I've never had an issue with range on WiFi... now if I had one the the Apple Titanium Faraday Cage laptops, then things might be different. I get 150 feet, through walls, downstairs even.
The basic issue is one of monoculture. Monoculture is bad.
Diversity is the only way out of this, long term. The idea of having only one codebase for 95% of the computers in the world is insane. The long term fix is to actively encourage alternative platforms, and multiple competing versions of software that aren't clones.
A hetrogeneous network is going to be much more resilient, though this is a tradeoff from efficiency. As with the original design of the internet (packetizing data instead of streams), the tradeoff more than pays for itself in the long run.
The problem is that the Euro is now worth more than a US$.(As of now, 1 Euro is $1.15, it was $0.89 on January 1, 2002 )
The administration is currently hijacking the Iraqi oil in an attempt to stop this trend, but it doesn't look good in the long run. The occupation costs, and long term ill-will that results from Pax Americana will eventually take us out, in a similar manner to that of the Romans, who's history we seem to want to repeat.
Why does everyone immediately ass-u-me that this is a hotspot protocol? The press release (the news equivalent of spam) states (though you have to read carefully) that it will "power" hotspots, meaning the fixed link then gets connected to a local 802.11x hotspot. The end user still uses 802.11x to cover the last 50 feet.
The encryption, etc.. are all nice, but this is a high-speed protocol designed to work with high gain fixed antennas pointing at each other, and not a sucky little 3db patch antenna on a laptop.
The advent of modern digitally controlled radios includes transmit power control. If the density of equipment goes up, the power levels (and range of each cell) go down (on average), thus increasing the efficiency of which the spectrum gets used.
If you assume a 2 dimensional distribution, the total power transmitted can remain the same, reguardless of the number of nodes.
Who cares who can listen in on the wireless? Echelon is still going to listen when it hits the wired internet. Either you encrypt all of your traffic, or you have to accept sniffing as a fact of life.
I prefer double rot-13 encryption myself, for most things. Otherwise SSL is good enough if I actually care.
Just put dual NICs in all of the servers, and give them all an IP address on each network. If you advertise them equally, all should be well, even if a line fails, you still have a 50% chance of the web server getting hit with the good line.
I know it's not strictly necessary to do the redundant hardware/network thing, but why not? It's only a few $20 network cards and a switch.
If you have multiple MX records (one per IP), then you won't lose any email either.
It would be nice to dual-home, but dual IP is a workable solution for the small business.
The fact is that nobody has ever seen direct evidence of a single graviton. I've done some googling around, and it appears that even the idea of just trapping an electron, and listening to it fall would be swamped out by noise.
So, with no direct evidence, it's anybodys guess as to what the true nature of gravity is.
My theory is that there are a lot of gravitons around out there, in here... everywhere... and that they interact with matter just like you would expect, except they are very small, and have a positive mass. Gravity still works the same, it's just the particle underlying it has to be much smaller, and thus in far greater abundance that that of electrons, for example.
It's entirely possible that there is a small variation in the uniformity of the gravity field which would be detectible in the next century as technology improves...
My theory is that matter stops some of the gravitons, but the size of things makes this fairly rare (though not as rare as neutrinos)... thus most sail right through... orientation doesn't matter unless something is measured in light-years on edge, etc. The flux absorption for someting even as big as the earth might be less than one in 10^10. (just an order of magnatude guess)
It's only when you get to the truely galactic scales that the effects would show up.
When you get down to it, the problem that people have is that observations of large systems don't seem to experience gravity the same way we see it locally here on earth.
The assumption is that the laws of physics are uniform throughout the universe, which I also assume to be true. However, I don't assume that gravity is an attractive force, but rather one that obeys common sense, and is repulsive in nature at the quantum level.
I believe that when a graviton interacts with a particle, it pushes it along... just like any other particle interaction... but I believe that the source of the gravitons is external... and that each interaction creates a shadow... thus there would be slightly more gravitons coming at be from above, than have managed to pass through the earth to hit me from below... thus creating an apparent (and real) local gravity field, with the deficit in the downward direction.
The experiments to prove this are going to be very sneaky... but one sure proof would be that a material that stops gravitons would be very heavy, instead of having a negative weight. Even if you managed to stop some of the gravitons... then effects would be on the opposite side of the device than expected. Thus if your anti-gravity plate is put underneath a weight, it would actually get heavier... and if you put it above the plate, then it would get lighter.
The truely interesting effects occur when you get black-hole level matter density. If I'm right... then they should probably "boil off" slowly as some of the matter gets pushed out of the hole over time.
I don't have low self-esteem... I just realize that the number of truely unique inventions and discoveries is much lower than you might suspect. Everything has been done before, and is usually better in the original German.
#1. Avoid modes, nothing is more frustrating that having multiple functions on one button or knob. I know that it might take more I/O lines or resources, but resist (at all costs) the urge to make things multi-functional. Devices should work without the manual, without training, and without knowledge of English as a primary language.
#2. If I/O gets tight... multiplex it, and go back to step #1... no control should be multi-purpose!
I read it... it's great satire. I mean, come on, who doesn't know about "master keys", and the delta algorithm for finding them? I've known about it for at least 10 years, if not more, does that make me a terrorist?
Or, do I now fit in the same category with persons who posess a PhD in Nuclear Weapons?
If Six Sigma requires 3.4 errors/million opprotunities... how do you count the opprotunities? I don't see a good way out of this... It's like using more dietary fiber to prevent automobile accidents... just plain silly.
If you count runtime execution, and write the following code:
For i:= 1 to 1000000
WriteLn('Hello, World!');
How could this fail 3 times, in it's lifetime?
Would it be ok for an Open Dialog to fail that often?
Would it be ok for a Save option to fail that often?
Would it be ok for any common option to fail that often?
If you count source code, instead of execution. If the program is Perfect, with zero defects, but is hard to use, is it good enough?
The only acceptable metric would be how often the final user doesn't get what they need or expect... and that is one hard to measure quantity, but I believe it's the only one worth measuring.
I predict that a large amount of spoofing will arise before long... it'll be easy enough to detect the interregation pulse, and respond with your own info, or jam it, or listen along with the intended receiver.
This thing is going to be hacked more than anything else before.
The name "HyperText Markup Langauge" implies the ability to markup HyperText, but it obviously doesn't. In order to accompish this in a sane and reasonable manner, you need the following components:
Local storage of the document you wish to mark up
A Uniform Resource Name for refering to said document, this URN must uniquely specify the document and not allow modifications (which would mangle or destroy the markup layers on top of it)
A markup language which used the URN and relative markups, thus allowing multiple layers of markup
A tool that understands and can write to all of the above
I'd like to see this soon, but knowing the nature of the internet, open source, etc... I'm not going to hold my breath. If you want to work on it with me, that would be great. My email address should be obvious.
Using Acrobat is not an option, real markup of things on the web needs to be the goal.
Slashdot Mirror
--Mike--
--Mike--
Monoculture is bad.
Diversity is the only way out of this, long term. The idea of having only one codebase for 95% of the computers in the world is insane. The long term fix is to actively encourage alternative platforms, and multiple competing versions of software that aren't clones.
A hetrogeneous network is going to be much more resilient, though this is a tradeoff from efficiency. As with the original design of the internet (packetizing data instead of streams), the tradeoff more than pays for itself in the long run.
--Mike--
Look, we're even falling against the Canadian Dollar..
--Mike--
The administration is currently hijacking the Iraqi oil in an attempt to stop this trend, but it doesn't look good in the long run. The occupation costs, and long term ill-will that results from Pax Americana will eventually take us out, in a similar manner to that of the Romans, who's history we seem to want to repeat.
--Mike--
The encryption, etc.. are all nice, but this is a high-speed protocol designed to work with high gain fixed antennas pointing at each other, and not a sucky little 3db patch antenna on a laptop.
--Mike--
If you assume a 2 dimensional distribution, the total power transmitted can remain the same, reguardless of the number of nodes.
--Mike--
I prefer double rot-13 encryption myself, for most things. Otherwise SSL is good enough if I actually care.
--Mike--
--Mike--
--Mike--
I know it's not strictly necessary to do the redundant hardware/network thing, but why not? It's only a few $20 network cards and a switch.
If you have multiple MX records (one per IP), then you won't lose any email either.
It would be nice to dual-home, but dual IP is a workable solution for the small business.
--Mike--
The fact is that nobody has ever seen direct evidence of a single graviton. I've done some googling around, and it appears that even the idea of just trapping an electron, and listening to it fall would be swamped out by noise.
So, with no direct evidence, it's anybodys guess as to what the true nature of gravity is.
--Mike--
--Mike--
or... I could be full of shit. ;)
--Mike--
It's only when you get to the truely galactic scales that the effects would show up.
--Mike--
I'm theorizing that things work in a more common-sense approach, rather than the bizarre one offered up in traditional quantum-level gravitation.
According to that model, a watermellon sized graviton pulse hitting you in the chest would knock you forward, instead of onto your keister.
--Mike--
The assumption is that the laws of physics are uniform throughout the universe, which I also assume to be true. However, I don't assume that gravity is an attractive force, but rather one that obeys common sense, and is repulsive in nature at the quantum level.
I believe that when a graviton interacts with a particle, it pushes it along... just like any other particle interaction... but I believe that the source of the gravitons is external... and that each interaction creates a shadow... thus there would be slightly more gravitons coming at be from above, than have managed to pass through the earth to hit me from below... thus creating an apparent (and real) local gravity field, with the deficit in the downward direction.
The experiments to prove this are going to be very sneaky... but one sure proof would be that a material that stops gravitons would be very heavy, instead of having a negative weight. Even if you managed to stop some of the gravitons... then effects would be on the opposite side of the device than expected. Thus if your anti-gravity plate is put underneath a weight, it would actually get heavier... and if you put it above the plate, then it would get lighter.
The truely interesting effects occur when you get black-hole level matter density. If I'm right... then they should probably "boil off" slowly as some of the matter gets pushed out of the hole over time.
--Mike--
--Mike--
--Mike--
#2. If I/O gets tight... multiplex it, and go back to step #1... no control should be multi-purpose!
--Mike--
Or, do I now fit in the same category with persons who posess a PhD in Nuclear Weapons?
--Mike--
If you count runtime execution, and write the following code: := 1 to 1000000
For i
WriteLn('Hello, World!');
How could this fail 3 times, in it's lifetime?
Would it be ok for an Open Dialog to fail that often?
Would it be ok for a Save option to fail that often?
Would it be ok for any common option to fail that often?
If you count source code, instead of execution. If the program is Perfect, with zero defects, but is hard to use, is it good enough?
The only acceptable metric would be how often the final user doesn't get what they need or expect... and that is one hard to measure quantity, but I believe it's the only one worth measuring.
--Mike--
--Mike--
This thing is going to be hacked more than anything else before.
--Mike--
- Local storage of the document you wish to mark up
- A Uniform Resource Name for refering to said document, this URN must uniquely specify the document and not allow modifications (which would mangle or destroy the markup layers on top of it)
- A markup language which used the URN and relative markups, thus allowing multiple layers of markup
- A tool that understands and can write to all of the above
I'd like to see this soon, but knowing the nature of the internet, open source, etc... I'm not going to hold my breath. If you want to work on it with me, that would be great. My email address should be obvious.Using Acrobat is not an option, real markup of things on the web needs to be the goal.
You're not alone... I hope that's comforting.
--Mike--