Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Slashdot Deals: Prep for the CompTIA A+ certification exam. Save 95% on the CompTIA IT Certification Bundle ×

Comment I can already see the Slashdot headlines (Score 3, Insightful) 176

A year from now, I look forward to hearing Comcast whine about how "No legitimate user could seriously expect to pay $30 for 1.5 petabytes per month. Obviously, unlimited didn't mean unlimited - We intended it to give only another 300GB. We need to limit these greedy users out of fairness to our other customers."

Fuck 'em. I don't know who to consider dumber - Comcast, or any of their customers who fall for this again.

Comment Key word, "home" (Score 1) 156

You need to quantify what you consider "good enough" in order to answer that.

First, in strict terms of bandwidth, no, today's best wireless just can't compete with today's best fiber. But how about tomorrow? No, tomorrow's best wireless still won't beat tomorrow's best fiber; but, with wireless, when 7G hits the scene everyone goes out and buys a new $50 modem and trucks don't need to physically roll to every end point on the network to upgrade their tubes.

Second, in more relaxed terms of bandwidth, when do we reach "enough" so that even revolutionary improvements don't really matter any more? Do I really need the ability to download a full 4k movie in under six seconds? I don't mean that as a "640k should be enough for anyone" argument, but at a point in time, yes, 640k did count as "enough" for most purposes, even though at that same point in time we had supercomputers with a whopping 16MB of main RAM.

Finally, and most importantly (I touched this in my first point), you asked specifically about "to the home". The biggest challenge in getting bits to the vast majority of homes has nothing to do with the throughput of the medium, but whether we can get it to the home in the first place. In the nearest city to me, I could get 1GB connections for a few hundred a month; living half an hour away, I don't even have the slowest of DSL available at any price. Whether or not fiber counts as "better" in that context doesn't mean a damned thing to me, because I won't ever see it.

When you ask about "good enough", keep in mind that the connection that meets all you needs, the connection that you can get, beats the much, much better one that you can't get.

Comment Re:wan port (Score 1) 122

What fucking IP will your modem give you?

Well, I have mine configured to give out leases from the range 192.168.100.100-199, which more than adequately serves my LAN for now. What sort of piece of crap modem do you have, that can only deal with a single client connection?


What fucking IP will things on the switch get?

I just answered that, but I'll repeat myself - Since switches work by transparently passing L2 traffic, they will get an address issued by the DHCP server on the modem, just like something directly plugged into the modem would. So something between 100 and 199.


What fucking IP will things on the router connected to the switch get?

They would get whatever range I configure the OnHub's own DHCP server to give out, exactly the same way it would work with any crappy $50 DLink/Linksys. Most likely I would pick 192.168.101.100-199, if you want an exact number.


How will traffic to and from these IPs be routed outside of your network?

DHCP leases include a gateway address. These can nest (almost) arbitrarily deep. How do you think your phone, connected to your WAP, in turn connected to your modem, manages to route traffic? Nothing magic here, dude.

Comment Re:wan port (Score 2) 122

Incorrect. The Picostation has an omni antenna, but otherwise behaves just like all the rest of Ubiquiti's AirOS devices - It will act as any combination of {bridge / router / SOHO router} x {AP / Station / Client / Repeater}... And yes, a few of those combinations don't even make sense, but it will let you do it (never, ever disable the hard reset button on a Ubiquiti unless you know exactly what you want to do).

I absolutely love my Nanostations - Put one at one corner of an area you want covered, and bam, you will have five bars a quarter mile away in any direction (technically only a 60 degree beam, but it takes quite a distance from the antenna before that starts to matter).

Comment Re:wan port (Score 1) 122

I hate getting involved in this rapidly degenerating conversation, but...


You plug the switch into the LAN port and you plug your WAN connection into the WAN port. Hell the pictures from the article show two ports and two ethernet cables.

Assuming your modem has only one LAN port, you would do better to plug the modem into your switch, then you plug the OnHub's WAN side into the switch. This gives you full speed through the switch to your ISP for any wired devices you have, while not bogging down the processor on the OnHub dealing with non-wireless traffic. If your modem has two or more LAN ports, just connect one to your switch and one to your OnHub.

You would only want to use the LAN side of the OnHub in two, maybe three situations - You have only a single wired device in the whole house you need connected; you have a wired device that uses this hypothetical new Google spyOnYou protocol; and maybe you might put a second switch off the OnHub's LAN port if you had a strong need for an additional layer of segment isolation (and that assumes it truly isolates the LAN side, rather than merely acting as a two-port switch).

And before anyone points out that what I just proposed amounts to making your wired network a DMZ - Your modem already acts as a fully-functional SOHO router.

Comment Re: double blind testing (Score 1) 456

the point is not about detecting, the point is about being affected.

Even the worst "sufferers" of it can't successfully detect the presence of the very thing that supposedly leaves them in agony.

That is complete nonsense. With a bit of training, every one can do that.

the point is not about detecting, the point is about being affected.

"Well controlled and conducted double-blind studies have shown that symptoms were not correlated with EMF exposure."


Sorry, you are not listening, are you?

Not any more, nope. You've gone full circle with that shotgun o' logic; feel free to just keep recursively quoting yourself from the above two choices until you get bored.

Comment Re:How about "no"? (Score 1) 713

Asking Facebook to follow German law while operating in Germany is somehow forcing "billions of Facebook users" to his ideology?

Yes, because Facebook doesn't exist only in Germany or only in the US.

If I, as a US citizen, want to deny the holocaust on Facebook, FB then has two choices - Remove the offending comment entirely, or at least block it from viewers in Germany. Either of those infringe on my right to express whatever brand of bigotry I may subscribe to despite living in an entirely different country that doesn't feel the need to outlaw critical thinking. I might not get arrested for it, but I would have had my voice silenced as a result of Germany's stupidity.

FWIW, I don't count as a holocaust denier. I arrived at that conclusion through rational consideration of the evidence, however, not because my government told me what to think - And in fact, the latter would make me less likely to believe it; any time the government really wants you to believe something, that raises the bar for the actual evidence a hell of a lot higher.

Comment Re:How about "no"? (Score 2) 713

Here in the U.S., you cannot just say anything that you want without consequences. Hate speech, threats, and bullying are illegal here.

I agree with the rest of what you wrote, but one correction - Of those three, only credible threats actually break the law (with a few temporary state-by-state exceptions for cyberbullying).

Hate speech absolutely does not violate US law. Inciting to violence against them, sometimes (again, if credible); Ranting until you go horse about the evils of Muslims or gays or Canadians, no. You have every right to hate whatever groups you want and talk about it every chance you get - Hell, you can even do it while running for president!

Several states have passed anti-bullying laws, but not federally, and individual state supreme courts (e.g., New York) have already started overturning them as unconstitutional, and only a matter of time until the USSC does the same.

Comment Re:Bullshit (Score 5, Insightful) 742

other than typical reactionary hate I don't see what the problem is.

You now have your init daemon providing an alternate attack pathway for gaining privileged access to the system, in a way that completely circumvents the well-established (and monitored by most IDSs) auditing capabilities of the platform.

I'd call that a problem, but YMMV.

Comment Re: double blind testing (Score 1) 456

Never mind following my link, did you even read the one sentence summary I quoted in my original post???

Here, if the World Health Organization doesn't count as a good enough source for you, how about a nice high quality Wikipedia link:
several double-blind experiments have been published, each of which has suggested that people who report electromagnetic hypersensitivity are unable to detect the presence of electromagnetic fields and are as likely to report ill health following a sham exposure as they are following exposure to genuine electromagnetic fields

Double blind. Unable to detect. What part of that don't you people get?

But hey, prove all the haters wrong! If you can do it so much better than everyone else, set up your own study and vindicate all these poor suffering folks condemned to a permanent vacation in a beautiful rural mountain village.

Comment Re:From TFA: bit-exact or not? (Score 3, Interesting) 172

Interpolation is WORSE than nothing. you're discarding signal then adding noise in the hopes that it matches up with what should've been there kinda okay.

1, 2, 3, X, 5, 6. Guess the value of X... Congratulations, you just interpolated the right answer.

In the case of what the GP described, though, it works out even better than that, because the panel actually "knows" the right answer, so it hasn't "thrown away" information; it just lacks the luminance resolution to display it. It can, however, interpolate in the temporal domain way, way faster than the human eye can tell, to create a color we perceive as the correct value.

/ Go ahead, twitch gamers, tell us all about your ability to resolve sub-millisecond 1.5% color changes. XD

"Life begins when you can spend your spare time programming instead of watching television." -- Cal Keegan

Working...