Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed


Forgot your password?
Check out the new SourceForge HTML5 internet speed test! No Flash necessary and runs on all devices. ×

Comment Re:Be careful (Score 1) 74

What will rather happen, since they can neither enforce nor control this sensibly and at a reasonable cost, is that they will simply include a clause in their contract that allows them to cut you off if they notice any harmful traffic coming from you.

With "harmful" being "you using more bandwidth than we want you to", of course.

Comment Re:No mention of the internet architecture of cour (Score 2) 74

How to create an economic incentive for security? Easy. Remember Part 15 of the FCC Rules? That sticker nobody reads anymore that says
1. This device may not cause harmful interference.
2. This device must accept any interference received, including interference that may cause undesired operation.

Create the same for the IoT rubbish.

Failure to comply makes YOU liable for any damage the device you created caused.

Comment Re: How? (Score 1) 99

that isn't from the idiot fringe?

Thanks for asking. I think the biggest problem with this that there has been no forensic investigation of the facts, evidence and conclusions drawn from them. In any case how this happened is irrelevant compared to the laws put in place to justify the surveillance state we have now. It's our reality, I accept that, but it doesn't mean I don't like to playfully tease out the dogmatic skeptics who are too mentally anemic to challenge their own assumptions for a few lolz.

My phone worked fine on Japanese bullet trains, do we have any information on tower hand off at high speeds

First, in the air a cell phone is relatively equidistant from *all* cell towers in range. This is substantially different from a cell phone call placed on the ground where the signal strength to your closest tower may be 10's of dB higher the the very next one. From the air, your cell phone signal would present as the same fractions of a dB at *all* cell phone towers in range.

Second, you need cell hand off data of 2/3G network that was in use in 2001. Even on the ground, at 500 knots (roughly 800kph) a handover from one tower would be occurring as it was handing over to another. It is difficult to expect such a connection to be maintained with the network technology available in 2001.

Third, tests of those networks revealed all cell connections to be dropped above 3000 metres thus difficult to expect such a connection to be maintained without the assistance of the aircraft and that technology was only introduced in 2004.

Fourth, the range of the 3watt of transceiver power a cell phone has to transmit to connect to a tower is no more than the distance to the horizon on the ground, which is about 5km's, which is similar to a 3watt CB radio. With aircraft cruising altitude of 11km there is simply not enough energy in the transmitter to get to the ground even if you ignore the fact that an aircraft is a faraday cage AND their are two layers of aluminium between the transmitter and the ground.

Fifth, US patent US 7965684 B2: Method and system of handoff for cellular networks only allows 2 channels and a handset would not be able to calculate the round trip delay to the next cell tower if they are all, or even mostly, equidistant. Therefore no hard or soft handover would occur, resulting in a dropped connection.

The commission implies those calls were made from air phones which is in conflict with the witnesses who say they received cell phone calls.

If you accept the official version then we aren't talking about cell phones at all. If you accept the witness statements, then you have to ask why the official report implies otherwise and if the characteristics of the network would allow cell phone calls at the time, speed and altitude the air traffic controllers reported these aircraft to be when the calls were made. I don't think that is unreasonable to ask those questions.

It's the implications of the answer that skeptics don't want to deal with so it is understandable why they cannot accept the facts.

Comment Re: commercial advantages (Score 1) 48

Germany had its Jews, the US has its Mexicans. With the main difference that there are rather few Mexicans you can steal a lot from.

And yes, a lot of the German problems that led up to the rise of the Nazis could be blamed on Clemenceau and his zeal to annihilate Germany with the peace conditions, but by no means all of it. Germany also had politicians that led right up to the point where people did have the feeling that these politicians are doing a crappy job, and yes, quite a few did. Not all of them, there were a few honest, hard working men that tried their best to rebuild the country, but far too many were simply looking out for themselves, and only themselves.

And people will follow anyone who promises an end to that.

Slashdot Top Deals

To invent, you need a good imagination and a pile of junk. -- Thomas Edison