Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!


Forgot your password?

Slashdot videos: Now with more Slashdot!

  • View

  • Discuss

  • Share

We've improved Slashdot's video section; now you can view our video interviews, product close-ups and site visits with all the usual Slashdot options to comment, share, etc. No more walled garden! It's a work in progress -- we hope you'll check it out (Learn more about the recent updates).


Comment: Re:use wifi (Score 1) 250

by pete-classic (#45665157) Attached to: Ask Slashdot: Recommendations For Beautiful Network Cable Trays?

Are you fucking with me, or what?

If you have ONE AP using ONE channel and you have ONE user, then the user can use (or at least approach) the full channel capacity. When you add a second node you have to add some back off time to avoid collisions. As you add nodes, there are more times when you have to back off. During back off time, no one is transmitting. Since capacity is a RATE, any TIME when no one is transmitting equals a LOSS of capacity.

So, for the third fucking time, without regard to power or interference, the aggregate capacity of a wireless network decreases as the number of nodes increase.

I'd be very happy to discuss this further. But if you just say the same thing again I will wish horrible, violent death on you.

Comment: Re:use wifi (Score 1) 250

by pete-classic (#45652649) Attached to: Ask Slashdot: Recommendations For Beautiful Network Cable Trays?

Interference is a different problem. And you're absolutely right that it can be mitigated with more APs (and smart channel assignments).

With a single AP and a completely (RF) quiet environment the aggregate capacity goes down as the number of nodes increases. More nodes means more time spent in backoff. This problem is unrelated to interference or transmit power.

Comment: Re:Free as in mousetrap cheese. (Score 1) 314

by pete-classic (#45224919) Attached to: Torvalds: Free OS X Is No Threat To Linux

A couple of points of fact.

1. You can run non-MacOS software on Mac hardware. (E.g. Windows, Linux.)
2. You can run MacOS on non-Apple hardware (though it is a violation of the license agreement).

I take your point, but I think it would be more apt to say "free as in bar mix". Yes, it's figured into the overall bill. Yes, it makes you want more of the product for sale. But it's not really a trap. More of a loss leader.

Comment: VPN (Score 1) 140

"Virtual Private Networks (VPNs), which serve to mask the source and destination of data by routing it through a third-party server"

This is a false and very dangerous line of thinking. A VPN and a proxy are two different things. And they don't necessarily do what you're saying they do.

Comment: Product vs. Customer (Score 4, Insightful) 176

"We don't know why Facebook would be against a browser extension that improves their users' site experience."

Easy. You seem to be operating under the very common -- but clearly mistaken -- belief that Facebook users are Facebook's customers. In fact, Facebook's advertisers are their customers, and Facebook users are the product. Once you look at it from this perspective, everything Facebook does makes sense.

Comment: Re:This has been going on for hundreds of years (Score 2) 754

"The automobile saved people time, which is why it replaced the horse."

It also saved Manhattan from being -- quite literally -- buried in horse shit.

"Most people don't think too highly of the folks behind Standard Oil, but an honest assessment would suggest that they did more to save whales than anyone at Greenpeace -- by making whale oil a less cost effective heating mechanism."

Strangers with this kind of intellectual honesty make me go a big rubbery one, if you know what I mean.

If you didn't have to work so hard, you'd have more time to be depressed.