to probably cause the Friendly Candy Company to frown. There was a guy on a 2.4 phone that was walking beside us. He walked in front of us and about threw the phone to the ground. "Dammit I just bought that phone from Wal-Mart and now it is making that kind of noise!" I laughed so hard my sides hurt.
Since they operate on entirely different frequencies I don't think so.
The reason you don't want to put your head in a microwave is because microwaves operate on the 2.4 ghz range. If you dig up an encyclopedia you will find that 2.4 is the natural resonance frequency of water. Things cook from the "inside out" because the water molecules on the inside are excited as well as the outside (but not as much).
Of course microwave ovens are usually around 1000 watts or so as compared to the strongest wireless card at 0.2 watts. For a fun excercise load one of the 0.2 watt cards in your laptop and place the laptop on your lap while you watch TV. Position the wireless card above your leg. Wait a few hours and watch what happens. It WILL slowly cook your leg.
I suppose it is possible that with cell phone frequencies something adverse could happen but since I haven't studied those frequencies I don't know.
Actually WiFi IS capable of supporting hundreds of users. What it is NOT capable of doing is providing 100, 10 or even 1 MB of throughput to hundreds of users simultaneously.
If you combind multiple technologies with multiple channels spanning multiple sites you would be surprised the number of users that can be supported in any given area.
Since you can easily go 50 miles with an 8 watt configuration I think your numbers are quite off. You can do a 30 mile point to point link for easily $900 (probably less). $90,000 would get you a nice 3,000 miles.
Anything that is going to go 10 miles plus will REQUIRE to be on a tower. The fresnal zone will not allow you to go the horizon on the ground. If you get high enough you could easily go 50 miles or so point to point with 8 watts. You could possibly get up to 60 or 70 but that would require some gargantuan towers to overcome the curvature of the earth and ground obstacles.
For point to multipoint (access points) you can have a 4 watt EIRP in the 2.4 band (802.11b & g). Point to point (bridge) in 2.4 you can have 8 watts.
In 5.3 ghz (802.11a) you can have a total of 1 watt EIRP for point to multipoint. I _think_ you can have a total of 2 watts for point to multipoint. The same goes for 5.8 ghz.
For point to point on 802.11b you are allowed 8 watts of EIRP. Since the strongest radio you can buy is 200 milliwatts. Unless you are using an amplifier that means you would have to be getting over 16dbi gain on a pringles can.
What is the dbi gain on the pringles can? Even if it was over 16 dbi you could always use a 30 milliwatt card. Then you could have up to a 24 dbi gain on your antenna. I seriously doubt a pringles can offers more than 24 dbi gain.
I would say that there is plenty of potential applications for wireless.
Compare the cost of the wireless with paying to have a company come in and wire the building.
Or how about for a point to point WAN with two buildings in the same city?
Or for consultants so you can segment them off from the rest of your network?
Or for a company that has most of its employees out where wires are out of the question (a landfill comes to mind)?
How about in a warehouse where wireless scanners are the norm?
How about a business that is based in an historic building and doesn't want to drill holes in the walls (or can't) and doesn't want wires all over the floor?
Security over wireless -- it IS possible and you CAN do it at a reasonable price. Not knowing how might make it seem like a concern I suppose.
Signal strength really isn't a problem if you use the right equipment.
Configurations -- not sure what the problem is here. Configuring a wireless network is really VERY easy.
Cost -- If you are wiring up 30 clients I challenge you to prove to me that wiring a new building for those 30 clients is cheaper than doing it wireless.
Except that with free software they don't EVER have to worry about whether or not their licensing is compliant. That alone will free up resources not having to worry about it or keep up with it.
Free software frees you to focus on what matters--keeping the systems running smoothly.
These three things do not secure a wireless network.
MAC authentication -- Useless. Period. You can clone a MAC address with very little effort after you sniff a MAC address out of the air using airsnort.
Secure protocols -- I suppose but that isn't really different from a wired scenario so in essence you haven't added any security precautions. You are only observing the same care you should take in a wired world.
Lock down your AP -- Based on your description this only prevents access to the management console. It doesn't secure your wireless side at all.
Try using PPPOE sessions to prevent unauthorized access using CHAP to encrypt passwords.
Use a VPN tunnel to encrypt your data over the wireless link.
Finally, use hotspot type technology to prevent any unauthorized users from having access to others on the access point.
I cannot speak for the original poster but I didn't take that to be a religious comment as much as a stab at the train of thought that "if you had to modify your original DNA makeup to achieve it then you are a freak."
I pose an even more interesting question. What is the difference between a woman that has breast implants to achieve a huge bust as opposed to a baby that was DNA modified to be predisposed to big breasts?
Does that mean that manipulative surgery is ok but DNA modification isn't?
-Have the programmer sign a contract saying you are not liable for subsequent hack attacks
-Tell them that TS is cheaper and more reliable for admin purposes
-Have the programmer sign a contract saying he understands Citrix is more expensive
2) Over a WAN/VPN
-Tell them that TS is cheaper and more reliable for admin purposes
-Have the programmer sign a contract saying he understands Citrix is more expensive
Having it in writing that you advised AGAINST it covers yours while exposing his/hers.
I remember when they first announced this on slashdot quite sometime ago that the original specs called for a backup P3 processor and they ran Windows 98.
I thought for certain they were vaporware at that point. Not sure now.
And that really doesn't change that much just because they throw another standard on top of the same signals UNLESS the FCC ups the amount of total EIRP allowed. But there is a reason that there is a 4watt max in the 2.4 range. If they let people have 1000watt 2.4 devices very interesting things would happen most notably cooked flesh.
Besides, what good would it do if they have 4-8 watt devices that plug into a laptop (which WOULD be necessary due to pure physics) how long would their laptop battery last?
With 802.11b you can easily get 50 clients per channel. With 802.11g you SHOULD be able to get at least double if not quadruple that.
With three non-overlapping 802.11b/g and 8 non-overlapping 802.11a channels, you could easily get over 1000 clients on one tower albeit a little bit of money in it.
Slashdot Mirror
I have thought about this too. I can see one big problem though. Long ago back in my pre-high school days I built a hydrolosis display where I had mixed a salt-water solution and placed two electrodes in the water and pumped DC through it to create two opposite charged nodes. Sure enough the water split easily. The PROBLEM was that as the water split into H and O the catalyst to the reaction (salt) began to built up on the nodes to the point that it greatly interfered with the reaction. I can't help but wonder how bad that would be if you did that on a large scale. You would have to have some sort of cleaning system to periodically clean away the catalyst.
I don't have a link handy but I am sure someone does. Code from another operating system HAS been copied line for line into Linux before. I remember some time back that someone from the BSD community was a bit upset that some of their code was copied line for line with no credit. I seem to recall it being a SCSI driver or something like that.
I am sure it was more of a misunderstanding where someone just copied it with no hesitation because BSD is OSS too.
I am surprised Red Hat or some other company doesn't take advantage of heavy Windows worm activity.
"Did you get hit by that new worm?"
"No, I run Linux."
"The site itself is a circumvention device."
I really don't understand this mode of thinking. It seems to me that a website operator that provides an open forum for discussion should be no more at fault for the content of patron conversation than a restaurant owner should when people sit and chat there.
Besides there is a fairly descriptive disclaimer on the front page that specifically says the site is for people who live in countries where such information isn't illegal. No company should have a right to extend their arm of influence beyond the laws and regulations of the countries where they provide service.
To put it in perspective imagine if some country had a specific ban on sports of any type so people from that country demanded that all sports web sites shut down and turn their domains over to them.
Intelligent being from other planets would be bound by the same physics we are which means they have to use the same frequency transmissions that we do. The radio spectrum is only so big. We know all frequencies they would use. Not all frequencies have the capabilities to travel vast distances.
Assuming they have learned how to properly use radio frequencies and they fully understand their properties then any attempts to contact us would most certainly be on frequencies they KNOW would reach vast distances.
It is also entirely possible that the first messages received will not be designed for contact. We may well suddenly start hearing the transmission of some distant planet for decades before we receive the "we come in peace" message. Instead we may find ourselves watching or hearing their early broadcasts just as they will be receiving ours.
At a place I used to work we had two Engarde boxes sitting in a DMZ acting as DNS servers. In two years I was there they NEVER went down and as far as we could tell had never been cracked. Our IDS did record quite a few attempts though.
.
/. users their products won't make much sense because they are targeted to an enterprise level customer.
I can't say the same for our Citrix servers . .
IMHO the price is definitely worth it. I have spoken with the CEO Dave Wreski many times and he has helped me through several tough problems. Hands down their tech support has been unbelievable. I recommend their product to every company that I believe has a need that their products can fill.
For most
If you happen to work for one of these companies you will not find a more out of the box secure solution for Web, DNS, E-mail or file serving.
Actually I think the warning should be that their 2.4 ghz phones might actually stop working.
The funniest thing I have ever seen was during a site survey, we pointed a 24dbi grid antenna with enough power going into it to probably cause the Friendly Candy Company to frown. There was a guy on a 2.4 phone that was walking beside us. He walked in front of us and about threw the phone to the ground. "Dammit I just bought that phone from Wal-Mart and now it is making that kind of noise!" I laughed so hard my sides hurt.
Since they operate on entirely different frequencies I don't think so.
The reason you don't want to put your head in a microwave is because microwaves operate on the 2.4 ghz range. If you dig up an encyclopedia you will find that 2.4 is the natural resonance frequency of water. Things cook from the "inside out" because the water molecules on the inside are excited as well as the outside (but not as much).
Of course microwave ovens are usually around 1000 watts or so as compared to the strongest wireless card at 0.2 watts. For a fun excercise load one of the 0.2 watt cards in your laptop and place the laptop on your lap while you watch TV. Position the wireless card above your leg. Wait a few hours and watch what happens. It WILL slowly cook your leg.
I suppose it is possible that with cell phone frequencies something adverse could happen but since I haven't studied those frequencies I don't know.
Actually WiFi IS capable of supporting hundreds of users. What it is NOT capable of doing is providing 100, 10 or even 1 MB of throughput to hundreds of users simultaneously.
If you combind multiple technologies with multiple channels spanning multiple sites you would be surprised the number of users that can be supported in any given area.
There is absolutely no such thing as a licensed ISM (802.11a,b,g) operator.
The FCC ALWAYS has transmission limits.
Since you can easily go 50 miles with an 8 watt configuration I think your numbers are quite off. You can do a 30 mile point to point link for easily $900 (probably less). $90,000 would get you a nice 3,000 miles.
Since the FCC fines owners of such devices $1,000 per day per device I don't see thise happening.
Anything that is going to go 10 miles plus will REQUIRE to be on a tower. The fresnal zone will not allow you to go the horizon on the ground. If you get high enough you could easily go 50 miles or so point to point with 8 watts. You could possibly get up to 60 or 70 but that would require some gargantuan towers to overcome the curvature of the earth and ground obstacles.
For point to multipoint (access points) you can have a 4 watt EIRP in the 2.4 band (802.11b & g). Point to point (bridge) in 2.4 you can have 8 watts.
In 5.3 ghz (802.11a) you can have a total of 1 watt EIRP for point to multipoint. I _think_ you can have a total of 2 watts for point to multipoint. The same goes for 5.8 ghz.
For point to point on 802.11b you are allowed 8 watts of EIRP. Since the strongest radio you can buy is 200 milliwatts. Unless you are using an amplifier that means you would have to be getting over 16dbi gain on a pringles can.
What is the dbi gain on the pringles can? Even if it was over 16 dbi you could always use a 30 milliwatt card. Then you could have up to a 24 dbi gain on your antenna. I seriously doubt a pringles can offers more than 24 dbi gain.
New alias for the slashdot effect: Slashdeath
I would say that there is plenty of potential applications for wireless.
Compare the cost of the wireless with paying to have a company come in and wire the building.
Or how about for a point to point WAN with two buildings in the same city?
Or for consultants so you can segment them off from the rest of your network?
Or for a company that has most of its employees out where wires are out of the question (a landfill comes to mind)?
How about in a warehouse where wireless scanners are the norm?
How about a business that is based in an historic building and doesn't want to drill holes in the walls (or can't) and doesn't want wires all over the floor?
Security over wireless -- it IS possible and you CAN do it at a reasonable price. Not knowing how might make it seem like a concern I suppose.
Signal strength really isn't a problem if you use the right equipment.
Configurations -- not sure what the problem is here. Configuring a wireless network is really VERY easy.
Cost -- If you are wiring up 30 clients I challenge you to prove to me that wiring a new building for those 30 clients is cheaper than doing it wireless.
Except that with free software they don't EVER have to worry about whether or not their licensing is compliant. That alone will free up resources not having to worry about it or keep up with it.
Free software frees you to focus on what matters--keeping the systems running smoothly.
These three things do not secure a wireless network.
MAC authentication -- Useless. Period. You can clone a MAC address with very little effort after you sniff a MAC address out of the air using airsnort.
Secure protocols -- I suppose but that isn't really different from a wired scenario so in essence you haven't added any security precautions. You are only observing the same care you should take in a wired world.
Lock down your AP -- Based on your description this only prevents access to the management console. It doesn't secure your wireless side at all.
Try using PPPOE sessions to prevent unauthorized access using CHAP to encrypt passwords.
Use a VPN tunnel to encrypt your data over the wireless link.
Finally, use hotspot type technology to prevent any unauthorized users from having access to others on the access point.
Then you have a secure wireless network.
I cannot speak for the original poster but I didn't take that to be a religious comment as much as a stab at the train of thought that "if you had to modify your original DNA makeup to achieve it then you are a freak."
I pose an even more interesting question. What is the difference between a woman that has breast implants to achieve a huge bust as opposed to a baby that was DNA modified to be predisposed to big breasts?
Does that mean that manipulative surgery is ok but DNA modification isn't?
Two scenarios:
1) Over the internet
-Have the programmer sign a contract saying you are not liable for subsequent hack attacks
-Tell them that TS is cheaper and more reliable for admin purposes
-Have the programmer sign a contract saying he understands Citrix is more expensive
2) Over a WAN/VPN
-Tell them that TS is cheaper and more reliable for admin purposes
-Have the programmer sign a contract saying he understands Citrix is more expensive
Having it in writing that you advised AGAINST it covers yours while exposing his/hers.
I remember when they first announced this on slashdot quite sometime ago that the original specs called for a backup P3 processor and they ran Windows 98.
I thought for certain they were vaporware at that point. Not sure now.
And that really doesn't change that much just because they throw another standard on top of the same signals UNLESS the FCC ups the amount of total EIRP allowed. But there is a reason that there is a 4watt max in the 2.4 range. If they let people have 1000watt 2.4 devices very interesting things would happen most notably cooked flesh.
Besides, what good would it do if they have 4-8 watt devices that plug into a laptop (which WOULD be necessary due to pure physics) how long would their laptop battery last?
With 802.11b you can easily get 50 clients per channel. With 802.11g you SHOULD be able to get at least double if not quadruple that.
With three non-overlapping 802.11b/g and 8 non-overlapping 802.11a channels, you could easily get over 1000 clients on one tower albeit a little bit of money in it.
What are they offering with this new standard?