Those are all good points, and reasons a power user might buy an AC1750 over an N600. I just want the review sites to take those things into account. I suppose you are right that 5Ghz lack of penetration might be a benefit in a dense area where you don't want your neighbor's signal to reach you.
I doubt that it is intentionally misleading. It's systematic, and the numbering does reflect the increase in speed. From an engineering + marketing stand point it is not a bad system. The problem is that the review sites seem to blindly recommend an AC5200 over an AC1750 based on name alone. It's not so different from a review site recommending an i7 over an i5 because hey, it's +2 better.
The ol WRT54 (a sucky v8, not a GL) couldn't keep up with a 50/5 connection.
Ugh, I have one of those. I didn't realize that. Hmmmmm....
You point out that those pricier routers have a lot of other good features, which is valid. I didn't know they had ones with USB ports for storage. That's interesting.
True. I conflated "5Ghz support with "A" which is technically wrong, but it reflects the history of how it came to be. It seems that they named it "AC" since it extends "A" and "B" where A = the original 5Ghz standard and B = the original 2.4Ghz standard. It's the next generation which is a mix of both. I suppose they could also have called it "AO" since it extends "A" and "N"
Perhaps, this was not a mistake, but a "feature" they just never thought anyone would notice.
Years ago, a friend of mine used Radio Shack plug-n-power AKA X10 modules to control things in his house. The nice ones even had a wireless option where you didn't have to plug-in to a wall socket. One day I went over to his house and, rather than knocking on the door, I toggled the lights in his bedroom repeatedly. Security holes are priceless:-)
Now that average consumers are buying wireless routers, we have meaningless speed fixation and corresponding price inflation. Take a look at some of the absolutely horrible advice offered on consumer-grade router reviews, by doing a google search for "wireless router ratings."
Exhibit 1: Forbes: Choosing the best wireless router The page is one big chart showing theoretical speeds, and recommending getting 802.11ac. 802.11a is the 5Ghz standard that was discarded for dead since it doesn't penetrate through walls. Whoops! That's why for 10 years, hardly any router or NIC supported it. It's kinda useless in most homes. For a while, 5Ghz was billed as a way to do high-speed over short distances. Since people may have multiple network devices in one room or cubicle, you could put a 5Ghz router in each one. The range is so short they won't interfere with each other. But that was too expensive, and the moderate speed boost wasn't worth it.
But it's faster, so "oooooh shiny" now it is back!
Exhibit 2: Wireless routers at Newegg An observant shopper soon learns that routers are speed rated: N150, N300, AC1750, AC1900, AC2600, AC5300, etc. By this system, a G54 router is ancient. They make it look like buying a 100Mhz CPU in 2.6Ghz era. But if you ask "Why would I need a 5300Mbps router when my internet is 50Mbps?" The only reason to buy a router with such a high rating is that you will probably get a fraction of that actual speed. But even that number doesn't correlate because the number in AC5300 refers to the "A" speed that most devices don't even support. So the number is doubly meaningless.
This stupid system is so prevalent that people sometimes think that AC1750 is the model number. They get confused and buy the wrong router, or can't figure out why there are 5 routers all called the BrandName AC1750.
Exhibit 3: PC magazine recommends the most expensive consumer routers ever PC Magazine's recommended routers: $300, $250, $174, and $17. Wow, that's quite a price difference. Unless you have lots and lots of people using the wireless network, and some kind of crazy university-sized internet pipe, and devices that support the 5Ghz band, that $17 router will do just as well as the $300 router.
What these review sites need to do is actually measure wireless performance at various ranges and in different rooms. Unless they do that, the speed ratings are meaningless.
Being primarily a Windows user, I use OneNote. Our Office started using it and I got hooked. For quick notes on my phone, I use "Note Everything." I currently do not use any syncing or backup of notes, no encryption, and no sending them to a third-party. It's kinda like how notes were in the old days with pen and paper.
There is a OneNote for Android, so I might try that.
My ideal solution would probably be OwnCloud. It's the best of all worlds: privacy, security, backup, synchronization.
Yes! And, the link provided in the summary to support the statement is not about the Paris attacks. This is like me saying "Scientists have reported that neutrinos do not change flavor." (The link is to an article confirming that they do change flavor.)
These transparency reports are quite informative. But I'd love to see the actual removals. At some pont, we need to see if the removals have any validity or not. We just can't tell from this data. Is there any legal reason they can't be publicly posted? Actually, I wonder if the DMCA should *require* that they be public, so that the public at-large knows who the bullies are, or maybe who the jerks who keep copying people's stuff are. If you don't want your notice public, don't file it.
Please tell us what three-letter-agency needs a camera that: * Has a focal length of 3mm * Cannot store images on board or wirelessly transmit images * Has a 5 foot fiber-optic cord
This article is simply about a new kind of lens. It's not useful for surveillance. It's useful for looking at tissue very closely.
It doesn't matter. If you added 2-factor authentication to the juke box, nobody would buy it because it would be too hard to use. Which, I suppose, solves the security problem nicely!
This is great, because I am on the other side of that, possibly building that 500,000€ paperweight right now!
Security: You must provide a way to remotely update your medical devices so they aren't vulnerable to zero-day exploits! Me: Okay, I will turn on automatic updates. Regulatory: Wait! Software changes must be tested and approved first. That takes a few months. Customer: Our regulatory group says the lab must be air gapped. Everyone: *Head explodes*
Does being a religion give you a license to say anything you like?
No.
We have laws against hate speech even though we have free speech in general, and we have laws against speech that encourage a specific crime.
The US does not have laws against hate speech. The article you linked to explains that.
We guarantee freedom of religion, but we also guarantee freedom of life. Which one has priority?
I acknowledge your intent here: Islam calls for the deaths of many kinds of people. But religion and life are not in conflict. Be careful: that is a false dichotomy and a dangerous generalization.
Maybe we should say categorically that you *can't* preach that it's OK to kill people of a certain class, whatever the class might be.
Hmmm... Now this is interesting... let us think it through. It sounds like you propose some kind of criminal penalty for a religious group to call for people to be killed. Does this affect only groups, or individuals? What about secular people who do the same? Should it become illegal to threaten someone in general?
Threatening someone with harm, when you show capability and intent to carry out that harm, is called assault. Assault is a crime in the United States. Assault is defined carefully, because really, how many people have called for the death of celebrities or politicians? Or call for the death of immigrants? Or certain classes of criminals? The average Joe calls for the death of lawyers on a daily basis.;-) Perhaps it should be illegal to call for the death of any group of people?
Implementing this would be hard. Would we round-up religious leaders who call for the death of gays? I'm not sure how many of them are really living in the US anyway. You cited Westboro, which is a good example, but they haven't actually killed anyone... hmmm.... I suspect we could round-up the Westboro folks on assault already since they have carried out a number of their threats, but so far just protests. Seems like they would have a good chance of winning such a case. Although it would certainly send a message.
Suppose we did round-up such people: would it help, or would it merely cause the crazies to lash out? There is a thought that by allowing racist nutjobs like the Nazis and the KKK to go about their business in public, they demonstrate that they are crazy, and actually limit the growth of their own organizations. Some feel that by banning such things, they go underground where they are not publicly criticized and can quietly proliferate. There is a real fear of that kind of thing in Germany.
This becomes a slippery slope, which is why the founders of the United States wrote the first amendment.
Russian bill: All messaging apps must have a backdoor that only Russia can access. US bill: All messaging apps must have a backdoor that only the US can access. EU bill: All messaging apps must have a backdoor that only the EU can access.
The regulatory infrastructure killed the DSL providers. They had to lease their lines from the telecoms, while also competing with the telecoms. They were doomed. I used one of the last ones, Cavalier Telephone, for years.
This is how internet service used to be! The current generation growing up just naively assumes that your local telecom company is your ISP, and can't even wrap their head around this idea that you could choose an ISP separately from the company that shows up to your front door to wire it.
This is the market solution to Network Neutrality. The "golden age" of the internet was back when the telephone companies just provided the wires, and people could sign-up for whatever ISP they wanted. Then, when telecom companies bought out the ISPs, and the two markets combined into a single vertical slice, is when the problems started. With monopoly came DNS servers that redirect you to ads, paid prioritization of traffic, no more static IP addresses, no more allowing people to run servers, etc. Network Neutrality is so much a battle about restoring the internet to the way it was. I fear it won't be successful unless we restore competition to the ISP market again.
My Android phone recently started displaying toast messages asking me "Would like like to share this photo of *place you are at* on Google Plus?" Not only is it a privacy violation, it is a feature I absolutely never want to use. I don't even use Google Plus. SOOOO FRIEKING ANNOYING. It's like every other day now I have to find some app and disable it's ability to display notifications. And that's just hiding the problem, rather than fixing the underlying issue.
Slashdot Mirror
Those are all good points, and reasons a power user might buy an AC1750 over an N600. I just want the review sites to take those things into account. I suppose you are right that 5Ghz lack of penetration might be a benefit in a dense area where you don't want your neighbor's signal to reach you.
I doubt that it is intentionally misleading. It's systematic, and the numbering does reflect the increase in speed. From an engineering + marketing stand point it is not a bad system. The problem is that the review sites seem to blindly recommend an AC5200 over an AC1750 based on name alone. It's not so different from a review site recommending an i7 over an i5 because hey, it's +2 better.
The ol WRT54 (a sucky v8, not a GL) couldn't keep up with a 50/5 connection.
Ugh, I have one of those. I didn't realize that. Hmmmmm....
You point out that those pricier routers have a lot of other good features, which is valid. I didn't know they had ones with USB ports for storage. That's interesting.
True. I conflated "5Ghz support with "A" which is technically wrong, but it reflects the history of how it came to be. It seems that they named it "AC" since it extends "A" and "B" where A = the original 5Ghz standard and B = the original 2.4Ghz standard. It's the next generation which is a mix of both. I suppose they could also have called it "AO" since it extends "A" and "N"
Perhaps, this was not a mistake, but a "feature" they just never thought anyone would notice.
Years ago, a friend of mine used Radio Shack plug-n-power AKA X10 modules to control things in his house. The nice ones even had a wireless option where you didn't have to plug-in to a wall socket. One day I went over to his house and, rather than knocking on the door, I toggled the lights in his bedroom repeatedly. Security holes are priceless :-)
Now that average consumers are buying wireless routers, we have meaningless speed fixation and corresponding price inflation. Take a look at some of the absolutely horrible advice offered on consumer-grade router reviews, by doing a google search for "wireless router ratings."
Exhibit 1: Forbes: Choosing the best wireless router
The page is one big chart showing theoretical speeds, and recommending getting 802.11ac. 802.11a is the 5Ghz standard that was discarded for dead since it doesn't penetrate through walls. Whoops! That's why for 10 years, hardly any router or NIC supported it. It's kinda useless in most homes. For a while, 5Ghz was billed as a way to do high-speed over short distances. Since people may have multiple network devices in one room or cubicle, you could put a 5Ghz router in each one. The range is so short they won't interfere with each other. But that was too expensive, and the moderate speed boost wasn't worth it.
But it's faster, so "oooooh shiny" now it is back!
Exhibit 2: Wireless routers at Newegg
An observant shopper soon learns that routers are speed rated: N150, N300, AC1750, AC1900, AC2600, AC5300, etc. By this system, a G54 router is ancient. They make it look like buying a 100Mhz CPU in 2.6Ghz era. But if you ask "Why would I need a 5300Mbps router when my internet is 50Mbps?" The only reason to buy a router with such a high rating is that you will probably get a fraction of that actual speed. But even that number doesn't correlate because the number in AC5300 refers to the "A" speed that most devices don't even support. So the number is doubly meaningless.
This stupid system is so prevalent that people sometimes think that AC1750 is the model number. They get confused and buy the wrong router, or can't figure out why there are 5 routers all called the BrandName AC1750.
Exhibit 3: PC magazine recommends the most expensive consumer routers ever
PC Magazine's recommended routers: $300, $250, $174, and $17. Wow, that's quite a price difference. Unless you have lots and lots of people using the wireless network, and some kind of crazy university-sized internet pipe, and devices that support the 5Ghz band, that $17 router will do just as well as the $300 router.
What these review sites need to do is actually measure wireless performance at various ranges and in different rooms. Unless they do that, the speed ratings are meaningless.
Being primarily a Windows user, I use OneNote. Our Office started using it and I got hooked. For quick notes on my phone, I use "Note Everything." I currently do not use any syncing or backup of notes, no encryption, and no sending them to a third-party. It's kinda like how notes were in the old days with pen and paper.
There is a OneNote for Android, so I might try that.
My ideal solution would probably be OwnCloud. It's the best of all worlds: privacy, security, backup, synchronization.
Did you just liken hobby farming, wilderness retreats, and sailing to scrubbing toilets?
The antiketchup neutrino is very tasty, but you have to put a whole lot on since it only weakly interacts with your food.
Yes! And, the link provided in the summary to support the statement is not about the Paris attacks. This is like me saying "Scientists have reported that neutrinos do not change flavor." (The link is to an article confirming that they do change flavor.)
These transparency reports are quite informative. But I'd love to see the actual removals. At some pont, we need to see if the removals have any validity or not. We just can't tell from this data. Is there any legal reason they can't be publicly posted? Actually, I wonder if the DMCA should *require* that they be public, so that the public at-large knows who the bullies are, or maybe who the jerks who keep copying people's stuff are. If you don't want your notice public, don't file it.
The editors fixed them. Thank you!
The links in the summary are to the "not supported" page. Sheesh.
The Google links in the summary are bad. Just go to https://myactivity.google.com/
Please tell us what three-letter-agency needs a camera that:
* Has a focal length of 3mm
* Cannot store images on board or wirelessly transmit images
* Has a 5 foot fiber-optic cord
This article is simply about a new kind of lens. It's not useful for surveillance. It's useful for looking at tissue very closely.
Answer "no" when the browser asks to use your location information.
It doesn't matter. If you added 2-factor authentication to the juke box, nobody would buy it because it would be too hard to use. Which, I suppose, solves the security problem nicely!
This is great, because I am on the other side of that, possibly building that 500,000€ paperweight right now!
Security: You must provide a way to remotely update your medical devices so they aren't vulnerable to zero-day exploits!
Me: Okay, I will turn on automatic updates.
Regulatory: Wait! Software changes must be tested and approved first. That takes a few months.
Customer: Our regulatory group says the lab must be air gapped.
Everyone: *Head explodes*
There are some places where security just isn't needed. Where I work we are having discussions kinda like this:
Security team: All new products must support two-factor authentication!
Development: On the juke box??
I just looked at the Wikipedia article on hate speech, and indeed Westboro won in the US Supreme Court already.
Does being a religion give you a license to say anything you like?
No.
We have laws against hate speech even though we have free speech in general, and we have laws against speech that encourage a specific crime.
The US does not have laws against hate speech. The article you linked to explains that.
We guarantee freedom of religion, but we also guarantee freedom of life. Which one has priority?
I acknowledge your intent here: Islam calls for the deaths of many kinds of people. But religion and life are not in conflict. Be careful: that is a false dichotomy and a dangerous generalization.
Maybe we should say categorically that you *can't* preach that it's OK to kill people of a certain class, whatever the class might be.
Hmmm... Now this is interesting... let us think it through. It sounds like you propose some kind of criminal penalty for a religious group to call for people to be killed. Does this affect only groups, or individuals? What about secular people who do the same? Should it become illegal to threaten someone in general?
Threatening someone with harm, when you show capability and intent to carry out that harm, is called assault. Assault is a crime in the United States. Assault is defined carefully, because really, how many people have called for the death of celebrities or politicians? Or call for the death of immigrants? Or certain classes of criminals? The average Joe calls for the death of lawyers on a daily basis. ;-) Perhaps it should be illegal to call for the death of any group of people?
Implementing this would be hard. Would we round-up religious leaders who call for the death of gays? I'm not sure how many of them are really living in the US anyway. You cited Westboro, which is a good example, but they haven't actually killed anyone... hmmm.... I suspect we could round-up the Westboro folks on assault already since they have carried out a number of their threats, but so far just protests. Seems like they would have a good chance of winning such a case. Although it would certainly send a message.
Suppose we did round-up such people: would it help, or would it merely cause the crazies to lash out? There is a thought that by allowing racist nutjobs like the Nazis and the KKK to go about their business in public, they demonstrate that they are crazy, and actually limit the growth of their own organizations. Some feel that by banning such things, they go underground where they are not publicly criticized and can quietly proliferate. There is a real fear of that kind of thing in Germany.
This becomes a slippery slope, which is why the founders of the United States wrote the first amendment.
ooooOOOOOOoooohhhh, I like that.
(I want the ability to transfer a +1 from my post, down to any immediate child reply)
Russian bill: All messaging apps must have a backdoor that only Russia can access.
US bill: All messaging apps must have a backdoor that only the US can access.
EU bill: All messaging apps must have a backdoor that only the EU can access.
Yeah, that'll work just great.
The regulatory infrastructure killed the DSL providers. They had to lease their lines from the telecoms, while also competing with the telecoms. They were doomed. I used one of the last ones, Cavalier Telephone, for years.
This is how internet service used to be! The current generation growing up just naively assumes that your local telecom company is your ISP, and can't even wrap their head around this idea that you could choose an ISP separately from the company that shows up to your front door to wire it.
This is the market solution to Network Neutrality. The "golden age" of the internet was back when the telephone companies just provided the wires, and people could sign-up for whatever ISP they wanted. Then, when telecom companies bought out the ISPs, and the two markets combined into a single vertical slice, is when the problems started. With monopoly came DNS servers that redirect you to ads, paid prioritization of traffic, no more static IP addresses, no more allowing people to run servers, etc. Network Neutrality is so much a battle about restoring the internet to the way it was. I fear it won't be successful unless we restore competition to the ISP market again.
My Android phone recently started displaying toast messages asking me "Would like like to share this photo of *place you are at* on Google Plus?" Not only is it a privacy violation, it is a feature I absolutely never want to use. I don't even use Google Plus. SOOOO FRIEKING ANNOYING. It's like every other day now I have to find some app and disable it's ability to display notifications. And that's just hiding the problem, rather than fixing the underlying issue.