Comments for Tom's Thoughts

Comment on Well Done New Holland Pubishers by Richlv

Richlv — Tue, 24 Aug 2010 15:20:03 +0000

just wanted to say hooray to New Holland Publishers. the book is a great example of osm usage, and having the publisher work with data provider – in this case osm – is wonderful.

Comment on Building a Low Power Firewall by Tom

Tom — Fri, 20 Aug 2010 15:08:37 +0000

This is the iw list output:

Wiphy phy2
	Band 1:
		Capabilities: 0x104e
			HT20/HT40
			SM Power Save disabled
			RX HT40 SGI
			No RX STBC
			Max AMSDU length: 7935 bytes
			DSSS/CCK HT40
		Maximum RX AMPDU length 65535 bytes (exponent: 0x003)
		Minimum RX AMPDU time spacing: 8 usec (0x06)
		HT TX/RX MCS rate indexes supported: 0-15
		Frequencies:
			* 2412 MHz [1] (20.0 dBm)
			* 2417 MHz [2] (20.0 dBm)
			* 2422 MHz [3] (20.0 dBm)
			* 2427 MHz [4] (20.0 dBm)
			* 2432 MHz [5] (20.0 dBm)
			* 2437 MHz [6] (20.0 dBm)
			* 2442 MHz [7] (20.0 dBm)
			* 2447 MHz [8] (20.0 dBm)
			* 2452 MHz [9] (20.0 dBm)
			* 2457 MHz [10] (20.0 dBm)
			* 2462 MHz [11] (20.0 dBm)
			* 2467 MHz [12] (20.0 dBm)
			* 2472 MHz [13] (20.0 dBm)
			* 2484 MHz [14] (disabled)
		Bitrates (non-HT):
			* 1.0 Mbps
			* 2.0 Mbps (short preamble supported)
			* 5.5 Mbps (short preamble supported)
			* 11.0 Mbps (short preamble supported)
			* 6.0 Mbps
			* 9.0 Mbps
			* 12.0 Mbps
			* 18.0 Mbps
			* 24.0 Mbps
			* 36.0 Mbps
			* 48.0 Mbps
			* 54.0 Mbps
	Band 2:
		Capabilities: 0x104e
			HT20/HT40
			SM Power Save disabled
			RX HT40 SGI
			No RX STBC
			Max AMSDU length: 7935 bytes
			DSSS/CCK HT40
		Maximum RX AMPDU length 65535 bytes (exponent: 0x003)
		Minimum RX AMPDU time spacing: 8 usec (0x06)
		HT TX/RX MCS rate indexes supported: 0-15
		Frequencies:
			* 5180 MHz [36] (20.0 dBm)
			* 5200 MHz [40] (20.0 dBm)
			* 5220 MHz [44] (20.0 dBm)
			* 5240 MHz [48] (20.0 dBm)
			* 5260 MHz [52] (20.0 dBm) (passive scanning, no IBSS, radar detection)
			* 5280 MHz [56] (20.0 dBm) (passive scanning, no IBSS, radar detection)
			* 5300 MHz [60] (20.0 dBm) (passive scanning, no IBSS, radar detection)
			* 5320 MHz [64] (20.0 dBm) (passive scanning, no IBSS, radar detection)
			* 5500 MHz [100] (27.0 dBm) (passive scanning, no IBSS, radar detection)
			* 5520 MHz [104] (27.0 dBm) (passive scanning, no IBSS, radar detection)
			* 5540 MHz [108] (27.0 dBm) (passive scanning, no IBSS, radar detection)
			* 5560 MHz [112] (27.0 dBm) (passive scanning, no IBSS, radar detection)
			* 5580 MHz [116] (27.0 dBm) (passive scanning, no IBSS, radar detection)
			* 5600 MHz [120] (27.0 dBm) (passive scanning, no IBSS, radar detection)
			* 5620 MHz [124] (27.0 dBm) (passive scanning, no IBSS, radar detection)
			* 5640 MHz [128] (27.0 dBm) (passive scanning, no IBSS, radar detection)
			* 5660 MHz [132] (27.0 dBm) (passive scanning, no IBSS, radar detection)
			* 5680 MHz [136] (27.0 dBm) (passive scanning, no IBSS, radar detection)
			* 5700 MHz [140] (27.0 dBm) (passive scanning, no IBSS, radar detection)
			* 5745 MHz [149] (disabled)
			* 5765 MHz [153] (disabled)
			* 5785 MHz [157] (disabled)
			* 5805 MHz [161] (disabled)
			* 5825 MHz [165] (disabled)
		Bitrates (non-HT):
			* 6.0 Mbps
			* 9.0 Mbps
			* 12.0 Mbps
			* 18.0 Mbps
			* 24.0 Mbps
			* 36.0 Mbps
			* 48.0 Mbps
			* 54.0 Mbps
	max # scan SSIDs: 4
	Supported interface modes:
		 * IBSS
		 * managed
		 * AP
		 * AP/VLAN
		 * monitor
		 * mesh point
	Supported commands:
		 * new_interface
		 * set_interface
		 * new_key
		 * new_beacon
		 * new_station
		 * new_mpath
		 * set_mesh_params
		 * set_bss
		 * authenticate
		 * associate
		 * deauthenticate
		 * disassociate
		 * join_ibss
		 * set_wiphy_netns
		 * connect
		 * disconnect

Comment on Building a Low Power Firewall by Brad

Brad — Fri, 20 Aug 2010 14:57:40 +0000

Can you provide the output from #iw list ?

Comment on Building a Low Power Firewall by Tom

Tom — Fri, 30 Jul 2010 16:53:45 +0000

As far as I know both are working but I don’t have any 11n devices so I haven’t tested that side of things yet.

Comment on Building a Low Power Firewall by Brad

Brad — Fri, 30 Jul 2010 16:45:23 +0000

Thomas,

Can you tell me if you’re able get your WPEA-110N operating on bother 802.11n and 802.11g simultaneously using hostapd?

I’m building a similar type setup and my goal is to be able to provide 5Ghz 802.11n as well as 2.4ghz 802.11b/g (Similar to how an Apple Airport Extreme/Time Capsule works).

Comment on Goodbye Orange, Hello Three by Dave

Dave — Tue, 20 Jul 2010 18:38:41 +0000

Probably doesn’t help you now, but the magic to get your PAC instantly is to explicitly ask them to text it to you. They’ll try to dissuade you and claim it’ll still take a couple of days, but if you insist then you’ll have your PAC before they’ve managed to hang up.

Comment on I think Quidco have a bug by Arvid

Arvid — Tue, 13 Jul 2010 06:24:38 +0000

Maybe you were just supposed to fill in the details/amounts and send them back for your cashback.

Comment on I think Quidco have a bug by The Team at Quidco

The Team at Quidco — Wed, 30 Jun 2010 13:44:03 +0000

Hi,

Yes, we had an unfortunate technical error here at Quidco which led to a rather confusing email. The good news is that everyone will of course be receiving a second email with the correct information, and that the correct cashback amount has been processed and is on its way straight into a member’s bank account as usual. Apologies for any confusion caused.

Comment on I think Quidco have a bug by Harry Wood

Harry Wood — Wed, 30 Jun 2010 11:28:41 +0000

Heh! I’ve made this mistake.

As a placement student I wrote an emailing script. It seemed to work when I send the a single test email, so I set it going while I was out for lunch. Unfortunately it picked out the first name from the database and substituted that name for everyone in the list!

Lesson learned. If you’re sending emails, test and test again. …or maybe don’t trust the placement student sending bulk emails

Comment on Oxenden or Oxendon? by Andrew Zaborowski

Andrew Zaborowski — Fri, 25 Jun 2010 01:28:26 +0000

I always stuff the second possible spellings, or misspellings of name in a tag like alt_name=, just so it’s googleable. I think it would make sense for the ITO layer to look at this tag too and other prefixed tags when checking whether a name is in OpenStreetMap yet.