Path loss is path loss. You need to understand how large a "perfectly focused" antenna would be to compensate for path loss from geosync. At 1GHz, that's 185dB of attenuation. At 10GHz, that's 204dB of attenuation. At 100GHz that's 224dB of attenuation.
This is a stupid idea. The numbers make it a stupid idea.
If the device is not a radio receiver, such as computer speakers, it does not receive any protection because it is not a part 15 device. It's not a radio receiver, but is acting like one.
Let's take computer speakers for example. RF from the phone is inducing common mode currents somewhere in the speaker system. That RF is being detected (rectified) and amplified by the speaker system. The speaker system is not supposed to be a radio receiver, but is acting like one. This is not the fault of the phone. It is the fault of the device that is receiving this interference. With proper use of ferrite beads and other filtering techniques, this would not be a problem. I don't see Chinese manufactures doing that anytime soon, due to costs of proper engineering.
Comcast offers a voip product. Would anyone like to guess how the throttling practice was applied to traffic that was catagorized as VOIP but was not associated with Comcast's subscription service?
I have never had any problems with my Vonage TA on Comcast. It just works.
Ah, OK. I should have RTFAed:) I still don't understand why this is needed. If there is a man in the middle, the certificate will not validate. What does this buy you, other than more complexity? I guess I should RTFA now:) >
Mac and Linux are based on UNIX, which was developed for mainframes. No, Unix was developed for the PDP-7 and PDP-11. Those were minicomputers, not mainframes.
Someone likely could easily issue ZFS as patch directly for the kernel as opposed to in FUSE. The problem is that it would be illegal to use it a such because of the license.
I don't think the problem would be "using it", it would be with distributing it.
Jonathan Schwartz's blog has been updated today with a post that is a direct response to Linus claims, but in a much more elegant and coherent way
He sounds like any other corporate fag to me:P
"Companies compete and communities simply fracture"? What is that supposed to infer? There are a ton of competing open source projects. I think Mr.Schwartz does not understand the open source community very well.
He's alive. And not just to leave it open for a movie or new series, but because the entire show was about this same cycle. The show was never about closure, or redemption, or the hero's journey. It was about making you sit in his seat for awhile, and see the world through his eyes, not a glorified "Top of the world ma!" go out in a blaze of glory type thing. It was an "end up in a wheel chair unaware of who you are" sort of thing.
My thoughts exactly. It goes on and on and on and on...... Oh wait, they cut just before those lyrics in the Journey song.
Thanks for making my point. Inverse square law has little to do with the size of the antenna required. The frequency has more to do with size of the antenna than the surface area used to receive the signal. Placing parasitic elements around the antenna do more in helping increase it's efficiency than lengthing it.
BTW, the reason ELF antennas have such small ERP is because of the relationship of the distance of the radiator above the ground compared to the wavelength, as well as, the relatively short length of the radiator compared to the wavelength.
Radiator/antenna efficiently can be affected by it's length. The length of the radiator/antenna required is determined by the frequency of the electromagnetic wave. All of this has little to do with inverse square law.
Go higher in frequency, a smaller antenna is required, yet RF density at a distance will not change (much).
It's news for nerds because, like everybody else in this world, nerds like Spinal Tap. Why don't you?
I DID like Spinal Tap, until they started spewing all this environmental garbage. If I wanted that kind of crap, I would just listen to Mitch & Mickey!
Since when is evidence that a crime has occured in a particular neighborhood ever been probable cause for searching one particular house?
It is not probable cause to search any given house in the neighborhood. Even if there were Ethernet cables strung between his house and every home within the area his AP could serve, it would not negate the fact that the suspect's home is the demarcation point between the "neighborhood" and the internet connection that was used in the commission of a crime.
It's not just that "someone in the neighborhood has been misbehaiving" but "someone in the neighborhood, or someone that may have just visited the neighborhood" has been misbehaiving. You're advocating a weak standard that's far too easily abused.
If they were searching every house and car within reach of the AP, that would be a standard that is too easily abused. Searching the premises of the person who resides at the demarcation point of an Internet connection that was used in the commission of a crime is not unreasonable.
Slashdot Mirror
Two more unfortunate words: Path Loss
Path loss is path loss. You need to understand how large a "perfectly focused" antenna would be to compensate for path loss from geosync. At 1GHz, that's 185dB of attenuation. At 10GHz, that's 204dB of attenuation. At 100GHz that's 224dB of attenuation.
This is a stupid idea. The numbers make it a stupid idea.
BIFF, is that you?
If the device is not a radio receiver, such as computer speakers, it does not receive any protection because it is not a part 15 device. It's not a radio receiver, but is acting like one.
It's the cheap devices near the phones fault.
Let's take computer speakers for example. RF from the phone is inducing common mode currents somewhere in the speaker system. That RF is being detected (rectified) and amplified by the speaker system. The speaker system is not supposed to be a radio receiver, but is acting like one. This is not the fault of the phone. It is the fault of the device that is receiving this interference. With proper use of ferrite beads and other filtering techniques, this would not be a problem. I don't see Chinese manufactures doing that anytime soon, due to costs of proper engineering.
Comcast offers a voip product. Would anyone like to guess how the throttling practice was applied to traffic that was catagorized as VOIP but was not associated with Comcast's subscription service?
I have never had any problems with my Vonage TA on Comcast. It just works.
The tardigrades are the first animals to have survived such an experiment, a feat previously achieved only by lichens and bacteria.
Don't forget about Luxans.
Ah, OK. I should have RTFAed :) I still don't understand why this is needed. If there is a man in the middle, the certificate will not validate. What does this buy you, other than more complexity? I guess I should RTFA now :) >
What if the mim decides to not get between you and the notary site? What good does this plugin do you then?
First, there is no evidence of it actually working for long distances.
And there never will be, because of the inverse square law.
Mac and Linux are based on UNIX, which was developed for mainframes.
No, Unix was developed for the PDP-7 and PDP-11. Those were minicomputers, not mainframes.
Someone likely could easily issue ZFS as patch directly for the kernel as opposed to in FUSE. The problem is that it would be illegal to use it a such because of the license.
I don't think the problem would be "using it", it would be with distributing it.
What has the kernel to do with printer drivers? It has always been CUPS domain.
Back in my day, used lpd, AND WE LIKED IT!
Who do you think will be the Repub VP pick?
I dunno, but I wish it were Thompson. Thompson is downright libertarian when I look at where he stands on issues.
So tell me about Turing Test (Sort of).
Back in my day, we used rz and sz, AND WE LIKED IT!
You are correct :)
Wonder why I got moderated as a troll?
Jonathan Schwartz's blog has been updated today with a post that is a direct response to Linus claims, but in a much more elegant and coherent way
:P
He sounds like any other corporate fag to me
"Companies compete and communities simply fracture"? What is that supposed to infer? There are a ton of competing open source projects. I think Mr.Schwartz does not understand the open source community very well.
He's alive. And not just to leave it open for a movie or new series, but because the entire show was about this same cycle. The show was never about closure, or redemption, or the hero's journey. It was about making you sit in his seat for awhile, and see the world through his eyes, not a glorified "Top of the world ma!" go out in a blaze of glory type thing. It was an "end up in a wheel chair unaware of who you are" sort of thing.
My thoughts exactly. It goes on and on and on and on...... Oh wait, they cut just before those lyrics in the Journey song.
If your not a litigant in a federal court case, do these rules matter?
EOM
Thanks for making my point. Inverse square law has little to do with the size of the antenna required. The frequency has more to do with size of the antenna than the surface area used to receive the signal. Placing parasitic elements around the antenna do more in helping increase it's efficiency than lengthing it.
BTW, the reason ELF antennas have such small ERP is because of the relationship of the distance of the radiator above the ground compared to the wavelength, as well as, the relatively short length of the radiator compared to the wavelength.
Radiator/antenna efficiently can be affected by it's length. The length of the radiator/antenna required is determined by the frequency of the electromagnetic wave. All of this has little to do with inverse square law.
Go higher in frequency, a smaller antenna is required, yet RF density at a distance will not change (much).
It's news for nerds because, like everybody else in this world, nerds like Spinal Tap. Why don't you?
I DID like Spinal Tap, until they started spewing all this environmental garbage. If I wanted that kind of crap, I would just listen to Mitch & Mickey!
Since when is evidence that a crime has occured in a particular neighborhood ever been probable cause for searching one particular house?
It is not probable cause to search any given house in the neighborhood. Even if there were Ethernet cables strung between his house and every home within the area his AP could serve, it would not negate the fact that the suspect's home is the demarcation point between the "neighborhood" and the internet connection that was used in the commission of a crime.
It's not just that "someone in the neighborhood has been misbehaiving" but "someone in the neighborhood, or someone that may have just visited the neighborhood" has been misbehaiving. You're advocating a weak standard that's far too easily abused.
If they were searching every house and car within reach of the AP, that would be a standard that is too easily abused. Searching the premises of the person who resides at the demarcation point of an Internet connection that was used in the commission of a crime is not unreasonable.