The technology itself is new and barely IEEE approved. In fact there are three versions of the standard to date (keywords made up):
regular - for 10-55GHz frequencies and that one actually gives even up to 134Mbps. Now, because it uses range-dependent modulation techniques, you'll not have 70Mbps @ 30 miles. At 30 miles you might have about 20Mbps
somewhat limited - for 2-11GHz which is unlikely to be implemented because it runs into almost all possible licensed frequency bands
unlicensed - for 5 GHz unlicensed band - exactly the same as 802.11b
Now, in any case, this is a fixed wireless network - that is stations are not mobile. So, it's NOT a competition for any mobile standards. All of that is very questionable at the moment because it will require quite a large licensed band and unlike UWB, it will transmit at measureable powers. I don't think Nokia would do anything to kill UMTS and 3G.
There are some ISPs using it: installation cost in one I know is around $700 and monthly cost is $40 for wireless T1.
Ad a) Like why exactly cannot I run SMTP server? And FYI, most of the mail programs like to send e-mail by SMTP, so if you happen to use a server at AOL and DSL connection, you're out of luck - gotta find another one. Another question: did they ban also traffic from their own DSL customers?
Ad b) A lot of spam also comes from WLAN (there was a discussion), from hacked servers, and tons of other places. Denying the whole IP domain is not equal to fighting spam. This is just another subject for ridiculous and intrusive pseudo-security ideas discussion.
Ad c) Your ISP's SMTP might be just in the same situation as you are - all depends in which IP subnet your ISP has their SMTP server.
Ad d) This is hard to work around if you happen to have crappy ISP and no accessible SMTP server otherwise. If an SMTP server accepts open connections, it will be blacklisted sooner or later because it will be used for spamming.
Ad e) It will be a big deal for some people - just those, who happen to have DSL and no good SMTP (read AOL-enabled), and they have friends in AOL. AOL just proves that they are about the same as big telephone companies in how they treat their own customers and other people.
And another thing: I understand that AOL didn't run open SMTP, because they would be blacklisted.
If they did, they'd deserve to be banned everywhere anyway. But, generally it's gonna be a pain for everybody who sends emails through DSL providers to AOL customers.
How about if AOL bans all of the e-mail traffic - in and out of their domain? Wouldn't that be great? They could even actually ban telnet, http, and ftp, too. And later all possible ports. In the end, they can even earn some money by selling their edge routers;-)
Well, if you look at MS Office format, MS has been amazingly consistent in keeping it for 6 years now. Ah, those format and version number wars between MS Word and WordPerfect. Anybody again? OpenOffice?
I just wonder what kind of model exactly they have with this? If someone wants portability, they would prefer being able to import/export data to as many users as possible. So, let's look at the big picture: your company buys pro edition, you get PC at home and get home edition. In short, you're grounded at work... So, either you buy pro for home (which will be yet another license in addition to your OEM home version) or you end up doing acrobatic conversions five times a day. I'm really hoping to see some OSS office package working nicely some day.
On a side, Microsoft's idea about using XML wasn't great as yet, either. Sure you can see the stuff on the web as it looks in the MSWord's window, but the good point would be to be able to read those documents with tables and pictures as XML objects. I'm guessing that's exactly what MS would like to avoid in the first place. As with any language like that, it can be used better or worse. As yet, it's worse and doesn't seem to get better.
As I read their Office 2003 Overview, it doesn't seem like it's gonna actually save anything in XML. You can link to XML, you can import XML, but it doesn't say anywhere that you can write to XML. Am I right, or did they miss it in the ad?
If you remember Spaceballs, that ship transformed into a giant maid with a hoover.
Now, I'm not sure but the whole thing I think was bigger than the planet it sucked on... Assuming Earth sizes, that would be at least around 15000km. It didn't seem very consistent throughout the movie (or the planet was much smaller).
I remember when Cyrix had it's 100MHz CPUs with huge fans and everybody tweaked them to 133MHz, every long-term calculation on that involving FPU would give random numbers as the result...
So, where is the novelty?;-)
I wonder that too.
How about this:
http://www.changingworldtech.com/newsfr.htm
This news post from CWT is from July 28, 2001 and announces exactly the same thing as that article posted on/.
That's why most searches on Google point to summer 2001.
So, did they make up the whole CWT webpage?
stj
Whose rights would it be actually protecting? I have a strong impression that much more it would protect producers than actually artists. At the moment artists get usually (in the US or anywhere else in the world) a tiny little fraction of actual money that are created by their performance/art/whatever.
Example: compare prices of music sold (still here and there) on old good tapes, and CDs. Now, the cost of CD is actually usually much lower than the cost of the tape (think about all those mechanic parts you have to put there... - CD is simple - a bit of plastic and aluminum, a good press and done). Logically taking, CD should be at most half of the price of the tape and somehow it's the other way around. So, simply put, artists clearly get hardly any money earned by the production (compared to the total volume of sales). The overhead of the industry is just unbearable. Free media production, that is actually possible on the Internet, would make the industry crash at once by offering very, very competitive prices from people who got fed up with the industry.
Here actually some good FREE, and open source signature system would make a great impact on the course of matters. However, I don't see Palladium - as a product of Intel/Microsoft + maybe Holywood aliance - to be the candidate to make a breakthrough for low-price content.
stj
OK. More on the "terrorist" topic. It seems to me, that actually DRM will contribute close to zero to any effort against terrorism. And that is because 1) terrorists use encryption software most likely anyway, and it's probably not a government supported software, since nobody sane would try to wreak havoc on any government and use government-funded security technology to pass any sensitive information (backdoors, etc). 2) If that technology actually will aid encryption freely for everybody without a risk of being broken by the government, terrorists and alike will start to use that technology against the government. That means it's highly unlikely that the government would allow publicly accessible strong cryptography without actually having backdoor keys to it (again we have arguments that appeared before with DES and NSA). That clearly means that we go back to point 1. If the cryptographic system embedded in Palladium is not strong enough, it will be easily broken so completely useless.
The conclusion is that the whole system is totally ineffective in any efforts against terrorism and similar things, so any arguments that some kind of law should be established to enforce the system are completely void and should be rejected at the spot.
Stj
Slashdot Mirror
I meant 802.11a...
regular - for 10-55GHz frequencies and that one actually gives even up to 134Mbps. Now, because it uses range-dependent modulation techniques, you'll not have 70Mbps @ 30 miles. At 30 miles you might have about 20Mbps
somewhat limited - for 2-11GHz which is unlikely to be implemented because it runs into almost all possible licensed frequency bands
unlicensed - for 5 GHz unlicensed band - exactly the same as 802.11b
Now, in any case, this is a fixed wireless network - that is stations are not mobile. So, it's NOT a competition for any mobile standards. All of that is very questionable at the moment because it will require quite a large licensed band and unlike UWB, it will transmit at measureable powers. I don't think Nokia would do anything to kill UMTS and 3G.
There are some ISPs using it: installation cost in one I know is around $700 and monthly cost is $40 for wireless T1.
And perfectly easy to hack in about 5 minutes, which leaves us again with POMSOF (plain old MS Office format)...
Yeah, I remember. I'd be grateful if they went back to that...
Ad a) Like why exactly cannot I run SMTP server? And FYI, most of the mail programs like to send e-mail by SMTP, so if you happen to use a server at AOL and DSL connection, you're out of luck - gotta find another one. Another question: did they ban also traffic from their own DSL customers?
Ad b) A lot of spam also comes from WLAN (there was a discussion), from hacked servers, and tons of other places. Denying the whole IP domain is not equal to fighting spam. This is just another subject for ridiculous and intrusive pseudo-security ideas discussion.
Ad c) Your ISP's SMTP might be just in the same situation as you are - all depends in which IP subnet your ISP has their SMTP server.
Ad d) This is hard to work around if you happen to have crappy ISP and no accessible SMTP server otherwise. If an SMTP server accepts open connections, it will be blacklisted sooner or later because it will be used for spamming.
Ad e) It will be a big deal for some people - just those, who happen to have DSL and no good SMTP (read AOL-enabled), and they have friends in AOL. AOL just proves that they are about the same as big telephone companies in how they treat their own customers and other people.
And another thing: I understand that AOL didn't run open SMTP, because they would be blacklisted. If they did, they'd deserve to be banned everywhere anyway. But, generally it's gonna be a pain for everybody who sends emails through DSL providers to AOL customers.
How about if AOL bans all of the e-mail traffic - in and out of their domain? Wouldn't that be great? They could even actually ban telnet, http, and ftp, too. And later all possible ports. In the end, they can even earn some money by selling their edge routers ;-)
Well, if you look at MS Office format, MS has been amazingly consistent in keeping it for 6 years now. Ah, those format and version number wars between MS Word and WordPerfect. Anybody again? OpenOffice?
I just wonder what kind of model exactly they have with this? If someone wants portability, they would prefer being able to import/export data to as many users as possible. So, let's look at the big picture: your company buys pro edition, you get PC at home and get home edition. In short, you're grounded at work... So, either you buy pro for home (which will be yet another license in addition to your OEM home version) or you end up doing acrobatic conversions five times a day. I'm really hoping to see some OSS office package working nicely some day.
On a side, Microsoft's idea about using XML wasn't great as yet, either. Sure you can see the stuff on the web as it looks in the MSWord's window, but the good point would be to be able to read those documents with tables and pictures as XML objects. I'm guessing that's exactly what MS would like to avoid in the first place. As with any language like that, it can be used better or worse. As yet, it's worse and doesn't seem to get better.
As I read their Office 2003 Overview, it doesn't seem like it's gonna actually save anything in XML. You can link to XML, you can import XML, but it doesn't say anywhere that you can write to XML. Am I right, or did they miss it in the ad?
If you remember Spaceballs, that ship transformed into a giant maid with a hoover.
Now, I'm not sure but the whole thing I think was bigger than the planet it sucked on... Assuming Earth sizes, that would be at least around 15000km. It didn't seem very consistent throughout the movie (or the planet was much smaller).
I remember when Cyrix had it's 100MHz CPUs with huge fans and everybody tweaked them to 133MHz, every long-term calculation on that involving FPU would give random numbers as the result... ;-)
So, where is the novelty?
I wonder that too. How about this: http://www.changingworldtech.com/newsfr.htm This news post from CWT is from July 28, 2001 and announces exactly the same thing as that article posted on /.
That's why most searches on Google point to summer 2001.
So, did they make up the whole CWT webpage?
stj
Whose rights would it be actually protecting? I have a strong impression that much more it would protect producers than actually artists. At the moment artists get usually (in the US or anywhere else in the world) a tiny little fraction of actual money that are created by their performance/art/whatever.
Example: compare prices of music sold (still here and there) on old good tapes, and CDs. Now, the cost of CD is actually usually much lower than the cost of the tape (think about all those mechanic parts you have to put there... - CD is simple - a bit of plastic and aluminum, a good press and done). Logically taking, CD should be at most half of the price of the tape and somehow it's the other way around. So, simply put, artists clearly get hardly any money earned by the production (compared to the total volume of sales). The overhead of the industry is just unbearable. Free media production, that is actually possible on the Internet, would make the industry crash at once by offering very, very competitive prices from people who got fed up with the industry.
Here actually some good FREE, and open source signature system would make a great impact on the course of matters. However, I don't see Palladium - as a product of Intel/Microsoft + maybe Holywood aliance - to be the candidate to make a breakthrough for low-price content.
stj
OK. More on the "terrorist" topic. It seems to me, that actually DRM will contribute close to zero to any effort against terrorism. And that is because
1) terrorists use encryption software most likely anyway, and it's probably not a government supported software, since nobody sane would try to wreak havoc on any government and use government-funded security technology to pass any sensitive information (backdoors, etc).
2) If that technology actually will aid encryption freely for everybody without a risk of being broken by the government, terrorists and alike will start to use that technology against the government. That means it's highly unlikely that the government would allow publicly accessible strong cryptography without actually having backdoor keys to it (again we have arguments that appeared before with DES and NSA). That clearly means that we go back to point 1. If the cryptographic system embedded in Palladium is not strong enough, it will be easily broken so completely useless.
The conclusion is that the whole system is totally ineffective in any efforts against terrorism and similar things, so any arguments that some kind of law should be established to enforce the system are completely void and should be rejected at the spot. Stj