That's fine where it's offered. SBC does not offer IDSL in my area. You can however get an ISDN BRI (128k) just about anywhere. Resi service is 43.95/mo plus ~$400 install (not including isp) but after the other costs are added including tax it worked out to $85/mo. When questioned they couldn't provide an answer to the price difference so I cancelled.
The hazards of RF exposure are still being debated. Hazards from BPL would need years of study. That being said people are probably at more risk from intentional radiators like WiFi points. This is due to the way the body absorbs RF. The absorbtion is a function of the wavelength of the RF and the size of the human body. I don't remember the exact data but the shorter the wavelength the better the absorbtion. This does have some exceptions but I do remember a strong absorbtion around the 1Ghz range.
The interference problem is the greater of the two. Yes it will interfere with radio communications but the interference will be worse for BPL. Aircraft have the potential to cause interference over a wide area due to their altitude, but the tranmitter is relatively low power. The real problems will start when a ham operator can't talk to his buddy 20 miles away. They get tired of the interference so they kick in the linear amplifiers. Since the max leagal power for most of the bands is 1500 watts they have the potential to take out BPL in a very large area.
The APM system I used as an example was not for icing detection specifically. Although it did have that capability. It was a real time indicator of aerodynamic performance and would allow a pilot to see that as the aircrafts profile changed. The main use would have been for stall warning. Most all stall warning systems are mechanical and based on angle of attack. The stall angle is based on the assumption of a "clean" aircraft profile. They fail when the profile has changed due to icing or other changes. Some of the changes are deliberate, such as lowering the flaps and spoilers. This all has an effect on stall angle and speed.
I wasn't involved with the flight tests so I don't know how many sensors where involved. 3 or 4 per wing comes to mind and each one was about the size of a deck of cards. I thought it was a great system. I wish it had caught on.
Very well put. Most of the accidents can be lumped under the heading of "Human error". Accidents that are caused by weather conditions that are beyond the pilots control (ie wind shear) are much rarer. Equipment that address the human aspect will do more to reduce the accident rates.
I just want to make a comment on controlled flight into terrain. One system in development before I left my previous employer was TAWS (Terrain Awareness and Warning System). I didn't do too much work on that as I was on the TCAS system but what I saw was interesting. Basically it used a terrain database combined with GPS and altitude information to warn pilots when they were in danger of hitting a stationary object. Be it the ground or a fixed emplacement like a building. So there are systems address other aspects of flight safety. They still need to be adopted by the industry. I mean the commercial industry. Many safety systems are too costly for private aviation unfortunately.
I worked for a company that developed a system to monitor the aerodynamic performance of an aircraft. It was sensitive enough to measure the degradation caused by frost or dead bugs on the wings. It would have replaced the strictly angle of attack based stall warning systems in use. The system was simple and reliable. It also had a small footprint in the cockpit. The system never sold due to the reluctance of the airlines to adopt systems that add cost to an aircraft and complexity to the cockpit.
A good example would be the collision avoidance systems marketed by a number of companies. These systems have been available for many years. They were not widely adopted until an FAA mandate that all commercial aircraft of a certain size and larger must be fitted with these systems. That happened back in the mid 90's.
I may be wrong (and I hope I am) but I don't believe that there will be a rush to install systems based on this technology unless it's very cheap or the FAA mandates it.
Finding myself needing MRTG yesterday I was unhappy to see this notice. After doing some brief digging I found the mirror sites were still up. That may not last but at least some of this software is still available.
The article also mentioned the code freeze to search for security problems. I really wonder how they expected to find any problems. Why would the people that wrote the insecure code in the first place be expected to actually find the problems the second time around? It is like allowing school kids to grade their own papers. You will always get a passing grade. You've gotta love open source. It holds the truth up to the light of day.
As many others pointed out you will get a full T1 to the ISP. Where it goes from there is the bottleneck. You should find out how many hops it is from the ISP to the local backbone provider (SPRINT, UUNET, whatever...). The fewer hops the better. One hop away on a 110% DS3 can be better than 10 hops away on a 50% DS3 as each hop is a potential bottleneck. Good luck.
I would LOVE to see this implemented
on
CD Copy Stopper
·
· Score: 1
into EVERY CD. Why? Face it, the consumer has no power anymore. Only money talks and that means Mega-corporations. Would you like to see the look on Mr. Mega-corp CEO when he is told that the upgrade on the main ERP system coughed a hairball. Then when they went to fix it the CD told them that it was already in use please insert $500,000 to try again. Start to make life hard for big business and the technology will get buried so deep you couldn't find it with an oil rig. It would suck for the consumer but, as it has been stated in other posts, it would only require capturing the unencrypted data stream to allow copying. That is tough now but it would become readily available in the face of something like this.
Everyone is saying that this violates the DCMA. IANAL but is this really the case? You are not altering, reverse engineering, cracking encryption or anything else mentioned with this. All you are doing is screwing with the install routine that usually has nothing to do with the software that you are installing. Assuming that it is using a third party installshield. I will agree that this could cause you plenty of trouble. Is the DCMA evil. Of course. Does it apply here? Not until a large corporation chooses to spend the money to make it apply.
more laws to regulate this and protect the consumer from their own ignorance. What ever happened to being responsible for your own actions? If you choose not to educate yourself on a piece of technology that you purchase then you deserve what you get. As mentioned in the article look at all the clueless 802.11b networks.
As for the cameras themselves they operate in the 2.4GHz ISM band. That band has always been crowded because it doesn't require a license from the FCC to operate in. There has always been information available to anyone that took the effort to listen in. Only now that it has become popular with the public and you have a chance to see a naked nanny has anyone even noticed.
Let them eavesdrop on the X10 cameras. We all know that the real danger lies in the alien mind rays that my tinfoil hat stops.
I had a funny sig but a large corporation trademarked it and sued me into poverty.
When a corporation does something like this it is labeled "protection" or "innovation". When a 15 year old does the same thing with a virus or "hacking" over the internet it is labeled a crime. The corporation gets congratulations for protecting itself from the public. The kid gets prison time. Free enterprise at its finest.
I had a funny sig but a large corporation trademarked it and sued me into submission.
Slashdot Mirror
That's fine where it's offered. SBC does not offer IDSL in my area. You can however get an ISDN BRI (128k) just about anywhere. Resi service is 43.95/mo plus ~$400 install (not including isp) but after the other costs are added including tax it worked out to $85/mo. When questioned they couldn't provide an answer to the price difference so I cancelled.
The hazards of RF exposure are still being debated. Hazards from BPL would need years of study. That being said people are probably at more risk from intentional radiators like WiFi points. This is due to the way the body absorbs RF. The absorbtion is a function of the wavelength of the RF and the size of the human body. I don't remember the exact data but the shorter the wavelength the better the absorbtion. This does have some exceptions but I do remember a strong absorbtion around the 1Ghz range.
The interference problem is the greater of the two. Yes it will interfere with radio communications but the interference will be worse for BPL. Aircraft have the potential to cause interference over a wide area due to their altitude, but the tranmitter is relatively low power. The real problems will start when a ham operator can't talk to his buddy 20 miles away. They get tired of the interference so they kick in the linear amplifiers. Since the max leagal power for most of the bands is 1500 watts they have the potential to take out BPL in a very large area.
The APM system I used as an example was not for icing detection specifically. Although it did have that capability. It was a real time indicator of aerodynamic performance and would allow a pilot to see that as the aircrafts profile changed. The main use would have been for stall warning. Most all stall warning systems are mechanical and based on angle of attack. The stall angle is based on the assumption of a "clean" aircraft profile. They fail when the profile has changed due to icing or other changes. Some of the changes are deliberate, such as lowering the flaps and spoilers. This all has an effect on stall angle and speed.
I wasn't involved with the flight tests so I don't know how many sensors where involved. 3 or 4 per wing comes to mind and each one was about the size of a deck of cards. I thought it was a great system. I wish it had caught on.
I just want to make a comment on controlled flight into terrain. One system in development before I left my previous employer was TAWS (Terrain Awareness and Warning System). I didn't do too much work on that as I was on the TCAS system but what I saw was interesting. Basically it used a terrain database combined with GPS and altitude information to warn pilots when they were in danger of hitting a stationary object. Be it the ground or a fixed emplacement like a building. So there are systems address other aspects of flight safety. They still need to be adopted by the industry. I mean the commercial industry. Many safety systems are too costly for private aviation unfortunately.
I worked for a company that developed a system to monitor the aerodynamic performance of an aircraft. It was sensitive enough to measure the degradation caused by frost or dead bugs on the wings. It would have replaced the strictly angle of attack based stall warning systems in use. The system was simple and reliable. It also had a small footprint in the cockpit. The system never sold due to the reluctance of the airlines to adopt systems that add cost to an aircraft and complexity to the cockpit.
A good example would be the collision avoidance systems marketed by a number of companies. These systems have been available for many years. They were not widely adopted until an FAA mandate that all commercial aircraft of a certain size and larger must be fitted with these systems. That happened back in the mid 90's.I may be wrong (and I hope I am) but I don't believe that there will be a rush to install systems based on this technology unless it's very cheap or the FAA mandates it.
Finding myself needing MRTG yesterday I was unhappy to see this notice. After doing some brief digging I found the mirror sites were still up. That may not last but at least some of this software is still available.
The article also mentioned the code freeze to search for security problems. I really wonder how they expected to find any problems. Why would the people that wrote the insecure code in the first place be expected to actually find the problems the second time around? It is like allowing school kids to grade their own papers. You will always get a passing grade. You've gotta love open source. It holds the truth up to the light of day.
As many others pointed out you will get a full T1 to the ISP. Where it goes from there is the bottleneck. You should find out how many hops it is from the ISP to the local backbone provider (SPRINT, UUNET, whatever...). The fewer hops the better. One hop away on a 110% DS3 can be better than 10 hops away on a 50% DS3 as each hop is a potential bottleneck. Good luck.
into EVERY CD. Why? Face it, the consumer has no power anymore. Only money talks and that means Mega-corporations. Would you like to see the look on Mr. Mega-corp CEO when he is told that the upgrade on the main ERP system coughed a hairball. Then when they went to fix it the CD told them that it was already in use please insert $500,000 to try again. Start to make life hard for big business and the technology will get buried so deep you couldn't find it with an oil rig. It would suck for the consumer but, as it has been stated in other posts, it would only require capturing the unencrypted data stream to allow copying. That is tough now but it would become readily available in the face of something like this.
Everyone is saying that this violates the DCMA. IANAL but is this really the case? You are not altering, reverse engineering, cracking encryption or anything else mentioned with this. All you are doing is screwing with the install routine that usually has nothing to do with the software that you are installing. Assuming that it is using a third party installshield. I will agree that this could cause you plenty of trouble. Is the DCMA evil. Of course. Does it apply here? Not until a large corporation chooses to spend the money to make it apply.
As for the cameras themselves they operate in the 2.4GHz ISM band. That band has always been crowded because it doesn't require a license from the FCC to operate in. There has always been information available to anyone that took the effort to listen in. Only now that it has become popular with the public and you have a chance to see a naked nanny has anyone even noticed.
Let them eavesdrop on the X10 cameras. We all know that the real danger lies in the alien mind rays that my tinfoil hat stops.
I had a funny sig but a large corporation trademarked it and sued me into poverty.
When a corporation does something like this it is labeled "protection" or "innovation". When a 15 year old does the same thing with a virus or "hacking" over the internet it is labeled a crime. The corporation gets congratulations for protecting itself from the public. The kid gets prison time. Free enterprise at its finest.
I had a funny sig but a large corporation trademarked it and sued me into submission.
"Peer review. The one sure way to be told you are wrong in public."