 |
 | 
Weird Guy
@pacbell.n | Re: 802.11i 802.11i is only security and will only require firmware upgrades. It has already been ratified. | |
|
dslwanter
Why would I want DSL? I have FTTH
Premium
join:2002-12-16
Lowellville, OH
 ·Armstrong Zoom In..
 ·AT&T Midwest
| Like DSL..... ...we should work on all the availability bugs first. Maybe if they expanded the range a little bit, more people could use it. But no we have to increase the speeds instead of worrying about improving the security, stability, and availability of wi-fi.
--
Broadband allows me to run my own internet radio station, »www.thebomb102.tk, something I could've only dreamed of. | |
|
| 
jap
Premium
join:2003-08-10
038xx
·RoadRunner Cable
1 edit | Re: Like DSL..... said by dslwanter  :
...we should work on all the availability bugs first.
User density, baby, user density. Follow the money.... | |
|
| 
Nightshade
sic semper tyrannis
Premium
join:2002-05-26
Salem, OR
| But the thing is when it comes to technology taking the next step it has to be smaller, faster, and better than the same techology of previous generation.
It happens to be one of those absolute laws of technology you know. 
--
Never Underestimate the Power of Human Stupidy | |
|
IGotThePower
Samsung Sucks
Premium
join:2003-06-07
Japan Inc. | I wonder... How many will die of brain cancer? | |
|
| 
yock
TFTC
Premium
join:2000-11-21
Fairfield, OH
| Re: I wonder... said by IGotThePower :
How many will die of brain cancer?
Where the hell are you getting that? Wireless equipment is FCC limited to 1 watt. You get bombarded by much more than that from AM and FM radio everyday. Do YOU have brain cancer? | |
|
| | ewitte5
join:2004-06-16
Sugar Land, TX
| Re: I wonder... said by yock :
said by IGotThePower :
How many will die of brain cancer?
Where the hell are you getting that? Wireless equipment is FCC limited to 1 watt. You get bombarded by much more than that from AM and FM radio everyday. Do YOU have brain cancer?
Which IMO is why we have problems with signal levels They are not allowed to do it right.
Eric | |
|
| | 
pcscdma
Chocobo Chocobo Random Battle
Premium
join:2004-01-14
Winterset, IA
clubs:
| Actually I think it is 4 watts Effective Isotropic Radiated Power. This means that you can have a kilowatt transmitter as long as you attenuate the hell out of the signal.
The highest power for AM radio stations is 50,000 watts. The highest power allowed for a new FM radio tower is 100,000 watts. It is usually less because the FCC determines the power output for it. There are some FM stations that are higher than 100kW because the FCC limited the power after the station went on the air. If they move the transmitter then they have to go back to 100kW or less depending on how far they move it.
--
The Intel Prescott. One step closer to 50,000 watts of clear channel power! | |
|
| |
DavidEKA
@pacbell.n
| RE: brain cancer:
Don't forget frequency: AM and FM more or less go right through us. Some higher frequencies don't and might cause damage. It's not all about the power level.
Also, the waveforms matter. With digital signals, there may be harmonics in higher frequencies than the "rated" frequency, simply because the signal is not necessarily a pure sine wave (does anyone involved with the standards know what the harmonic frequencies might be?).
Oh, and then there's interference. Two sets of transmitters in the same space may interfere to create yet more harmonics and any number of frequencies. One of those just might be tuned to warp your DNA.
Measurement is the difference between theory and reality. Don't pooh-pooh the ones asking about brain cancer. Let them do the studies.
--David A.
BA, Physics, Reed College
PS: Worry is optional. So is ignorance. | |
|
| | |
yock
TFTC
Premium
join:2000-11-21
Fairfield, OH | Re: I wonder... You may very well be right, however I don't think the poster has your credentials. | |
|
| | | |
IGotThePower
Samsung Sucks
Premium
join:2003-06-07
Japan Inc. | Re: I wonder... Me? I'm in life sciences... | |
|
| | |
AnonGuy101
@bellsouth.net
| Well, "David A", you should realize that the very statement "I wonder how many will die of brain cancer" is a sterling example of a particular logical fallacy. It definitely should be "pooh-poohed" as you put it-- with good reason.
Certainly there are higher-order harmonics. But, there's an inverse relationship between their frequency and the power they contain. Thats the reason your brain doesn't fry every time two radio stations interfere with each other...sure, it generates harmonics all the way up the scale. But the total power drops sharply as you go up.
The folks doing the measuring and the studies have seen no evidence of biological damage. Given that, leading questions such as "how many will die?" are based on superstition, not science. | |
|
| | | |
DavidEKA
@pacbell.n
| Re: I wonder... TO AnonGuy101:
Wow, there are a couple of things I'd like to say to your response.
1) re: subject matter:
Yes, there is an inverse relation to frequency and power. That doesn't mean that conditions detrimental to a human brain cannot exist under real world conditions. One thousandth of "way too much" may still be "enough" to cause harm. And remember that chronic low-level exposure *can* have effects on living systems while being simultaneously difficult to simulate in short-term studies. But this question is for two sorts of folks to answer, and not us:
- those doing experiments under controlled conditions (labs)
- epidemiologists (after the fact)
Why not us? Because we're a pair of lurkers on a message board, too damned lazy to even post links to already-existing literature on the subject.
2) re: science:
You make two statements, as follow:
"the very statement 'I wonder how many will die of brain cancer' is a sterling example of a particular logical fallacy"
...and then:
"leading questions such as 'how many will die?' are based on superstition, not science"
I'm not sure what you could mean by "logical fallacy," since the question "how many will die of brain cancer" contains no statement. It's a question.
I'm also not quite sure what issue you have with leading questions. In my opinion, every single question ever answered by science has been a leading question. Isn't every hypothesis formulated as "I believe x to be true?" Can you get any more "leading" than that (see further discussion below)?
Honestly, I was never taught that leading questions were the stuff of superstition. Instead, I was taught that leading questions can taint experimental results. In other words, if I believe the moon is made of cheese, and I cannot conceive otherwise (and especially if a cheese company is paying to send me there), then I am more likely to design experiments that confirm this and to massage data to fit my pre-conceived notion. I have a stake in the results, and I lack the vision to see an alternative hypothesis.
The way science combats such bias is NOT by batting away honest questions by labelling them "superstition." Instead, science invites everyone in the world to examine the same hypothesis. If enough motivated people with varying biases design experiments to test that hypothesis, eventually (we hope) a repeatable experiment emerges that either supports or undermines it.
But you have to start with a hypothesis. Otherwise, what is being tested?
The question "How many people will die of brain cancer" is, in my humble opinion, supremely scientific. Why? Because it asks for something quantifiable ("how many individuals"), and definable ("deaths" attributable to "brain cancer," where both death and brain cancer are pretty clearly definable). It also makes no a-priori assumptions, since the result can be zero. Sounds like a hypothesis that can be tested!
On the other hand, if you *were* to make a *truly* leading question -- one that contains an a-priori assumption -- it might look like this:
- for the moon-made-of-cheese: "What kind of cheese is the moon made of?" (assumption: the moon *is* made of cheese)
- for our brain cancer study: "What kind of cancer is this radiation causing?" (assumption: the radiation *is* causing cancer)
There, I would see your problem with the latter hypotheses: it is based on an assumption that may be false (time to "pooh-pooh?" the question? Why no! Time to check that assumption as a separate hypothesis!).
So what got you riled up?
Perhaps you assume that the poster is saying people *are* going to die of brain cancer. But the question, as posed, admits to an answer of "zero." How many will die? Zero! Or maybe fifty out of every million. Or maybe one. Who (here on this thread) knows? It has to be tested.
And it has been, according to your post. So let's have some links, baby! Post 'em, I double-dog-dare you!
--David A. | |
|
| | | | |
AnonGuy101
@bellsouth.net
| Re: I wonder... Oops again, DavidA.
> I'm not sure what you could mean by "logical fallacy,"
> since the question "how many will die of brain cancer"
> contains no statement. It's a question.
The logical fallacy is the "leading question", one of the standard errors any student of logic 101 learns. Here's a link, since you value them so highly:
»washington.uwc.edu/about/faculty···cies.htm
You fail to understand what a "leading question" is, if you think science is based upon them. Perhaps you likewise feel the question, "how many people will die this year from alien invaders from Zim?" is another serious topic for research?
Point 2, the mere suggestion that non-ionizing radiation causes cancer shows a weak understanding of the underlying science, and makes me doubt your credentials of a BA in Physics...I have a BS in Physics myself. Did you skip E&M totally? Radio waves don't contain enough energy to break molecular bonds...even if you're standing directly under a 100,000 Watt broadcast tower. Enough power can cause heating...but not ionization.
Another link for you:
In the area of biological effects and medical applications of non-ionizing radiation approximately 25,000 articles have been published over the past 30 years. Despite the feeling of some people that more research needs to be done, scientific knowledge in this area is now more extensive than for most chemicals. Based on a recent in-depth review of the scientific literature, the WHO concluded that current evidence does not confirm the existence of any health consequences from exposure to low level electromagnetic fields »www.who.int/peh-emf/about/Whatis···ex1.html
In short, you're selling superstition-- not science. After you prove the existence of cold fusion and perpetual motion machines...come back and tell us how the question of cancer from wireless routers should be taken seriously. | |
|
LordMalak
join:2003-07-02
Brazil | Like they say It's sexier to work on new technologies than to perfect existing ones.
Both 802.11a and b have their issues. Has 802.11g been standardized yet??
Then again, which one would be more newsworthy?? | |
|
| |
|
pcscdma
Chocobo Chocobo Random Battle
Premium
join:2004-01-14
Winterset, IA
clubs:
| G has actually been ratified. You need to actually be using the final standard equipment and not draft for it to be completely compatible. The Wi-Fi Alliance has a list of equipment they have certified »www.wi-fi.org/OpenSection/certif···sp?TID=2 .
There is a big issue with bandwidth. 802.11b/g use the small and crowded 2.4GHz spectrum and 802.11a uses the much larger and somewhat less crowded 5GHz spectrum. There are only 3 non-overlapping channels with b/g. a has much more.
FCC
2400 - 2484
5150 - 5350, 5725 - 5850
--
The Intel Prescott. One step closer to 50,000 watts of clear channel power! | |
|
|
AnonGuy101
@bellsouth.net
| > It's sexier to work on new technologies than to perfect existing ones.
Um, any idea what the word "standard" means? A ratified standard is FIXED. You can't "go back" and fix standards-level problems with 802.11b. Its set in stone...if you change it, its a new standard...and it likely no longer works with the old gear.
We could do it the way you ask...but then all your old 802.11b cards don't work with the new routers, or vice versa. And no matter what you buy or when, you could be pretty much guaranteed of interoperability problems.
I think creating a new standard is a better idea, myself. | |
|
|
|
AnonName
@cable.rogers | Re: Good idea, but... 802.12a ?? hahhaha | |
|
| | Alphy
join:2001-12-31
Troy, MI | Re: Good idea, but... Would be nice to see wireless speeds exceeding a realworld output of 12.5MB/sec. | |
|
| | version3D
Infidels Won
join:2004-07-24
Deep River, CT | I believe 802.12 is ethernet. Or maybe it was 802.3. I can't remember. | |
|
| |
bigpapae35
join:2002-10-25
Great Neck, NY
2 edits | Whats the point??? Who needs 540Mbs? that equates to 67.5MB/s, which is equivelent to todays fastest hard drives at their outermost edge.
I understand when people demand faster speeds for DSL or Cable service, cause now they are limited to 1.5 to 10 Mbs, but I dont think 540Mbs will increase productivity beyond 802.11g native speeds.
Work on security and Range you morons!!! | |
|
| 
Wall9
Tell Me, Did You See It Too?
Premium
join:2002-06-25
Dupo, IL | Re: Whats the point??? I could not agree more. | |
|
| averagedude
join:2002-01-30
Mesa, AZ | said by bigpapae35 :
Work on security and Range you morons!!!
Thumbs up!!! | |
|
| |
| | russotto
join:2000-10-05
Collegeville, PA | Re: Whats the point??? Security's already been done -- that's 802.11i. If you're complaining about range, I'm guessing you bought the crappiest AP available in the bargain bin at Best Buy, then set it up in your basement under your metal desk. | |
|
| | | |
| | | bigpapae35
join:2002-10-25
Great Neck, NY
| said by russotto :
Security's already been done -- that's 802.11i.
From what we know by now about anything, security will never be "done" its something that will always be a problem. | |
|
| jedidude
join:2004-02-21
Apo, AE | You took the words right out of my mouth. | |
|
| | jedidude
join:2004-02-21
Apo, AE | Re: Whats the point??? Sorry. I meant to quote edlivian in my last post, not respond to russotto's post. | |
|
| |
| | bigpapae35
join:2002-10-25
Great Neck, NY
1 edit | Re: Whats the point??? said by pcscdma :
Because I'm not the only one at Starbucks.
Yeah but you will max out the internet connection way before you max out the network connection the starbucks has. | |
|
| | | |
| | | | bigpapae35
join:2002-10-25
Great Neck, NY
| Re: Whats the point??? said by pcscdma :
said by bigpapae35 :
said by pcscdma :
Because I'm not the only one at Starbucks.
Yeah but you will max out the internet connection way before you max out the network connection the starbucks has.
Maybe one of them has an OC-12?
Really cute, a starbucks running OC-12. People must me walkin into starbucks these days hosting servers. | |
|
| | | | |
pcscdma
Chocobo Chocobo Random Battle
Premium
join:2004-01-14
Winterset, IA
clubs:
| Re: Whats the point??? said by bigpapae35 :
Really cute, a starbucks running OC-12. People must me walkin into starbucks these days hosting servers.
That's where people go everyday to pay $10 for a cup of coffee. I'm sure they go there because they are upset that their cable ISP charges extra to host servers. Who could blame them?
--
The Intel Prescott. One step closer to 50,000 watts of clear channel power! | |
|
| B777300
join:2002-01-02
| said by bigpapae35 :
Who needs 540Mbs? that equates to 67.5MB/s, which is equivelent to todays fastest hard drives at their outermost edge.
I understand when people demand faster speeds for DSL or Cable service, cause now they are limited to 1.5 to 10 Mbs, but I dont think 540Mbs will increase productivity beyond 802.11g native speeds.
Work on security and Range you morons!!!
I agree, Work on the range(!!) and security more. I don't need 540Mbps anyway im happy enough with gigabit and 100 mbps | |
|
| |
AnonGuy101
@bellsouth.net
| Re: Whats the point??? Yep, and no computer will ever need more than 640k of RAM either, right? Oh wait...we already invalidated that one.
Point 1. The 540Mbs figure isn't speed, its shared bandwidth. Emphasis on shared. 10 users hitting that AP will get a tenth that figure...if that.
Point 2. Even for a single user, 540Mbs is still half the bandwidth of gigabit ethernet. If there's a need for the latter, there sure the hell is a need for the former.
Point 3..802.11n is still a ways away from hitting the shelves of consumers. Who knows how fast hard drives, cpus, and broadband ISP connects will be in 2007? Faster than today, for sure.
Point 4. The bandwidth figure is a "best case". Worst case is a lot slower...and if we improve the worst case performance to what users really need, the best case goes up as well. If its more than you personally need, don't sweat it.
I'm sure that once 802.11n products are being sold, there will be PLENTY of people buying them....and clamoring for even more performance, even as they're unwrapping the box. | |
|
XBL2009
------
join:2001-01-03
Chicago, IL | 540 megabits ...... Probably 25 megabits when your 50 feet away | |
|
| version3D
Infidels Won
join:2004-07-24
Deep River, CT | Re: 540 megabits ...... Haha, yeah seriously. They should just claim it can do "up to 1,000,000 Mbps." False advertising? Of course not! They said "up to." | |
|
dannysdailys
join:2000-09-29
Lockport, NY
| I don't think "n" is really needed. I realize that tech marches on, but I don't know about this new system.
I have a wireless "G" for my notebook with a "G" wireless rounter plugged through my wired one. Three computers share the network.
While range is certainly an issue, (any help from you guys would be appreciated) speed certainly isn't. My main internet connection runs between 3100 and 4000. My notebook achieves between 3100 to 3500 through the "G" router.
Files run through the network, (including raw wav files) seem to just scream.
How much more do you need?
--
Madness Takes Its Toll, Please Have Exact ChangeDan DailyOwner/Webmasterhttp://www.dannysdailys.com | |
|
| mishaq
Premium
join:2004-01-24
Richardson, TX
clubs: | Re: I don't think "n" is really needed. I dunno, the only use I see for this is businesses trying to link buildings together without having to run any fiber of any sort
--
Damn you FCC! | |
|
|
|
|
802.11n
·
Good idea, but...
