We are sorry to see you leave - Beta is different and we value the time you took to try it out. Before you decide to go, please take a look at some value-adds for Beta and learn more about it. Thank you for reading Slashdot, and for making the site better!
marciot (598356) writes "I live in a condominium where I get interference from my neighbors' wifi.
I understand that 1, 6 and 11 are the only non-overlapping
wifi channels, but how does this translate into real-life best practices?
When you must overlap, is there a "good" way to do it?
With nine access points, for example, is it better to have three APs each
on channels 1, 6 and 11, so that each completely
overlaps with only two others. Or is it best to distribute those
APs across nine channels such that they only partially
overlaps others (but potentially overlap more APs in total)?
Do use patterns affect interference? For example, is it
best to overlap a channel with multiple APs that rarely
transfer data, or to share a channel with one person who downloads
Does maximum data rate affect interference or robustness to
interference? I found out by accident that setting my access point
to "802.11b only" mode appeared to give me a vastly more reliable
connection that leaving it in "mixed 802.11b/g". Is this a fluke or
does transmitting at 10 Mbps, when everyone else is using
54 Mbps (for their 3 Mbps DSL pipes!), give you a true advantage?
marciot (598356) writes "An interesting look at Ray Kurzweil's predictions for 2009, from a decade ago. He was dead on in predicting the ubiquity of portable computers, wireless, the emergency of "digital" objects, and the rise of privacy concerns. He was a little optimistic in certain areas, predicting the demise of rotating storage and the ubiquity of digital paper a bit earlier than it appears it will actually happen. As it comes to human-computer speech interfaces, thought, he seems to be way off." Link to Original Source top
marciot (598356) writes "I have no shame to admit that as a non-cooking single male, my diet consists mostly of canned soup and prepackaged frozen foods. One side-effect of this is that I've become very aware and concerned by the waste I generate every week, which is almost exclusively paperboard boxes and cans, which are accepted for recycling in my municipality, platic wrap and TV dinner trays, which are not. Recently I came across a press release from ConAgra Foods regarding their transition to post-consumer recycled plastics in their Banquet, Healthy Choice and Marie Callender's products, which to me is excellent and very welcome news. Yet I am surprised by this move, since I expected only a minority of consumers would worry about this particular aspect of TV dinner consumption, and that the incentives for a company to make such a move would be minor. Yet they have done so. Which prompts me to ask: is the environment among the first things that come to your mind when you contemplate the choice about whether to consume "convenience" foods or not. What do you think?" top
marciot writes "Having obtained a bachelor's degree in EE (and CS, which is now my field), I am disappointed that some basic aspects of electricity were glossed over in such a way that even today I wonder whether I really grasped the fundamentals. One particular aspect that bugs me is that electricity is presented as seemingly having two separate alter-egos. In the world of Van de Graff generators and doorknobs, electrons are content to flow from one charged object to another without care as to whether they will eventually find their way back. In the world of batteries and light bulbs, electricity, we are told, stubbornly refuses to flow unless there is a circuit which neatly forms a round trip. Well, which one is it? Lest you think the answer is simpler than it is, let me pose a question: suppose I have a AA cell and a quarter. Now, if I were to touch the quarter to the positive end, and then move it to the other end, and repeat this motion back and forth, would I eventually discharge the battery? One could say that I am confusing electrostatics with electrodynamics, but it seems to me that giving one phenomenon two different names and treating them separately only avoids a troubling question and keeps us from true understanding. Any thoughts?"