Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Comment: Re:Not Published (Score 1, Informative) 228

by zn0k (#36394502) Attached to: Why Apple's DUI Checkpoint App Ban Is Stupid

> From the summary on slashdot: "I'm gonna bold it for emphasis: Some police departments actually supply the data used in such apps because they reduce the number of drunk drivers on the roads!"
> From the article: "Apps which contain DUI checkpoints that are not published by law enforcement agencies, or encourage and enable drunk driving, will be rejected...."

Yeah, but just because of, like, that, and the fact that it was already discussed to death in today's earlier thread about the same topic - well that wouldn't stop Slashdot from posting another piece of shit fucking flamebait article. Right?

Android

Why Apple's DUI Checkpoint App Ban Is Stupid 228

Posted by timothy
from the tip-of-the-corporate-crony-iceberg dept.
hookskat writes "Reason.tv Editor in Chief Nick Gillespie reacts to Apple's decision to ban DUI Checkpoint Apps from the App Store, writing: 'Let me add something even more damning of this latest development in corporate cave-ins to legally protected free speech and I'm gonna bold it for emphasis: Some police departments actually supply the data used in such apps because they reduce the number of drunk drivers on the roads! Somehow, I'm thinking that Steve Jobs circa 1984...would have told U.S. senators sending threatening letters about computer-based info sharing to take a hike. Or at least to spend time on, I don't know, creating a freaking budget for the country rather than worrying about regulating something that helps reduce impaired driving.' Last month, after RIM caved on the same question, Reason.tv released this video on the subject of banning DUI checkpoint apps."

Comment: Re:884 APs (Score 1) 154

by zn0k (#35090008) Attached to: Behind-The-Scenes Superbowl Tech

I find it doubtful there would be such a number that would make sense as a generic rule. First of all, stadiums have thick walls made from cement. Wireless signals don't penetrate at all. You can have two APs next to each other within 10th but separated by a wall and they can't see each other at all. Secondly, the 5GHz spectrum is finally picking up, and with the extra available channels it's good to use more APs at lower power. When you're not cranking up the transit power as high as you can (usually a fairly bad idea in big crowds) you can of course fit more radios in.

Comment: Re:Hey, look! (Score 2) 154

by zn0k (#35086220) Attached to: Behind-The-Scenes Superbowl Tech

That's not entirely fair, either. You don't have 884 stand alone APs deployed, you have them centrally controlled either via an appliance (Cisco's WLC/WCS) or via cloud based controllers hosted on the APs themselves.

Sure, there's a lot more than Cisco out there, but most gear than can handle balancing power and channel assignments to counter interference for that large a wireless network is a heck of a lot more expensive than a cheap, off the shelf AP. And there are few non-brand manufacturers out there than can handle a deployment that large, though there's a heck of a lot more brands than Cisco.

Comment: Re:884 APs (Score 1) 154

by zn0k (#35086174) Attached to: Behind-The-Scenes Superbowl Tech

If you read the article, "ATT WiFi is everywhere in the building". That is referring to ATT augmenting their 3G network via WiFi. All their WiFi enabled smart phones look for an SSID named attwifi. The layer three gateway of that network triggers the phones to submit their phone number to that gateway, which looks it up in the ATT subscriber database and grants access if you have a data contract with them. That alone will account for many, many thousands of users. Doing that is significantly cheaper for ATT than bringing in a huge number of additional cell sites (which they have to do, anyway, to augment their voice network) and provide a lot of bandwidth to the sites to allow for increased data usage. You can cram a lot of phone calls into not a lot of bandwidth, but if the NFL is running interactive apps on smart phones as outlined in the article it's a lot cheaper to use the existing WiFi network than to temporarily augment the physical infrastructure beyond what is required for increased voice usage.

Add to that the media areas where the press will be using laptops and smart phones, as well as all the VIPs running around demanding network connectivity in some form.

During the game usage possibly won't be all that high. But the hours before and after where there's still plenty of people in the stadium (more than just a few thousand) there'll be quite a lot of users.

Sure, that is just an opinion, but - I know, fallacy of defective induction - I have provided public WiFi at some rather large events, including recent ones. The trend in data usage is clearly going up, and sharply so. The number of clients is increasing fast, and clients are consuming more and more data.

Comment: 884 APs (Score 3, Informative) 154

by zn0k (#35085796) Attached to: Behind-The-Scenes Superbowl Tech

There are 884 APs, not 84 as the summary claims.

84 APs would be pitiful. Cisco recommends no more than 35 users per AP radio. You can probably push that up to 50 for public access WiFi, maybe - if you're thin stretched - a little bit more as long as many clients are 5GHz devices. Given that many APs will be back of the house and not accessible to the public you wouldn't be able to serve more than one to two thousand users on 84.

Comment: Re:And Yet, No Ogg Theora in IE (Score 4, Insightful) 535

by zn0k (#35080758) Attached to: Microsoft Makes Chrome Play H.264 Video

Anything that increases choice is a good thing.

It's not like there isn't a very well documented interface to IE. Why don't you write an Ogg Theroa plugin for IE, rather than complain that Microsoft wrote something that is both in their interest and useful for users that do want to use h.264 as well as use Chrome?
Or use the VLC media player plugin, which - at least according to the Wikipedia page on Theroa - lets you view that format in IE and Firefox.

Comment: What a useless article (Score 4, Informative) 217

by zn0k (#35070240) Attached to: Firewalls Make DDoS Attacks Worse

"People are deploying firewalls wrong", some company says. "We're not going to say anything other than that", some journalist adds. "Particularly we're not going to mention where and how said company thinks firewalls should be deployed. We're just going to refer to some report they published a few times, but we won't link to it". When asked what the hell kind of point they were trying to make the journalist hummed and hawed a few times before admitting that he wasn't entirely sure. "Firewalls can be bottlenecks when experiencing DDoS attacks", the company's solutions architect insisted, making a rather obvious point.

We warn the reader in advance that the proof presented here depends on a clever but highly unmotivated trick. -- Howard Anton, "Elementary Linear Algebra"

Working...