To set the tone: I am not insulting you and I'm not trolling.
While I agree with the mentality that people should have a moral compass (regardless of religious beliefs, too - I am an atheist but I consider myself a good person with a strong moral compass), I believe that the prevalence of those lacking a moral compass in all societies makes it naive to not practice some sort of security . I regularly leave my door unlocked or my garage open while home but I do lock it at night or when I am away. I don't have a security system but I don't believe they are not 'best practice' and I will likely have one myself at some point. While I do assume that 99% of the people who may happen by my house have a strong enough moral compass to prevent them from entering and stealing things, I don't think that it is necessary for this to be a one way or the other scenario and IMO it is not practical to deny security just because we don't think it should be required.
I think the idea the GP was trying to get across is that effective security can shield you from most intrusions just like home security systems and locked doors and while I definitely have an issue with actually going through others' things (even without actively stealing or any malicious intent). In the case of the unsecured users whose data he had access to, my opinion is that either they were naive in thinking that people won't take advantage of them or that they were simply unaware of the access that others potentially have. All it would have taken is one malicious connection to steal or ruin a lot of people's critical data and while the GP wasn't necessarily 'right' in looking through their things, he does demonstrate how easy it is for people lacking a moral compass to take it much further than snooping.
IMO being aware of threats and being able to effectively secure my possessions and data doesn't make my mentality any less elevated or make me personally feel worse about the society we live in...I feel that I have an ideal that I am trying to achieve in that I wouldn't consider intruding on others' privacy but I also have a realistic perspective of the fact that my ideals are not shared by all people and while I can strive to attain that elevated ideal I can still be realistic about the society we live in and the occasional criminal or asshole who is less considered and who does not share my ideals or moral compass.
I have to heartily disagree with one point: QoS is exactly what is utilized to engineer traffic shaping methods to provide specific amounts of bandwidth to paying customers because 'traffic shaping' is a component of QoS. In the past, 'traffic shaping' or bandwidth limitations limitations were primarily done by utilizing line cards capable of only specific line rates and therefore you had a relatively physical method of controlling bandwidth but that methodology is only used for guaranteed speeds in business environments for leased lines anymore. Even then we are getting into gigabit capable ethernet customer uplinks that are parceled out into smaller amounts for customers using QoS on an upstream router.
Net Neutrality != QoS as you stated except that it does not allow the use of QoS to selectively police certain types of traffic and apply lower/higher bandwidth or priority to these traffic types. Ultimately, though, this discussion is about in-home WiFi and Net Neutrality doesn't really fit the discussion IMO.
Uhm...I'm not 100% positive on this because I didn't develop the Starbucks hotspots or associated software but my assumption is that MAC addresses of connected devices are timestamped and logged for an extended period of time to prevent exactly this. It is feasible to do this in a home environment as well but it does require a bit of knowledge that the average layperson lacks or simply does not have the time to learn.
As an example, I do have a 'Guest' SSID with open authentication at my home but MAC addresses, DHCP leases, and traffic history are all logged in my firewall. Additionally, I utilize a completely separate VLAN in wireless & switching equipment connected to a unique DMZ interface on the firewall which segregates all private LAN/Wireless traffic from 'Guest' traffic. This also allows me to configure traffic shapers that I can apply to inbound/outbound policies to provide a guaranteed 5mbps to my private traffic, burstable to my full 10mbps with a higher priority than the 'Guest' traffic. Guest traffic is restricted to a maximum burstable 5mbps with a guarantee of 1mbps and per-IP shaping in place to make things fair for everyone connected.
In my case, I did all of this more because I could than out of any altruistic intentions. Ultimately IAA Network Engineer so I have an advantage in that I do this every day and I do work from home 85% of the time so my LAN traffic is critical data and most times sensitive in nature so I couldn't just give out my PSK to everyone. An nifty bonus is that occasionally when a neighbor's internet is down or something, they do have a method of accessing internet. You better believe that I log the shit out of them, though, and my bandwidth is MY bandwidth so when I need it, the Guest users get the tough titty...I would assume the logging portion is at least the same for Starbucks.
Well since you've blown the lid off of how capitalism is evil and apparently hoarding all of the food to kill Africa and other poor nations (see, I can overgeneralize without any facts, too!), how do you suggest the food destined to be thrown away gets to Africa in a way that doesn't rape the economy of either country - teleport it?
It's not like farmers or even government officials sit down and say "we have all this extra food material that we aren't selling that starving Africans could sure use....fuck those guys though - burn it!" You are talking about average households not using all of the food they purchase and being forced to discard up to 40% of it [http://www.nrdc.org/food/files/wasted-food-IP.pdf] because it is ALREADY bad and cannot be safely eaten. I'm not saying that a significant amount of perfectly good food product does not end up in the trash because people are retarded, I'm just saying that the window of opportunity to ship that shit out to Africa without an incredible cost expenditure is very very small and has to start immediately after processing. Ultimately the evil capitalist Americans are not the only ones discarding food at a huge rate, either - this is a problem for almost every first world nation to address.
With regard to your assertion that GM crops don't have significantly higher yields, your claim is absolutely false and has no basis in scientific fact. From Monsanto (I know - somewhat biased but based off of an independent study so I put more merit in this than in what you've said because all you have is words and emotions): [http://www.monsanto.com/newsviews/Pages/do-gm-crops-increase-yield.aspx]
The introduction of GM traits through biotechnology has led to increased yields independent of breeding. Take for example statistics cited by PG Economics, which annually tallies the benefits of GM crops, taking data from numerous studies around the world:
Mexico - yield increases with herbicide tolerant soybean of 9 percent.
Romania – yield increases with herbicide tolerant soybeans have averaged 31 percent.
Philippines – average yield increase of 15 percent with herbicide tolerant corn.
Philippines – average yield increase of 24 percent with insect resistant corn.
Hawaii – virus resistant papaya has increased yields by an average of 40 percent.
India – insect resistant cotton has led to yield increases on average more than 50 percent.
You may be referring to an article in UK's 'The Independent' claiming that a university study proves that yield is lower [http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/green-living/exposed-the-great-gm-crops-myth-812179.html]. The author of the study has discredited this sensationalist bullshit piece of pseudo-journalism himself [http://www.ipni.net/ppiweb/FILELIB.NSF/0/3FCACF5C93CFA9A18525743A006C7630/$file/Gordon_Fact_Sheet.pdf] and identified that the purpose of the study was not to study yields and that the article was in fact largely false and corrupted many statements he had made. If you're referring to that study or any of the others that anti-GMO nuts like you typically won't shut up about - I have yet to see a study that has not been disproven or is not extremely out of date. During its infancy, GM production may have been worse - there may have been modifications made that even made things inedible but this is all part of the experimental process to augment the capabilities of the food products we have to better survive and to increase yields. So we're not creating crops that can survive in the arctic tundra and yield 700% more food yet - we should just stop altogether and say "fuck it - not worth it"?
Now to discuss the India situation - you're right (at least partially) for once. In this instance, GMO has been used to control food production rather than to augment it and help with the problem. This is not an asshole USA problem - this is a problem with the Indian government assisting with exploiting
Wickedness is now equal to not helping create a smooth functioning YouTube app? SOMEONE SOUND THE ALARM BELLS!!!
I understand what you're saying but the way I read it, Google isn't doing anything but preventing other players in the market from using their service without properly licensing it. The article is pretty sensationalist (from the Register of course) and seems like it is making quite a few assumptions. Nowhere does it say that Google has refused Microsoft's efforts to license the tech. Even if that is the case, maybe a *tsk* *tsk* @ Google but calling it wickedness is a bit silly IMO...ultimately it is good business to keep competition between the already established players in the market. Fuck Microsoft and their late starter attitude...early bird and whatnot.
I still don't see how this is really abusing government power...the non-US company offered services to US residents that those US residents are not allowed to utilize. The government stepped in and filed a legal complaint (in the US) against the company offering the services after which the company decided to restrict use from the US to alleviate government concerns and nullify the legal proceedings.
I think that it is more insane to prosecute US residents, many of whom may not even be aware that what they are doing is illegal. I understand that from a 'censorship' standpoint this is a bit of a slippery slope but this isn't really censorship in that the information is not being denied or hidden - the service that this company is offering is being blocked (AND from the provider's side - the government has only filed the legal complaint). If the attempt was to block the information that InTrade made availble, I'm completely with you - I don't see any situation where an informational analysis site or something along those lines that followed InTrade would have proceedings filed or action taken against it, though, so this doesn't really fall into the category of censorship that I can see.
If the US government does impose flight restrictions or adds employees of InTrade to a watch list or some crazy shit like that, you're completely right - abuse of governmental power. Also, if the US tried to impose its' laws on citizens of other countries for using InTrade in any way - complete bullshit. As it sits, though, the government is using the most cost effective, efficient solution to enforce the laws of the nation and even though I think it is completely retarded that InTrade's services are illegal in the first place, it is still a national law and therefore the service cannot be offered or used in the United States.
Don't get me wrong...I'm as against government control and corruption as anyone else here. If I missed something, definitely correct me - I'm just trying to figure out why everyone is decrying governmental abuse of power in this case...if the issue was the US' restriction of gambling in general, I have many opinions on why that is a complete crock of shit but as it stands, it is law and all I see is the law getting carried out in the least impactful way to the citizens of the US and to the citizens of other nations that do allow InTrade's services.
A locksmith may charge you to upgrade those locks but 99% of the time that locksmith is not the creator of the locks he installed and is therefore not responsible for the vulnerabilities therein. In this case, Onity is the manufacturer of these locks and they hold the patents for design and build of the locks. I think as a responsible, forward-thinking company they should be responsible for fixing the vulnerability that caused the loss even though it represents a significant loss...ultimately they are not requried to do so, though.
Onity did offer two fixes to the problem - 1) use a plug for the port to make it inaccessible and utilize torx screws to secure the housing or 2) ship the board back to them for replacement at the customer's expense. While rudimentary tools can make option number 1 useless (a pen casing and a lighter can break through this easily), it would be interesting to see if Onity offers continued warranty support on these products if the customer uses a more permanent solution such as epoxy to plug the hole and block access to the maintenance port. If they do, I would say that while that is still a bit janky, the company is at least willing to meet customers 1/4 of the way if not half the way. Ultimately IMO Onity should replace these at their expense because it is their junk equipment - since they have effectively given the finger to their customers, though, it would be interesting to see what percentage of their keycard lock business goes to competitors over the next few years.
I'm confused...AFAIK it doesn't work because in the context of making a "fast break for it" the term implies a breaking of your current action or state (suddenly bolting/running/attempting escape/etc.) In TFS it is stated that it "accelerates to 115 miles per hour and then breaks just in time to make it around a curve" which literally implies that the brakes are being pressed to slow the vehicle's entry into the curve which is 'braking' rather than 'breaking' as either the current state of acceleration or any physical characteristic breaking would need to be specified to give it context and make the this spelling appropriate.
I see what you're saying in that it could be double entendre but for me to call it a clever poke rather than a grammatical error it would have to say "accelerates to 115 miles per hour and then breaks from acceleration just in time to make it around a curve". In a statement like 'take a break" or 'take a brake' I agree that either works as one implies departing from an particular action or state of being and the other implies slowing down or stopping.
I'm not trying to be a dick, btw...just exploring the possibilities. IANAEP (English Professor) so I don't know what I'm talking about probably...that's just how it happens in my head piece.
You are so far off base that you must have done absolutely zero research here. I'm going to go down the list of why you're wrong point by point:
1. Population density is slightly lower in Brazil than in the US - Brazil has an approximate population of 194,429,773 while the US has a population of 312,488,000. Given the area measurements of each country, the population density of Brazil is 22/km (57/sq mi) and the US is 31/km (80/sq mi). This indicates that the population density of the US is approximately 40% greater than in Brazil which is a SIGNIFICANT difference. [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brazil%E2%80%93United_States_relations]
2. Brazil has a national power grid that covers every part of the country that's physically possible - Please cite your reference for this information as I can find zero information supporting this. Regardless, the US has a very similar system in that failure of a single reactor does not typically create a permanent outage scenario. My next point also illustrates why your argument is flawed at its base.
3. The US grid is much, much worse than Brazil's - Brazil produces a total of 484,800 GWh while the United States produces over 4,325,900 GWh of power yearly (from 2010 numbers - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_electricity_production). Over 80% of all electricity generated by Brazil is Hydroelectric which sounds great at first until you consider that regional droughts can and have caused serious power issues in the past (2001-2002 crisis - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electricity_sector_in_Brazil). This makes Brazil's entire power grid so heavily reliant on a single resource that it cannot sustain the demand for power in the event that weather conditions are not hunky-dory. In other words, this is much less reliable and much more prone to system-wide failures or outages than the US grid. Granted, Brazil's energy production is more renewable and 'greener', however hydroelectric damming is known to cause widespread ecosystem problems by interrupting spawning paths for fish and other animals that rely on the uninterrupted flow of water along natural riverways.
Ultimately, I'm not saying Brazil's grid sucks, I'm just saying you're wrong and you have no idea what you're talking about.
You obviously do not have a job requiring technical proficiency or any sort of skills that require you to think or change as your industry grows/changes. If you are working in a 40 year old reactor that has the exact same buttons to push every single day, you're probably right about your job only. Otherwise I find it hard to believe that you are saying that you begin any job with even close to the optimal skillset to make you successful at your job.
You said it perfectly in one part of your comment actually..."proficient" is what people start their jobs as and they are required to maintain that standard. Being modular enough to adapt your current skillset and knowledge to update your methods and make them more effective is what is being discussed with regard to teaching.
There is a very clear reason why hiring done for professions requiring anything other than button mashing weights EXPERIENCE much more heavily than EDUCATION. Education provides you the base knowledge level and toolset to be "proficient" and experience provides you the extended toolset and knowledge to improve performance and efficiency.
And your evidence to the contrary is wheeerrre? To invalidate a claim you have to provide evidence supporting your position. Granted, the GP does too, but just having an "I'm right, you're wrong - because." war is for politicians.
I on the other hand used the Google on the internet machine and after 10 seconds of searching for the simplest metric I could think of, 'PC vs Console sales', came up with the following from Nvidia last year: http://wraltechwire.com/business/tech_wire/news/blogpost/10174154/
Granted this is from last September but it shows the rising trend of PC gaming once again and the stagnation of console gaming across the past few years and the trends into the next few years. GP was wrong in that PC gaming is still the largest - that hasn't been true since Brody and Broseph found out about Call of Duty...however, PC gaming is coming back in spite of all of the claims to the contrary over the approx. 19 years that I've been into PC and console gaming.
Apple, Republicans, closed source, corporations, America, Microsoft, science that disagrees with our biases - all double-minus nega-bad.
Apple, Republicans, closed source, corporations, America, Microsoft, science that disagrees with our biases - all 50 DKP MINUS!!!
There...fixed that for you.
Brogrammers...oh wow. How have I missed this new term!? Thank you so much...I have so many people to tear apart in this category (friends...all in good fun, heh) that I am in physical pain from containing myself until after work when I see them.
Awesome.
The issue at hand is that actual Multitasking is not one of the things that we do well (or even can do as far as all vetted research shows). Specifically with multitasking, if the program can detect when a user is attempting to do this and to send instructions to speed things along to the secondary entities you are attempting to manipulate, it could increase efficiency.
"No one will ever need more than 640k of memory." -Bill Gates (Disputed by Mr. Gates but who would want to be credited with saying that...)
Seems like you don't work in IT. Our company has an average costs per gigabye for redundancy, hardware maintenance, engineering time, power, and cooling of right around $41. Let's assume that the average email has a size of 75kB (which is far larger than our organization's average of ~41kB..just for the sake of argument) and then divide 1,048,576kB (1gB) by that 75kB and we reach a total of 13981.013 emails per gigabyte of storage space. Finally, if we take $41 and divide by 13981.013, we get $0.0029 per email, per year. For reference, we are running two NetApp FAS6000s and have two Equallogic PS6000s running RAID 50 for redundancy.
Given the fact that our organization is extremely email/data heavy and we are well under the 75kB assumption above per email, it is safe to say that your assessment of $3.65/email/year is WAY off base. We run well under $0.0029 per email, per year and have a very reasonable 10gB mailbox size limit. I can understand limiting the total data to a lower amount in a school environment but your reasoning for doing so (that storage is somehow extremely expensive) is waaaay off base.
Thinking about a school environment having 2000 users, each with an email account, each with a limitation of 2gB, we're talking 4000gB of storage space required to maintain their mailboxes. Adding another 500gB for internal storage and applications like Exchange, we can assume a total required of 4500gB of storage space at maximum (because users will be forced to archive locally at 2gB). Using our organization as an example and adding some cost for argument's sake, let's assume $50/gB/year. Total per year, then, will be $225,000/year which is no insignificant sum (granted this is with some pretty hardcore redundancy built in so real cost would be more around $15-20/gB/year or $67,500 - $90,000).
We can use the earlier 13981.013 emails/gB and then multiply by 4500gB of required storage space to reach a total capacity of 62,914,558.5 emails. Taking your example of $3.65/email/year, that means that a 2000 user organization with a 2gB mailbox size limit would spend $229,638,138.53 every year just maintaining their storage...uhh...what???
My other analogy is much darker and more realistic and involves what I have dubbed the "Infinite Rape Ladder of Modern Business". Essentially, only the strongest "fighters" are able to withstand the incessant raping long enough to take vengeance upon the rape overlord. The raping may cease for a time up at the top of the chain with the shifting of the rape throne but lo', as the uncomfortable seat of power slowly scrubs away any reminder of the terrible plundering and suspicion begins to set in, it is only a matter of time before the abused becomes the abuser and the endless cycle of rape begins anew.
I think that about sums up the nature of business these days.
The idea is that the wireless environment needs to match the wired one in cost and budgeting expenditure at the very least
How do you propose to make that happen? I can buy one 48-port GigE switch and connect about 46 people to. You stated that
Any wireless LAN that requires decent data throughput should never have more than 10 clients connected to a single AP.
Using current technology, it takes about four and a half wireless APs to achieve the same density as a single switch. It has been a while since I worked with any of Cisco's enterprise (Aironet) gear, but it was not cheap. If you really want to manage it, you have to weave in additional hardware to unify it all together. Otherwise, your are left with half assed options like setting all of the APs to the same SSID and letting the clients hop between them. Above and beyond the wireless components, you still have to back everything with ethernet, and usually PoE at that. I have never seen a single, real world, "enterprise / campus" level wireless network that was setup as a wireless mesh. All of the APs had direct connections into switches.
Total cost ends up $3,060.95 vs $2,654.99 so a bit more money involved but you end up with the flexibility of wireless, not having to install (as many) wired runs, leveraging effectiveness of smartphones, tablets, and laptops in the business environment, etc. Also, the 10 clients per AP is for quite a bit of throughput per user. Standard internet and LAN data usage I try to keep between 15 and 20 max per AP when I am configuring a site. With regard to setting the APs to the same SSID, that is exactly how the controller handles things, it just takes into account the connected client's signal strength and if it drops below a certain threshold and another signal nearby is higher it will move the client. This capability also exists outside of controllers and can be configured on the standalone APs, you just have to make sure that your signal density is enough that at whatever threshold you have set to disconnect clients, there is another AP with a higher signal strength to migrate to. Seamless roaming sufficient for even VoIP environments can be achieved without controllers and by using WDS services, it is just more difficult.
With regard to ethernet backing and PoE requirements, almost every PoE AP comes with the required inline power brick if you don't have a PoE switch to connect to. Also, I'm not arguing that ethernet isn't important...anyone who needs to have serious data throughput still needs a wired connection until we have gigabit wireless everywhere and will probably need it afterward. I'm just saying that wireless has become just as important and more and more over the last 10 years has become cost effective enough that it should be considered an equal budgeting consideration.
I have personally overseen the installation of, configured, and installed 2 enterprise mesh networks (12 total uplinks to gateways supporting 10 mesh APs each for a total of 120 APs, 12 Mesh Gateways as an example). Additionally our company provides monitoring for municipal water and power companies who have widespread mesh 802.11 networks with a small number of wireless gateways that serve as the network interfaces for hundreds of field mesh APs distributed across t
I completely understand your frustration and it is one that most people deal with on a regular basis. Things like freakin microwaves and tile can wreak havoc on your signal for sure. My initial assessment may be a bit harsh now that I reread it but I'll detail a bit more about my set-up, too, for clarity. I have a lot of experience working with wireless and have worked as a network engineer for 8 years now so I've got a lot of experience in how to make mine work. The issue is that most people are purchasing a standard consumer grade wireless router and expecting it to work out of the box to cover areas waay bigger than they are capable of. In my experience, while they can work well through a few rooms the antenna gain is not high enough to push very far with very much strength...this is for every brand - Cisco, D-Link, Apple, whatever.
In my situation, I run two Cisco air-ap1131ag-a-k9 APs and I have a FortiGate 50B hardware firewall performing NAT/routing. These APs have significantly higher signal strength and operate on the A/G bands so I set my bridge up to my entertainment center on wireless A since the proliferation of A signal is much less widespread, thus less interference. Granted, I spent a lot more money on my set-up than most people but I only broadcast my G SSID from one AP anyway and I get signal up to two houses away. Realistically, my investment was $210/ea on the APs (great deal on used ones) and I got lucky that my employer provided me the firewall but if you wanted to really make sure your wireless worked, you could even disable the SSID on your wireless router and connect a higher-grade AP with a higher gain antenna and it will work as well.
Keep in mind this depends on your house's size, too. Your wireless devices' antenna signal strength also plays a big part in your connectivity. It sounds like you have optimal positioning with your wireless router on the 1st floor and you definitely shouldn't have issues in the next room unless your kitchen is between...you may just need a better AP.
Regarding your employer and wireless, it sounds like the off-the-shelf Cisco equip and repeaters and, yeah...I definitely understand the issues with that. Repeaters are a bad option usually anyway. Your employer probably needed 3-5 APs similar to mine and the same number of ethernet runs to each of them for a really solid wireless deployment. I've pushed wireless through some of the shittiest environments ever - power plants, ports, tv stations, etc...it is a pain but if a bit of money is put into it like the article is arguing for, the reliability and usability is there.
You do realize that my comment was in direct response to the assertion that wireless was not widely in use for Video Surveillance, right? Exactly how does a user's inability to access a wireless bridge used for the express purpose of a site-to-site link for CCTV data play any part in the discussion or the original topic at all?
Printers? Haven't seen any but one or two low-end consumer models. All professional installs I've seen use good old Ethernet.
Printers typically sit in the exact same spot they have always sat and already have a wired port. It is becoming extremely common that I see these types of wireless laser printers deployed in the small/medium business environment and I've even seen them starting to come into the enterprise environment at an increased rate. I've even seen one of these connected to a UPS that gave it 4 hours battery life that they just carted around a law office to wherever they needed to print. Printers are wireless now, whether laser or not, and that is not an uncommon thing anymore and will be even more common in the future.
Video surveillance? Sane deal. Heck, most of these just use composite over coax.
Whoa...you are so off base here and you don't even know it. I started my career (8 years ago so this isn't new) in CCTV over IP deployments working on Dept. of Homeland Security projects for 6 different major ports (two of the most major ports in the world). EVERY ONE OF THEM had 90% of the camera resources either across miles-long wireless bridge links or performing a point-to-multipoint style IP video bridging. We're talking up to 500 cameras at each port. We're also talking about unlicensed wireless spectrum (wireless A) so this is not some special wireless that no one has access to. When you want to deploy cameras across a space covering 30 or so miles, wireless is a bit necessary if you don't want to spend millions on fiber runs to net you no real benefit.
HVAC? Low bandwidth at best, and I haven't seen an in-use system that actually uses WiFi.
Low bandwidth you're right about...while I don't typically see wireless for HVAC because ethernet is almost wired upon device installation, I am fully expecting to see things like this in the future. The one that stands out that I have seen is in a studio environment where stage temperatures need regular control from a remote site. There is an iLON interface that connects to a WAP so that customers can manage their temperatures from off-site using a secured public portal.
Electric meters? Really low bandwidth, and the better systems I've seen send/very/ low speed data back up the power lines.
So, no, WiFi isn't everywhere. It's just a good add-on for portable devices and stuff that doesn't care about high latency.
Every SmartMeter program in the country uses wireless to monitor meter usage. There are hundreds or thousands of wireless mesh gateways distributed throughout your entire city that you have no idea about and the device they attach to your power meter is a wireless AP. The better systems you've seen transmit nowhere near as much data and are the ones that were in use before most municipal water and power organizations began moving to wireless mesh monitoring. Wireless is also used for municipal water and power organizations to monitor the levels of reservoirs, PLCs for pump stations, etc. Just because they don't use much bandwidth on an individual device basis for these periodic checks doesn't mean that they don't use wireless or that accumulated bandwidth is not significant. If you haven't seen an in-use system, maybe you don't live in a major city?
Qualifications: I've worked as a senior level network engineer for 8 years now with over 3 of those years dedicated solely to wireless deployments. Because of my company's primary focus as a managed services provider and IT project engineering/deployment firm I have also been lucky enough to have worked with over 1200 different companies and have directly experienced the uh....unique..... nature (this is a very, very nice way of putting it) of each's underlying wired/wireless network concerns.
You are doing something completely wrong or you are using a shitty access point if you cannot use wifi as your primary connection. Either that or your neighbor is experimenting with some serious radiation and you may end up with the Hulk storming through your wall crushing your WAP anyway.
Seriously, though, I have 2x Cisco APs in my house and I run almost all of my internet and internal access over it. I stream from my server to my 360 via wireless, stream NetFlix and DirecTV in HD via wireless, browse internet, and transfer files across my wireless regularly. In my area I also have up to 23 other wireless SSIDs active around me at any time, a few of which are using the exact same channel frequencies.
As far as simultaneous usage, a typical day for my house means 4-10x laptops connected alongside the bridge to my DirecTV and 360. I have had 5 laptops doing standard internet browsing/web video streaming and streamed HD from NetFlix simultaneously all across wireless with zero degradation to throughput for any one device. Eventually I want to set up a real stress test and bring a Linksys WAP around to see how interference actually affects things. Granted, I've put a bit more investment into making sure that my wireless devices are powerful enough to carve out some signal space of my own, but this is exactly as the article suggests...better investment into wireless alongside the wired network means at least some measure of future-proofing.
Don't misunderstand me please...I'm not trying to insult or anything, I'm just trying to point out that most people's perception of wireless is that it is (even still) a weak tech with lots of issues. I'm just trying to illustrate that there is a lot that can be done with it and most people's experiences are problems getting it to work because it is not well enough understood.
Slashdot Mirror
High five to you sir. Would mod up if I could.
VLAN with a dedicated firewall interface acting as the gateway and policies that prevent traffic from routing between interfaces. FTFY :)
To set the tone: I am not insulting you and I'm not trolling.
While I agree with the mentality that people should have a moral compass (regardless of religious beliefs, too - I am an atheist but I consider myself a good person with a strong moral compass), I believe that the prevalence of those lacking a moral compass in all societies makes it naive to not practice some sort of security . I regularly leave my door unlocked or my garage open while home but I do lock it at night or when I am away. I don't have a security system but I don't believe they are not 'best practice' and I will likely have one myself at some point. While I do assume that 99% of the people who may happen by my house have a strong enough moral compass to prevent them from entering and stealing things, I don't think that it is necessary for this to be a one way or the other scenario and IMO it is not practical to deny security just because we don't think it should be required.
I think the idea the GP was trying to get across is that effective security can shield you from most intrusions just like home security systems and locked doors and while I definitely have an issue with actually going through others' things (even without actively stealing or any malicious intent). In the case of the unsecured users whose data he had access to, my opinion is that either they were naive in thinking that people won't take advantage of them or that they were simply unaware of the access that others potentially have. All it would have taken is one malicious connection to steal or ruin a lot of people's critical data and while the GP wasn't necessarily 'right' in looking through their things, he does demonstrate how easy it is for people lacking a moral compass to take it much further than snooping.
IMO being aware of threats and being able to effectively secure my possessions and data doesn't make my mentality any less elevated or make me personally feel worse about the society we live in...I feel that I have an ideal that I am trying to achieve in that I wouldn't consider intruding on others' privacy but I also have a realistic perspective of the fact that my ideals are not shared by all people and while I can strive to attain that elevated ideal I can still be realistic about the society we live in and the occasional criminal or asshole who is less considered and who does not share my ideals or moral compass.
I have to heartily disagree with one point: QoS is exactly what is utilized to engineer traffic shaping methods to provide specific amounts of bandwidth to paying customers because 'traffic shaping' is a component of QoS. In the past, 'traffic shaping' or bandwidth limitations limitations were primarily done by utilizing line cards capable of only specific line rates and therefore you had a relatively physical method of controlling bandwidth but that methodology is only used for guaranteed speeds in business environments for leased lines anymore. Even then we are getting into gigabit capable ethernet customer uplinks that are parceled out into smaller amounts for customers using QoS on an upstream router.
Net Neutrality != QoS as you stated except that it does not allow the use of QoS to selectively police certain types of traffic and apply lower/higher bandwidth or priority to these traffic types. Ultimately, though, this discussion is about in-home WiFi and Net Neutrality doesn't really fit the discussion IMO.
Uhm...I'm not 100% positive on this because I didn't develop the Starbucks hotspots or associated software but my assumption is that MAC addresses of connected devices are timestamped and logged for an extended period of time to prevent exactly this. It is feasible to do this in a home environment as well but it does require a bit of knowledge that the average layperson lacks or simply does not have the time to learn.
As an example, I do have a 'Guest' SSID with open authentication at my home but MAC addresses, DHCP leases, and traffic history are all logged in my firewall. Additionally, I utilize a completely separate VLAN in wireless & switching equipment connected to a unique DMZ interface on the firewall which segregates all private LAN/Wireless traffic from 'Guest' traffic. This also allows me to configure traffic shapers that I can apply to inbound/outbound policies to provide a guaranteed 5mbps to my private traffic, burstable to my full 10mbps with a higher priority than the 'Guest' traffic. Guest traffic is restricted to a maximum burstable 5mbps with a guarantee of 1mbps and per-IP shaping in place to make things fair for everyone connected.
In my case, I did all of this more because I could than out of any altruistic intentions. Ultimately IAA Network Engineer so I have an advantage in that I do this every day and I do work from home 85% of the time so my LAN traffic is critical data and most times sensitive in nature so I couldn't just give out my PSK to everyone. An nifty bonus is that occasionally when a neighbor's internet is down or something, they do have a method of accessing internet. You better believe that I log the shit out of them, though, and my bandwidth is MY bandwidth so when I need it, the Guest users get the tough titty...I would assume the logging portion is at least the same for Starbucks.
Well since you've blown the lid off of how capitalism is evil and apparently hoarding all of the food to kill Africa and other poor nations (see, I can overgeneralize without any facts, too!), how do you suggest the food destined to be thrown away gets to Africa in a way that doesn't rape the economy of either country - teleport it?
It's not like farmers or even government officials sit down and say "we have all this extra food material that we aren't selling that starving Africans could sure use....fuck those guys though - burn it!" You are talking about average households not using all of the food they purchase and being forced to discard up to 40% of it [http://www.nrdc.org/food/files/wasted-food-IP.pdf] because it is ALREADY bad and cannot be safely eaten. I'm not saying that a significant amount of perfectly good food product does not end up in the trash because people are retarded, I'm just saying that the window of opportunity to ship that shit out to Africa without an incredible cost expenditure is very very small and has to start immediately after processing. Ultimately the evil capitalist Americans are not the only ones discarding food at a huge rate, either - this is a problem for almost every first world nation to address.
With regard to your assertion that GM crops don't have significantly higher yields, your claim is absolutely false and has no basis in scientific fact. From Monsanto (I know - somewhat biased but based off of an independent study so I put more merit in this than in what you've said because all you have is words and emotions): [http://www.monsanto.com/newsviews/Pages/do-gm-crops-increase-yield.aspx]
The introduction of GM traits through biotechnology has led to increased yields independent of breeding. Take for example statistics cited by PG Economics, which annually tallies the benefits of GM crops, taking data from numerous studies around the world:
Mexico - yield increases with herbicide tolerant soybean of 9 percent.
Romania – yield increases with herbicide tolerant soybeans have averaged 31 percent.
Philippines – average yield increase of 15 percent with herbicide tolerant corn.
Philippines – average yield increase of 24 percent with insect resistant corn.
Hawaii – virus resistant papaya has increased yields by an average of 40 percent.
India – insect resistant cotton has led to yield increases on average more than 50 percent.
You may be referring to an article in UK's 'The Independent' claiming that a university study proves that yield is lower [http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/green-living/exposed-the-great-gm-crops-myth-812179.html]. The author of the study has discredited this sensationalist bullshit piece of pseudo-journalism himself [http://www.ipni.net/ppiweb/FILELIB.NSF/0/3FCACF5C93CFA9A18525743A006C7630/$file/Gordon_Fact_Sheet.pdf] and identified that the purpose of the study was not to study yields and that the article was in fact largely false and corrupted many statements he had made. If you're referring to that study or any of the others that anti-GMO nuts like you typically won't shut up about - I have yet to see a study that has not been disproven or is not extremely out of date. During its infancy, GM production may have been worse - there may have been modifications made that even made things inedible but this is all part of the experimental process to augment the capabilities of the food products we have to better survive and to increase yields. So we're not creating crops that can survive in the arctic tundra and yield 700% more food yet - we should just stop altogether and say "fuck it - not worth it"?
Now to discuss the India situation - you're right (at least partially) for once. In this instance, GMO has been used to control food production rather than to augment it and help with the problem. This is not an asshole USA problem - this is a problem with the Indian government assisting with exploiting
Wickedness is now equal to not helping create a smooth functioning YouTube app? SOMEONE SOUND THE ALARM BELLS!!!
I understand what you're saying but the way I read it, Google isn't doing anything but preventing other players in the market from using their service without properly licensing it. The article is pretty sensationalist (from the Register of course) and seems like it is making quite a few assumptions. Nowhere does it say that Google has refused Microsoft's efforts to license the tech. Even if that is the case, maybe a *tsk* *tsk* @ Google but calling it wickedness is a bit silly IMO...ultimately it is good business to keep competition between the already established players in the market. Fuck Microsoft and their late starter attitude...early bird and whatnot.
Unless you are looking for guns.
And Death...
I still don't see how this is really abusing government power...the non-US company offered services to US residents that those US residents are not allowed to utilize. The government stepped in and filed a legal complaint (in the US) against the company offering the services after which the company decided to restrict use from the US to alleviate government concerns and nullify the legal proceedings.
I think that it is more insane to prosecute US residents, many of whom may not even be aware that what they are doing is illegal. I understand that from a 'censorship' standpoint this is a bit of a slippery slope but this isn't really censorship in that the information is not being denied or hidden - the service that this company is offering is being blocked (AND from the provider's side - the government has only filed the legal complaint). If the attempt was to block the information that InTrade made availble, I'm completely with you - I don't see any situation where an informational analysis site or something along those lines that followed InTrade would have proceedings filed or action taken against it, though, so this doesn't really fall into the category of censorship that I can see.
If the US government does impose flight restrictions or adds employees of InTrade to a watch list or some crazy shit like that, you're completely right - abuse of governmental power. Also, if the US tried to impose its' laws on citizens of other countries for using InTrade in any way - complete bullshit. As it sits, though, the government is using the most cost effective, efficient solution to enforce the laws of the nation and even though I think it is completely retarded that InTrade's services are illegal in the first place, it is still a national law and therefore the service cannot be offered or used in the United States.
Don't get me wrong...I'm as against government control and corruption as anyone else here. If I missed something, definitely correct me - I'm just trying to figure out why everyone is decrying governmental abuse of power in this case...if the issue was the US' restriction of gambling in general, I have many opinions on why that is a complete crock of shit but as it stands, it is law and all I see is the law getting carried out in the least impactful way to the citizens of the US and to the citizens of other nations that do allow InTrade's services.
A locksmith may charge you to upgrade those locks but 99% of the time that locksmith is not the creator of the locks he installed and is therefore not responsible for the vulnerabilities therein. In this case, Onity is the manufacturer of these locks and they hold the patents for design and build of the locks. I think as a responsible, forward-thinking company they should be responsible for fixing the vulnerability that caused the loss even though it represents a significant loss...ultimately they are not requried to do so, though.
Onity did offer two fixes to the problem - 1) use a plug for the port to make it inaccessible and utilize torx screws to secure the housing or 2) ship the board back to them for replacement at the customer's expense. While rudimentary tools can make option number 1 useless (a pen casing and a lighter can break through this easily), it would be interesting to see if Onity offers continued warranty support on these products if the customer uses a more permanent solution such as epoxy to plug the hole and block access to the maintenance port. If they do, I would say that while that is still a bit janky, the company is at least willing to meet customers 1/4 of the way if not half the way. Ultimately IMO Onity should replace these at their expense because it is their junk equipment - since they have effectively given the finger to their customers, though, it would be interesting to see what percentage of their keycard lock business goes to competitors over the next few years.
I'm confused...AFAIK it doesn't work because in the context of making a "fast break for it" the term implies a breaking of your current action or state (suddenly bolting/running/attempting escape/etc.) In TFS it is stated that it "accelerates to 115 miles per hour and then breaks just in time to make it around a curve" which literally implies that the brakes are being pressed to slow the vehicle's entry into the curve which is 'braking' rather than 'breaking' as either the current state of acceleration or any physical characteristic breaking would need to be specified to give it context and make the this spelling appropriate.
I see what you're saying in that it could be double entendre but for me to call it a clever poke rather than a grammatical error it would have to say "accelerates to 115 miles per hour and then breaks from acceleration just in time to make it around a curve". In a statement like 'take a break" or 'take a brake' I agree that either works as one implies departing from an particular action or state of being and the other implies slowing down or stopping.
I'm not trying to be a dick, btw...just exploring the possibilities. IANAEP (English Professor) so I don't know what I'm talking about probably...that's just how it happens in my head piece.
You are so far off base that you must have done absolutely zero research here. I'm going to go down the list of why you're wrong point by point:
1. Population density is slightly lower in Brazil than in the US - Brazil has an approximate population of 194,429,773 while the US has a population of 312,488,000. Given the area measurements of each country, the population density of Brazil is 22/km (57/sq mi) and the US is 31/km (80/sq mi). This indicates that the population density of the US is approximately 40% greater than in Brazil which is a SIGNIFICANT difference. [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brazil%E2%80%93United_States_relations]
2. Brazil has a national power grid that covers every part of the country that's physically possible - Please cite your reference for this information as I can find zero information supporting this. Regardless, the US has a very similar system in that failure of a single reactor does not typically create a permanent outage scenario. My next point also illustrates why your argument is flawed at its base.
3. The US grid is much, much worse than Brazil's - Brazil produces a total of 484,800 GWh while the United States produces over 4,325,900 GWh of power yearly (from 2010 numbers - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_electricity_production). Over 80% of all electricity generated by Brazil is Hydroelectric which sounds great at first until you consider that regional droughts can and have caused serious power issues in the past (2001-2002 crisis - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electricity_sector_in_Brazil). This makes Brazil's entire power grid so heavily reliant on a single resource that it cannot sustain the demand for power in the event that weather conditions are not hunky-dory. In other words, this is much less reliable and much more prone to system-wide failures or outages than the US grid. Granted, Brazil's energy production is more renewable and 'greener', however hydroelectric damming is known to cause widespread ecosystem problems by interrupting spawning paths for fish and other animals that rely on the uninterrupted flow of water along natural riverways.
Ultimately, I'm not saying Brazil's grid sucks, I'm just saying you're wrong and you have no idea what you're talking about.
You obviously do not have a job requiring technical proficiency or any sort of skills that require you to think or change as your industry grows/changes. If you are working in a 40 year old reactor that has the exact same buttons to push every single day, you're probably right about your job only. Otherwise I find it hard to believe that you are saying that you begin any job with even close to the optimal skillset to make you successful at your job.
You said it perfectly in one part of your comment actually..."proficient" is what people start their jobs as and they are required to maintain that standard. Being modular enough to adapt your current skillset and knowledge to update your methods and make them more effective is what is being discussed with regard to teaching.
There is a very clear reason why hiring done for professions requiring anything other than button mashing weights EXPERIENCE much more heavily than EDUCATION. Education provides you the base knowledge level and toolset to be "proficient" and experience provides you the extended toolset and knowledge to improve performance and efficiency.
And your evidence to the contrary is wheeerrre? To invalidate a claim you have to provide evidence supporting your position. Granted, the GP does too, but just having an "I'm right, you're wrong - because." war is for politicians.
I on the other hand used the Google on the internet machine and after 10 seconds of searching for the simplest metric I could think of, 'PC vs Console sales', came up with the following from Nvidia last year:
http://wraltechwire.com/business/tech_wire/news/blogpost/10174154/
Granted this is from last September but it shows the rising trend of PC gaming once again and the stagnation of console gaming across the past few years and the trends into the next few years. GP was wrong in that PC gaming is still the largest - that hasn't been true since Brody and Broseph found out about Call of Duty...however, PC gaming is coming back in spite of all of the claims to the contrary over the approx. 19 years that I've been into PC and console gaming.
Apple, Republicans, closed source, corporations, America, Microsoft, science that disagrees with our biases - all double-minus nega-bad.
Apple, Republicans, closed source, corporations, America, Microsoft, science that disagrees with our biases - all 50 DKP MINUS!!! There...fixed that for you.
Brogrammers...oh wow. How have I missed this new term!? Thank you so much...I have so many people to tear apart in this category (friends...all in good fun, heh) that I am in physical pain from containing myself until after work when I see them. Awesome.
The issue at hand is that actual Multitasking is not one of the things that we do well (or even can do as far as all vetted research shows). Specifically with multitasking, if the program can detect when a user is attempting to do this and to send instructions to speed things along to the secondary entities you are attempting to manipulate, it could increase efficiency.
"No one will ever need more than 640k of memory." -Bill Gates (Disputed by Mr. Gates but who would want to be credited with saying that...)
Seems like you don't work in IT. Our company has an average costs per gigabye for redundancy, hardware maintenance, engineering time, power, and cooling of right around $41. Let's assume that the average email has a size of 75kB (which is far larger than our organization's average of ~41kB..just for the sake of argument) and then divide 1,048,576kB (1gB) by that 75kB and we reach a total of 13981.013 emails per gigabyte of storage space. Finally, if we take $41 and divide by 13981.013, we get $0.0029 per email, per year. For reference, we are running two NetApp FAS6000s and have two Equallogic PS6000s running RAID 50 for redundancy.
Given the fact that our organization is extremely email/data heavy and we are well under the 75kB assumption above per email, it is safe to say that your assessment of $3.65/email/year is WAY off base. We run well under $0.0029 per email, per year and have a very reasonable 10gB mailbox size limit. I can understand limiting the total data to a lower amount in a school environment but your reasoning for doing so (that storage is somehow extremely expensive) is waaaay off base.
Thinking about a school environment having 2000 users, each with an email account, each with a limitation of 2gB, we're talking 4000gB of storage space required to maintain their mailboxes. Adding another 500gB for internal storage and applications like Exchange, we can assume a total required of 4500gB of storage space at maximum (because users will be forced to archive locally at 2gB). Using our organization as an example and adding some cost for argument's sake, let's assume $50/gB/year. Total per year, then, will be $225,000/year which is no insignificant sum (granted this is with some pretty hardcore redundancy built in so real cost would be more around $15-20/gB/year or $67,500 - $90,000).
We can use the earlier 13981.013 emails/gB and then multiply by 4500gB of required storage space to reach a total capacity of 62,914,558.5 emails. Taking your example of $3.65/email/year, that means that a 2000 user organization with a 2gB mailbox size limit would spend $229,638,138.53 every year just maintaining their storage...uhh...what???
Don't you mean box?
Not when you're drinking from the gallon size Carlo Rossi bottle for $8. :)
Even if Steve Jobs and the Samsung designer had been watching the same episode of Star Trek together, never said a word to one another about their secret invention from that day forward and happened to come out with something similar based upon their shared inspiration down the road, the claim would still be that it was stolen somehow from the hallowed vaults of Jobs' Supermind© and the lawsuit hammer would begin a poundin'. Older, more powerful companies these days only feel young and virile anymore when they shove the business equivalent of the new kid at school into the locker and beat the fuck out of him because he's wearing a shirt they just bought, too. Being a dick isn't going to bring the ladies back...just do what you do best and they may realize the older guy has more swagger in a Sean Connery type of way (pre-1990 Connery.) Stop hanging out in your muscle shirt next to your car all day and be smart about this shit...if you guys get together you can have all the ladies.
My other analogy is much darker and more realistic and involves what I have dubbed the "Infinite Rape Ladder of Modern Business". Essentially, only the strongest "fighters" are able to withstand the incessant raping long enough to take vengeance upon the rape overlord. The raping may cease for a time up at the top of the chain with the shifting of the rape throne but lo', as the uncomfortable seat of power slowly scrubs away any reminder of the terrible plundering and suspicion begins to set in, it is only a matter of time before the abused becomes the abuser and the endless cycle of rape begins anew.
I think that about sums up the nature of business these days.
The idea is that the wireless environment needs to match the wired one in cost and budgeting expenditure at the very least
How do you propose to make that happen? I can buy one 48-port GigE switch and connect about 46 people to. You stated that
Any wireless LAN that requires decent data throughput should never have more than 10 clients connected to a single AP.
Using current technology, it takes about four and a half wireless APs to achieve the same density as a single switch. It has been a while since I worked with any of Cisco's enterprise (Aironet) gear, but it was not cheap. If you really want to manage it, you have to weave in additional hardware to unify it all together. Otherwise, your are left with half assed options like setting all of the APs to the same SSID and letting the clients hop between them. Above and beyond the wireless components, you still have to back everything with ethernet, and usually PoE at that. I have never seen a single, real world, "enterprise / campus" level wireless network that was setup as a wireless mesh. All of the APs had direct connections into switches.
Cisco 2960G 48 Port Gigabit Switch - $2,654.99
Cisco 2106 Wireless LAN Controller - $1,692.99
Cisco 1041 Single-Band G/N AP - $341.99 X 4 = $1,367.96
Total cost ends up $3,060.95 vs $2,654.99 so a bit more money involved but you end up with the flexibility of wireless, not having to install (as many) wired runs, leveraging effectiveness of smartphones, tablets, and laptops in the business environment, etc. Also, the 10 clients per AP is for quite a bit of throughput per user. Standard internet and LAN data usage I try to keep between 15 and 20 max per AP when I am configuring a site. With regard to setting the APs to the same SSID, that is exactly how the controller handles things, it just takes into account the connected client's signal strength and if it drops below a certain threshold and another signal nearby is higher it will move the client. This capability also exists outside of controllers and can be configured on the standalone APs, you just have to make sure that your signal density is enough that at whatever threshold you have set to disconnect clients, there is another AP with a higher signal strength to migrate to. Seamless roaming sufficient for even VoIP environments can be achieved without controllers and by using WDS services, it is just more difficult.
With regard to ethernet backing and PoE requirements, almost every PoE AP comes with the required inline power brick if you don't have a PoE switch to connect to. Also, I'm not arguing that ethernet isn't important...anyone who needs to have serious data throughput still needs a wired connection until we have gigabit wireless everywhere and will probably need it afterward. I'm just saying that wireless has become just as important and more and more over the last 10 years has become cost effective enough that it should be considered an equal budgeting consideration.
I have personally overseen the installation of, configured, and installed 2 enterprise mesh networks (12 total uplinks to gateways supporting 10 mesh APs each for a total of 120 APs, 12 Mesh Gateways as an example). Additionally our company provides monitoring for municipal water and power companies who have widespread mesh 802.11 networks with a small number of wireless gateways that serve as the network interfaces for hundreds of field mesh APs distributed across t
I completely understand your frustration and it is one that most people deal with on a regular basis. Things like freakin microwaves and tile can wreak havoc on your signal for sure. My initial assessment may be a bit harsh now that I reread it but I'll detail a bit more about my set-up, too, for clarity. I have a lot of experience working with wireless and have worked as a network engineer for 8 years now so I've got a lot of experience in how to make mine work. The issue is that most people are purchasing a standard consumer grade wireless router and expecting it to work out of the box to cover areas waay bigger than they are capable of. In my experience, while they can work well through a few rooms the antenna gain is not high enough to push very far with very much strength...this is for every brand - Cisco, D-Link, Apple, whatever.
In my situation, I run two Cisco air-ap1131ag-a-k9 APs and I have a FortiGate 50B hardware firewall performing NAT/routing. These APs have significantly higher signal strength and operate on the A/G bands so I set my bridge up to my entertainment center on wireless A since the proliferation of A signal is much less widespread, thus less interference. Granted, I spent a lot more money on my set-up than most people but I only broadcast my G SSID from one AP anyway and I get signal up to two houses away. Realistically, my investment was $210/ea on the APs (great deal on used ones) and I got lucky that my employer provided me the firewall but if you wanted to really make sure your wireless worked, you could even disable the SSID on your wireless router and connect a higher-grade AP with a higher gain antenna and it will work as well.
Keep in mind this depends on your house's size, too. Your wireless devices' antenna signal strength also plays a big part in your connectivity. It sounds like you have optimal positioning with your wireless router on the 1st floor and you definitely shouldn't have issues in the next room unless your kitchen is between...you may just need a better AP.
Regarding your employer and wireless, it sounds like the off-the-shelf Cisco equip and repeaters and, yeah...I definitely understand the issues with that. Repeaters are a bad option usually anyway. Your employer probably needed 3-5 APs similar to mine and the same number of ethernet runs to each of them for a really solid wireless deployment. I've pushed wireless through some of the shittiest environments ever - power plants, ports, tv stations, etc...it is a pain but if a bit of money is put into it like the article is arguing for, the reliability and usability is there.
You do realize that my comment was in direct response to the assertion that wireless was not widely in use for Video Surveillance, right? Exactly how does a user's inability to access a wireless bridge used for the express purpose of a site-to-site link for CCTV data play any part in the discussion or the original topic at all?
Printers? Haven't seen any but one or two low-end consumer models. All professional installs I've seen use good old Ethernet.
Printers typically sit in the exact same spot they have always sat and already have a wired port. It is becoming extremely common that I see these types of wireless laser printers deployed in the small/medium business environment and I've even seen them starting to come into the enterprise environment at an increased rate. I've even seen one of these connected to a UPS that gave it 4 hours battery life that they just carted around a law office to wherever they needed to print. Printers are wireless now, whether laser or not, and that is not an uncommon thing anymore and will be even more common in the future.
Video surveillance? Sane deal. Heck, most of these just use composite over coax.
Whoa...you are so off base here and you don't even know it. I started my career (8 years ago so this isn't new) in CCTV over IP deployments working on Dept. of Homeland Security projects for 6 different major ports (two of the most major ports in the world). EVERY ONE OF THEM had 90% of the camera resources either across miles-long wireless bridge links or performing a point-to-multipoint style IP video bridging. We're talking up to 500 cameras at each port. We're also talking about unlicensed wireless spectrum (wireless A) so this is not some special wireless that no one has access to. When you want to deploy cameras across a space covering 30 or so miles, wireless is a bit necessary if you don't want to spend millions on fiber runs to net you no real benefit.
HVAC? Low bandwidth at best, and I haven't seen an in-use system that actually uses WiFi.
Low bandwidth you're right about...while I don't typically see wireless for HVAC because ethernet is almost wired upon device installation, I am fully expecting to see things like this in the future. The one that stands out that I have seen is in a studio environment where stage temperatures need regular control from a remote site. There is an iLON interface that connects to a WAP so that customers can manage their temperatures from off-site using a secured public portal.
Electric meters? Really low bandwidth, and the better systems I've seen send /very/ low speed data back up the power lines.
So, no, WiFi isn't everywhere. It's just a good add-on for portable devices and stuff that doesn't care about high latency.
Every SmartMeter program in the country uses wireless to monitor meter usage. There are hundreds or thousands of wireless mesh gateways distributed throughout your entire city that you have no idea about and the device they attach to your power meter is a wireless AP. The better systems you've seen transmit nowhere near as much data and are the ones that were in use before most municipal water and power organizations began moving to wireless mesh monitoring. Wireless is also used for municipal water and power organizations to monitor the levels of reservoirs, PLCs for pump stations, etc. Just because they don't use much bandwidth on an individual device basis for these periodic checks doesn't mean that they don't use wireless or that accumulated bandwidth is not significant. If you haven't seen an in-use system, maybe you don't live in a major city?
Qualifications: I've worked as a senior level network engineer for 8 years now with over 3 of those years dedicated solely to wireless deployments. Because of my company's primary focus as a managed services provider and IT project engineering/deployment firm I have also been lucky enough to have worked with over 1200 different companies and have directly experienced the uh....unique..... nature (this is a very, very nice way of putting it) of each's underlying wired/wireless network concerns.
You are doing something completely wrong or you are using a shitty access point if you cannot use wifi as your primary connection. Either that or your neighbor is experimenting with some serious radiation and you may end up with the Hulk storming through your wall crushing your WAP anyway.
Seriously, though, I have 2x Cisco APs in my house and I run almost all of my internet and internal access over it. I stream from my server to my 360 via wireless, stream NetFlix and DirecTV in HD via wireless, browse internet, and transfer files across my wireless regularly. In my area I also have up to 23 other wireless SSIDs active around me at any time, a few of which are using the exact same channel frequencies.
As far as simultaneous usage, a typical day for my house means 4-10x laptops connected alongside the bridge to my DirecTV and 360. I have had 5 laptops doing standard internet browsing/web video streaming and streamed HD from NetFlix simultaneously all across wireless with zero degradation to throughput for any one device. Eventually I want to set up a real stress test and bring a Linksys WAP around to see how interference actually affects things. Granted, I've put a bit more investment into making sure that my wireless devices are powerful enough to carve out some signal space of my own, but this is exactly as the article suggests...better investment into wireless alongside the wired network means at least some measure of future-proofing.
Don't misunderstand me please...I'm not trying to insult or anything, I'm just trying to point out that most people's perception of wireless is that it is (even still) a weak tech with lots of issues. I'm just trying to illustrate that there is a lot that can be done with it and most people's experiences are problems getting it to work because it is not well enough understood.