should be a lot easier to find a spacehip crash-landed on Mars given the utter lack of life there now.
Now let me get this straight: NASA found a Mars rock that was a lot like a few rocks found on Earth that came from meteorites. And who's to say that a little bit of life didn't stick to one of the meteoric rocks that flew around the cosmos for a few bazillion years until it hit the Earth and then flew all the way back to Mars and eventually caused Eath and Mars both to have life on them? And furthermore since water was found there too, there must be, or have been, life on Mars.
Got it. In fact, this article proves a pet theory of mine too.
The Apollo rocketships that carried men to the moon always did look eerily similar to the Mercury rocketships that brought men into orbit, and they quite similar to the Gemini rocketships before them. Pretty freaky. And they were in outer space too. Hey -- I know -- one of them bounced off Mars and hit the earth and the next thing you know we have all kinds of different rocketships. Wow that's amazing. And all this time I thought they were created by intelligent creatures who built them for a specific purpose... And I have seen pictures of simlilar metallic lifeforms on Mars and the moon. That must be it: they evolved all on their own from stuff flying around on meteors that bounced off planets I'll call it the "Cosmic Ricochet" theory, then argue in open court that I should be allowed to teach it on free speech theory, and then proclaim I even proved I was right in court. Wonder where Darrow is these days...
Man what a dupe I've been. All those who say someone created those rocketships are now so obviously stupid, just plain stupid. It's obvious they evolved from one another due to survival of the fittest and natural selection. They were all inferior to what we see now, so they died out. All according to Erasmus Darwin's theories. It's now fact. Thanks for clearing that up. Now that I know that simple metallic creatures can evolve into sophisticated intergallactic travellers all by themselves, I'm now less skeptical that something as complex and interdependent as Earth's billions of varied lifeforms that require each other to live in a dynamic but very detailed symbiotic, mutualistic system did all by blind chance.
And -- hey!!! -- now I don't have to worry about the environment because life will just evolve and adapt to the new changes. Global warming raising sea levels? Who cares, we'll get gills just like we got lungs. And I read the Blind Watchmaker. According to that work of genius, all we have to do is keep throwing people into the water enough times and viola! they'll be all set. Just like it happened with the flying squirrel working things out by jumping out of trees and 'naturally selecting' all that flabby skin and flight into existence.
Thanks, I feel so enlightened now. And go ahead, mod it down into oblivion. At least I know that nobody "created" rocketships. I'm way smarter than all you "rocketship creationists".
well, actually what you point out is enemies tracking enemies. what this post was about was governments tracking their citizenry to keep them in check. i believe that in all these goverment sponsored tracking systems, exemptions abound for those writing the legislation, and the bureacracies with which it enjoys symbiosis.
Windows is an OS for people who need to be isolated and insulated from workings of their computer. Trouble is that to accomplish this goal, somebody/something else needs to be in charge with remote access that can supercede/override the user, even without their consent (for this class of users themselves has no clue how to manage security), whalla! security holes.
Add to that Microsoft's position that Windows is less an OS than it is a vertical marketing tool, with its primary objective to assure its own financial success through whatever means is necessary. Like any bureaucracy, M$ has learned to feed itself, even if it means devouring its own siblings, which it does via releasing "patches" for security holes (thereby announcing to the world how to destroy systems that prefer to remain with current software versions), through relicensing (rewriting the basis under which you bought their product ex post facto), through unfair competition by financially decimating and destroying potential competitors (even money can't ressurect dead companies beyond name because the true innovators get scattered in the meantime), and various other well-documented other means...
But back to the main point, Tard Windows lUsers. An axiom from engineering school: Design some even an idiot can use, and only an idiot will use it. Hence Windows.
...or makes your machine consume/waste gobs of power needlessly. and you can't get rid of that kind of built-in crap. what about when the firewalling code goes obsolete or has a hole in it? this seems dumber than onboard video and onboard audio combined.
Actually, there are other groups that are not being tracked:
IRS officials
NSA / CIA / US Military leaders
Politicians
Politicians' Business Partners
Bill Gates
(well, after all, it is Windows tracking people...)
Other mind-bogglingly rich people
Gullible Middle-American consumer-producers have always been monitored so as to best transfer wealth away from them while cleverly convincing them that they are getting richer.
and that's another thing. i think someone is jacking with my browser now. half the posts i read have words with scrambled spellings throughout. what's more, i hate IE. and Windows. but i repeat myself. buggy, bloated, virus-prone, spyware. 'rights management' heh. whose rights are they managing anyway? certainly not my 'fair use' rights. frikgin gates. now a microsoft virus checker?!? oh the irony, the irony. it will have no choice but to shut itself down. oops -- gotta run -- my windows media player 9 just finished downloading. now i can use my dvd drive again. i think hardware companies should start charging annual maintenance fees for windows driver updates.
yeah, it's a really strange phenomenon. it's like, when i dial someone and get a busy signal, is it actually busy, or is the phone company just trying to raise revenue by charging my friends to use their fee-based auto-callback option? and how about my spyware detector: was it coded by a renegade spyware programmer? is microsoft funding the effort through some investment company front, perhaps? and how about my antivirus software? who is that 'peter norton' guy, anyway? it's just more proof certain forces in society are targeting me in a very negative way, especially those pesky/. moderators.
yeah except this was dealing with yet another massive security hole in msie, not with iis. i took a shot at you for nit-picking which bsd for the ultimate in security while you advocate a known insecure browser. running as less than an administrator on a windows machine is a real hassle for the user and whoever gets stuck as the administrator (unless your the kind of control freak that likes everyone to come to you saying "mother, may I..."). Did you even read the article? And you were not praising OpenBSD, you were praising IIS, as you repeated above. You don't even know what you're saying. You just think because someone modded me down means you are right. Get a life. I'm not sure what it means, but I don't define my existence by what some faceless/. modder thinks.
it also occurs to me that when you say windose 2003 is "extremely stable" -- which may be the case, after a mere 12 years of trying -- when what we're talking about here is security. stability and security are not the same thing.
this can be easily managed with 802.11, even using standard configuration options. confusing knowledge/behavior of tcp/ip and knowledge/behavior of radio is the beginning of all the problems. WiMax will exacerbate latency, not because it's radio, but because of the protocol itself (meshing...blech!). why not get rid of cell phone towers and just have each others' cell phones relay the voice packets...then we'll put up a mamoth transmitter every 30 miles and then pump out enough power from the cell phone to melt...oh wait...rats...that's wimax...
here's a fun fact: radio propagates between 10 and 25% faster than signals over wire, and about 35% faster than signals over optical fiber (yes, that's right, fiber is s-s-s-l-o-w-w-w). so clearly the latency you are talking about has nothing to do with radio. latency issues lie elsewhere in the protocol implementation. adding that ridiculous "meshing" layer -- which sounds all sexy-techy but is supremely silly -- to augment 802.11 links makes matters, not better, but geometrically worse. but, seriously, thanks for your nicely worded reply.
and, hey, hang on a minute, if this was so insightful why wasn't it modded way up?!? =)
get over it. what moron logs in as root to run a browser? Unless of course it's windows, where the os is virtually useless unless you're admin. you are picky about *precisely* which bsd to use, but you love windows and sing the security parises of msie? alright, mr gates, enough from you. back! back!! back, i say!!!
The biggest problem with Wi-Fi is that the people deploying it understand computers and perhaps computer networks, not radio. And they almost certainly know nothing about building telecomunications infrastructure.
Going up to 30 miles with up to 74Mb/s is not exactly the same this as going 30 miles at 74Mb/s. Even if it achieves this goal (doubtful in my book without a massive power increase), it is almost irrelevant to any purposeful application. Think about it: 8VSB, used to broadcast digital television over-the-air in the US, and a very robust scheme at that, goes about 30 miles or so but at vastly lower data rates (about 19Mb/s payload). Now, let's talk WiMax: 3X data rate jump? What's the client transmitter look like? 30-40dB gain client-side antennas? Site aquisition costs? If rural areas can't afford local TV transmitters (it's what gave rise to cable TV systems in the first place) what on earth makes everyone think that WiMax transmitters will dot the surface of the earth? And I rather doubt this is laptop stuff.
Backhaul? Telecom's are awash with capacity and cable networks too. Anyone that tries to undercut them will have to a have a mighty economical technology.
Thousands of homes? 70Mb/s? Who would hook up thousands of users to a 100TX network? And then talk about the potential for video? And throughput is 1/2 or 1/3. Ridiculous.
As for Wi-Fi range, get a clue, please. Given enough power, antenna gain and sensitivity at both sides, 802.11 could reach 'to infinity and beyond.' Except, of course, for the interframe spacing requirements of 802.11. Any link that is longer than about a mile and a half (2km) cannot ACK within specification (processing latency impacts this generalization) simply for the propagation delay of the radio transmission. Any links that are longer than that are not truly compliant with the spec. (They generally depend on an ambiguity in the spec that in practice permits delays of up to 5X that with DCS-limited MACs, or 3X that with PCS MACs). After that, you are simply testing how closely the particular MAC adheres to the ACK and DIFS/SIFS specifications. To go fartherdistances, simply modify the MAC specification and add the appropriate antenna gain (and height). But beware, throughput will suffer (simply because you now have to wait longer before giving up on a faded channel).
As frequency increases, the more difficult it is to get a terrestrial link working, for a number of reasons. Path length also complicates things, exponentially. This is why TV stations always endeavor to attain, by any means possible, to have the lowest available frequency assignments. So does everyone else who remotely knows anything about radio.
Moreover, having IT people set up wireless networking is like having a person set up and run mission-critical servers because he has twenty years experience as a ham radio operator. It's nonsense. Now, beyond any reasonable doubt, 802.11 has been dumbed way down and people still get it wrong (even basic things like polarity and near-field obstructions). WiMax will absolutley fail if it becomes an "enterprise networking" technology.
It shouldn't be "WiMax", but rather, "Why, Max?" WiMax: the latest VC pump-and-dump deal.
Your actually makes the point against M$. What half-wit puts something like IIS as a default on every machine, when it is acknowledged that these same people are still struggling with VCR clocks? Microsoft itself wants -- no, needs -- to be able to make your computer do things that benefit Microsoft. Others just exploit those holes or ones created as a consequence of those holes. The booty and control is too compelling for those hypergreedy megalomaniacs.
You are totally disconnected from reality if you think that universities grant access to their networks and the public Internet simply out of beneficence. They do not. They do it out of commercial imperitive: you show me a university with no computer network and no access to the Internet, and I'll show you an exciting new archaeological dig site.
I replied to you in the first place because of your obvious God Complex. It just so happened that you were also a sysadmin. My comments about you and your sysadmin career were based on my grouping all people into one of two categories: those that will help others get where they need to be, and all the rest. You fall into "all the rest" group by supporting censorship.
It is obvious that you will do whatever your paymaster says. That's fine. Stanley Milgram, in a fairly famous experiment, proved that the world is full of people like you. They'll do whatever their masters tell them to do and not think much about it.
As for university networks belonging to someone other than the students think again. While some are completely private, not even accepting public money for anything whatsoever (including research grants and publicly funded scholarships) most are publicly funded and so ARE owned by the public. So your true boss is really the taxpayer (i.e., me). But I digress...
Your defense, "my boss told me to censor the material others may examine based on some arbitrary preconceived notion -- like no MP3's of any sort, no P2P networking of any sort, because they are presumed guilty of crimes -- so, I did it" is the SAME defense the Nazis used at Nuremberg, the same as Calley used at My Lai, etc. etc. The fact is that if you are complicit with immoral acts you acting immorally. Censorship is considered a bad thing in most places, and those places that support cencorship are considered bad places. That goes for universities as well as countries. You are as guilty of censorship as if you had written the policy yourself, no matter what you do for a living. It is not your job that convicts you, it is your stated position on censorship that convicts you.
As for boycotting the RIAA or MPAA or SCO or M$ that's your choice. It's not mine. I have no problem paying them for the value they add. But I do object to them using various legal systems to extort money that is not rightfully theirs. So, when they offer a product that I do not own for sale and I want it, I pay them their due, and I'm happy to do so. What I object to, is not being able to get an MP3 of "Rocky Raccoon" even though I own the album and most jurisdictions (including the one in which I reside) clearly say that under those circumstances I can have it in as many formats as I want and I do not have to be the one to do the format conversion.
The fact that you boycott the MPAA/RIAA so as not to support them but are proud to support and help carry out a censorship/presumption-of-guilt policy that allows them to stifle lawful activity for their benfit is a personal conflict that only you yourself can rectify.
Clearly you should go by some CD's -- OR -- stop censring others' lawfully actibvities. But not both. In other words, pick a side and stop shifting blame to your paymasters. You can always find other work that is NOT immoral.
Those who do not think for themselves possess no advantage over those who cannot think for themselves.
Wow, must have hit a nerve. Easy to do though, you are pretty nervy.
My comment about your God Complex and being glad you're not a sysadmin for my network has nothing to do with your resume. Frankly, I couldn't care less about your blue-collar skills. My comment was based entirely on your haughty, self-aggrandizing, autocratic postion that everyone exists to serve YOU and that your ideas are good enough for everyone else. Interesting but you never did say that you restricted you own activities like you restrict others'. I suspect you operate outside of the rules you impose on everyone...after all, you admit to the God Complex, and gods have different rules than mortals, after all...
As for 'training you well', I submit that they trained you 'thoroughly' -- in the art of imposing your will on everyone.
As for decent sysadmins, I know many that realize sysadmins exist to serve others, not the other way round. This is the kind I surround myself with, not your kind.
As for the 'business' of Universities, try substituting the name 'Starbucks' or 'McDonalds' or 'Bloomindales' for 'University' into your own diatribe. Unless you're impenetrably dense -- which is entirely plausible -- even you would have to agree that those retail outlets exist to serve their customers. Universities are retail outlets for education. Only a true ignoramous thinks that to get a good education you have to go to the "top" school. Top schools are about 'connections' and prestige and things that largely don't matter except in a financial sense (which has nothing to do with your education -- that's a personal political skill issue). Just another pathetic fraternal order, putting 'who you know' over 'what you know'. For those that just want to learn, they should shop for the school that fisrt seeks to serve them, since they are the paying customer. Otherwise we just put food in the mouths of control-freak bureaucrats looking to further their own interests. I have the same problem with HMO's...they don't understand who the customer is, and wy they exist in the first place.
For the record I do hold several patents and pending patents, so don't get the idea that you are protecting lawful interests from marauders such as me. I object because your positions are immoral -- transmogrifying lawful activity into unlawful activity to protect pluderers that bully people into paying them becuase it's cheaper than a proper defense and being rightfully exhonerated. In fact, I find it impossible to tell the difference between SCO's and Microsoft's tactics and the RIAA and MPAA, and you fall on their side of the divide, as far as I'm concerned. Your attitude supports censorship and presumption of guilt rather than the rule of law and presumption of innocence. I suggest you read "The Law" by Bastiat so as to aquire some sort of a clue on normal human decency and mutual respect for others.
Guess the only thing left is to bid you a well-deserved "Heil, i_r_sensitive!" and hope that I never get stuck on your network.
With the ranges claimed by 802.16 zealots, the bandwidth per user offered is far inferior to 802.11. Users grow geometrically with range and bandwidth does not. So, what's better, 150m range at 12Mb/s or 50km at 120Mb/s? And the transport network side is alo a problem.
Concatenating/daisy-chaining radio links, while elegant sounding, is not the best approach. Daisy-chaining RS232 devices showed that it's suboptimal, and wire is much more predictable than radio. Especially since it will add latencies of random amounts and weird throughput profiles (which is, I suspect, some of the causes of the delays in product introductions). In the end, it's about bandwidth per user, not range.
As for spectral density, the more data you cram into a fixed amount of bandwidth, the more linearity/more fidelity you need. The highest spectral efficiency is format analogue, which should give some insight on the fragility/sensitivity issue.
The definition of a metre and the most accurate physical representation of one are different matters. The French maintain they have the latter in an underground vault.
But the point here is that there is nothing divine about the meter. It is just as arbitrary a reference as is the physical length of a dead king's foot. There's nothing that you can measure or compute with metre as the standard reference unit that you can't do with a yard as such. You can even put it on a base 10 system. Oh wait, they have...those crazy guys...
Re:I'm sort of working on this same problem.
on
RIAA Files 532 Lawsuits
·
· Score: 5, Insightful
Lets see. You've advocated Supreme Authority, suspension of ALL individual's rights, censorship based on YOUR definition of unethical activity, even assert that students exist to serve universities...glad your not managing my network.
As for "university property" and whatnot, you clearly have the situation reversed. Universities exist for the benefit of the students, and not vice versa. Networks are student resources, not a Pavlovian carrot to teach them your personal idea of right and wrong. The RIAA is clearly using terrorist tactics, using P2P as sleight-of-hand fake to scare people off even "fair use" applications.
You seem to have a real "God complex". Us and Them. My guess is that you, for the moment, find yourself on the priveledged side of that divide. If justice prevails, you'll find yourself victimized by someone just like you. Hopefully soon.
Nothing sacrosanct about the "metre" either (it's no longer your grandfather's "metre"). Just a known physical length that can be used in realizing goals in physical projects. But, then again, the official "metre" is kept in an underground vault in France (where perfect people and perfect language come from). Hmm...maybe if other countries moved those dead body parts to France...
I always supposed that if you were a business major, it was required cirriculum to lie, cheat and steal your way through, then sue if you got caught. Isn't that 4.0 stuff?
having been through the patent process a bunch of times myself, it is safe to say you know little about it, or you have but work for a really big rich powerful company.
The USPTO seemingly triages patents based on the law firm and the assignee. Joe Schmoe inventor gets pulled through knotholes ("office actions" in the jargon) while patents from big corps sail throught on "first action allowances" all the time.
I know several inventors, one in particular, who have had dozens of patents with big company names as the assignees that sail through no questions asked. This one person decided to patent another invention privately and it was five years of office actions, but finally it issued. He swears he'll never do it again as an individual.
So based on true personal experience, an individual or small company using a good but small lawyer or firm get a patent issued, it's probably a good patent. It takes years, so what may have been cutting edge when it was filed may become obvious (or revealed and then popularized during the prosecution phase). Then when it issues, there exists the legal basis to seek judicial remedy if the infringers do not agree to terms. That's the system.
Big companies, on the other hand, can patent anything and get away with it. The irony is that they can afford legal teams that that can turn bat turds into caviar. I'm speculating here, but I think that if the boot were on the other foot and M$ were suing the browser plugin guy, the guy would never have had the resources to unearth some ridiculously obscure document to assert prior art disclosure. It always comes down to this: money=right.
Slashdot Mirror
just read /. every day
Now let me get this straight: NASA found a Mars rock that was a lot like a few rocks found on Earth that came from meteorites. And who's to say that a little bit of life didn't stick to one of the meteoric rocks that flew around the cosmos for a few bazillion years until it hit the Earth and then flew all the way back to Mars and eventually caused Eath and Mars both to have life on them? And furthermore since water was found there too, there must be, or have been, life on Mars.
Got it. In fact, this article proves a pet theory of mine too.
The Apollo rocketships that carried men to the moon always did look eerily similar to the Mercury rocketships that brought men into orbit, and they quite similar to the Gemini rocketships before them. Pretty freaky. And they were in outer space too. Hey -- I know -- one of them bounced off Mars and hit the earth and the next thing you know we have all kinds of different rocketships. Wow that's amazing. And all this time I thought they were created by intelligent creatures who built them for a specific purpose... And I have seen pictures of simlilar metallic lifeforms on Mars and the moon. That must be it: they evolved all on their own from stuff flying around on meteors that bounced off planets I'll call it the "Cosmic Ricochet" theory, then argue in open court that I should be allowed to teach it on free speech theory, and then proclaim I even proved I was right in court. Wonder where Darrow is these days...
Man what a dupe I've been. All those who say someone created those rocketships are now so obviously stupid, just plain stupid. It's obvious they evolved from one another due to survival of the fittest and natural selection. They were all inferior to what we see now, so they died out. All according to Erasmus Darwin's theories. It's now fact. Thanks for clearing that up. Now that I know that simple metallic creatures can evolve into sophisticated intergallactic travellers all by themselves, I'm now less skeptical that something as complex and interdependent as Earth's billions of varied lifeforms that require each other to live in a dynamic but very detailed symbiotic, mutualistic system did all by blind chance.
And -- hey!!! -- now I don't have to worry about the environment because life will just evolve and adapt to the new changes. Global warming raising sea levels? Who cares, we'll get gills just like we got lungs. And I read the Blind Watchmaker. According to that work of genius, all we have to do is keep throwing people into the water enough times and viola! they'll be all set. Just like it happened with the flying squirrel working things out by jumping out of trees and 'naturally selecting' all that flabby skin and flight into existence.
Thanks, I feel so enlightened now. And go ahead, mod it down into oblivion. At least I know that nobody "created" rocketships. I'm way smarter than all you "rocketship creationists".
well, actually what you point out is enemies tracking enemies. what this post was about was governments tracking their citizenry to keep them in check. i believe that in all these goverment sponsored tracking systems, exemptions abound for those writing the legislation, and the bureacracies with which it enjoys symbiosis.
Add to that Microsoft's position that Windows is less an OS than it is a vertical marketing tool, with its primary objective to assure its own financial success through whatever means is necessary. Like any bureaucracy, M$ has learned to feed itself, even if it means devouring its own siblings, which it does via releasing "patches" for security holes (thereby announcing to the world how to destroy systems that prefer to remain with current software versions), through relicensing (rewriting the basis under which you bought their product ex post facto), through unfair competition by financially decimating and destroying potential competitors (even money can't ressurect dead companies beyond name because the true innovators get scattered in the meantime), and various other well-documented other means...
But back to the main point, Tard Windows lUsers. An axiom from engineering school: Design some even an idiot can use, and only an idiot will use it. Hence Windows.
...or makes your machine consume/waste gobs of power needlessly. and you can't get rid of that kind of built-in crap. what about when the firewalling code goes obsolete or has a hole in it? this seems dumber than onboard video and onboard audio combined.
IRS officials
NSA / CIA / US Military leaders
Politicians
Politicians' Business Partners
Bill Gates
(well, after all, it is Windows tracking people...)
Other mind-bogglingly rich people
Gullible Middle-American consumer-producers have always been monitored so as to best transfer wealth away from them while cleverly convincing them that they are getting richer.
and that's another thing. i think someone is jacking with my browser now. half the posts i read have words with scrambled spellings throughout. what's more, i hate IE. and Windows. but i repeat myself. buggy, bloated, virus-prone, spyware. 'rights management' heh. whose rights are they managing anyway? certainly not my 'fair use' rights. frikgin gates. now a microsoft virus checker?!? oh the irony, the irony. it will have no choice but to shut itself down. oops -- gotta run -- my windows media player 9 just finished downloading. now i can use my dvd drive again. i think hardware companies should start charging annual maintenance fees for windows driver updates.
yeah, it's a really strange phenomenon. it's like, when i dial someone and get a busy signal, is it actually busy, or is the phone company just trying to raise revenue by charging my friends to use their fee-based auto-callback option? and how about my spyware detector: was it coded by a renegade spyware programmer? is microsoft funding the effort through some investment company front, perhaps? and how about my antivirus software? who is that 'peter norton' guy, anyway? it's just more proof certain forces in society are targeting me in a very negative way, especially those pesky /. moderators.
yeah except this was dealing with yet another massive security hole in msie, not with iis. i took a shot at you for nit-picking which bsd for the ultimate in security while you advocate a known insecure browser. running as less than an administrator on a windows machine is a real hassle for the user and whoever gets stuck as the administrator (unless your the kind of control freak that likes everyone to come to you saying "mother, may I..."). Did you even read the article? And you were not praising OpenBSD, you were praising IIS, as you repeated above. You don't even know what you're saying. You just think because someone modded me down means you are right. Get a life. I'm not sure what it means, but I don't define my existence by what some faceless /. modder thinks.
it also occurs to me that when you say windose 2003 is "extremely stable" -- which may be the case, after a mere 12 years of trying -- when what we're talking about here is security. stability and security are not the same thing.
here's a fun fact: radio propagates between 10 and 25% faster than signals over wire, and about 35% faster than signals over optical fiber (yes, that's right, fiber is s-s-s-l-o-w-w-w). so clearly the latency you are talking about has nothing to do with radio. latency issues lie elsewhere in the protocol implementation. adding that ridiculous "meshing" layer -- which sounds all sexy-techy but is supremely silly -- to augment 802.11 links makes matters, not better, but geometrically worse. but, seriously, thanks for your nicely worded reply.
and, hey, hang on a minute, if this was so insightful why wasn't it modded way up?!? =)
get over it. what moron logs in as root to run a browser? Unless of course it's windows, where the os is virtually useless unless you're admin. you are picky about *precisely* which bsd to use, but you love windows and sing the security parises of msie? alright, mr gates, enough from you. back! back!! back, i say!!!
Because that security wunderkind IE is Windows. The only way to make Windows secure is to never turn it on in the first place.
Going up to 30 miles with up to 74Mb/s is not exactly the same this as going 30 miles at 74Mb/s. Even if it achieves this goal (doubtful in my book without a massive power increase), it is almost irrelevant to any purposeful application. Think about it: 8VSB, used to broadcast digital television over-the-air in the US, and a very robust scheme at that, goes about 30 miles or so but at vastly lower data rates (about 19Mb/s payload). Now, let's talk WiMax: 3X data rate jump? What's the client transmitter look like? 30-40dB gain client-side antennas? Site aquisition costs? If rural areas can't afford local TV transmitters (it's what gave rise to cable TV systems in the first place) what on earth makes everyone think that WiMax transmitters will dot the surface of the earth? And I rather doubt this is laptop stuff.
Backhaul? Telecom's are awash with capacity and cable networks too. Anyone that tries to undercut them will have to a have a mighty economical technology.
Thousands of homes? 70Mb/s? Who would hook up thousands of users to a 100TX network? And then talk about the potential for video? And throughput is 1/2 or 1/3. Ridiculous.
As for Wi-Fi range, get a clue, please. Given enough power, antenna gain and sensitivity at both sides, 802.11 could reach 'to infinity and beyond.' Except, of course, for the interframe spacing requirements of 802.11. Any link that is longer than about a mile and a half (2km) cannot ACK within specification (processing latency impacts this generalization) simply for the propagation delay of the radio transmission. Any links that are longer than that are not truly compliant with the spec. (They generally depend on an ambiguity in the spec that in practice permits delays of up to 5X that with DCS-limited MACs, or 3X that with PCS MACs). After that, you are simply testing how closely the particular MAC adheres to the ACK and DIFS/SIFS specifications. To go fartherdistances, simply modify the MAC specification and add the appropriate antenna gain (and height). But beware, throughput will suffer (simply because you now have to wait longer before giving up on a faded channel).
As frequency increases, the more difficult it is to get a terrestrial link working, for a number of reasons. Path length also complicates things, exponentially. This is why TV stations always endeavor to attain, by any means possible, to have the lowest available frequency assignments. So does everyone else who remotely knows anything about radio.
Moreover, having IT people set up wireless networking is like having a person set up and run mission-critical servers because he has twenty years experience as a ham radio operator. It's nonsense. Now, beyond any reasonable doubt, 802.11 has been dumbed way down and people still get it wrong (even basic things like polarity and near-field obstructions). WiMax will absolutley fail if it becomes an "enterprise networking" technology.
It shouldn't be "WiMax", but rather, "Why, Max?" WiMax: the latest VC pump-and-dump deal.
Your actually makes the point against M$. What half-wit puts something like IIS as a default on every machine, when it is acknowledged that these same people are still struggling with VCR clocks? Microsoft itself wants -- no, needs -- to be able to make your computer do things that benefit Microsoft. Others just exploit those holes or ones created as a consequence of those holes. The booty and control is too compelling for those hypergreedy megalomaniacs.
I replied to you in the first place because of your obvious God Complex. It just so happened that you were also a sysadmin. My comments about you and your sysadmin career were based on my grouping all people into one of two categories: those that will help others get where they need to be, and all the rest. You fall into "all the rest" group by supporting censorship.
It is obvious that you will do whatever your paymaster says. That's fine. Stanley Milgram, in a fairly famous experiment, proved that the world is full of people like you. They'll do whatever their masters tell them to do and not think much about it.
As for university networks belonging to someone other than the students think again. While some are completely private, not even accepting public money for anything whatsoever (including research grants and publicly funded scholarships) most are publicly funded and so ARE owned by the public. So your true boss is really the taxpayer (i.e., me). But I digress...
Your defense, "my boss told me to censor the material others may examine based on some arbitrary preconceived notion -- like no MP3's of any sort, no P2P networking of any sort, because they are presumed guilty of crimes -- so, I did it" is the SAME defense the Nazis used at Nuremberg, the same as Calley used at My Lai, etc. etc. The fact is that if you are complicit with immoral acts you acting immorally. Censorship is considered a bad thing in most places, and those places that support cencorship are considered bad places. That goes for universities as well as countries. You are as guilty of censorship as if you had written the policy yourself, no matter what you do for a living. It is not your job that convicts you, it is your stated position on censorship that convicts you.
As for boycotting the RIAA or MPAA or SCO or M$ that's your choice. It's not mine. I have no problem paying them for the value they add. But I do object to them using various legal systems to extort money that is not rightfully theirs. So, when they offer a product that I do not own for sale and I want it, I pay them their due, and I'm happy to do so. What I object to, is not being able to get an MP3 of "Rocky Raccoon" even though I own the album and most jurisdictions (including the one in which I reside) clearly say that under those circumstances I can have it in as many formats as I want and I do not have to be the one to do the format conversion.
The fact that you boycott the MPAA/RIAA so as not to support them but are proud to support and help carry out a censorship/presumption-of-guilt policy that allows them to stifle lawful activity for their benfit is a personal conflict that only you yourself can rectify.
Clearly you should go by some CD's -- OR -- stop censring others' lawfully actibvities. But not both. In other words, pick a side and stop shifting blame to your paymasters. You can always find other work that is NOT immoral.
Those who do not think for themselves possess no advantage over those who cannot think for themselves.
My comment about your God Complex and being glad you're not a sysadmin for my network has nothing to do with your resume. Frankly, I couldn't care less about your blue-collar skills. My comment was based entirely on your haughty, self-aggrandizing, autocratic postion that everyone exists to serve YOU and that your ideas are good enough for everyone else. Interesting but you never did say that you restricted you own activities like you restrict others'. I suspect you operate outside of the rules you impose on everyone...after all, you admit to the God Complex, and gods have different rules than mortals, after all...
As for 'training you well', I submit that they trained you 'thoroughly' -- in the art of imposing your will on everyone.
As for decent sysadmins, I know many that realize sysadmins exist to serve others, not the other way round. This is the kind I surround myself with, not your kind.
As for the 'business' of Universities, try substituting the name 'Starbucks' or 'McDonalds' or 'Bloomindales' for 'University' into your own diatribe. Unless you're impenetrably dense -- which is entirely plausible -- even you would have to agree that those retail outlets exist to serve their customers. Universities are retail outlets for education. Only a true ignoramous thinks that to get a good education you have to go to the "top" school. Top schools are about 'connections' and prestige and things that largely don't matter except in a financial sense (which has nothing to do with your education -- that's a personal political skill issue). Just another pathetic fraternal order, putting 'who you know' over 'what you know'. For those that just want to learn, they should shop for the school that fisrt seeks to serve them, since they are the paying customer. Otherwise we just put food in the mouths of control-freak bureaucrats looking to further their own interests. I have the same problem with HMO's...they don't understand who the customer is, and wy they exist in the first place.
For the record I do hold several patents and pending patents, so don't get the idea that you are protecting lawful interests from marauders such as me. I object because your positions are immoral -- transmogrifying lawful activity into unlawful activity to protect pluderers that bully people into paying them becuase it's cheaper than a proper defense and being rightfully exhonerated. In fact, I find it impossible to tell the difference between SCO's and Microsoft's tactics and the RIAA and MPAA, and you fall on their side of the divide, as far as I'm concerned. Your attitude supports censorship and presumption of guilt rather than the rule of law and presumption of innocence. I suggest you read "The Law" by Bastiat so as to aquire some sort of a clue on normal human decency and mutual respect for others.
Guess the only thing left is to bid you a well-deserved "Heil, i_r_sensitive!" and hope that I never get stuck on your network.
Getting a degree doesn't involving "buying" Britney either using my iTune$. Are you advocating censoring paid-for downloads too?
Concatenating/daisy-chaining radio links, while elegant sounding, is not the best approach. Daisy-chaining RS232 devices showed that it's suboptimal, and wire is much more predictable than radio. Especially since it will add latencies of random amounts and weird throughput profiles (which is, I suspect, some of the causes of the delays in product introductions). In the end, it's about bandwidth per user, not range.
As for spectral density, the more data you cram into a fixed amount of bandwidth, the more linearity/more fidelity you need. The highest spectral efficiency is format analogue, which should give some insight on the fragility/sensitivity issue.
But the point here is that there is nothing divine about the meter. It is just as arbitrary a reference as is the physical length of a dead king's foot. There's nothing that you can measure or compute with metre as the standard reference unit that you can't do with a yard as such. You can even put it on a base 10 system. Oh wait, they have...those crazy guys...
As for "university property" and whatnot, you clearly have the situation reversed. Universities exist for the benefit of the students, and not vice versa. Networks are student resources, not a Pavlovian carrot to teach them your personal idea of right and wrong. The RIAA is clearly using terrorist tactics, using P2P as sleight-of-hand fake to scare people off even "fair use" applications.
You seem to have a real "God complex". Us and Them. My guess is that you, for the moment, find yourself on the priveledged side of that divide. If justice prevails, you'll find yourself victimized by someone just like you. Hopefully soon.
Nothing sacrosanct about the "metre" either (it's no longer your grandfather's "metre"). Just a known physical length that can be used in realizing goals in physical projects. But, then again, the official "metre" is kept in an underground vault in France (where perfect people and perfect language come from). Hmm...maybe if other countries moved those dead body parts to France...
I always supposed that if you were a business major, it was required cirriculum to lie, cheat and steal your way through, then sue if you got caught. Isn't that 4.0 stuff?
So it's only a matter of time before we disclose what "website" we went to before applying for the job. I went to autograde.harvard.com myself.
The USPTO seemingly triages patents based on the law firm and the assignee. Joe Schmoe inventor gets pulled through knotholes ("office actions" in the jargon) while patents from big corps sail throught on "first action allowances" all the time.
I know several inventors, one in particular, who have had dozens of patents with big company names as the assignees that sail through no questions asked. This one person decided to patent another invention privately and it was five years of office actions, but finally it issued. He swears he'll never do it again as an individual.
So based on true personal experience, an individual or small company using a good but small lawyer or firm get a patent issued, it's probably a good patent. It takes years, so what may have been cutting edge when it was filed may become obvious (or revealed and then popularized during the prosecution phase). Then when it issues, there exists the legal basis to seek judicial remedy if the infringers do not agree to terms. That's the system.
Big companies, on the other hand, can patent anything and get away with it. The irony is that they can afford legal teams that that can turn bat turds into caviar. I'm speculating here, but I think that if the boot were on the other foot and M$ were suing the browser plugin guy, the guy would never have had the resources to unearth some ridiculously obscure document to assert prior art disclosure. It always comes down to this: money=right.