James Kelly on 23 Nov 2004 01:03:02 -0000 |
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Let me start out by compressing your two responses to my one email back into one email, in response to your statement that it isn't a completely separate budget issue, maybe you didn't understand, I meant it was off topic. My opinion or your opinion on the politics of spending that money are not on topic with the list, if you would like to discuss that separately, feel free to email me off list. Also, from the previous email, to your assertion that it is a bad thing that we are using only 802.11b, the reality is the speed gains from g would likely not be worth it, depending on the price difference. Assuming the primary goal of this is to deliver internet access, think about yourself using wireless broadband at home... which is going to offer you faster downloads, wireless g or wireless b? The answer is neither, the bottleneck is your connection to the internet. So if the city will save money by deploying only b, then they should go for it. I haven't seen a comparison to be honest, so I can't speak of this. Otherwise I am guessing you mean wait for n? That would be nice, but it's not ready for a project like this.
I said *if* anything the addition of professionals would create an environment where illegal use is infinitely more likely to result in arrest than somebodies home. Because people doing this at an open access points now are not logged in anyway shape or form. There will likely be logs in this network (surely they will do at least that). And even if they *didn't* do *anything*, it would result in an environment no different than we live in today, where there are many access points available. These "deviants" might just not have to go so far to do their anonymous deeds. But the point is, this is a problem with wireless access in general, not the cities plan. | Nobody gives a hoot about people downloading porn or buying drugs but | the cops -- However, what will get the Internet Community royally pissed | off, very rapidly, will be all of the SPAM which will originate from | this network. The city will suddenly find their entire network | "black-holed" one day. Remember, we're not just talking about a couple | of hot-spots, in popular parks. We're (supposedly) talking about a | wireless network that is available anywhere in the city. Huh? Has the city said they would be offering email accounts? I hope not, that would be sort of a waste. If they haven't, that removes the possibility of the city itself forwarding spam. As for spam originating from some user, all the more reason to be blocking email without a correct reverse dns entry. Problem solved.
Well the second half is a legitimate gripe. The first half is the hog-wash people spread that just because something is run by government is bound to be poorly done. It's funny that you mention cable and telephone. If none of us can vouch for how poorly run some of those services are, I would be shocked. -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.2.3 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iD8DBQFBon3G3IzKSZsd6+oRAp0GAKD6FDmkaot//1lFLAP3ofWOBoooQgCfb3Ls Q3EfyHS9O97XZRIm7S80GzQ= =njA/ -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- ___________________________________________________________________________ Philadelphia Linux Users Group -- http://www.phillylinux.org Announcements - http://lists.phillylinux.org/mailman/listinfo/plug-announce General Discussion -- http://lists.phillylinux.org/mailman/listinfo/plug
|
|