... until you get closer to 16GB of RAM and you start running out of lowmem (especially on older 2.4 kernel systems).

Is this measured by specific accelerometer motion data?

Wi-Spy's included software only works in Windows/Mac, but there are 3rd party open source tools like Spectool-GTK that do work in Linux.

Try 1 or 11 instead. 7 is only 5mhz offset from 6. You're still sharing 77% of the spectrum with your neighbor and killing about 10% of anyone nearby who may be trying to use channel 11.

1/4/7/11 still have some fringe overlap for edge sub-channels (especially between 1 and 4), don't expect full speed w/ lots of neighbors.

Using 3/4 or 8/9 may help your problem (or at least afford you some lower data rates), but in an apartment complex or other high-density independent deployment, it only contributes to the overall problem, making channel dodging that much more difficult.

This argument is akin to an approx 71.5 foot (mhz) wide freeway with with 3 twenty-five foot wide lanes (1/6/11@22mhz wide + 2.75mhz spacing between 1/6 and 6/11). By design, you're driving your hypothetically 22 ft wide car down the center of the lane. There's up to 1.4 ft on each side in the center lane between you and the lane edge.

You can try to drive between lanes, but you're still going to "interfere" with traffic nearby. Condensing the lanes into four now creates significant overlap between traffic (approx 10-25%).

Now in reality, an OFDM (802.11a/g) wireless signal is made up of 48 sub-channels equally spaced across its 22mhz "channel". Instead of completely wiping out your signal, some of your sub-channels would be interference-prone, effectively reducing your data-rate. So, you can choose channels besides 1/6/11 (or 1,5,9,13 in the EU), but you must understand the consequences to yourself and your neighbors.

Or just go 802.11a/n on 5ghz and call it a day. 2.4gz is becoming far too crowded in highly dense deployments anyway.

Typical AP power is closer to 50-75mW (17-19dBm) - only low power WiFi sharing devices like MiFi would be as low as 20mW. Also worth remembering that your NIC will typically transmit back at a similar power if able.

Remember, when choosing a channel, only 1, 6, and 11 are non-overlapping with each other - anything in between steps on the channel space of 1 and 6, or 6 and 11. Also, many (but not all) microwaves will impact the channel space between 6 and 11+, generally making 1 a better choice.

Try doing a "survey" using your wireless driver's built-in tools (most Broadcom adapters have some sort of rudimentary tool - Intel should as well). Even just a list of nearest neighbors will help you identify what channels are nearby and at what strengths. Out of 1, 6, or 11, pick something that is within the least occupied space (least number of APs or weakest AP). If your nearest neighbors are using 1 and 6, and another particularly ignorant/rude neighbor is using 3, your only real choice is 11. Now if it's 1, 6, and 9, you're kinda hosed, and you'll have to hope the channel 1 AP is furthest away because the guy using 9 is impacting 1 and 6 (just as the guy using 3 is impacting 1 and 6).

Google search turns up tons of results, but hopefully this paints a reasonable picture:

http://bridgingthelayers.org/channel_overlap.html

Unfortunately your NIC doesn't do 802.11a/n - otherwise I'd suggest looking into a dual-band 802.11n router. Tons of non-overlapping channels to pick from, but the range won't be quite as good (and you'll still have to steer clear of the 5.8ghz cordless phones).

If it's really bad, have your neighbors help pitch in for a WiSpy 2.4x (~$200) which could be used to pin-point the culprit. When you're done, sell it on eBay to recoup most of the cost. Probably cheaper than having a wireless survey team coming "onsite" to validate w/ their pricey Cisco Spectrum Expert device. They'd be able to tell pretty quickly if you're dealing w/ someone who loves their microwave popcorn, a wireless video streaming device, some sort of Zigbee (though those are usually pretty low power compared to Wi-Fi and narrow-band in comparison), frequency hopping device (cordless phone, etc).

One of the great features of TrueCrypt is the whole alternate partition/segment idea. One password gives access to real data, while another (a duress password) would give some other access to an alternate segment. Put some benign documents in the alternate partition, and then under threat of water boarding, hand out the duress password. Assuming this all works, they find nothing, you go home.

Granted, I'm not encouraging this idea for criminal activity, but rather for truly sensitive data that shouldn't fall into the wrong hands.

The loads on the web server are a bit higher for HTTPS encryption than just passing fat content created by a developer without any common sense of bandwidth consumption.

Now if you're referring to server-side generated content contributing to page load times, then HTTPS isn't helping that provided the same server that is generating is the one doing the encryption.

I wondered the same thing... Though now it is OT.

1. For classic shared hosting solutions using name based hosting, I can almost guarantee if you hit https:///, you're going to hit someone else's virtual host. Many cheap hosting providers w/ limited public IPs will load up domain names on a single IP/Port, but still provide secure hosting to one domain name (on the same port) for shopping cart checkout under a different domain name. Using such a plugin in this use case would not work so well. Then again, would most "smaller sites" really be worthy of encryption in the first place?

2. Not every site is designed w/ the same content root in http vs https. Switching from http to https may completely break if the file structures under the two virtual hosts (potentially entirely separate in Apache) aren't identical (i.e. pointing to the same directory). I'm not touting that this is a best practice, but would be completely feasable if you wanted to keep specific content from being accessed via http and didn't want to bother with mod_rewrite or equivalent.

To the poster above who says there's little CPU penalty for SSL, SSL may not be taxing on the client, but hundreds or thousands of sessions on a server (especially one hosting an app, DB, and Apache) may be another story. Why is someone's assumed paranoid that someone will see that they're reading about cars or home theater equipment on a forum worth requiring a service owner to scale his hardware to the next level to maintain acceptable performance (assuming this phenomenon is multiplied hundred-fold)?

Exactly what I run at home, in RAID-1 configuration. It's very quiet, and could be stashed in a closet provided the ventilation was reasonable. DNS-323 runs quiet, is fairly low power, still offers GigE, and combined w/ WD green drives, runs reasonably cool and quiet. Set it to sleep after 15 minutes and noise/heat are almost non-existent when not in use.

That being said, for the OP, even with JBOD and 2TB drives (4TB raw max), they could easily run out of space unless they were running several of these in parallel. There comes a point when this simply won't scale (try to remember which NAS you stored your file on?), or noise and heat will become apparent.

My Mitsubishi DLP TV (WD65734) uses a 6-color wheel, adding yellow, magenta and cyan sub-primaries to the typical RGB + clear. Granted, Sharp's addition of Yellow is a first for LCD TVs, but it's old hat for some DLP engined systems.

This addition is supposed to create "truer" color rendition.