Please suggest a fedora core 4 compatible wireless card

[John Summerfied]

Tim wrote:
> Michael A. Peters:
> 
>>>In some cases - it is the FCC that may actually be at fault.
>>>The FCC has regulations on what devices can be user configurable - with
>>>respect to how much power can be sent to the antenna.
> 
> 
> John Summerfied:
> 
>>I gather that if the source for the HAL (the firmware) were released,
>>then (evil) hackers could hack on it and use the devices to interfere
>>with air traffic control and (maybe) military.
> 
> 
> I think that hackers can figure out how to be a nuisance, anyway.  All
> the FCC is achieving is some limits on some people, while imposing
> annoyances on others.
I wonder how effective it is against the serious folk, but I've no doubt 
it's a serious impediment to the more casual wannabes. Consider the 
difficulties with wireless kit from TI and Broadcom (who don't do 
anything to help hackers), with ntfs and so on.
> 
> For instance, here (in Australia) it's permissible to transmit what you

I've lived in Australia for over 50 years, and read Radio TV & Hobbies 
(later Electronics Australia) and ETI International (for anyone who 
recognises the name, ETI started in Oz with plans to take over thw 
world, and I sometimes see an OS edition on sale even tho the original's 
long gone). I don't believe that.

> like, how you like it, so long as your transmissions don't emit from
> your property (e.g. imagine inside a large metal-construction factory
> building, where circumstances needed higher than normal power for it to
> work, but not *that* high that it'll cause problems to outsiders).
> 
There's been enough fuss over overhead power transmission lines, 
transmission towers for mobile (cell) phones: I don't suppose any 
practices such as you suggest would have escaped the notice of unions.

-- 

Cheers
John

-- spambait
1aaaaaaa at computerdatasafe.com.au  Z1aaaaaaa at computerdatasafe.com.au
Tourist pics http://portgeographe.environmentaldisasters.cds.merseine.nu/

do not reply off-list