People often claim "the law forbids" without any evidence whatsoever. Can you cite a particular Federal law or regulation mandating that the sources to the radio & GPS receiver driver are closed? With your interpretation of the relevant clauses, please? I don't believe that any such law or regulation exists in the United States.
(Here that is again, this time not anonymously. Anonymous comments seem to score really low.)
It is not true that WiFi card makers are not allowed, under U.S. regulations, to expose the transmit power control, tuning, etc., to the user. People who say so, even people at Atheros who say so, are mistaken or lying. (As one FCC lawyer told me in the mealy-mouthed language of Washington, D.C., "it sounds to me like they are being less than forthright.")
And yes, I am quite aware of the FCC's SDR rules. Why, I have even read them, which is more than virtually anybody else who is commenting has done! A maker certifies their product under the SDR rules *at their own option*, and then (and only then) do they accept certain strictures (they have to take measures to protect against tampering) in exchange for a streamlined re-certification process. AFAICT from the FCC certifications database, NO WIFI RADIO, least of all any Atheros-based radio, has been certified under the SDR rules. The rules simply *do not apply* in WiFi space.
(Now, it is likely that the rules in Europe are stricter than in the United States. Still, Atheros will send you a copy of the U.S. SDR rules if you ask about the regulatory issue.)
Incidentally, every single WiFi radio in existence is software-defined under the FCC's broad definition. Some of them nevertheless have open-source drivers that let you adjust the tuning and power control by getting directly at the hardware. See, for instance, the open-source ADMtek drivers for BSD and for Linux. I wrote the former driver, and I didn't have to break U.S. law to do it. And the manufacturer supports new development on the driver.
Finally, I will just add that the FCC has traditionally not required even a modicum of tamper-proofing on Part 15 devices. Their long-standing position has been that a device need only protect consumers from *inadvertently* or *casually* tuning a channel they're not entitled to use, or setting an illegal power level, in order to qualify for certification. Furthermore, the FCC seems to be aware that determined radio hackers with malicious mis-use in mind will not be stopped. Hacking a wireless driver for illegal channels or transmit powers is not the "casual" or "inadvertent" consumer activity that the device certification process is designed to prevent.
I think the real reason Atheros and other WiFi chipmakers are not opening things up is that they want to protect their intellectual property. Someone at Atheros has told me that is a key reason. I doubt that there are major innovations in the software interface (register set, descriptor ring format, blah blah) that give deserve protection because they give them a competitive advantage, but this wouldn't be the first time that a chipmaker saw it that way.
You might ask, why does it matter whether the software interface concealed by the HAL is opened up? First, so that radio experimenters and open source developers can innovate with WiFi at their own pace and according to their own agenda. Second, because the HAL documentation is virtually non-existent, and nobody is going to write it. Third, (Theo will appreciate this) so we can audit the code (which runs w/ all the privileges on your Linux/BSD system!) for bugs. Fourth, so that we can fix the bugs---and there *are* bugs.
I have tested two pairs of these helicals,
and neither surpassed the performance of a Pringles can antenna.
The antennas in one pair were 1.5 ft long. The antennas in the second pair were 3 ft long. At a distance of 580 meters, the signal/noise ratio was
17dB using the short pair, 20dB using the long pair, and 25dB using a pair of Pringles can antennas. Also at 580 meters, we achieved 50dB signal/noise with parabolic dish antennas we bought mail-order.
The metallic layer of a Pringles can most certainly is conductive. You have to poke through a plastic film to get to it, though.
I am not certain that the metallic layer is electrically connected to the back of the can. I don't know if it matters.
A friend and I have made electrical contact between an N chassis connector and the metallic layer. I don't know if this is necessary, but we made contact by putting screws through the screwholes in the N chassis connector and screwing them into threaded flanges with two sharp "teeth" bent out of the flange. (I forget what they're called. My friend found them at a hobby shop.) The teeth pierce the plastic film, the metallic layer, and the cardboard. The metallic layer is connected by the teeth to the flange, by the flange to the screw, and by the screw to the N connector.
Again, I don't know if this electrical contact is even necessary. Every waveguide illustration I see is sort of unclear, but a physics postdoc (friend's brother) tells us we'd best make that connection.
I haven't really thought much about this, but I'm concerned that an unforeseen problem of fusion would be "heat pollution." Already this is a problem with today's nuclear reactors, which typically use lake or river water for cooling. Fusion offers vastly more energy than fission; will it make proportionally more heat pollution?
Perhaps the nation's security demands that the government keep some
secrets, but we permit our government to keep secrets from us only reluctantly and mindful of the threat to democracy that secrecy poses.
Should have read:
Perhaps the nation's security demands that the government keep some
secrets, but we should permit our government to keep secrets from us only reluctantly, being mindful of the threat to democracy that secrecy poses.
The way that the paragraph used to read didn't make nearly as much sense and it could also be read to mean the opposite of what I meant.
I'm floored by the credulity of some people. Time and time again the media expose the scams pulled off by our government's secret organizations and yet there are still people out there who still say to themselves and anyone who asks that they don't know what a secret organization does, but that they're certain it's beneficial and just.
It's sad that the citizens of democratic countries glory in their governments' secret organizations. Government organizations that keep secrets from the citizenry obscure the powers and actions of the government. But in a democracy, the government's power is lent it by the people. Its actions are authorized by the people. It is no less rational for the people to give up the right to observe what their government is doing with their authority than to give up the right to vote; the results are the same: the usurpation of their power.
Perhaps the nation's security demands that the government keep some secrets, but we permit our government to keep secrets from us only reluctantly and mindful of the threat to democracy that secrecy poses.
It's no relief that there are "only geeks," so to speak, in the NSA. One of the problems with our democracy is that too few Americans are willing to exercise their moral autonomy, to get informed, or to clarify and assert their values at the polls or in the workplace. In my experience, geeks are a little worse in this regard, on average. So we're probably a little worse off for there being "just geeks" in the NSA than spooks a la James Bond.
Slashdot Mirror
People often claim "the law forbids" without any evidence whatsoever. Can you cite a particular Federal law or regulation mandating that the sources to the radio & GPS receiver driver are closed? With your interpretation of the relevant clauses, please? I don't believe that any such law or regulation exists in the United States.
(Here that is again, this time not anonymously. Anonymous comments seem to score really low.)
It is not true that WiFi card makers are not allowed, under U.S. regulations, to expose the transmit power control, tuning, etc., to the user. People who say so, even people at Atheros who say so, are mistaken or lying. (As one FCC lawyer told me in the mealy-mouthed language of Washington, D.C., "it sounds to me like they are being less than forthright.")
And yes, I am quite aware of the FCC's SDR rules. Why, I have even read them, which is more than virtually anybody else who is commenting has done! A maker certifies their product under the SDR rules *at their own option*, and then (and only then) do they accept certain strictures (they have to take measures to protect against tampering) in exchange for a streamlined re-certification process. AFAICT from the FCC certifications database, NO WIFI RADIO, least of all any Atheros-based radio, has been certified under the SDR rules. The rules simply *do not apply* in WiFi space.
(Now, it is likely that the rules in Europe are stricter than in the United States. Still, Atheros will send you a copy of the U.S. SDR rules if you ask about the regulatory issue.)
Incidentally, every single WiFi radio in existence is software-defined under the FCC's broad definition. Some of them nevertheless have open-source drivers that let you adjust the tuning and power control by getting directly at the hardware. See, for instance, the open-source ADMtek drivers for BSD and for Linux. I wrote the former driver, and I didn't have to break U.S. law to do it. And the manufacturer supports new development on the driver.
Finally, I will just add that the FCC has traditionally not required even a modicum of tamper-proofing on Part 15 devices. Their long-standing position has been that a device need only protect consumers from *inadvertently* or *casually* tuning a channel they're not entitled to use, or setting an illegal power level, in order to qualify for certification. Furthermore, the FCC seems to be aware that determined radio hackers with malicious mis-use in mind will not be stopped. Hacking a wireless driver for illegal channels or transmit powers is not the "casual" or "inadvertent" consumer activity that the device certification process is designed to prevent.
I think the real reason Atheros and other WiFi chipmakers are not opening things up is that they want to protect their intellectual property. Someone at Atheros has told me that is a key reason. I doubt that there are major innovations in the software interface (register set, descriptor ring format, blah blah) that give deserve protection because they give them a competitive advantage, but this wouldn't be the first time that a chipmaker saw it that way.
You might ask, why does it matter whether the software interface concealed by the HAL is opened up? First, so that radio experimenters and open source developers can innovate with WiFi at their own pace and according to their own agenda. Second, because the HAL documentation is virtually non-existent, and nobody is going to write it. Third, (Theo will appreciate this) so we can audit the code (which runs w/ all the privileges on your Linux/BSD system!) for bugs. Fourth, so that we can fix the bugs---and there *are* bugs.
I have tested two pairs of these helicals,
and neither surpassed the performance of a Pringles can antenna.
The antennas in one pair were 1.5 ft long. The antennas in the second pair were 3 ft long. At a distance of 580 meters, the signal/noise ratio was
17dB using the short pair, 20dB using the long pair, and 25dB using a pair of Pringles can antennas. Also at 580 meters, we achieved 50dB signal/noise with parabolic dish antennas we bought mail-order.
The metallic layer of a Pringles can most certainly is conductive. You have to poke through a plastic film to get to it, though.
I am not certain that the metallic layer is electrically connected to the back of the can. I don't know if it matters.
A friend and I have made electrical contact between an N chassis connector and the metallic layer. I don't know if this is necessary, but we made contact by putting screws through the screwholes in the N chassis connector and screwing them into threaded flanges with two sharp "teeth" bent out of the flange. (I forget what they're called. My friend found them at a hobby shop.) The teeth pierce the plastic film, the metallic layer, and the cardboard. The metallic layer is connected by the teeth to the flange, by the flange to the screw, and by the screw to the N connector.
Again, I don't know if this electrical contact is even necessary. Every waveguide illustration I see is sort of unclear, but a physics postdoc (friend's brother) tells us we'd best make that connection.
I haven't really thought much about this, but I'm
concerned that an unforeseen problem of fusion
would be "heat pollution." Already this is a problem with today's nuclear reactors, which
typically use lake or river water for cooling.
Fusion offers vastly more energy than fission;
will it make proportionally more heat pollution?
Oops. This paragraph:
Should have read:
The way that the paragraph used to read didn't make nearly as much sense and it could also be read to mean the opposite of what I meant.
I'm floored by the credulity of some people. Time and time again the media expose the scams pulled off by our government's secret organizations and yet there are still people out there who still say to themselves and anyone who asks that they don't know what a secret organization does, but that they're certain it's beneficial and just.
It's sad that the citizens of democratic countries glory in their governments' secret organizations. Government organizations that keep secrets from the citizenry obscure the powers and actions of the government. But in a democracy, the government's power is lent it by the people. Its actions are authorized by the people. It is no less rational for the people to give up the right to observe what their government is doing with their authority than to give up the right to vote; the results are the same: the usurpation of their power.
Perhaps the nation's security demands that the government keep some secrets, but we permit our government to keep secrets from us only reluctantly and mindful of the threat to democracy that secrecy poses.
It's no relief that there are "only geeks," so to speak, in the NSA. One of the problems with our democracy is that too few Americans are willing to exercise their moral autonomy, to get informed, or to clarify and assert their values at the polls or in the workplace. In my experience, geeks are a little worse in this regard, on average. So we're probably a little worse off for there being "just geeks" in the NSA than spooks a la James Bond.